HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-04/05/2012 Hearing 6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
COUNTY OF SUFFOLK: STATE OF NEW YORK
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
Southold Town Hall
Southold, New York
April 5, 2012
10:07 A.M.
Board Members Present:
LESLIE KANES WEISMAN Chairperson/Member
GERARD GOEHRINGER - Member
KENNETH SCHNEIDER - Member
GEORGE HORNING - Member (Left at
3:13 P.M.)
JENNIFER ANDALORO - Assistant Town Attorney
VICKI TOTH Secretary
JAMES DINIZIO, JR. - Member (Absent)
Jessica DiLallo
Court Reporter
P.O. Box 984
Holbrook, New York 11741
(631)-338-1409
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
INDEX OF HEARINGS
Hearing:
Kenneth Seiferth #6551
Oliver and Gloria Seligman #6555
David H. Thornton and Janet E. Davidson
#6543
Glyn and Michelle Weir #6546
Glenn Heidtmann, Jr. #6548
De Art Of Nature, LLC #6541
Justin Swartz and Joanna Weiner %6549
Thomas and Irene Kalogeras %6554
Philip Marco, #6552
William Tonyes #6553
Kimogenor Point, INC #6550
Page:
3-17
17-50
50-94
63-72
72-82
82-115
115-122
122-132
132-140
140-163
163-201
April 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
i8
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
HEARING #6551 - KENNETH SEIFERTH
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The first
application before the Board today is for
Kenneth Seiferth, #6551. Request for
variance from original ZBA Grant #6504 and
the Building Inspector's February 7, 2012
Notice of Disapproval, based on amended
plans for accessory garage at; 1) the
demolition and reconstruction are a
deviation of the original ZBA grant
allowing additions and alterations, located
Golz,
Point Road, adjacent
in Cutchogue.
here to represent the
to
at: 2000 Nassau
Broadwaters Cove
Is someone
application?
MR. GOLZ, JR.: Good morning.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Good morning.
MR. GOLZ, JR.: My name is Arnold
owner of Oakside Construction.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Would you please
spell your name for the record, sir, we're
tape recording?
MR. GOLZ, JR.: Arnold, A-R-N-O-L-D R.
Golz, G-O-L-Z, Jr.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Thank you.
April 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 4
1
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. GOLZ, JR.: You're welcome.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: What would you
like to tell us?
MR. GOLZ, JR.: Well, when we started
the construction of the project, we started
to, you know, disassemble the building and
support it, so we could replace what was to
the original plan. We did the foundation,
and when we started to reconstruct the
walls and as we took it apart, more stuff
needed to be replaced then what we
originally thought. We didn't change the
footprint of anything that we did. I am
going to have to replace the rafters on the
side that wasn't on the plan, the dormer
that was supposed to stay. I received a
letter back that that was okay, and that we
needed to replace the ridge, so that it was
structurally sound. We did raise it
because of the window that we wanted to put
on the second floor. And they said that
the size of the header that was supposed to
support the new ridge, made the ridge get
taller. They actually -- after we were
done doing that, we wound up lowering the
April 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
window a bit.
ridge,
the studs
rear wall
Audible)
it. You
requirements.
rebuilding the
construction.
the south, was
Because we're raising
wound
the pitch changed a little bit.
on both ends of the wall or
that were supposed to stay, (In
rafters, and we couldn't connect
know, to meet the strapping
the
Ail
the
So therefore, we wound up
rear wall with all new
And then this side wall, to
completely rotted and so we
up replacing that one.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
with the foundation, sir?
MR. GOLZ, JR.: The one side, the
footing was at grade, so we had to dig down
three feet.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: And is there the
original foundation --
MR. GOLZ, JR.: Yes, there is 2/3's of
the original foundation, plus the original
What happened
concrete floor. We removed the concrete
apron because it was falling apart. Other
than that, we left two-third's of the
foundation, or I guess you can call it
concrete floor.
April 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
you
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: George,
like to ask some questions?
is left,
MR.
that
new?
would
MEMBER HORNING:
is not new?
GOLZ, JR.: The foundation.
MEMBER HORNING: Just the foundation,
is the only thing left that is not
What portion of what
MR. GOLZ, JR.: Yes. Foundation and
the concrete floor.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: If I can just
a question. Standing in front of the
ask
both sides are removed.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER:
removed.
MR. GOLZ, JR.: Yep.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: So is any portion
of the foundation old?
MR. GOLZ, JR.: Yes. The only thing
that changed on the foundation is the
original -- on the original plan. There is
Both sides are
structure from the road side, Mr. Golz, is
it the left-hand side or the right-hand
side that is removed?
MR. GOLZ, JR.: Now or before? Now,
April 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
nothing else. On the original plan and the
one that you have now, showed that you had
to go down three feet to get a proper
footing, and that is what we did.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: But where was that
three feet? Where did you go down the
three feet?
MR. GOLZ, JR.: At the lowest point.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: By the side
yard?
MR. GOLZ, JR.: If you are standing in
front of the building, it's to the right.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I am just saying
this because when I went there, I thought
that all three walls were replaced, and
they were not?
MR. GOLZ, JR.: No.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Thank you.
MR. GOLZ, JR.: Yep. We did, because
to follow the strapping codes, the only
thing we did to the old block, was we put
the proper anchors in. There was no anchor
bolts there before. The wall was just
sliding in, because the dirt and the
leaves. Just after so many years, the
April 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
24
25
bottom of the wall, was
to push in.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER:
walls?
MR. GOLZ, JR.: No.
MEMBER HORNING:
wood portion,
correct?
MR. GOLZ,
everything
actually starting
Did you stucco the
Structurally on the
is new; is that
JR.: Yes, but we tried --
we had supported everything as we took
apart, and we have the -- what was
originally supposed to stay. That was
I asked for the letter
and remove the roof
still up before
raise the ridge
rafters.
MEMBER HORNING:
foundation, you could
everything all at once?
What is above the
have removed
it
to
were trying to
But you saved
save.
MR. GOLZ, JR.: We
MEMBER HORNING:
nothing?
MR. GOLZ, JR.: Yes.
raising the ridge because
the back wall, the studs
Once we wound up
the studs -- on
went from the (In
April 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 9
1
2
3
4
5
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Audible) on the foundation to the rafters.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Let's just
clarify something. Some of the things that
are significant to this particular
application. First I would like to say
that this is not without precedence.
Builders begin to build and realize that
there is a lot more rot than they ever
expected. They're trying to do the
possible thing, which is to build properly.
This does happen, however, what has
happened with a situation like that from a
legal point of view, is that this garage is
built prior to 1967 and has Pre-CO. Once a
structure is demolished, it loses its
preexisting nonconforming status.
MR. GOLZ, JR.: Okay.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: So what that
means is that, we would have to revisit the
side yard location, which was -- it was
kind of grandfathered from the perspective
of a Pre-CO for a nonconforming structure
that was legally there, to what we have
before us now, which is a new demolition.
A new building, which will have to have a
April 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 10
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
new CO at some point, obviously. Where we
take it to the relative nonconforming side
yard.
MR. GOLZ, JR.: Okay.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Do you know the
overall square footage of this structure?
We should be able to look at it from the
floor plan --
MR. GOLZ, JR.: Yeah, it should be
right on -- it is on the floor plan.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Let us take a
look. I am looking on the plans.
MR. GOLZ, JR.: I think it was 428,
the lower.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: That would
probably be the footprint. There is a
second floor on here, which is meant to be
for storage and not liveable area --
MR. GOLZ, JR.: Yes. Correct.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: You have a roof
that was added to the original structure.
I am not sure if that is interior space to
be counted as the square footage or not.
You have 25 X 20.5 footprint and then a
second floor attic plan, it's pretty
April 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 11
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
similar in size. I
that it's not over 750
which point it's going
at as a nonconforming size.
MR. GOLZ, JR.: Okay.
it's
CHAIRPERSON
okay.
MEMBER HORNING:
just want to make sure
square feet, in
to need to be looked
completely different
that overhang porch.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
The building looks
then the original with
That was
actually there already. On the decision
that we granted, that porch was on the
plan. I believe the only difference
window, that faces the street and the
garage. I think that was a porthole
window --
MR. GOLZ, JR.: Yeah.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: If I recall
correctly, you now have a double-hung?
MR. GOLZ, JR.: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I am assuming
that the intent, this is labeled as attic
space --
MR. GOLZ, JR.: And that's the way
is the
WEISMAN: It looks like
April 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
t0
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
it's going --
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: There is a lot
of headroom, which has two dormers on
there. And I just want to make certain
that there is no intent to put plumbing in
this structure. There is no intent to heat
it or create habitable space?
MR. GOLZ, JR.: No, ma'am.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I believe at one
point, the family talked about a family
sitting room up on the top?
MR. GOLZ, JR.: Just going to
as storage.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
thing
into
been
It's now
keep it
storage?
MR. GOLZ, JR.:
gone over in spending money. So now we're
trying to keep it as simple as possible.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay. The other
that is probably important to enter
the record is, that there -- had this
addition and alterations, actual
Yes. They have now
restorations, where it wasn't a demolition,
you would not have lost your Pre-CO,
therefore, the applicant might have been
April 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 13
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
able -- eligible or would have been
eligible in the future, to apply for an
accessory apartment for one floor in that
building. Since this is a new building now
that will need a new CO, that is no longer
the case. It is not eligible anymore for
an accessory apartment, because the law
requires that it be existing lawfully on or
before January 1, 2004 -- I am sorry, 2008,
for an accessory apartment.
MR. GOLZ, JR.: Ail right.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: So I just want
the record to reflect that this garage has
lost it's right to apply for that use.
Ken, do you have a question?
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Yes, I do.
reconstruction, this structure will
The new
maintain the existing side yard setback?
MR. GOLZ, JR.: Yeah. It actually got
a little bit smaller, because it was so out
of square before. It was kind of falling
down. On the foundation it was
overhanging, and now we're in
foundation walls.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Okay.
line with the
Granted a
April 5, 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
variance for a 3.6 foot side yard setback
and that would be maintained, on a previous
variance?
MR. GOLZ, JR.: Yes.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: No further
questions.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Gerry?
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Not at this
particular time.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: George?
MEMBER HORNING: Just seems to shame,
I had to reflect on this and at the time, I
asked questions as to why the foundation
couldn't be moved to make it somewhat more
conforming of a setback, because that is
our concern, and you couldn't do that
because you were only reconstructing a
portion of the garage and a putting a
couple of dormers in, and as it turns out,
you could have very well done that, because
you essentially tore the whole thing down.
And in fact, did foundation repairs as
well. So it's disturbing to me, as a Board
member, knowing what we approved and how,
you know, a 3.6 setback was a significant
April 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 15
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
variance to begin with and then to see
actually happened, it's disconcerting.
what
MR. GOLZ, JR.: I apologize, and I was
just trying to do the right thing and not
slab (In Audible) when I knew that we were
going to have to replace more, and I asked
for the letter. And I guess, I should have
been more clear from when I came into the
Town and should have had the inspector come
down and say that, you know, before we go
any further with this. Maybe a
miscommunication with this. I should have
said, "should we stop right now or are we
overstepping our boundaries?" And I
thought with the letter that I gave you
guys, but I guess I wasn't clear enough in
the letter.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The letter
simply indicated, I believe it was a five
to seven inch increase in the proposed
height of the header. In no way was it a
suggestion for rafters and all framing
members. The dilemma happened when the
first inspection took place and (In
Audible) ripped up and there were old
April 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 16
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
framing members in place. Then when I went
out to take a look in regards to this
letter, it was pretty clear that it was all
new.
MR. GOLZ, JR.: Yeah, then we had the
stopping inspection --
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: That is when
the, I guess, the Building Department went
ahead and put a Stop Work, because it
exceeded the scope of the additions and
alterations. Okay. I think Member Horning
did express the concern that the Board did
have. The side yard variance is very
substantial and could have been and was in
fact justified on the grounds of the
preexisting nonconforming status, which of
course is no longer applicable. The Board
will have to handle this and hopefully we
will come to -- I am sure we will come to a
response.
MR. GOLZ, JR.: Okay. I would
appreciate that very much.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: We will
deliberate and -- we have 62 days to decide
but the earliest would be two weeks from
April 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 17
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
today.
MR. GOLZ, JR.: I would appreciate
that. Thank you very much.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Is there anyone
in the audience that would like to address
this application?
(No Response.)
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay. Hearing
no further questions, I will make a motion
to close this hearing and reserve decision
to a later date.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Ail in favor?
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye.
MEMBER HORNING: Aye.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Aye.
(See Minutes for Resolution.)
HEARING #6555 - OLIVER AND GLORIA SELIGMAN
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The next
application before the Board is for Oliver
and Gloria Seligman, #6555. Request for
variance from Article III Section 280-15
and the Building Inspector's
April 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 18
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
February 8, 2012 Notice of Disapproval,
based on an application for building permit
to construct an accessory two-car garage
and an in-ground swimming pool at:
1) location other than the code required
rear yard, located at: 385 North Cross
Road, corner Holden Avenue, Cutchogue.
Would you please enter your name into
the record, and then I have a question for
you?
MR. LETKOVSKY: My name is Andres
Letkovsky. I have been working with
Mr. Seligman as the project architect.
My
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: And do you have
offices is at 229 Laurel Road in East
Northport.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: And would you
please spell your last name, sir?
MR. LETKOVSKY: Sure.
L-E-T-K-O-V-S-K-Y.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Thank you. Do
you happen to have any of the green cards
that are required?
MR. LETKOVSKY: Yes, I do. They all
came in.
April 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 19
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
an Affidavit of Posting?
MR. LETKOVSKY: I believe the
Affidavit of Posting was submitted,
do have another one.
the Board?
I can give
but I
that to
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Please. Would
you come forward. Let's proceed. Go ahead
and tell us what you would like?
MR. LETKOVSKY: I would like to thank
the Board in advance for the cooperation
from receiving the application and putting
it together, between the Building
Department and the Zoning Board. We're
looking for permission to propose two
accessory structures. One being a swimming
pool and a detached garage on the opposite
side of the property. We're currently
completing an interior renovation, and we
have added a rear porch and a front porch
to the project. The house has been is
currently about 100% complete and ready for
the C of O. And what we did now, we're
proposing the pool and the garage, as I
said. Some of the things that are
influencing the location of these entities,
April 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 20
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
is on the southwest corner, we have very
tall existing Pine Trees. They're acting
as a very constructive privacy buffer, and
the garage is there. My clients have a few
very important considerations for this
area. One is that the septic system for
this house is not located in the front
yard. It's located in the side yard. It's
a very unusual shaped house. It has two
rooms coming out. So the southern most
room is the master bedroom. And we believe
that the septic system is somewhere in that
particular area, that if you would go on
and walk the site, it has a slight
depression to it. There is lots of pine
needles given off the trees. They're very
mature, and they also have a shallow roof
system.
relocating
expensive.
if the tree
So we're very concerned about not
the septic system. It's very
We think it would be terrible
would lose
swimming pool
house where we
would rather
roots were disturbed, and we
the trees. The mudroom for the
is located on the side of the
have located the pool. We
not locate the pool where the
April 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 21
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
master bedroom suite is, due to the way the
house functions. We have considerations,
you know the shadow that the trees cast on
the site, and it would cast shade where the
pool would go, in addition to the pine
needles. What we chose to do is locate the
pool in such a way that we could work with
some of these items on the site. And also
to, you know, address concerns with
privacy, by proposing a privacy buffer with
trees or shrubs. We obviously need to
follow through with moving the fence
correctly, so that it meets all the code
requirements. And those same items, by
large, are effecting the location of the
garage, where the pine needles are, we
don't want to disturb the roof system. And
another important thing, or we feel is
important, the house is very sculptural
identity that we think would be destroyed
if we attach the garage to the house. And
also, where the location of the septic
system is in the side yard, that we would
probably end up being forced to relocate
the septic system. So that being said,
April 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 22
1
2
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
we're going to present this application to
the Board, and if we could get approval for
this.
and I
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The reasons --
am glad that you clarified some of
your thinking here because the reasons in
the "actual reason for your appeal" as
stated in the application packet is
absolutely so vaguely written that, it was
completely unclear as to why these choices
were made. The Board has made site
inspection of the subject property. Ail of
us have been here. So we're aware of the
things that you are talking about. I have
some comments here. Your survey does not
show the location of the septic system.
MR. LETKOVSKY: No, it does not.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Why is that? If
that is one of the arguments of why you're
locating it in a nonconforming place?
MR. LETKOVSKY: The survey -- we have
an updated survey prepared but we didn't
notate it, but we know from down in the
basement, where the pipes are routed, the
foundation walls of where it comes out, it
April 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 23
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
is somewhereTs immediately south of the
master bedroom. It's somewhere in that
area .
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: In what you're
labeling as a depressed area?
MR. LETKOVSKY: Yes, probably, if we
go 20 feet away from the house. That would
be the usual typical distance of where they
locate these things.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Well, I think
greater clarification would be significant.
In fact, one of the most important
arguments were the location, I would
certainly think you would want certain
information from a surveyor of where that
septic system is located, because that is
the -- cites the description of the mature
trees that we have seen there. Certainly
is creating very useful boundaries on that
part of the area. That is a logical place
for a conforming location. The Board is
required by law, as you're probably aware,
to grant the minimal relief deemed
necessary, if justified. So we are looking
to see what we can do. 12 feet from a
April 5, 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
public road, for a setback of a swimming
pool, even with planted screening, is very,
very close. Very close. There is a
possibility of rotating that pool, so that
it is parallel to the side yard and pushing
it back further? I understand from an
aesthetic perspective, why you would want
it parallel to the shape of the house, and
locate it that way. It makes sense, but
from a Zoning perspective, it's a very
significant variance. And we have to, I
think, explore possibilities of doing
something -- very good. Our Board
assistant has just found a very old survey
that is part of the packet, that shows the
septic, not where you think it is. It is
actually, if you come forward, I would like
to show you. The Board already has this in
your packet. No, it's not part of the
packet. It's very far away the --
MR. LETKOVSKY: It's not that far
away. It looks about 15 to 20 feet, which
would -- if we're going to inspect the
location of the sytem, it would make it
very difficult to attach the garage to the
April 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 25
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
house.
CHAIR?ERSON WEISMAN:
garage?
MR. LETKOVSKY: Well,
would be proposing the
of the septic system.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER:
explorations
would be
create a
shape. If
Audible).
To attach the
yeah, then we
garage right on top
One of the
regarding the swimming pool,
considering (In Audible) is to
I
that I have been on this Board, exception
of the deadest of winters, difficult of
winters, that doesn't stop us from having
hearings, but we have gone through every
configuration of swimming pools that exist.
20 x 40 swimming pool, has just about
30,000 gallons of water. It has nothing to
do with the water of the swimming pool, it
has to do with the size of the swimming
pool. And that would be one of the things
that I would be looking for.
MR. LETKOVSKY: Thank you very much.
Obviously, if you look at the location of
swimming pool that has an existing
you want to keep it (In
We have done -- every hearing
April 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 26
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
the pool, there is some (In Audible) 20
feet, so we would have a little bit of
flexibility there. How far away it is from
the screened porch that we added, indicated
23.5 1/2. So we have a little bit of
flexibility there. We may be able to
constructively do away with the rear yard
setback.
That is slightly nonconformance.
We can get that part to comply. That is
the setback on the west side of the
property that we are indicating that is
kind of off set.
MEMBER HORNING: That is referred
as the side yard in the Building
Department's write up.
MR. LETKOVSKY: And then by kind of
moving this around, we may be able to do
better with the front yard. Is there a --
number that
feet that
to
can I ask the Board, is there a
comes more acceptable than the 12
we're proposing?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: These are all
going to be opinions of Board members. We
don't have a consensus. There is no magic
figure here. We're looking to mitigate
April 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 27
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
adverse impact on the neighbors and the
road. So we're going to look for the
greatest possible setback, that is the
least variance from a conforming setback of
a principal structure. That is probably 35
feet. I know you're not going to manage to
do 35 feet. In my opinion, you need to try
and make it as significant as a setback as
possible. I know you can do 15, but I
would like to see more than that, if
possible.
MR. LETKOVSKY: Yeah, I --
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: 15 feet is still
very -- even if with screening. There is
noise from the swimming pool. It's a quiet
neighborhood. I can anticipate the
neighbor's might have some concerns about
that. I certainly would want to see where
the septic is located on a survey, before I
would be confident in going ahead --
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: And properly
state.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Including that
information in the decision, because we
need to have it verified by an engineer.
April 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 28
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Those
are my comments.
George, do you want to make any?
MEMBER HORNING: They're cited by the
Building Department because the proposed
location is required to be in a rear yard
area. Not even
feet, 12 feet, you
in the front yard.
in the front yard. So 10
know, 15 feet, is still
Also you're cited for
the side yard, because it can't be in a
side yard either, according to the code.
We do want to see exactly where the septic
is also. The row of existing Pine Trees
that is shown on one survey that we have,
that we're working with, and the one on the
west -- the southwest corner that you're
talking about, are they on the neighboring
Yeah, these particular
the surveyor,
neighbor's
the owner's property.
And you're testifying
property?
MR. LETKOVSKY:
trees have been located by
and he located them on the
property, but not on
MEMBER HORNING:
that you listed two reasons, two possible
reasons why you could not locate the pool
in the rear yard. For example, one was the
April 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 29
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
possibility that pine needles would go into
the pool, and the other one was the
possibility, in fact, the septic system is
there, which now, yet again -- these Pine
Tree's are on the neighboring property,
we're saying right now, and according to
the survey, and what you're proposing. Why
then would you propose Pine Tree's within a
matter of a few feet of the proposed pool
area, if the Pines Tree's are a problem?
MR. LETKOVSKY: I thought of maybe
Hemlock's, which have a substantial privacy
effect, where the needles don't come down.
They act as a visual screen. They don't
get too tall.
MEMBER HORNING: So you are actually
proposing an Evergreen buffer, instead of
your proposed Pine Tree's?
MR. LETKOVSKY: Yeah, I think that
would be better language to use. Thank you
very much.
MEMBER HORNING: Well, it's confusing
to us, when you're testifying that the pine
needle's and you can't have the pool where
the Pine Tree's are, and you're proposing
April 5, 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
Pine Tree's.
MR. LETKOVSKY: My clients have
informed me that they would really like to
place a particular level of interest on the
pool and see how it might be approved under
certain conditions acceptable to the Board.
My opinion, at this point, I think we can
comply, at this point, with required 15
foot side yard. We're not indicating 10,
if I shift the pool. The 12 foot front
yard off set, I think we can by moving the
pool around, can reach 15 feet.
MEMBER HORNING: Again, sir, a pool
allowed in a side yard.
MR. LETKOVSK¥: Yeah.
MEMBER HORNING: I will
not
ask another
is
be attached to the house, in the one,
would be the southeastern corner. What is
in there? I noticed when I saw the site,
there was no windows on that wall. What is
inside there?
MR. LETKOVSKY: That is the master
question while I am asking questions.
Regarding the proposed garage, and there is
the possibility that in fact it could not
what
April 5, 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
20
21
22
23
24
25
bedroom. Largely occupies the entire area
there. There is an adjacent bathroom that
works with the master. There was a second
bathroom there that was removed, which I
think goes to substantiate the location of
the septic tanks, as you found on the
survey.
MEMBER HORNING: There is not to say
that you couldn't walk through a master
bedroom to walk to a garage, but is it
conceivable for you to walk -- locate the
garage on -- let's call it in the front of
a section of the house, somewhere's near
the existing driveway, attached to the
front of the house. Maybe not in that
southeastern side, but in the eastern side,
because once you attach the garage, it is
not subject to the Zoning Code, a detached
accessory dwelling being required to be in
the rear yard. It's possible that you
would need a front yard variance but not of
the same nature as a detached building in
the front yard.
MR. LETKOVSKY: We have done some
experiments before this was submitted of
April 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 32
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
the location of the garage. We're
obviously -- that it's a substantial 50
foot setback that a two-car garage would
never comply with, if attached to the
house, but we might be able to focus on
required 40 foot front yard setback right
off of Holden Avenue. You know, we're
currently showing 25.11, what maybe that
the
number could be adjusted to -- be less
substantial, if I could use that word,
nudge it back a little bit. If we're
lucky, we might miss the septic system.
MEMBER HORNING: Well, I don't think
that you should rely on luck, sir, to
determine where the septic system is.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: That is
something that we will explore, and this
Board has made it very clear that when that
becomes a problem for an applicant, we
certainly have to have an engineer or an
architect, state specifically to what we're
dealing with. It's not really adequate to
say that it is generally in that area.
There are some other options. I actually
want to know, you know, there is an
April 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 33
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
attached garage on one wing already, is
that going to continue to be used as a
garage or --
MR. LETKOVSKY: No -- that is a
two-car garage. It is going to be
continued to use for that. The owner has
car collection. This is a permanent
full-time residence. They're there seven
days a week. It is not a second home. The
proposed garage would only be used to put
antique cars in. If the Board needs extra
scientific data for the garage -- maybe
there is some way that we can find a
constructive way to approve the swimming
pool under certain conditions acceptable to
the Board? And, I would say likewise for
the garage, but if you feel you need to
know precisely where the tanks are, maybe
we can adjourn that portion of it?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Well, we don't
deliberate in part. We deliberate on the
entire application before us. There are
other options. And clearly, this property
is referred to as two front yards. The
unusual shape that renders -- the rear yard
April 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 34
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
is very, very small and already impacted
with structures and so on. So we do
understand that. You're not proposing
excessive lot coverage. You know, the
fact
site
inspection, the property that is
listed here, Toderbush (phenetic) right
where you're trying to propose recess exist
where the garage might be located, that
kind of faces a very beautiful area. You
know, there is almost some possibility of
suggesting that an accessory garage may be
better off where you're proposing a
swimming pool. Certainly quieter,
especially since all you are doing in
storing antique cars. The possibility of
putting the swimming pool over on the other
side. There is some options. I understand
what you are saying about the dwelling and
the interior layout and what makes sense,
in terms of walking a farther distance or
closer distance, you know, they're
consequential. We're looking here to try
that you're proposing two accessory
structures is not an over extension of that
lot coverage. The interesting thing is, on
April 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 35
6
7
8
9
10
tl
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
an mitigate adverse impact and to be as
conforming as possible. That's it in a
nutshell. Certainly moving that garage
back from Holden somewhat, would depend
entirely where the septic is. If you want
to leave it there, from what
Mr. Goehringer has suggested, as I, some
possible changes to the pool, size, shape,
setback and so on.
Ken, did you have any questions or
comments, because I think I would like to
see if there is anyone in the audience that
would like to address this application?
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Yes, I do. Is
there a public water service to the
residence or is it well?
MR. LETKOVSKY: No, public water.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: The only thing that
I would like to see is a survey indicating
the septic system, and then we can make a
decision.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Is there anyone
in the audience that would like to address
this application? Please state and spell
your name for the record?
April 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 36
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. HUNTINGTON: My name is Ray
Huntington. I am the neighbor to the west.
My name is H-U-N-T-I-N-G-T-O-N. I didn't
really intend to make a statement here
today, but I was in the building for some
other reasons and I thought I would sit in.
Now that I am here, I might be able to add
a little context. I am the neighbor to the
west. I have known the neighbor's for a
little over a year now. They have been
working on the place, and all during that
time, they have really demonstrated
extremely good taste and sensitivity to the
neighborhood. Their ideas have been well
thought out and some of the reasons that
they have advanced, are really quite sound.
While, I don't want to go further into that
in covering your job, we have a code for a
good reason and we want that upheld. It's
different when you have a contentious
situation, I think. I don't think we have
that here.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Thank you.
Anyone else?
MR. SELIGMAN:
Thank you. First I
April 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 37
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
want to thank Ray for coming. I didn't
know he was coming at all. Thank you for
your statement.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Please state
your name, please?
MR. SELIGMAN: Oh, yes. I'm sorry.
Oliver Seligman. Part owner with my wife,
Gloria of the property. We knew when we
purchased the property, it was corner
property. And corner properties are
difficult to work with. You know, the side
yard, back yard, and all those kinds of
things, I haven't figured them out. I am
not sure yet, but we're very conscious of
the neighborhood and the -- just like Ray
said. We're trying to fit in. Not do
anything that would harm the neighborhood.
In fact, I have another unsolicited note
from one of neighbor's also. If you wish,
I can submit. It's from another neighbor,
also supporting me. The main reason we're
putting the pool there, it's not just
because the fact that there is a cesspool
issue, that could very well be. I don't
know where it is, but know, the farther
April 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 38
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
away, the better. We're on the other side
of the house, so I don't have to think
about, at least as far as the pool is
concerned. You know, I don't want to mess
with that. Everything seems to work well
at this point. In addition, all those
large tree's that belong to the Toderbush,
and I he
ago,
that
roots to those
tall trees, we
trees. I had
when I bought
know asked for
for an existing structure.
is neither here nor there.
a variance a year
Anyway
But those
trees, and they are quite
don't want to harm the
to take down a lot of trees
the house, and I know what
roots do. That is one of the main reasons
why we can't really put the pool in that
corner. Those trees are quite enormous.
If you saw the property, they go quite high
up. And I remember when we had our
property cleared and all the roots that
remained there, we had Mr. Coffey from
Southold -- came in and took care of that.
The roots were deep. Those were from our
trees, not their's. So leaving the pool
there works out well for us. We really
April 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 39
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
can't put the pool there. I had several
pool people come and inspect the property.
Originally, where we were going to put the
pool is where you suggested to put the
pool, and it really didn't work out. I had
another pool man come in and re-sited the
pool for us into the current location that
you see on the map. And that seemed like
it worked out because my neighbor doesn't
have any (In Audible) Mr. Huntington to the
west. And it's low. And I also have a
neighbor on -- his address is 3400 (In
Audible) he is actually the Fire Chief, I
believe of Cutchogue. I forgot his last
name, but I am sure you know who I am
talking about. And he has a pool also. He
is also on the corner of Pequash and North
Cross, and he also has a pool that is quite
located on North Cross Road. I think it's
North Cross Road. Anyway, I felt that this
was the best location that would work for
us. I don't think we can put in a pool,
unless we can put it there. It just
doesn't make sense. And I don't really see
much other choice. I see where the choice
April 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 40
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
was originally, but they really aren't. If
we were to put a pool in and not have some
major problems. You know, certainly I
don't want to impact my friend over here or
Mr. Toderbush, who is also my neighbor. He
did not come. I did not see him by the
way. But anyway, it just seemed like that
would be the best place. You know, I am
even willing at this point, because we
would really love to get the pool in for
health reasons. My wife needs to work in
pool, it's healthy for her. I can get
doctor's notes, which I don't have by the
way. That seemed like the only place that
we could put the pool on the property. We
are willing
to it to suit the
there is too much
you to be aware of
your
to make some minor
Board, but
choice. So
consideration
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
a
adjustments
I don't think
I just wanted
that, and thank you for
and time.
Well, it is
relevant to the number of detached garages.
The number of front yards in the
neighborhood's. These are the relevant
factors because one of the factors in the
April 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 41
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
character of the neighborhood.
MR. SELIGMAN: Sure.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: If there are
other similarly situated accessory
structures, such as swimming pool's, it is
relevant to us. We do drive around. We
look around, but they're often behind
Evergreens and we can not trespass, unless
it's an applicant, on someone's property.
We're not always able to see them.
MR. SELIGMAN: Right.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Does the
Board --
MEMBER HORNING: I have a couple of
comments. As Mr. Seligman's request, I
drove up North Cross Road, I did observe a
pool in a front yard in the neighborhood.
I observed only one. It was very well
screened. From my estimation, it was
certainly setback far greater than 10-12
feet from the road.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Do you have any
rough idea of what that setback was?
MEMBER HORNING: I think we should ask
the applicant to provide some neighborhood
April 5, 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
2O
21
22
23
24
25
information, if possible. Otherwise we
will get it on our own. I am guessing,
25-30 feet from the road. That would be
guest. And I also want to say, why could
not -- not that we're trying to tell you
what to do, you came to us with a major
variance
think my colleagues would agree.
not expand your existing garage
have a new attached section of
attached to the house somehow?
need some type of a front yard
request, that I can ascertain.
Could
somehow
garage
Perhaps
variance
my
I
you
and
you
pool. And is there anyway you can attach a
new construction to an existing house? You
have a large driveway area. You have some
brick walkway, which could easily be
removed. You have a brick walkway on the
other side where you're proposing the pool,
code conforming requiring less variances.
Perhaps not a side yard variance for a
setback but not that you do now, because
code again, code does not allow you to have
a garage and a pool in a front yard. And
we're asking you to reconsider your plans
and come up with something that is more
April 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 43
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
which can easily be removed, and relocated
and redesigned in that area, if in fact, it
had to be in that area, rather then someone
suggested putting the pool in an area near
your master bedroom. You know, Pine Tree's
shed their needles at certain times of the
year. Perhaps that would be at the time of
the year that you would have your pool
covered.
nOW,
MR. SELIGMAN: At this point, right
given the timing and everything else,
I am willing to forgo the garage
and go with the pool, as long as
the pool where we would like
Reasonably close to where it
possible. And we will table
now and worry about that
date. That is as far as
go.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
do that, that is what
impermissiblelism.
MR. SELIGMAN: What
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
entirely,
we can get
to have it.
is. Close as
the garage for
at some future
I am willing to
variance and then you
If
we call
you plan to
is that?
That means one
come back and sneak
April 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 44
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
in another one later on. Saying that these
are preexisting conditions. This Board
will not look favorable on that. Frankly,
if it is something that you really, really
want, the upfront planning now is probably
better. If you don't build it right away,
it is probably best to look at the whole
site as you have done, and try to propose
what it is that you want. However, did you
want to make some comments, Ma'am? If you
do, you have to come to the mic.
MS. SELIGMAN: Good morning.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: State your name,
please?
MS. SELIGMAN: I am Gloria Seligman,
S-E-L-I-G-M-A-N. And I just want to go over
something that George might have just said
a few moments ago. You had mentioned a
possibility to add onto the existing
garage? In other words, just bring it
forward?
MEMBER HORNING: If you attach the
garage, you're eliminating the need for a
variance for having a detached garage in a
front yard area.
April 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 45
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
CHAIRPERSON
probably have a front
MEMBER HORNING:
WEISMAN: You would
yard setback problem.
Right, possibly.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: You know, you
have an architect. I think you have heard
a lot of suggestions, maybe a carport
attached to the bedroom side. It would be
open with a roof. I understand, you know,
I have been a professor of architect for 38
years. So I can understand the symmetry of
a dual dwelling, roof structures and so on.
Visual impact is not insignificant, but you
know, you still have to look at the law and
what impacts on code. You have heard a lot
of suggestions. I think the best way to
approve them -- I am going to call on the
Board for this, since we need to see where
the septic is, and you have some
suggestions made and you're realizing that
you can do a little more conforming
setbacks here and there, and so on, and get
your priorities together. I am going to
make a proposal to adjourn this hearing to
May, so that you can come back with an
amended survey, and show the septic, and
April 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 46
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
any proposed changes that you would like to
make. You don't need to re-notice it.
It's going to be a carryover till next
month.
address these
what
make
feel that is
MEMBER
MEMBER
MEMBER
That will give you some time to
concerns and come back with
you feel is the best proposal you can
for this Board.
MEMBER HORNING: Can I add to that?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Does the Board
the right way to go?
SCHNEIDER: Yes.
HORNING: Yes.
GOEHRINGER: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
We need
make some choices,
want to design it
our function.
HORNING: Leslie, can
to have
and
for
I also
an opportunity to
the Board doesn't
you. That is not
MEMBER
request that the applicant, we must
consider the character of the neighborhood.
As the chairperson suggested, are there
other nonconforming garages in the front
yard in the area? Are there other pools in
the front yard, in the area? And also, we
look at what other variances have been
April 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 47
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
granted in the past. So we can determine
what variances have been granted. I am
going to ask the architect that we get that
information. We want to ask you, if you
can find out for us specific addresses, in
this immediate neighborhood, North Cross
Road, etcetera, Holden Avenue. What
locations have nonconforming structures in
the front yard.
MS. SELIGMAN: We have investigated.
We have found that pool.
MEMBER HORNING: Right.
MS. SELIGMAN: There is also a garage
on Pequash, right around Old Pasture.
MEMBER HORNING: We would like you to
provide that information.
MS. SELIGMAN: We can't find the
addresses.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: We granted that
garage. That is part of the house around
the corner.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: It's a big
parcel.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Go all the way
around and you will find the house, close
April 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 48
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
to the water. Across from 100, which is
one of the last houses before you make the
turn going down towards the marina.
MS. SELIGMAN: Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Let's just make
it very clear. The reasons for -- it's the
applicant's responsibility to present their
case. The Board can not undertake research
on your behalf. So we're going to have to
ask you to do a little homework.
MS. SELIGMAN: Do I still have to
bring you that address, he knows where it
is?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I think your
architect understands what we will need,
which is something in writing to simply
provide us from your perspective that is
relevant to your application and relative
to existing attached garages in the area.
The setback? Are they in the front yard,
rear yard? We are looking for precedence.
In the same way that you may get a swimming
pool, someone down the line might come and
say well you granted it to this other one.
That's how precedence works, which is
April 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 49
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
again, why we're bound to be consistent in
our decision. To look carefully on how it
might impact the future, as well as what we
have done in the past. We're asking you to
strengthen your application.
MS. SELIGMAN: Okay.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Can I just offer
you something, Mr. Seligman. We recently
heard an application a little deeper, over
Southern Cross. That happened to be a tax
map number. You can get the adjoining
piece of that tax map number. It would be
much easier for you to fill in those
particular pieces. Then you go back to the
Assessor's Office and they will fill in the
person's name. That is exactly what that
gentleman did in his accessory garage. Not
the gentleman that you just referred to,
but another one. He color coded it and it
came out very nice. So it's easier way to
do that. So this happens to be my tax map
number. You can take that as a starting
point.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I am going to
make a motion, hearing no further comments
April 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 50
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
from the audience or
questions, to adjourn
May 3rd at 10:00 A.M.
Is there a second?
MEMBER GOEHRINGER:
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Ail
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye.
any Board member
this hearing to
Second.
in favor?
MEMBER HORNING: Aye.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Aye.
(See Minutes for Resolution.)
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: If I could make a
motion for a two minutes recess?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Sure. I will
second it.
Ail in favor?
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye.
MEMBER HORNING: Aye.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Aye.
(Whereupon, a recess was taken.)
HEARING #6543 DAVID H. THORNTON AND
JANET E. DAVIDSON.
April 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 51
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The next
application before us is, David H. Thornton
and Janet E. Davidson, #6543. Request for
variance from Article XXIII Section 280-124
and the Building
January 18, 2012
based on an application
Inspector's
Notice of Disapproval
for building permit
for additions to a single family dwelling
at: 1) more than the code permitted
maximum lot coverage of 20%, located at:
4205 Breakwater Road, corner East Road,
Mattituck.
Garrett, just state your name for the
record, and then I have some stuff for you,
that you probably haven't seen, possibly.
MR. STRANG: Yes, good morning.
Garrett Strang, architect
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
have the Suffolk County
for Thornton's.
Yes. We just
local determination
letter, and have you seen the letter from
the neighbor's, Ventura?
MR. STRANG: Yes, I have.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay. Ail
right. Go ahead, Garrett. As you know,
the Board
letter requested that this
April 5, 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
20
21
22
23
24
25
adjourn the hearing because the neighbor
canTt be here. Generally, the Board is
quite cooperative with Request of
Adjournment's from applicant's or their
agent; however, we do have her consent in
writing, and I don't think the Board is
going to
entertain an adjournment request
on the basis of a neighbor.
correct, Board Members?
my
Is that
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Not necessarily in
particular case, because of my most
visual field inspections that I just had.
I had two field inspections on this, and
the houses are relatively close together.
Of course being the newer one, I would
discuss that with Mr. Strang during the
hearing.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Well, I think
what maybe we should do, you can present
whatever you want, and maybe it would
behoove of you to address the issues made
by the neighbor.
MR. STRANG: I intend to. I think my
initial presentation, might bring some of
how they're possibly
those concerns and
April 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 53
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
mitigated.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay.
MR. STRANG: As you aware, we're
seeking relief from the lot coverage
requirement, and that has to basically do
with the proposed stone terrace. You make
reference to the lot coverage calculations
shown in the
site data, you will see that
if the proposed screen room were to be
built without the stone terrace, it is
compliant. It meets all zoning
requirements, including lot coverage. So
essentially what we are here for is relief
to construct this stone terrace, which is
an unusual situation, because unfortunately
the property slopes downward from the point
of the northwest corner to the point of the
southeast corner. And that is really why
we're here. Due to slope, the majority of
this terrace will be above grade, which by
definition of determination by the Building
Department, constitutes as a structure and
subject to the lot coverage requirements.
If the property were not sloped, obviously,
we would not be here, because we would have
April 5, 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
20
21
22
23
24
25
the terrace at grade. But because the
property is sloped, it brings us before
you. For the record, I just want to make
brief statement here, so it's not to
belabor the hearing. The terrace is going
to be open. It's not at grade. It's at
a
grade at one corner, and as we move towards
the south, it becomes out of grade. But
it's going to unenclosed and unroofed. It
will be open. The only other potential
structures on that terrace is a counter
height elevated grill area, so there could
be a place to barbecue, with open seating
around the proposed fire pit. It would be
at bench height essentially. Once again,
by virtue of the natural slope of the
height, which brings us before you, and I
hope you can appreciate the fact that this
is an open terrace. It's not roofed over.
So although it does exceed the required
coverage renovation, I think it will be
unobstructed for the most part. Again, in
addressing the letter from the neighbor,
the screen porch is in fact compliant. The
reason that we're here for lot coverage, is
April 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 55
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
for the stone terrace.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: What is the
difference in lot coverage?
MR. STRANG: It's on the map. Gerry,
under site data, under lot coverage --
MEMBER GOEHRINGER:
Oh, I am sorry. I
had it covered up.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Existing is
17.3, with the porch it's 19.2.
MR. STRANG: That's correct.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: When you add the
terrace, it's up to 24.8. Is there anyway
that you can step that terrace down and
continue to keep it at grade? Rather then
just have it one continuous terrace that
creates a
MR.
and would
lot coverage issue?
STRANG: I appreciate
consider that, but
that thought
the challenge
that is, it's meant for a -- I should say a
congregation of family members and for
entertaining purposes. And I have found
that it's really not such a great idea to
have two, if you will, party areas. Where
someone could misstep and fall off and hurt
themselves. I think it's all better if
April 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 56
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
it's at one level and safer.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Do we have a
survey on this property?
MR. STRANG: I believe there should
one in your file.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Is there any way
that you can reduce that lot coverage,
be
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: We have your
site plan, that is all we have.
MR. STRANG: I do have a survey. That
is the copy that I have. I can get the
Board additional copies. I can bring it up
for you to look at it for the moment.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: While you are
trying to find that, what is the proposed
elevation of the stone terrace? How high
above grade are we talking?
MR. STRANG: Well, again, because of
proposed lot coverage down to 22%, for
example?
MR. STRANG: I would have to address
that with my client, Janet Thornton, who is
present. I can address that while we're
here.
April 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 57
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
the nature of the grade, at the corner
where the front of the screened porch,
okay, it would be at or at the most, eight
inches above grade. It depends on how we
work out the grading in that area. If you
move to the south, the southerly corner, we
are probably looking at 24 inches above
grade.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: 22 you said?
MR. STRANG: 24. Again, we don't have
a topographic map. We don't have a
topographic map.
MEMBER HORNING: What you are really
saying is that the whole stone terrace may
really be above grade?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Oh, it will.
MEMBER HORNING: Not any of it at
grade.
MR. STRANG: The one corner, we can
probably make that at grade. If we were to
work the backfill there. The majority, as
I stated earlier, is going to be above
grade. There is no question about it. I
mean, it's just the nature of the way of
the land.
April 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 58
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
CHAIRPERSON
rigmarole, but you
MR. STRANG:
WEISMAN: It's kind of a
could re-grade?
Yes, we could. I don't
be aesthetically
you will have to bring in
know if that would
pleasing, because
fill --
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: You will still
have a slope, you will have a backfill of
land coming off of those patio doors and
then sloping back down, after you no longer
require that flat level.
MR. STRANG: That could be done. We
were hopeful that we wouldn't have to
pursue it that way. It could be done. The
fact that it was an open patio would really
address not having to do that.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Well, I would be
interested to see if you could possibly get
that proposed 24.8% lot coverage down some.
MR. STRANG: I just conferred with my
client and she indicates that, yes, she
would be receptive to reducing the patio
somewhat in size, to reduce that lot
coverage.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Garrett, can I
April 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 59
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
ask you a question about the screened
porch?
MR. STRANG: Certainly.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The pitch on the
roof appears to be relatively steep. What
happens with the rain water -- the
applicant property and the neighboring
property, if the water comes off and over
shoots the gutters? There may or may not
be drywells there. This has been an issue
that has concerned me significantly on
small lots. And drywells, can be put in
MR. STRANG: To answer your question,
presently all but one of the gutters or the
leaders from the gutters, go into drywells,
from what I could see. Although, it is not
shown on this particular site plan, I had
included a drywell to the west side of the
addition, into which not only the one
existing leader that is not going into a
drywell, the new gutters and leaders from
the porch addition,
drywell. So we will
runoff.
CHAIRPERSON
will go into the
be containing the roof
WEISMAN: That would be
April 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 60
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
contained for the new water runoff for the
porch --
MR. STRANG: For the new proposed
porch and there is also a leader that exist
in the northwest corner of the existing
house, which is where the porch starts on
the north side. That is presently not
going into a drywell, and we will pipe that
into the drywell's also.
MEMBER HORNING: Could we get a
revised survey showing all of those?
MR. STRANG: I can certainly provide
that. That is not a problem. In fact, the
site plan is already showing the existence
of the coverage of the drywell, and of
course, if the Board directed us to reduce
the size of the patio, obviously the site
plan would be amended to reflect that as
well.
MEMBER HORNING: In our decision, we
need to refer to site plans, surveys and
such, and if it's all on one paper, it's
easier to understand then. If we have to
refer to any number of other surveys, you
know, just to get the information.
April 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 61
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. STRANG: I understand.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Garrett, this
site plan doesn't have any drywell's on it.
MR. STRANG: No, it doesn't. That
particular map has just been generated this
very week actually, as I have been moving
along with drawings for the screened porch,
I added in the drainage.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Is that a survey
or a site plan?
MR. STRANG: It's a site plan.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay. Is there
anyone else in the audience that would like
to address this application?
(No Response.)
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Any more
questions from the Board?
(No Response.)
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay. Hearing
no further questions, I am going to make a
motion to close this hearing subject to
receipt of an amended plan, indicating
onsite drainage, and the Board will, based
on our conversations, consider alternative
relief on the lot coverage, if you would
April 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 62
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
like, between now and then, consult with
your client and propose an amended lot
coverage, we will consider.
MR. STRANG: Fine.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I can't
determine what that number will be.
MR. STRANG: Of course.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: But we
consider that and either grant
or grant alternative --
MEMBER GOEHRINGER:
will show how much of the
intend to take off of it?
MR. STRANG: Yes. And
calculations as to
coverage based on
will
an amended
I will have new
the proposed lot
the new proposal as well
as that drawing will also have the drywelts
on it.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Thank you.
MR. STRANG: Certainly. Thank you
very much.
MEMBER HORNING: Madam Chairperson?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Yes.
MEMBER HORNING: We are just going to
have the one letter from the neighbor in
On the plan, you
terrace you
April 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 63
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
the file?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Right. We're
going to close subject to receipt of
additional information.
I made that motion to
receipt of an amended site
Is there a second?
MEMBER HORNING: Second.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Ail in favor?
MEMBER HORNING: Aye.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Aye.
(See Minutes for Resolution.)
close subject to
plan.
application before the Board is for Glyn
and Michelle Weir, #6546. Request for
variance from Article XXIII Section 280-124
and the Building Inspector's
December 7, 2011 Notice of Disapproval
based on an application for building permit
to construct additions/alterations to
existing single family dwelling: 1) less
HEARING #6546 - GLYN & MICHELLE WEIR
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The next
April 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 64
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
than the code required minimum
rear yard
setback of 50 feet; located at:
Road, a.k.a. 5550 West Mill Road,
Road, Mattituck. Good morning.
MR. WEIR: Good morning. I am Glyn
Weir, the owner of the property, 5200 West
Mill Road, a.k.a, 5500 West Mill Road. So
the current property is a two bedroom, and
we're proposing to make it a three bedroom
5200 Mill
Cox Neck
with a den. And also to have the stairwell
be part of the addition to accommodate our
grown family. It's currently a two bedroom
house.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
Okay. Are you
clear before this Board?
Do you understand what the nonconformity it
is that you're proposing?
MR. WEIR: Yes, I do.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Essentially your
rear yard setback is 44 feet, where the
code requires 50. You are not proposing to
as to why you're
change that setback?
MR. WEIR: I am not proposing to
change that setback. Not that I am aware
of. I am just proposing a variance for
April 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 65
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
that setback. I would like to add --
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The current
house exist at 44 feet; is that correct?
MR. WEIR: Correct. And the -- I have
been told two separate things by the
Building Department. One was that the
setback requirement was 50 feet, because it
was considered a backyard. And it was
considered a backyard, because it must
obviously be a backyard because the main
road is in the front of the house and the
backyard would be in the back. But I was
told that it was a 40 foot setback
requirement another time because it would
be considered to have two front yards,
because of the right-of-way that went by
the back of the house. What appears to be
the backyard.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: That is the
driveway that goes around your property?
MR. WEIR: Yes, Ma'am. I am not
proposing to change any of that, but I
think it is something that maybe of
interest to the Board, to the Tax
Assessor's Office, to try and find out more
April 5, 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
about that, and whether it would be
considered a front yard or a backyard,
because I only found out from Mr. Horning
last night that that --
MEMBER HORNING: Uh-oh.
MR. WEIR: Well, he just mentioned
just in passing that some people's
interpretation change. So I tried to find
out, you know, is it a front yard or is it
a backyard, just for your benefit and for
potentially mine. I wasn't able to find
out this morning for the Board, but I do
own part of the right-of-way. So I can not
imagine why -- I believe if I have access
to part of the right-of-way then that would
be considered potentially a front yard.
Since I own part of that right-of-way, I
assume that I would have access.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The Board
legally can only grant relief, in terms of
a variance, based on the Notice of
Disapproval.
MR. WEIR: Okay.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: So it's a
Building Department interpretation.
April 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 67
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. STRANG: Got it.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Clearly what is
going on here is that your property is over
a 34 foot setback and 10 feet for the
right-of-way. They have determined that
that is a rear yard.
MR. WEIR: Okay.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: However, what
you're doing, essentially is putting a
proposed addition from the footprint of the
existing building.
MR. WEIR: Yes.
you
the
bulk, which is already nonconforming
setback. You're not proposing to alter
nonconforming setback of 34 feet, but
because of the putting on of bulk on,
addition,
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The only reason
are here is because you're increasing
degree of nonconformity, by adding
the
nonconformity. That is why you are here.
Okay. We have all visited the property.
It is a very unusual piece of property with
a lovely view of the creek, and a nice
pond. Anyway, Gerry, do you have any
the
technically it is increasing that
April 5, 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
20
21
22
23
24
25
questions?
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I
with the area. I actually
area. I am actually
am very
live in
a neighbor of
Our house is up, about 1600 feet
live on Bayview Avenue, which is
right before we get down to your
MR. WEIR: Nice.
familiar
the
yours.
apart. I
the last
place.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: And the property
believe it or not, belonged to the County
of Suffolk. It was taken for nonpayment of
taxes. Mr. Buckingham was probably the one
that rebuilt the house in it's present
entirety when you probably bought it from
him. He is now a neighbor of mine. Okay.
A really very nice man. The Killian's live
up above the original situation was part of
Mattituck Marina at one time, and
Mr. Boscolo was the one who probably owned
Mr. Killian's house, who I know personally
and Mr. Boscolo and his wife, who have
since moved away. So we can say that the
right-of-way is probably used by two other
families at this time.
MR. WEIR: It's actually used by the
April 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 69
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
Boscolo's, the Killian's and the people who
own Mattituck Inlet Marina are -- have a
house on the property and his son, James
also uses the right-of-way.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: So it is a well
traveled right-of-way by those three
families. There is no doubt that the lot
is extremely interestingly unusual shaped
lot. No doubt about that. What is also
interesting is the grading changes from the
house down and of course the elevation of
the house. So all those situations
involved, I can see why you're building a
bigger building, and that's basically it.
MR. WEIR: I think it's -- you know,
it could be more aesthetically pleasing. I
think it's very iow or no impact on any of
the neighbor's. And I have actually been
congratulated by the neighbor's for taking
this leap for my family.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The actual plans,
which are showing -- we are shown internal
plans, but when we look at the external
plans, #7 and #6, we're looking at what
changes will be actually made to the
April 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 70
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
dwelling. Standing out on the
right-of-way; is that correct?
MR. WEIR: I'm sorry, changes to the
plan standing on the right-of-way?
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: And looking
towards the house?
MR. WEIR: Yes. So this, yes, this
view would be looking at from -- I would
say not quite on the right-of-way. If you
look at #9, then you would be standing
right up on the right-of-way.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Okay. I don't
have any further questions. I am happy.
It's going to be the same setback
regardless of what we consider it to be.
It was a pleasure meeting you.
MR. WEIR: Thank you.
MEMBER HORNING: Just to clarify my
involvement in terms of understanding
language and what the right-of-way
regarding the rear yard. I happened to ask
him whether he had use of the right-of-way
or not, and we had a generic conversation
about what constituted a front yard.
MR. WEIR: I hope I didn't get you in
April 5, 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
trouble.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: That is why we
do site inspections when people are not
around. The plans are very skillfully
done, and it's not going to have much
impact. The right-of-way, it really
constitutes a second front yard.
Particularly that you have access to it.
It might be your rear yard if you had no
access to it. We're going to go with what
the Building Inspector determined to be the
variance before us.
Ken, do you have any questions?
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Yes, just a quick
one. The property to the south of you, on
the other side of the right-of-way?
MR. WEIR: Yes.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: What does that
consist of? Is there a dwelling right over
there?
MR. WEIR: There is no dwelling there.
It is owned by the owner across the street,
Leo Grand, and, he is a summer time
resident. Weekends only. I have spoken to
him. They own approximately 36 acres in
April 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 72
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
I9
20
21
22
23
24
25
that area. It is just an overgrown piece
of property that he has no intention on
putting a dwelling on.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Your proposal then
will not impact anyone?
MR. WEIR: Correct.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Very good. No
further questions.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Very good. Is
there anyone in the audience that would
like to address this application?
(No Response.)
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Hearing no
further questions or comments, I am going
to make a motion to close this hearing and
reserve decision to a later date.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Ail in favor?
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye.
MEMBER HORNING: Aye.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Aye.
(See Minutes for Resolution.)
HEARING #6548 - GLENN HEIDTMANN, JR.
April 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 73
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The next
application before the Board is for Glenn
Heidtmann, Jr., #6548. Request for
variance from Article XXlII
and the Building Inspector's
Section 280-124
January 30, 2012 Notice of Disapproval
based on an application for building permit
for "as built" deck/hot tub addition to
existing single family dwelling: 1) less
the code required minimum rear yard
at: 600
to address the
than
setback of 50 feet; located
Albacore Drive, Greenport.
Is there someone here
application? Good morning.
I'm sorry?
the owner.
And please
Glenn
state
you
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Thank you. Do
have any green cards for us?
MR. HEIDTMANN: Yes, I do, but I don't
MR. HEIDTMANN: Good morning.
Heidtmann, property owner.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
MR. HEIDTMANN: I am
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
your name.
MR. HEIDTMANN:
Albacore Drive.
Glenn Heidtmann, 600
April 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 74
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
have them all on me.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Well, why don't
you bring us what you have and bring the
others into the office?
MR. HEIDTMANN: Sure. I believe
they're in my truck outside. Can I give
them to you after this?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: You can submit
them after the public hearing.
MR. HEIDTMANN: Okay.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: And we have a
letter from Suffolk County indicating that
this matter is for before this Board for
local determination. You can have a copy,
if you would like one?
MR. HEIDTMANN: Sure.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
situation of a rear
feet, when the code
that is why you are
have a drywell on
the spa water?
MR. HEIDTMANN: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
indicating
So we have a
yard setback of 39.5
requires 50 feet. And
before us. Sir, so you
your property to empty
You
anywhere on there?
do. Is that
April 5, 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
MR. HEIDTMANN: Oh, I'm sorry. To
empty the spa, no I do not.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Where does that
water get discharged when you have to clean
it and empty it?
MR. HEIDTMANN: It would just run onto
the grass.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Hopefully, not
into the pond --
MR. HEIDTMANN: No, correct.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The reason why I
ask is because onsite drainage is a
requirement by the Town, in other words,
you can't just dump the stuff into the
street, or any other water, or body. So it
has become State mandated. The Town issues
it for swimming pool's and spa's and so on.
Pool water especially, because it is filled
with chemicals. Mr. Goehringer is
suggesting to let it sit for a while and
let it dissipate.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: It's a lot easier
outside because the sun gets to it and it
just dissipates.
MR. HEIDTMANN: Generally, we try and
April 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 76
1
2
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
do
it once a season, but that is pretty
much the extent of it. It's not a
continual thing that we do.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: How does this
deck and hot tub get seated?
MR. HEIDTMANN: On my own. I am in
the business and I was a little over
zealous in the decision. At the time, I
had an opportunity to buy the material and
I built it without the permit.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: How is it that
you wound up coming to the Board?
MR. HEIDTMANN: I believe there was a
phone call possibly to the Building
Department that I was in violation of the
building.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Ail right. What
is the size of the deck? We have seen it
but I just want to --
MR. HEIDTMANN: It's about 16 X 50.
So it's roughly just under 800 square feet.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Ken?
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: When was the deck
built?
MR. HEIDTMANN: I believe it was built
April 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 77
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
in the Spring 2009. Yeah, this would be
the third season, I think.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: April 2009?
MR. HEIDTMANN: I believe so.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Can you narrow it
down a little more?
MR. HEIDTMANN: I believe it was May.
MEMBER HORNING: Was the hot tub and
the deck all on the same time?
MR. HEIDTMANN: The hot tub was moved
at a later date. I would say probably
brought in about four months later because
it had to be moved from it's location to
it's current location.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: And you're in the
construction business? You are a
contractor?
MR. HEIDTMANN: Yes.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: So you're a
contractor and you didn't know you needed a
permit for this?
MR. HEIDTMANN: No, I was over zealous
and eyesight was 20/20. And the amount of
time that had gone by with an unfinished
structure, pretty clear that this could --
April 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 78
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
this decision should have been made.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Can you describe
your surrounding neighbor's of the
property?
MR. HEIDTMANN: To the east and west I
have no neighbor's. The association owns
the property to the east. I guess you can
say southeast. And to the northwest, there
is a vacant lot that is owned by the Town.
And then behind me, there are two
neighbor's. Both of which, summer, that
may eventually be year round. That is the
extent of the neighbor's. Two
behind.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Okay.
questions at this from me.
neighbor's
No further
MEMBER HORNING: I have one question
on the LWRP. Do you have a copy of that?
Did you bring that with you?
MR. HEIDTMANN: I do not.
MEMBER HORNING:
summarize it. There
local water resource
to
for
Ail right. I will
is an LWRP, that is a
program or whatever
summarize, your Notice of
a deck, then you go on and
consistency,
Disapproval
April 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 79
1
2
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
all the different areas of policies of
however many, 12 or 14. To tell you
exactly 13 policies on policy questions.
Yes/No or Not Applicable. You put Not
Applicable for all of them except one that
caught my eye, which is Policy #4, where
the goal is to minimize loss of life of
natural resources from flooding and
erosion, and it refers to LWRP Section 3
Policy Pages 8 through 16 for evaluation
criteria to determine how to answer it.
This is the only policy question that you
answered, no, and I am wondering if that is
an error somehow, since you answered Not
Applicable for all the other policy
questions, and somehow this one is
answered, no. In other words, I believe it
means the goal to minimize loss of life
structural resources from flooding and
erosion, to the question of a hot tub of
where it is drained to, or how you deal
with that, if you have some way of draining
it properly to minimize, let's say flooding
and erosion or pollution to that nice
pound, wouldn't you be answering, yes,
April 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 80
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
somehow to that question?
MR. HEIDTMANN: It's quite possible
that I didn't read -- understand the
question. The grade is such that, any
water that does overflow the Jacuzzi, the
grade moves the water away from the pond.
It can not drain into the pond because
their is a slight berm. But at the rear
the property, there is a bubbler, that
of
what are you going to
tub
occasionally, even if it's
season. Where are you putting
think is the question?
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: I have one more
question here. I am looking at your
decking plan that was submitted with the
allows the water flow in the original
application before I build the house, it
feeds into there, because there is (In
Audible) and clay in the area. So the
water does not drain very well. Any water
that is accumulating in the center lot
crosses the property into a bubbler and
then to the sump.
MEMBER HORNING: Then to the question,
do to drain the hot
once a
the water, I
April 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 81
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
application. It doesn't really reflect
what exist there. For one thing, the hot
tub is not there, on the decking plan, and
I would imagine that you would need to
submit a plan to the Building Department
for a permit. So I would like to see a
plan that actually reflects what is there.
MR. HEIDTMANN: Sure, we can do that.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: The hot tub and I
guess the slab for the hot tub. You are
going
to need anyway.
MR. HEIDTMANN: Sure.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Most of this
reflects it but this area where the tub
Do you know what I am talking about?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: It's on the
survey, July 15th --
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: I see it on the
survey, but I want --
MR. HEIDTMANN: We can certainly
incorporate it on the building plans.
CHAIRPERSON
require it. Any
comments?
WEISMAN: They're
other questions or
MEMBER SCHNEIDER:
going
I'm done.
to
April 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 82
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
Hearing no
comments, I will
Ail right.
further questions or
make a motion to close
hearing
date.
and reserve decision to
the
a later
additions/alterations to
greenhouse structure and
trailers, at: 1)
existing
new office
less than the code
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Ail in favor?
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye.
MEMBER HORNING: Aye.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Aye.
(See Minutes for Resolution.)
HEARING #6541 - DE ART OF NATURE, LLC.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The next
application before the Board is for De Art
of Nature, LLC., #6541. Request for
variances from Article III Code Section
280-13A(2), based on an application for
building permit and the Building
Inspector's December 29, 2011 Notice of
Disapproval concerning proposed
April 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 83
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
required front yard setback of 60 feet, 2)
less than the code required minimum side
yard setback of 20 feet, 3) more than the
code permitted maximum lot coverage of 20%,
located at: 23423 Middle Road, Cutchogue.
MR. STRANG: Good morning, again.
Garrett Strang, architect for the De Art of
Nature.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay, we have,
Garrett, Suffolk County for local
determination, but we also have comments
from the Planning Board. Do you have a
copy of this?
MR. STRANG: No, I do not. I did not
receive those.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Then I will give
you those.
MR. STRANG: I actually have a
Planning Board hearing on Monday.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The comments are
-- well they come to us. They do this as a
courtesy, though we request applicant's to
review their file prior to the public
hearing to find out about additional
letters that may appear from different
April 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 84
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
agencies. In any way, to sum it up for the
public record, they are -- they indicate
that the application is supportive. They
support the process.
MR. STRANG: Okay. Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Please proceed.
MR. STRANG: As you are aware, the use
of the property is agriculture, but due to
the nature of the produce, it must be grown
on the grass. We have looked at many
alternatives rather than have to seek these
variances, but the specifics of the
mechanics of the operation, necessitates,
that there be a small addition on the all
four sides of the existing building. This
addition is primarily for the issue of
moving produce and trays around the
perimeter of the building, as well as
providing some protected shipping and
receiving areas. The side yard relief that
we're seeking from on the west side is for
15.8 foot at the south westerly corner.
The side yard however does increase to a
compliance 23.6 feet in the northwest
corner. The building actually becomes
April 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 85
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
compliant to a 20 foot setback at
approximately 130 feet back from that south
westerly corner. So that side of the
building's length in noncompliance but the
rest is complying. With respect to the
front yard setback, although appearing
substantial. It's a very unique situation
for this particular property. A couple of
years ago, the previous owners of the
property created by subdivision through the
Planning Board, two residential lots on the
north side of the property, which are both
owned by the Graebe's. And so it's a
family situation, but family and single
lots. In doing so, the Planning Board
required that there be a ten foot
right-of-way along the easterly side of
this property to access the middle lot.
Essentially the right-of-way is solely to
use for a driveway. In as much as the
northerly most lot, is a flag lot and does
have access to County Road 48. That can be
seen on the tax map. That northerly lot is
a flag lot, and the middle lot does have a
right-of-way, the big parcel that we're
April 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 86
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
talking about today. When the right-of-way
was required, I think, and this is an
opinion on my part, speculation, the fact
that there may have been a nonconforming
front yard setback to the existing
greenhouse building having been created. I
think that was either overlooked or that
was not part of the intention, as part of
that subdivision, had that been considered
the front yard, but nothing more than a
driveway, if you will, to access the middle
lot. If you were to consider that that
right-of-way was not intended to be a front
yard, but to be in fact a side yard, the
required setback would be 25 feet, and as
such, we would be looking at a relief of
13.4 feet, not 48.4 feet, the difference
between the required side yard and required
front yard. Now, with respect to the lot
coverage, we have looked at numerous ways
to address this as well. My client has
even made overtures to the neighboring
property owners to -- that abut his
property, if he can purchase some
additional property to help mitigate this
April 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 87
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
situation, but he was unable to work
something out with regards to that. So the
end result, is that what we have proposed
here is the absolute bear minimum that is
needed for this facility to function
properly. One thing that I would ask be
considered is that the immediate area of
the building -- excuse me, in the area of
the immediate structure itself, the
abutting neighboring properties itself are
agriculture uses. Some of which their
property have had been put into
preservation. To take advantage of
preservation situation. It is my opinion
that this proposed addition to the building
will not have any significant impact on the
building or will be noticeable in it's
location because of the consistency of the
(In Audible) that will remain. In closing,
I would also like to make the Board aware
of the fact that my client is making a
substantial commitment to agreeing, pardon
the pun, to installing solar energy
systems. Geo thermal systems, as well as
using recycled irrigation water, reclaimed
April 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 88
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1t
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
the site
the things
refers to,
pretty much where
I thank you for your
the
rain water. That is
we're at this point.
attention and consideration of
application.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Thank you,
Garrett. As you know, we have all been to
to inspect the property. One of
that the Planning Board comments
is the condition that the fire
district
access that
from the 25
finds that there is emergency
you are proposing to reduce
feet.
MR. STRANG: Correct.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: There is a
gravel area on the side of the building --
MR. STRANG: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Is the proposed
addition -- because you are actually
proposing
a perimeter addition?
MR. STRANG: That's correct.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Is that
go in that area or is that going
beyond that area?
MR. STRANG:
gravel driveway?
going to
to go
That is -- what the
April 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 89
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Not the gravel
driveway. Right up against the existing
side of the building, the east side of the
building, is an area that is gravel. It is
right next to the paved.
MR. STRANG: Okay.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: On top of that
is some platform.
MR. STRANG: Oh, I see what you're
saying.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Ail I want to
know is, and I was trying to eyeball this,
is that where the proposed addition is
going or is the proposed addition going
into the paved drive?
MR. STRANG: No, we're not going into
the paved drive, no. We're not.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay. That was
something that I wanted to confirm, based
on field inspection. Where are deliveries?
Where do they take place? Would it be
along that now ten foot wide access?
MR. STRANG: Well, that is a good
question, and I think at this point, what I
would like to do is introduce my client,
April 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 90
1
2
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Mr. Eddy Creces, who is the applicant, and
who is day-to-day hands on, on what goes on
there. I will introduce him, and I think
he will better answer those questions than
I.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Ail right. Can
you just please state and spell your name
for the record?
MR. CRECES: Eddy Creces, E-D-D-Y
C-R-E-C-E-S.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Thank you.
MR. CRECES: Good afternoon, ladies
and gentlemen, Board Members. I am the
managing director of De Art of Nature,
owner of the specific property that we're
discussing today. The operating company is
Koppert Cress USA, of course we have the
same owners, it was just a technical thing
that we created. Koppert Cress USA is to
produce herbs, micro vegetables and edible
flowers and also produce wheat grass at
that facility. I am have been trying to do
that in the most natural way as possible,
through our marketing company, Koppert
Cress. We strive to use natural resources
April 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 91
1
2
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
~8
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
in the most
responsible way as possible.
We do practice state agricultural. We use
recycled water. We don't use any
pesticides, nor herbicides. We recycle
water whatever we can. We collect rain
water. We're planning to put in a (In
Audible) system to generate electricity.
Actually sunshine is the most important
ingredient in farming. And that is why we
chose this location four years ago. As you
know, Cutchogue is the sunniest place in
New York State. That is why we're here.
Wheat grass juice that we produce is liquid
sunshine, which is really the building
blocks of selling a structure in human
beings and plants. So we're very proud of
what we do. This facility in Cutchogue was
constructed about 25 years ago. At the
time it was a very modern facility;
however, it has not been updated over the
years. The structure however, is very
durable. So what we would like to do at
this point, is bring the facility up to par
with 21st Century agriculture. We employ
about 20 people at the facility. We felt
April 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 92
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
the need to improve the work facility, the
work area, so that the people can
in a more better place. In order
that, you have the plans in front
what we're seeking the variances from
Town. Over the past few weeks, the
majority of our immediate neighbor's,
operate
to do
of you of
the
most
of them are in favor of this renovations.
Actually all of them area. In addition, I
would want to say that we're doing a
clean-up of the entire facility, and new
landscaping. To give a better curbside
appeal for the whole facility. And I can
answer any questions that you might have.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I just wanted to
follow-up that I had asked your architect,
is access along
deliveries done
I would imagine
front and back.
that way? Would
right-of-way?
MR. CRECES:
and that was one
that right-of-way, are
-- are trucks in that area?
that there is travel going
Do they have to stop along
they ever be blocking that
have had over the past couple
At this time, they would,
of the concerns that we
of years. We
April 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 93
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
came up with this plan, and we're going to
build a loading dock -- actually there is a
loading dock there already. We need to
build a building at that loading dock, so
that we could easily load and unload
trucks. You will see that on the south
side, which indicates a two-bay loading
area.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: So I see that,
but I don't see any particular driveway to
that loading dock. I see there is an
existing drywall here and two bays. That
says proposed office trailer, where is
that?
MR. CRECES: Right next to it.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay. Proposed
office trailer. That is an existing
loading ramp?
MR. CRECES: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: And you're
proposing something next to it, or no?
MR. STRANG: No.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Well, what my
concern is, especially with reducing the
width, that because there are residential
April 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 94
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
properties behind, even though the Planning
Board said a ten foot right-of-way is what
was necessary, that in and of itself might
not
be an issue, unless the
determines that -- you know,
equipment is a lot bigger than
concern is that vehicles would
that access. They would be
unloading, loading, parking
right-of-way. If this plan
and it can assure that that
will remain open
trucks will come onto the
back and forth of course.
parked in the right-of-way,
fire department
emergency
a car. My
be blocking
stopping,
along that
addresses that,
right-of-way
at all times and that
site, they can go
They will not be
I think we will
find a good balan'ce between the welfare of
the general community and the right's of
the property owner.
MR. CRECES: May I?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Please do.
MR. CRECES: The east facade, the
proposed addition will only have egress and
ingress for productions. There will be no
doors for (In Audible) or vehicles or
traffic. Only emergency exit for people.
April 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 95
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
That is all that is going to be on that
facade. So that was the whole purpose to
do the loading and the unloading in the
front of the building.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: What
traffic from vehicles, you know,
let's say, would be on the front,
along the side to the rear?
be
MR. CRECES: The only
doing that is the garage
possibly once in a while,
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
be pulling off the
general area?
MR. CRECES: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
understand what my concern
MR. CRECES: Absolutely.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
firefighter, tell us about
wide --
kind of
trucks,
going
one's that would
removal and
some supplies.
And they would
right-of-way into that
Okay. You
is?
You're a
this ten
foot
You can not access
MEMBER GOEHRINGER:
-- you know, I am a Mattituck Fire
Department Member, you can not access the
right-of-way with ten feet and the present
April 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 96
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
use, with the trucks that we have.
MEMBER HORNING: Doesn't the code
require 15 feet?
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Yes. The code
requires 15 feet.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: You're proposing
a ten foot.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The truck itself
measures -- they're just under 12 foot in
width. And more in particular, the larger
trucks. That is just my opinion. That is
part of the issue. My question to you,
sir, can you just give us a brief history,
or me a brief history, on the purpose of
creating this external floor around the
entire building that you're proposing, and
the additions there to? What is the
purpose of them?
MR. CRECES: The way that we grow our
products is on growing benches. Most
greenhouses are done that way. They
construct these modules and the benches fit
in these modules, or two or three benches
fit in a module. Depending on the module.
So we have that set up for that greenhouse.
April 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 97
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Then you need people to walk to these
areas, and you also need benches to go
somewhere to (In Audible so that is what
we're trying to create. A space for the
(In Audible) to travel, instead of in the
growing area. They're ready to harvest.
So we're trying to get all the other
traffic around the perimeter of the
building. Since we're living in New York
and have all this area, we have obviously
four seasons. So in the summer it becomes
too hot and the winter it becomes too cold.
Wind, rain, you know, the elements that we
have to deal with. So we're trying to
protect all of that, and the people that
obviously have to work in the facility and
not have to go outside. In addition, food
safety is a major concern in our food
supply these days, which I am sure everyone
is aware of. Our facility is currently (In
Audible) certified. Certification that is
more voluntary at this point, but it will
become law in the near future. We already
have it in place, but in order to comply
the rules, we will have to keep any
April 5, 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
possible contaminated products away from
the growing area of the food. That is
another reason why we would like to create
that corridor.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Why does that
corridor have to be so wide in the east
side of the property?
MR. CRECES: It's actually the
a bench, plus three feet in space, which
to accommodate a person walking next to
that. But the bench size is 11 feet.
size of
is
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Is there any way
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: That is why we
have public hearings for the specific
nature of the application. A ten foot wide
things. We plant seeds and they germinate.
So they follow a certain path. It has to
be a round about path, in other words.
That is why we're trying to create that
flow.
that that square footage can be realized by
enlarging the proposed addition on the
north or the south side?
MR. CRECES: Unfortunately, that is
not an option because of the flow of
April 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 99
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
right-of-way is fine. It's unobstructed.
It's for residential purposes. It's not
going to be obstructing. Nobody is going
to be parked there. People can come and go
from their residential property without the
inconvenience of having to wait for trucks.
The remaining concern that the Planning
Board raised in terms of site plan, and
what Mr. Goehringer has raised, is that the
code requires for emergency access a
minimum, 15 foot side yard. Now, you're
proposing a 15 foot side yard that expands
to a conforming side yard on the west side
of the property. So from an emergency
point of view, Gerry can you address that?
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Well, it's going
to be the Fire Chief's call.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: It's unpaved.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: When I am
referring to 11.6, I am referring to the
overall body of the vehicle. When I went
over to the site, I actually approached it
both ways. That I did approach it from the
west side, and I did notice that you had
more (In Audible). At the time that I was
April 5, 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
there, you had a machine working on that
side, grinding the property out. And I
certainly know Mr. Thompson, and he
mentioned to me that is what you were
doing.
MR. CRECES: Correct.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: When I went to the
east side, I found it extremely tight. So
say to you other then
reason why I am
I don't know what to
the fact that is the
talking about that
line of
MR. CRECES: We have
which is there. We have
obviously you don't want
berm, unless it would be
the roadway itself, it
feet area.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
asked about the gravel area
questioning.
already 14 feet,
that berm, but
to drive on that
an emergency. But
would be 15 to 16
That is why 0
because what
I
am looking at here, the site plan, and I
also looking at the plot plan, that shows
the flag lot, it looks as though what you
are doing is proposing 11.6 feet from the
10 foot right-of-way, and then there is the
10 foot right-of-way. Does that count?
April 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 101
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. CRECES: I am not --
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: There is two
different things that I am getting here.
That would make it 21 1/2 foot wide from
where the (In Audible) let's say, to the
proposed addition.
MR. STRANG: At the present time, from
the property line to the actual building is
24 and change, I believe.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Right, 25.2.
MR. STRANG: Right. I have to put my
glasses on. So once we come out the 13 1.2
feet with the addition, it will go down to
11.6, but there is also -- there is the
area adjacent, which is not part of our
property, part of Ms. Graebe's property
that is part of the traveled access to the
two lots. That is another 15 feet.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: It looks like it
is 10.
MR. STRANG: To the east.
MR. CRECES: Overall, we will have
26.2 feet.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Part is paved
and part is unpaved?
April 5, 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. CRECES: Correct.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
happen to know whether the
Well, do you
unpaved portion
(In Audible) residential property owner
the back, or are they traveling on the
paved --
MR. CRECES: They're traveling on the
paved area. That is on a slab.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: That is what I
thought. It might be a 10 foot
right-of-way, but it may not be a
functional access, is it?
MR. CRECES: Not at this point.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: That is what am
trying to get at. Is that a legal -- is
that property legally able to use your
asphalt driveway?
MR. CRECES: It is actually their
asphalt driveway. So we share that
driveway.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I think you can
determine what I am trying to accomplish,
which is to get an unobstructed access to
the property, while at the same time
getting 15 foot accessible area for
in
April 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 103
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
~7
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
emergency equipment, which of course it is
not only essential for the residential
properties in the back, but for your
property as well.
MR. CRECES: Sure. Ms. Graebe
actually came to me this morning with this
concern. I actually agreed, we have to pay
for widening that road of four feet. To
bring it into that berm and provide some
type of a retaining wall, so that that
driveway would become four feet wider.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: What length?
MR. CRECES: I would say the length of
the building.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Well, that would
certainly help the residential property.
It's not going to ultimately help more
access all the way back for emergency
equipment. That is apparently not the case
now.
MR. CRECES: All the way back there is
no buildings on the west side of the
driveway, so respectfully, not an issue.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: In particularly,
in a snowy situation, you have to follow
April 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 104
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
t3
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
the tracks --
MR. CRECES: There is a deer fence
about 10 foot high.
MR. STRANG: Once you are in front of
or behind the building with this addition,
you have plenty of room for traffic.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Does this
require Site Plan approval?
MR. STRANG: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I would have
thought so. So that is going to be
something that the Planning Board is also
going to address, but I think your
testimony shows us so far the cooperation
to create an accessible condition. The
safety, I think is, primary the concern for
your property and your neighbor's. I have
to go on record -- well, I don't have to,
but I would like to go on record and say
the product is wonderful.
MR. CRECES: Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The option for
us to purchase those wonderful organic
products. Who knew they were with such
amazing flavor.
April 5, 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
MR. CRECES: Well, you are always
welcome any time.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Let's see if
Board has any other comments? George or
Ken?
MEMBER HORNING: Yes, just briefly on
the character of the neighborhood, signage
for your facility, do you have any? I
didn't notice any signs along the road?
MR. CRECES: Yeah, we have a small
sign on the farm stand that is there. It
is setback from the road. That is all we
need. We're not a retail outlet. We're
wholesale, although we will operate the
farm stand during the season.
MEMBER HORNING: So you have some
retail operations going seasonally?
MR. CRECES: In the farm stand.
MEMBER HORNING: And I did notice a
rather large -- Peconic Greenhouses,
they're your adjacent neighbor?
MR. CRECES: Yes. Diana and her
husband, they operate the Peconic
Greenhouses. Used to be the greenhouse
that we operate right now. So he still
the
April 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 106
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
works for us and provides labor for us,
and that is why the sign is still up there.
MEMBER HORNING: He is. Peconic
Greenhouse was the same site?
MR. CRECES: That is correct.
MEMBER HORNING: Okay. Thank
MR. CRECES: You're welcome.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Ken?
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Would you
additional coverage area
governmental compliance
new requirements for --
requirement to have
enclosed because of
MR. CRECES: Food
MEMBER SCHNEIDER:
doing, you're enlarging
yOU .
say the
is necessary for
with some possible
you spoke to a
all
pollution or
safety.
So what
the
of your facilities
something?
you're
building to
apply
that
MR. CRECES: Yes.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER:
MR. CRECES:
food safety requirement?
MEMBER SCHNEIDER:
no further questions.
MEMBER HORNING:
another question?
A part of it?
That's correct.
Ail right.
I have
Leslie, can I ask
April 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 107
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Yes.
MEMBER HORNING: Yesterday, you had
these large storage trucks in this area,
that we talked about earlier, that had
compressors running. Are you going to
enclose those? That loading area, is that
going to be enclosed that these
compressorized trucks pull into those
areas? That has been a little bit of an
issue in some other locations with
neighbor's complaining of compressor trucks
running 24/7. Is this going to be an issue
on this property or are they going to be
going into an enclosed structure where the
noise would not be released into the
general neighborhood?
MR. CRECES: That is kind of a good
point, and the reason for our application
and expansion. One of those trailers is a
storage trailer that runs as a refrigerator
on diesel fuel. We're going to eliminate
that, as soon as we can get this expansion.
That trailer will be eliminated. It's a
pollutant, so I definitely want to get rid
of that, absolutely. I 100% agree with
April 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 108
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
that. We do not want to do anything that
is pollutant. I always want to avoid that.
That is why we're going with the solar
panels as well. So we can produce soft and
easy by the sun.
MEMBER HORNING: Again, sir, if you
eliminate one, I saw, I believe, two. So
are there
going to be trucks there with
running compressors any time of the day on
that property outside of an enclosed area?
MR. CRECES: They're definitely going
to be removed. The only time they will be
there is when they're delivering something
or picking something up. They have to
comply with the idling rules of New York
State on a stationary vehicles. I need an
active loading and unloading dock.
MEMBER HORNING: Okay.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Is there anyone
in the audience that would like to address
this Board? You need to come to the mic
and state your name.
MS. ?. GRAEBE: Phyllis Graebe, and I
own one of the property owners for Lot #1.
The only thing I am curious about is, this
April 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 109
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
map was produced when De Art of Nature
purchased Peconic Greenhouse. It shows a 25
foot right-of-way, and all I am hearing
today is 10 and 15. What happened to the
25 foot right-of-way that went with the
deal, that would be the best way to put it?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: If you look at
what the applicant is proposing, which is
this drawing, they're proposing an addition
on here.
MS. P. GRAEBE: I understand that.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Currently there
is a 25 foot space from when the existing
building is and they're proposing to add
more greenhouse space where they currently
have that gravel part now. And what that
will do, that will then become building.
So the 25 feet that you are seeing, you
can't ride on it --
MS. P. GRAEBE:
fence.
It's right on the deer
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: So that is what
we have been exploring. We have heard
testimony that the applicant is willing to,
at their own expense, for the entire length
April 5, 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
of that building, side of the building, to
go wide --
MS. P. GRAEBE: But --
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The paved
driveway that is still going to stay there.
They're proposing to widen it at their
expense with a retaining wall and grade it,
so that emergency -- personal cars, and
also that emergency vehicles can come in
and go to the back.
MS. P. GRAEBE: I wasn't understanding
myself. I didn't know where the 10 feet
was coming from.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: It's probably
not a two-way traffic situation.
MS. P. GRAEBE: Thank you.
MS. D. GRAEBE: Diane Graebe, I am
#2 on the blueprint. Just want to go on
record and in talking with them today in
regards to building and that retaining
wall, and you know, he is doing a great
Lot
job
with making all these vegetables and
everything is great, but we have always had
issues with the safety of driving up and
down the driveway, parking in the driveway.
April 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 111
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
The kids get off the bus in front of the
Route 48. My kids are in Elementary,
Junior High and High School. They go down
that road as well, but I just want to make
sure that when he does widen it with the
condition of the variance and adding that
drivable surface. I know you said you were
going to go there and reevaluate
everything?
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That is a
condition of a variance.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: When we make a
determination, we have an authority as an
appellate board to condition variances
based upon mitigating, what we call adverse
impact. That it's going to negatively
effect the health, safety and welfare of
any type of community. You can address
that with a variance but only if you do
such. So the issues of widening, which is
on the part of the applicant, that area,
the access road for emergency vehicles. So
they can have access to their property and
yours, is something that we can have the
choice of writing something specifically
April 5, 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
into the decision. And they don't get a
Certificate of Occupancy, until all
conditions are met.
MS. D. GRAEBE: Well, you know,
in agreement with what they're doing.
we're
we did talk in regards to building that
retaining wall, it's a big expense, but
just to have an 18 foot wide driveway, so
two cars can go by or a truck and a car,
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Good. You are
working things out in a nonconfrontational
matter makes things a lot easier. I found
it fascinating to explore why the nature of
growing these particular crops is seasonal
sunlight from different angles requires the
modules of the actual rolling cart.
Requires perimeter additions on all four
sides, which logically one would say to put
it on the front or the back to get the
square footage of what you need. Which is
why we need to understand the authenticity
of the particular needs as a grower. Who
knew.
MS. D. GRAEBE: So in talking with
Eddy and Tom Thompson today in doing that,
April 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 113
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
and then we get propane back there. The
garbage comes back there. So that would
just be it and we kind of agreed to it but
like I said, I just wanted it to be a
condition of the variance.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Would both of
you, and I am asking the applicant as well
as the attorney, be willing to sign a
letter of understanding about what the
applicant is proposing to do to address
safety issues with the right-of-way?
MS. D. GRAEBE: Absolutely.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Would you both
be willing to get that, to your
satisfaction, sign that and so we can
attach it to the file?
MR. STRANG: Well,
we still have to go
to the Planning Board.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: That is correct.
And that will probably be a very
significant part in your application, I
would imagine. Do you have an application
before the Planning Board?
MR. STRANG: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: That's right,
April 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 114
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
24
25
you just said it.
MR. STRANG: Monday is the hearing.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Is there anyone
else in the audience that would like to
address this application?
MR. CRECES: I would like to say one
more thing in regards to the lot coverage.
I recently attended a meeting about the
Southold Comprehensive Plan, and a number
of things were discussed there, which were
a lot of valid points. One of the issues
that was pertaining to this application is
that, suggest to increase lot coverage up
to 60% for greenhouses in Agricultural
District, in this Town. This may never
happen in my life time, but maybe end up in
the neighborhood of 40 to 50%. I just
wanted to make this comment.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: So you are
saying they are proposing to up the lot
coverage of agriculture properties in
Town?
the
MR. CRECES: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: 20% lot coverage
of that sort, is sort of reducing your
April 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 115
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
yield as to make it financially unfeasible.
MR. CRECES: I just wanted to
apologize to the Graebe Family for
obstructing the driveway. It was not done
intentionally, but we hope to remedy that
soon, so that we can live together happily.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Certainly I am
sure they appreciate it and this Board
does. Anything that can come to a mutually
satisfactory agreement is always good.
I am going to make a motion to close
this hearing subject to receipt of a letter
from the applicant and neighbor with regard
to the right-of-way.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Ail in favor?
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye.
MEMBER HORNING: Aye.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Aye.
(See Minutes for Resolution.)
HEARING #6549 - JUSTIN SWARTZ & JOANNA
WEINER
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The next
April 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 116
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
application before this Board is for Justin
Swartz and Joanna Weiner, #6549. Request
for variance from Article XXIII Section
280-124 and the Building Inspector's
December 20, 2011 Notice of Disapproval
based on an application for building permit
to construct additions/alterations and deck
addition to existing single family
dwelling: 1) less than the code required
minimum rear yard setback of 50 feet;
located at: 275 Back
Road #5 in Orient.
State your name
MS. THOMPSON:
Thompson, architect
Lane, a.k.a. Private
please, for the
Yes, Elizabeth
for the project.
Board?
green
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Do you have any
cards?
MS. THOMPSON: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Great. Do you
want the Suffolk County local determination
letter for your file? Please proceed?
MS. THOMPSON: This is a small
project. Very simple, to wrap a deck around
a front door entrance of the house to the
back deck. And actually pin that rear yard
April 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 117
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
up a little bit, by relocating an existing
shed to the far side of the garage. We
have this 50 foot setback. The house is
only about a 20 foot setback. The garage
is 1 foot setback, so I am certainly not
increasing any nonconformity, and in fact,
that is the very back of a long rear yard.
The adjacent party, so they're not affected
in any way. In fact, it opens up their
view a little bit by relocating the shed to
the north side of the garage to the south
side. We're trying to connect -- we have
bit of a roof, just trying to get a
connection from the house to the garage
a
with the deck underneath it. And that is
pretty much it. Any questions?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Elizabeth, I
think this is a consequence of attaching
the accessory garage to the dwelling, is
that why the Notice of Disapproval --
MS. THOMPSON: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
foot rear yard setback,
attached?
MS. THOMPSON: Yes.
Now becomes a 1
because it's
April 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 118
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
CHAIRPERSON
preexisting
structure?
be
that?
ask
them
WEISMAN:
nonconforming
MS. THOMPSON: Right.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
clear about that. Did
MEMBER HORNING: Yes.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER:
MEMBER SCHNEIDER:
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
some questions so that
into the record.
Rather then a
detached
I just wanted to
everyone get
Yes.
Yes.
Well, let's just
you can answer
Okay. You have a new 10 X 20 roof
dormer to the porch. The deck is 34 X 8.
Explain why the reason is that the deck is
needed along the side of the existing
detached garage? Is there a grade
situation?
MS. THOMPSON: It's a fairly level
grade. We're trying to connect the front
door around the back side and open up that
rear yard. It's not accessible. It's just
the chimney there. It's a very tight yard,
as you can see. The north side of the lot
April 5, 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
20
21
22
23
24
25
or the entry side
kind of driveway, trees and
and then it does rise up to
north. It's empty wooded,
approaches the sound.
to make a bit of a
yard that we have.
backyard, so that
trying to put a deck on
that's the water view.
which
of the house, it's all
boulders there,
the lot in the
rocky lot, as it
So we're just trying
use out of the limited
Basically open up the
it is more useful. And
the south side,
It's -- the grade
look over the road and
drops. So you can
see the farm stand, basically. We have a
new screened porch, which we're adding, and
is conforming.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: From the field
inspection, it certainly looks like the
relocation of the shed is certainly going
to make it a little more functional for the
applicant.
MS. THOMPSON: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
existing shed now? Is that
away?
Where is the
also a foot
right
MS. THOMPSON: Yes. It's actually
on the property line. I have a small
April 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 120
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
site plan that
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
shows the existing shed.
Is there a CO on
the shed?
MS. THOMPSON: The garage, yes. I am
not sure of the shed. It's just kind of
preexisting. I don't know. It doesn't
show
upon any of the Building Department
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Was it there
when the property owners bought --
MS. THOMPSON: Yes. They bought it
about two years ago.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Comments,
questions from the Board?
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No.
MEMBER HORNING: I just want to clear
up one little detail. The agriculture
statement that was recently submitted with
the file. Statement %7, Is the parcel
within an Ag District? You answered, yes.
Ag District %1. Statement %8. Is the
parcel actively farmed and you also
answered, yes, which I think is an error.
MS. THOMPSON: Well, in that it
lengthens the Ag lot.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: We didn't
April 5, 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
generate those forms
MS. THOMPSON:
MEMBER HORNING:
refers to.
MS. THOMPSON:
farmed, correct.
those
by the way.
You meant your own lot?
That is what it
It is not actively
MEMBER HORNING: Sometimes I catch
little details.
MS. THOMPSON: Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Actually, the
proposed additions and changes are not
going to have any impact at all on Back
Lane.
MS. THOMPSON: Correct.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I have no
further questions. Does anyone else have
any questions?
MEMBER HORNING: No.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Hearing no
further comments, I will make a motion to
close this hearing and reserve decision to
a late date.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Ail in favor?
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye.
April 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 122
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MEMBER HORNING: Aye.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Aye.
(See Minutes for Resolution.)
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I make a motion
to recess for lunch.
Is there a second?
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Ail in favor?
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye.
MEMBER HORNING: Aye.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Aye.
(Whereupon, a recess was taken at this
time.)
HEARING ~6554 - THOMAS & IRENE KALOGERAS
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The next
application is for Thomas and Irene
Kalogeras, %6554. Request for variance
from Article XXIII Section 280-124 and the
Building Inspector's February 15, 2012
Notice of Disapproval based on an
application for building permit to
April 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 123
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
construct alterations and "as built" deck
addition to existing single family
dwelling: 1) less than the code required
minimum side yard setback of 15 feet;
located at: 700 Sound Beach Drive, on Long
Island Sound in Mattituck.
MS. RIVERA: Good afternoon. Chris
Rivera, for Mr. And Mrs. Kalogeras.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay. We have
side yard setback of 10 feet, while the
code requires 15 feet, that was granted
previously by this Board, and two dormers,
that are added to existing garage.
Legalizing a small elevated wooden deck at
t0 feet. The garage is in the side yard
for the breezeway.
MS. RIVERA: That's correct. Back in
2000, when we built the garage, I was told
that we didn't need a ZBA approval, because
Mr. Bruno made me move it in. I was
originally 5 feet in and then 10. So when
we applied for the dormers up there, I was
told that I was noncompliant because it
needs to be 15. I didn't need a ZBA back
then. So when we wanted to put the dormers
April 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 124
1
2
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
up, we were told that we were noncompliant.
So Mr. And Mrs. Kalogeras have just moved
out recently. This is their permanent
residence now, and unfortunately with the
gable roof, you can't stand up in there or
store anything. Therefore, they're asking
that we put a 9 foot 7 inch dormer, so they
can accommodate storage up there. The
staircase was also back when we got the
final approval on the CO, that we have been
there to have access to that storage area.
There was no other way to build that, other
then the way it is, because it would have
been too steep going out one side.
Covering the breezeway entrance if we
brought it out. So basically pretty
simple, and the Building Department said we
can only dormer 40% of the roof, which we
have limited to. So basically that is
where we stand with that.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: We all know. We
have all done site inspections. So we have
all been there. There are -- on the plans
itself, doesn't show -- it should show the
first floor of the garage. We don't see --
April 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 125
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
No, there is --
WEISMAN: There
I only have plans for the first floor of
the garage. Assuming that there are no
interior steps.
MS. RIVERA:
CHAIRPERSON
on the outside?
is steps
MS. RIVERA: Correct. There is no
attic stairs on there at all. The garage
It was in a AE-13
changed -- I'm sorry
is built on pilings.
Zone and it has now
within a VE Zone and now it's an AE Zone.
It was built on pilings back then.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: And how is the
space currently being used?
MS. RIVERA: It's basically storage
right now.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Is there any
plumbing in there? Heat? Electric?
MS. RIVERA: No. Just downstairs they
have a (In Audible) tank. I am not sure.
I know they have a refrigerator and a
freezer in the garage. That's it.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay. There
might very well be some plumbing because
there is a shower underneath that deck.
April 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 126
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
is that
space?
MS.
in there,
think you
MS. RIVERA: Yeah. That is --
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The assumption
there is no existing habitable
RIVERA: No, they
except for in the
maybe have
you can stand up
CHAIRPERSON
plans right now to
space?
MS.
permanent
can't stand up
middle. I
about three feet that
in that place right now.
WEISMAN: Is there any
make that habitable
RIVERA: No, since this is their
residence, they're possibly
thinking about putting a second story on
the existing house right now. That is not
going to happen for a couple of years
maybe.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I just want to
clarify something. I don't want to run
into a situation where we may assume that
they are going to use it for one thing and
now they room and they decide
the refrigerator from
having
have head
that they can move
downstairs, upstairs and start
guests staying there.
April 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 127
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
If they do want to
they have to come before
MS. RIVERA:
eventually use it,
the ZBA.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: We have a whole
application packet that is online now.
They would need a Special Exception Permit.
MS. RIVERA: If they want to maybe
room or a
convert it to a
poker room --
CHAIRPERSON
space.
MS. RIVERA:
den or a pool
WEISMAN: No habitable
I understand. They don't
want to do a kitchen or make another room,
habitable space, they have to come before
the ZBA and they would be --
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: If they want to
make it into an artist workshop --
MS. RIVERA: Okay. I will let them
know that.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Please so. I
want to make sure that we actually
deliberate on what is before us.
MS. RIVERA: Okay.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Gerry,
questions?
April 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 128
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: So the dormers
that you are going to put on, as we speak?
That is what you're going to do?
road. I
are, but
away, who
kids also
quite a bit
to pull out
could.
MS. RIVERA: Yes.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: But that can
change based on this new information?
MS. RIVERA: I would imagine down the
don't know what their intentions
right now, their mother passed
also lived in Mattituck. The
live with them. So they have
of storage that they would like
and stick upstairs, if they
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: And the deck has
been there for some time?
MS. RIVERA: Yeah, the deck was
actually approved during the final walk
through. It was on the survey. It was
on
the CO when we got the garage.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: In other words,
the Building Inspector missed putting that
on the CO?
MS. RIVERA: I guess so.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: And that was Bruno
April 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 129
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
at the time?
MS. RIVERA: Yes, it was. And they
also had me go before the DEC at that time,
I was exempt from the DEC because I was out
of their jurisdiction, but I still had
gotten a DEC permit, which I really didn't
need at the time.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The garage has a
CO but the deck does not?
MS. RIVERA: Correct.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Thank you.
MS. RIVERA: You're welcome.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: George,
questions?
MEMBER HORNING: Board of Trustees?
MS. RIVERA: I was out of their
jurisdiction.
MEMBER HORNING: And when the Building
Department refers to the "as built" deck,
that is the section behind the garage with
stairs?
MS. RIVERA: Correct.
MEMBER HORNING: That's it?
MS. RIVERA: Yeah. It's kind of
insignificant. If you look at the plans,
April 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 130
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
the stairs go up and comes back in order
get to the storage area over there.
MEMBER HORNING: And that was built
after --
MS. RIVERA: No,
simultaneously.
MEMBER HORNING:
that was built
With the garage?
MS. RIVERA: With the garage, yes.
MEMBER HORNING: But without a
building permit.
MS. RIVERA: I know that it was built
with the garage and we got a CO for it.
They came for the final inspection. It
on the survey. Apparently it was missed.
I don't know what would have happened, but
it was still done simultaneously.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Just so
understands the information here,
the water was right up to the bulkhead.
Since then (In Audible) took out all of
to
was
everybody
in 1974
the
proposed inlet that was occurring on
Jamesport #1 and #2, actually across from
Uncle Bob's house on the Sound, which then
started to replenish all the sand coming
down. Now, they have been completed a
April 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 131
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
tremendous amount of beach area including
the Park District Beach, am I correct on
that?
MS. RIVERA: You are absolutely
correct, Mr. Goehringer.
MEMBER HORNING: But the Coastal
Hazard line didn't change?
MS. RIVERA: No.
MEMBER HORNING: Did it exist then?
MS. RIVERA: Not in 1974, I don't
believe. It hasn't changed since then,
although the DEC Zoning from DE-13 to AE-12
now because of the build up of the sand.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: So today it would
probably be built on a regular foundation?
MS. RIVERA: They would require slope
route vents there, as oppose to the pilings
that the garage is on now.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Ken?
MS. RIVERA: It's nice now.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Just to be clear to
me, the Notice of Disapproval, the proposed
alterations are the dormers and the "as
built" deck?
April 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 132
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MS. RIVERA: That is correct.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Okay. No further
questions.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: There is no one
else in the audience. Hearing no further
comments, I will make a motion to close the
hearing and reserve decision to a later
date.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Ail in favor?
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye.
MEMBER HORNING: Aye.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Aye.
(See Minutes for Resolution.)
HEARING #6552 PHILIP MARCO
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The. next
application before the Board is for Philip
Marco, #6552. Request for variance from
Article XXIII Section 280-124 and the
Building Inspector's February 13, 2012
Notice of Disapproval based on an
application for building permit for
"as built" deck addition to existing single
April 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 133
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
family dwelling: 1) less than the code
required minimum rear yard setback of 60
feet; located at: 4380 Indian Neck Road
Peconic.
state
MS. MOORE: Yes, good afternoon.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Please just
your name.
MS. MOORE: Oh, I'm sorry, Patricia
in
Holding's and that a large part of it was
sold to the Indian Neck Lane Holdings, LLC.
And what ultimately -- they tried with
different ways of approaching this. The
deck had been built in some time -- at the
time that there were renovations to the
house, and they were under the impression
that there plans had been amended to
include the deck and somehow the timing
Moore on behalf of Philip and Pat Marco.
They had planned on being here and then
they had something that was interference
with their schedule. They apologized, they
would have liked to be here. This -- you
already have it all written out. It's
pretty straight forward, in that this
property has once been part of the Marco
April 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 134
1
2
3
4
5
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
didn't work out. A portion of the deck
that encroaches on the rear yard setback
had not been included. So they were
actually -- they needed to replace their
deck, and they did some additional work
here on the property and that is when it
was discovered there was no CO on part of
the deck. So here they are trying to
clean-up, and that is why it was an "as
built" replacing/repairing the existing
deck. Some of the deck along the left side
where that bite is on the house, actually
has a C of O and the rest of it, that needs
a variance to complete the deck. If you
have gone out to the property, I am sure
you have, tucked in. The original house is
tucked in close to the rear property line.
There is a driveway but what is showing
still on the survey, is the stone roadway.
It's not a road anymore. Not an access
point. It has been access when the farm
was one piece of property. That is not
currently a road and hasn't been
revegetated. So the property on the side
yard has a side yard of 36.9 setback to the
April 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 135
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1t
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
closest point of the house, and the garage
-- excuse me, the deck is somewhat of an
angle, it's the closest point, it does
encroach on the rear yard. I would be
happy to answer any questions you might
have. It's pretty straightforward. There
are no neighbor's, other then Indian Neck
Holdings, and those are the horses. I
understand that Wayne Bruin -- he did speak
to me and sent me a copy of the letter that
he sent to the Board. So you have that. I
acknowledge that you do have that in your
file.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Ken, questions?
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Yes. Looking at
the CO from July 18, 2011, it says window
replacement, mudroom and deck addition.
MS. MOORE: Right.
is
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: The subject
that what is referred to here?
MS. MOORE: A portion of it.
deck,
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: A portion of it.
Can you give me a rough idea of how much?
Do you have any idea?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Small portion.
April 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 136
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MS. MOORE: Yeah. I think it's just
that portion where the cut out of the house
-- where the cutout is.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The step down?
MS. MOORE: Yes.
deck
believing
not.
MEMBER
that they
permit?
MS.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: So the subject wood
had existed?
MS. MOORE: Yes, it had existed,
that it was legal, but it was
SCHNEIDER: And they thought
could just replace it without a
MOORE: Exactly.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Or reconstruct
MS. MOORE:
just boards were
MEMBER SCHNEIDER:
happen over time. Okay,
It's the same exact
deteriorating.
Things like that
the backyard has
it?
deck,
nice horse farm there.
MS. MOORE: They did contact Indian
Neck Holdings and asked them if they might
be interested in a lot line change, to
avoid a variance and to meet the rear yard
setback, and they weren't interested.
a
April 5, 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
There was no other method, other then this
variance.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: We have a letter
from them. Do you have a copy of that?
MS. MOORE: Yes.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: No further
questions.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: George?
MEMBER HORNING: This was Holdings, is
that what you said before?
MS. MOORE: It was a separate piece of
property. It has always been a separate
piece, but it was always part of the
overall Marco Holdings. And so when they
sold the big house, they moved into this
little cottage there, that is their home.
Over time, they just needed to make it more
comfortable. It had been more of a
caretaker's house when they were in the big
house. Now it is their home.
MEMBER HORNING: And how did they get
the Notice of Disapproval? How did that
process work?
MS. MOORE: My understanding is, they
had gotten the building permit for some of
April 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 138
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
the renovations. The CO with respect to
the deck and window replacements, and at
the same time, we're not seeing this CO for
the deck, and after some months of trying
to look for it and an alternative for going
for a variance, it was finally decided to
go get the variance and move forward. So
that is how they ended up with a Notice of
Disapproval. The Building Department in
their research discovered that they didn't
have a C of O.
MEMBER HORNING: And can you put on
the site plan or survey, the exact area of
the conforming section? Is that possible?
MS. MOORE: You are talking about what
the house is 56.7. 60
yard setback. So it's
This is a portion that
portion is conforming, the 60 foot?
MEMBER HORNING: Yes.
MS. MOORE: Well, actually, the house
at its closest point is 56.7. So I believe
that the entire deck up to or very close to
the -- pardon me on this. If I can come
up. If you see this measurement here. To
is the required rear
right about here.
has the CO.
April 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 139
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MEMBER HORNING:
the exact portion
MS. MOORE:
MEMBER HORNING:
put it on scale?
MS. MOORE:
We
Right.
But
don't know what
couldn't
somebody
want to use a ruler?
(Stepped away from the microphone.)
MS. MOORE: I think part of the
problem is, when the house was placed on
the property, they tried to create the
privacy. You can see at the entrance, it's
an entry way with a big berm and
everything. It's a very private area. You
don't see this. And I drove by several
times. I said the house was here. I never
saw the ZBA poster that was there. For
some reason, I drove right passed it. It's
tucked in the back.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Gerry, any
questions?
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No. It's going to
remain open?
MS. MOORE: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay. Hearing
(In Audible.) So if you
April 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 140
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
no further comments or questions, I am
going to make amotion to close the hearing
and reserve decision to a later date.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Ail in favor?
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye.
MEMBER HORNING: Aye.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Aye.
(See Minutes for Resolution.)
HEARING #6553 - WILLIAM TONYES
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The next
application before the Board is for William
Tonyes, #6553. Request for variance from
Article III Section 280-15 and Article
XXIII Section 280-124 and the Building
Inspector's December 28, 2011 Notice of
Disapproval, based on an application for
building permit for an accessory garage at:
1) location other than the code required
rear yard, 2) lot coverage more than the
code permitted 20% maximum, located at: 75
8th Street corner of Front Street, a.k.a,
717 Front Street, Greenport.
April 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 141
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
name for the record,
State your
please?
MR. TONYES, JR.:
A. Tonyes, Jr.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Hi, thank you.
Let's just go over a couple of things. The
proposal is for a 480 square foot, 18 foot
high 20 X 20 accessory garage in a front
yard, where the code requires a rear yard.
My name is William
You have two front yards on your property.
That is the problem, and a 31% lot
coverage, where the code permits a maximum
of 20%. So tell us what you would like us
to know about this application?
MR. TONYES, JR.: Well, I would like
to build a nice garage there, to try and
kind of replicate a nice carriage house
more or less. And I wanted Charlie to
build it for me and make it kind of match
the house. To have the same look of the
house. I am not really done with the
scroll look of the house but I am working
on it. Chipping away at it. I want to
replicate the garage to the house. Use it
for, like an accessory storage. Put an
April 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 142
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
antique car. You know, stuff,
paraphernalia that I would like to put in
there. You know, maybe boat hardware and
other things. That's about it.
MR. THORP: The lot coverage --
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Charlie, you
have to state your name.
MR. THORP: Hi, I'm Charles Thorp,
contractor for Bill. The lot coverage here
on this survey shows 31%. I remember
somebody saying something about 32% they --
they would consider something under 32%
coverage because it's Greenport Village?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: No. The
Greenport Village has it's own Zoning Board
and it's own jurisdiction. You are in
Greenport and not Greenport Village. So
and all
that comes under
of Southold Code
maximum of 20%.
MR. THORP:
to mention that I
the Southold Town,
applies, which means a
Okay. I would also like
spoke to every homeowner
and nobody had any problems with anything.
We're missing two green receipts that they
received. And that's about it. We have to
April 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 143
1
2
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
get two more cards, or at least track it
down by the Postal service. Return that to
you and we will find out.
MR. TONYES, JR.: Ail the neighbor's
that I have spoken to have no problem of
building a garage there.
MR. THORP: Chris Markel in the back,
he is our spackler. He will be doing the
sheetrocking and spackle. Everybody
know also. It's a happy day.
we
You did a
beautiful job on renovating the house?
MR. THORP: Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Any intent
plumbing or heat?
MR. TONYES, JR.: No.
MR. THORP: Just electric, garage
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
CHAIRPERSON
door.
on
WEISMAN: Okay. The
proposal is three feet from the property
line, front yard, where there are other
accessory detached garages in the
neighborhood. We have driven around. We
also know the neighborhood. I doubt that
there is any as close to the sidewalk.
April 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 144
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. THORP: The house in the back is
somewhat in line with it, I believe, behind
the garage. So the south side. Right
across the street going west, that garage
is right on the line to that property. I
did work on their house years ago.
MEMBER HORNING: I think she is
talking about the front yard setback.
MR. THORP: Front yard setback.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: They are both
front yards.
MR. THORP:
That's right.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The Board is
required by
justified.
small lot.
coverage is 23%
according to your application. The shed
contributes to that lot coverage and it's
also located in a place that makes it
pretty difficult or impossible to move the
garage farther away from that front yard.
From 8th Street. If the shed were not
there or moved, two things would happen.
One, you would be able to move it back
law to grant the minimum
So we need to look. It's a
We know. Right now the lot
already over the 20%. It's
April 5, 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
farther for more privacy. Maybe put up a
few shrubs or something, and the other
thing is you would reduce the lot coverage
by getting rid of the shed.
MR. THORP: Bill mentioned he wanted
to get rid of the shed anyway.
MR. TONYES, JR.: There is a -- I
believe it's about 20 feet from that where
the garage would go, a cesspool so I wanted
to keep that as far as I could from that
cesspool.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Where is that
cesspool?
MR. TONYES, JR.: It's about 20 feet,
in the corner area.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Which corner is
that?
MR. THORP: The corner of
southeast corner.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay. Right
there.
MR. THORP: That is where
build
not
the
I would
it, but it has a cesspool there.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Of course it
showing on your survey.
is
April 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 146
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. TONYES, JR.: I would
mention that there was a garage
prior. I gave you a copy there.
before we bought the place.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Yes. We have a
a building permit, sorry, from a
also like to
there
You know,
Linda Bellinger, 2002.
accessory garage, that
That is where it was torn down.
MR. THORP: Right.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
like to know is, if you
how far over can you --
Demolition of an
was applied for.
What is the proposed lot coverage without
the shed? It's not going to be a huge
difference, because the shed isn't all that
big, but it does reduce it somewhat. It
does reduce the number of accessory
structures on the property. It's a little
bit more of backyard.
MR. TONYES, JR.: The shed is 10.2 X
8.3, so that would be two square feet.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: We are looking
at what is on your survey. The shed is
listed as 84.7 square feet.
What I would
remove the shed,
two questions then.
April 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 147
1
2
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
tt
12
t3
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. TONYES, JR.: Okay.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: You have to
subtract that. That would give you the
square footage. We have to try and figure
out what percentage that.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: 1% of lot coverage
is almost 62 square feet. It's not a lot
of coverage.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: So you are only
going to reduce it by 1 point something,
but it will bring it down from proposed,
to let's say 30% or 29.5%.
MR. TONYES, JR.: Excuse me. You
31
know, I wanted to leave a little grass for
the children when they come home.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Sure.
MR. TONYES, JR.: I mean, if I have to
move it over and you will give me the okay,
then it's no choice then really.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Well, we need to
know where the cesspool is in order to
determine how you can move the garage,
without getting in trouble.
MR. TONYES, JR.: Aren't we supposed
to stay within 15 feet of any cesspool?
April 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 148
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
don't know about an
know about a house.
MR. TONYES,
CHAIRPERSON
10 feet. So if we
the cesspool is.
MR. THORP: We have
about
where
10 feet. I
accessory structure.
JR.: It is a foundation.
WEISMAN: I would say
could figure out
49 feet to that
line. 26 feet to the center where the
cesspool is 13 feet from the garage. So
the cesspool is to say 8 feet wide. Right
on 10 feet.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Well, if you say
it's 13, then we can go another 3.
MR. THORP: Well, to the center of
cesspool. So it might be right there,
I
the
within 6 inches.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Well, you know
what is interesting, according to the
survey, this PVC fence that you have up
there is not on your property.
MR. TONYES, JR.: When Linda sold the
house to me, she had that moved. She had
that moved and she had that taken down too.
It was too high or something. We needed to
April 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 149
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
do
THORP: Well, we had a surveyor
that. I believe, to close.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The one that is
along the rear, that is like on or
straddling. Look at your survey. And the
one that is along 8th Street, is along the
shoulder.
MR.
stake off the four corners of the garage
for us. We can actually move the fence.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Well, I think
the fence should be put on your property.
MR. THORP: That was moved.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: That PVC fence
is no longer there? What is the date of
the survey?
MR. TONYES, JR.: No, it's still
there. I believe at the closing, Linda
told me she had to move it to sell the
house.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: On your
property?
MR. TONYES, JR.: Yes. She told me
that.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: When did you
it?
buy
April 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 150
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. TONYES, JR.: Approximately two
years ago.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
the date of the survey.
MEMBER GOEBRINGER:
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
Let me look at
July 30, 2009.
This says
December 7, 2011 proposed garage. Whoever
did this survey is probably just added the
garage without resurveyed.
MR. TONYES, JR.: He was at the
property measuring. He was there.
MR. THORP: He surveyed the property.
where he
your
feet
property
MR.
fence --
MR.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: So you believe
drew this fence is correct?
MR. TONYES, JR.: I believe so.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Then it's not on
property.
MR. TONYES, JR.: The stakes are three
from that fence and the fence is --
MR. THORP: Three feet from the
line.
TONYES, JR.: Right. And the
The fence could be moved.
If you guys need
THORP:
That
is not a problem.
April 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 151
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
that moved, I will move the fence. We
wanted to put some type of arborvitae's
there to make it look nice anyway. Some
kind of hedges to grow up and make it look
nice.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: So you have no
problem with removing the shed?
MR. TONYES, JR.: No, I was planning
on moving it.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: No, removing it.
MR. TONYES, JR.: Removing it from the
property. Somebody had told me already
that would have to go. I already had it to
be taken off the property.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay.
MR. THORP: It would be the first
thing that we're taking out of there.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Ail right. So
let's assume that you have to move that
fence and put it on your property. You
have three feet that is proposed between
the property line and the fence. The
is going to take up at least a foot.
know what I am saying?
MR. THORP: Uh-huh.
fence
You
April 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 152
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
know
that
up --
words,
that
want.
front
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: So I want to
how far back you think you can move
garage from 8th Street without messing
you can move it up forward. In other
you can reposition it to increase
setback. You can do it anyway you
It's going to be in a
I don't care.
yard anyway.
MR. THORP: So we have to get you
another survey showing that we moved it a
foot over and foot forward?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I want to see
the fence proposed on your property and the
farthest possible setback from 8th Street
that you can create for the location of the
garage and the removal
MR. TONYES, JR.:
MR. THORP: Okay.
of the shed,
Okay.
gone.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: And we're going
to have to make sure that the surveyor puts
down what the proposed increased setback is
on the survey. It wouldn't be a bad idea
to have them locate the septic system as
well.
MR. THORP: I think I had that
April 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 153
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
originally drawn from an older survey.
MR. TONYES, JR.: Also with the shed,
I have a lot of things in the shed that I
just can't do anything with until I get the
garage built.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: That's okay. If
you put down --
MR. TONYES, JR.: I will get rid of
that as soon as we can get the CO on the
garage.
can
able
met,
and you
garage.
showing
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: That's okay. It
be done as a condition.
MR. TONYES, JR.: Okay.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: So you won't be
to get the CO until the condition is
but by then, the building can be built
can put your stuff in there, in the
We have an old survey from 1975
the old garage in the corner. That
is not showing a septic. I thought maybe
it would be on an old survey.
MEMBER HORNING: Just a couple of
questions, sir. You have property footage
on two streets, Front Street and 8th
Street; correct?
April 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 154
1
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. TONYES, JR.: Correct.
MEMBER HORNING: So then do you have
any designated rear yard area on the
property?
MR. TONYES, JR.: That corner where
the shed is basically.
MEMBER HORNING: You know, we work
with the differences between front yard and
rear yards and side yards, so we know you
have a lot of front yard. Do you even have
a rear yard? Is it tucked --
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: He has none.
MEMBER HORNING: That's what I wanted
to know.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: It's only a side
yard. Because you have front yards, you
see what's the back of your house,
architecturally, because that house also
has frontage along street, it doesn't
matter where your front or your back door
is. That area is considered a side yard
because the side of your house fronts on
the street.
MR. TONYES, JR.: I understand.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: So that is a
April 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 155
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
side yard. You do not have a conforming
place for this garage, anywhere on your
property. So you have no alternative but
to get a variance for the location of the
garage.
MEMBER HORNING: So if you had a rear
yard, then we might be inquiring as to why
you didn't have it in your rear yard.
MR. TONYES, JR.: I understand.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: You have two
front yards and one side yard -- two side
yards. Okay. Let's do this. We can do
one or two things. I would like you to go
ahead and get this survey amended. So we
have the septic system there. So the fence
is on your property. You can show the
removal of the shed and recalculate the lot
coverage. A surveyor will do that for you.
You don't have to remove the shed; however,
until the garage is built. And then we
will know exactly how far according to code
you can shift the garage from 8th Street
over towards that corner without being too
close to your septic. And that would be
the maximum setback you can accomplish
April 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 156
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
without changing where your septic is. We
have to have that information from a
licensed surveyor. So what we can do is
get that information from you, as soon as
we can possibly can, and we have two
options. We can either close the hearing
today subject to receipt of that
information, and then proceed to
deliberate. We have 62 days after we get
that information, the clock starts on when
we have to decide. We will try and decide
it as soon as we can, but we meet twice a
month. So it just depends. From today, we
meet two weeks from today. A month from
today will be another public hearing. The
other option will be to adjourn this to
May, in case when you submit that stuff,
which will be before the May hearing, the
Board has questions. Because if the
hearing stays open we can talk to each
other again a second time, and then
conclude and go ahead and deliberate. I am
just going to poll the Board and see what
they think will be the best way we should
do this. You have to get us the
April 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 157
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
information one way or the other.
MR. TONYES, JR.: Does the Board --
have spent quite a bit of money on this
situation, and I have spent part of this
money on the house already. And if the
Board doesn't realty think that they're
going to approve this, I really don't want
to spend any more money on this project,
you know? I am going to move onto
I
something else that maybe the Board will
approve.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Well, I can't
second guess -- we're a democratic
organization. And we have actually five
votes, Member Dinizio was actually unable
to be here today.
MR. TONYES, JR.: Okay.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: And you know,
majority votes. I will say for myself, if
you can reduce the lot coverage and you can
build a one car garage rather then a two
car garage, that would then give you some
garage, and it would mean even less lot
coverage.
MR. TONYES, JR.: I would like to
April 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 158
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
build the size that -
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: you are
proposing size. The
problem is you don't have
a big lot.
MR. TONYES, Right.
What
is not an unreasonable
the location and
JR.:
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: You have a nice
size house on it.
MR. TONYES, JR.: I can go to the
Building Department right after this
meeting
and find out the distance from the
cesspool. I will have Doug Morris come
down and dig it up and actually look
inside, so we actually know what it is.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The surveyor
will have to put it on your survey.
MR. TONYES, JR.: Right.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: And have the
surveyor amend it to show what the lot
coverage is with the shed gone. The fence
on your property and what the new setback
is going to be based on the septic. My
question to the Board is, do you want to
adjourn just in case we have questions or
do you think we have covered enough
April 5, 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
testimony in this hearing, and all we need
is an amended survey? What is your
opinion? Do you want to adjourn or close
subject to receipt?
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: I would say subject
to receipt right now. I don't know what
else -- the only thing pertinent to me
would be where the septic system is. As
far as lot coverage goes, the option by
them reducing the shed, reduces it a little
more than 1% and whether this Board is
willing to grant such a large garage.
Since the garage itself comprises of almost
8%, which is quite a lot in the big scheme
of things.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Well, that is the
whole issue. We should really leave it
open until such time we see where it's
going to be.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Okay. So adjourn
it?
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Yes.
MEMBER HORNING: I concur with leaving
it open. The other thing that would be
helpful for us to understand, how many
April 5, 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
20
21
22
23
24
25
garages are in the front yard within the
neighborhood.
MR. TONYES, JR.: They are all there.
There is -- one guy can't even pull his --
MEMBER HORNING: So you can provide us
with such a breakdown, such as maps like
this with some parcels laid out and you can
identify the places with garages in the
front yard.
MR. TONYES, JR.: Right.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Bear in mind, if
other properties are not corner lots --
MR. TONYES, JR.: They are all corner
lots.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The one slightly
diagonal across the street, that is in a
side yard. That's not --
MR. TONYES, JR. : It has a front yard
too. He is on a corner as well.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Down a little.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I just want to
tell you that we deal with this all the
time. Ail the way up to Brown Street. Ail
the way around. Everything is exactly the
same. When you get by 6th, the lots are
April 5, 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
even smaller. This is something that we go
through all the time. So we will do our
darnest best to assist you.
MR. TONYES, JR.: Thank you.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: We just want to
keep it open just in case we have any other
questions, so we can assist you.
MR. TONYES, JR.: I understand. I
understand you have to understand what is
fully going on. Okay. What I can do is go
to the Tax Assessor's Office and get tax
numbers.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The reason
being, if you look in your application
packet. For people who are really not
experienced --
MR. THORP: It was my first time doing
it.
reasons,
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Well, it said
the Board operates under the basis
of six State statutes, called a balancing
test. Which looks at whether the benefits
for the applicant is outweighed by any
particular detriment to the community. The
first of those statues talks about
April 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 162
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
character of the neighborhood. What you
are proposing will not adversey affect
negatively the character of the
neighborhood because, okay. You can say it
does not because these lots are all small
lots. They all have exceeded lot coverage.
They all have accessory garages in front
yards, or not all, but a percentage or a
number of them or whatever. That
strengthens, that helps your argument.
What I am proposing is keeping within the
neighborhood because that is what's going
on. Do you follow what I am getting at?
MR. TONYES, JR.: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The other one is
that you have no choice. The other one is
environmental impact. Gutters and leaders.
The other one has to do with the minimal
Increase the setbacks. This is the best
that you can do so that we can grant you a
garage. So we just don't decide off the
top of our head.
MR. TONYES, JR.: I understand that.
variance necessary, which is what we're
exploring here. Get the lot coverage done.
April 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 163
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
Horning was suggesting is that
strengthen your application by
So what Member
you
providing us
with more
always on
MR.
information.
the applicant
TONYES, JR.:
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
help, that can be for the
neighborhood.
MR. TONYES,
The burden is
to make the case.
Pictures?
Pictures will
character of the
JR.: Okay.
of
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: So based on all
that, I am going to make a motion to
adjourn this hearing to May 3rd at
2:00 o'clock.
Is there a second?
MEMBER GOEHRINGER:
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
MEMBER GOEHRINGER:
MEMBER HORNING: Aye.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Aye.
Second.
Ail in favor?
Aye.
(See Minutes for Resolution.)
HEARING #6550 - KIMOGENOR POINT, INC.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Kimogenor Point,
April 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 164
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
is the next application before us. #6550.
Request for variances from Article XXIII
Code Section 280-123 and Article XXII
Section 280-116 and the Building
Inspector's January 19, 2012 Notice of
Disapproval based on an application for
building permit for demolition and
construction of a new single family
dwelling at; 1) a nonconforming building
containing a nonconforming use shall not
be
enlarged, reconstructed, structurally
altered or moved, unless such building is
changed to a conforming use, and 2) less
than the code required bulkhead setback of
75 feet, located at: 50 Jackson Street in
New Suffolk.
State your name, please.
MR. SAMUELS: My name is Tom Samuels.
I am the architect for Jackie and Dan
Bingham, on behalf of Kimogenor Point
Incorporation. And we are just hear to
answer questions. I can make a presentation
if it would be helpful. It is somewhat self
explanatory. This is the second replacement
house that we have done for Kimogenor
April 5, 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
Point, which is a Co-Op, for by definition,
nonconforming single family single lot in
Southold. The site is configured in such a
way that the
extremely tight.
reconstruct this
bulkhead of the waterfront
We're trying to
house mostly in the
is
footprint. We have a proposed modest
expansion to that footprint. And I am hear
to answer any questions.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Before we get
started, do you have a copy of he LWRP
memorandum showing consistency? If you do
not, I will give you copies.
MR. SAMUELS: I do not.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: This is a
demolition of a seasonal dwelling, and to
construct a new single family dwelling. We
understand the nature of the nonconformity,
the fact that we have multiple dwellings
that is one residential lot. And a
consequence, even though it is a
residential lot, with a residential use,
it's considered nonconforming. The second,
is the bulkhead setback is 57.4 feet, where
the code requires 75 feet. The reason that
April 5, 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
21
22
23
24
25
this becomes difficult is because of the
demolition. Well, more difficult, if this
were additions and alterations, the
preexisting nonconforming status would
remain intact, but because a demolition is
proposed, we have a whole other board game.
The only tool we have available to us to,
we're discovering, to address this issue,
even though it is not technically, standard
use variance. The criteria as you know for
a use variance is very different then from
an area variance and it has to do with
economic hardship and so on, which is not
part of the standard for area variance.
The only way we can establish the
reestablishment and nonconformity is by
granting a use variance to reestablish it.
So that gets to be a lot more cumbersome.
So I suspect the first question, why a
demolition and not additions and
alterations?
MR. SAMUELS: In the project that we
did two houses down, the name was Archer,
we did that about five years ago, that was
the course that we took, renovations and
April 5, 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
20
21
22
23
24
25
additions. In doing that, that process
that we actually -- there was no
foundation, we lifted the existing house,
build a foundation and put it down and do a
large assessment on the house. We kept the
floor structure and not much of, in order
to end up -- and build almost exactly the
way it had been but it was built with
2 x 4's. So when it came around to us this
time, we said why we're playing sort of
charades and unless there is a good legal
reason to do so, it seems more appropriate
just to tell you, no this is really what we
want to do, is reconstruct this house
because it is so inefficient. There is
some masonry foundation now but it just
seems like the more honest thing to do is
just say exactly what we really have in
mind. That presents an (In Audible) legal
obstacle then we can certainly revise and
go back to that as an alternative approach
here.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Well, as you
know, a use variance is pretty difficult to
obtain but normally that is because it's a
April 5, 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
use not permitted in the zoned district.
So that becomes a rather different set of
concerns. We have a previous ZBA decision
for Unit #9, is that the one you were
referring to, March 2005?
MR. SAMUELS: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: That was
considered a second floor addition and a
renovated first floor and 70 feet from the
bulkhead, but was not considered
technically a demolition. The proposal
here is also to consider the expand the
nonconformity. You are not building within
the same footprint. You have now a
one-story --
MR. SAMUELS: No, two-story.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: It is. It's
1899 square feet, two-story seasonal
dwelling.
MR. SAMUELS: Right.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: With 664 square
foot covered open porch, and you're
proposing a 2,555 square foot conditioned
two-story framed resident. It's not a
seasonal dwelling anymore. It's a year
April 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 169
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
round residence without a basement, and 866
square foot covered open porch. That will
then meet code for
damage areas and so on.
to turn this over to the
touched upon the issues,
to Gerry.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I think the
question is, can you renovate this house?
MR. SAMUELS: We certainly can. By
all means, of course. I think there is a
lot of frustration in the Town nowadays as
to what constitutes a demolition. In other
words how much -- there has been this kind
of unofficial standard out there that you
floods, hurricanes,
Okay. I am going
Board. I think we
let's turn it over
need to leave a few pieces of wood and it's
a renovation. I mean, I understand that,
and maybe we have even done it on occasion.
I don't think it's the appropriate way
build a house, but we could do it. We
could take that floor plan --
to
basically
it's the first floor plan and then there is
a section of interior space with a tiny
little space on the other side. Whether we
get that or not, I don't know. That is the
April 5, 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
porch. Physically we can do it. It would
mean, you know, heroic means, unless we
have to do that for technical reasons
because of the nature of a use variance, I
wouldn't do it for any other reason then
that.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The reason why I
ask that question, anything that I say is
not meant to be smart. You guys are a
tremendous, tremendous architect. I made
statement to a person on the Sound side
down by the Boas (phenetic) Restaurant, I
said, how do you put pilings underneath it?
You take the roof off and drive pilings
through the -- you know, and he said, no,
not necessarily. So I mean, are the
pilings intact enough to do something like
this?
MR. SAMUELS: They're not pilings.
It's a mixture of locust post and masonry
piers that were built a few years ago. So
what we did on the other instance, was not
pilings. We're not sure here, you know,
that it will necessarily be piles.
Because, we're not -- I don't believe that
a
April 5, 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
we're required by the zone to put this on a
pile foundation. So we're not sure whether
it would be on piles or not. We literally
had to lift it and wonder if those were
underneath and clear out, and pour a
foundation. It can be done. It's not --
the floors now are all uneven. It's
2 x 6's. So does that make sense to say --
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I totally
understand what you're saying and I respect
the integrity and honesty that you bring to
the Board. But I know that you are
experienced enough with this Board, and the
code, to understand the problematic nature
of what we have jurisdiction to do and --
MR. SAMUELS: Right.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: And we always
conjure yourself when we make the
determination, the existing bulkhead
setback 50.3 and you're proposing 57.4.
That is an expansion of the footprint. Not
by much, but by some amount.
MR. SAMUELS: Right.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: There are other
properties in Southold Town that are --
April 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 172
1
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 they're not common, but there are
other properties that have the same sort of
situation, where it's cooperatively owned
piece of land with dwellings on it. And we
have to be aware of the tendencies because
the properties are valuable, for people who
want to take a seasonal dwelling down and
build really large year round houses. The
property warrants such a thing. It changes
the historic character and also the degree
of nonconformity. You know the Town does
and tried very hard to eliminate
nonconformities other then to expand them.
And if you are going to tare it down, why
not at least maintain the same bulkhead
setback. You can create conformity.
MR. SAMUELS: Well, we have been
trying to maintain the front line. The
water side, the bay side, all is aligned.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Yes.
MR. SAMUELS: Technically, it should
be able to move closer to the Bay,
obviously we would need a Trustees permit
for that, but to expand it at all and if
you still have the little house that is
April 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 173
1
2
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
there, yes, it is charming. It was never
modified. Most of the other houses have
been modified and added to. This is pretty
much the same as it was. They added one
little bathroom to where the porch is,
otherwise it stayed the same. It's very,
very small, for a house that was probably
purchased for like $2,500,000.00. Not that
-- I am not making -- well, we're making a
case for part of a use variance, but there
really isn't too much place to go to
expanding it in any fashion. They would
like to try and make it a little more
proper house. Now, you would have to walk
through this house to realize. You walk
through the kitchen and there is a hot
water heater there. There is no entry
hall. It's just a very awkward house.
This is a modest expansion that definitely
makes sense.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: What would be
involved if the house came down and you
built within the existing footprint?
MR. SAMUELS: Exactly within the
existing footprint?
April 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 174
1
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: Yes. No
expansion of the footprint. Same bulkhead
setback. Same front yard setback, well,
there really isn't a front yard.
MR. SAMUELS: Right. There is no
front yard.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The only setback
that we can really discuss is the bulkhead.
MR. SAMUELS: My client would see it
as a tremendous hardship because they're
trying to make a proper size -- I don't
want to say a proper size bedroom. You can
see from the plan, they're still tiny
bedrooms. It's an existing five bedroom
house, believe it or not, and that tiny
bedroom is 6 foot wide, 9 feet long. We're
trying to at least get a 10 X 12~ They
would do that I am sure. I mean, I would
have to speak with them. I am sure they
would see that as kind of an owner
condition.
have
use
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Well, shall we
you proceed to talk to us about the
variance standards then?
MR. SAMUELS: Sure.
April 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 175
1
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: If you need to
address economic hardship, you need to
prove of course for every permitted use of
that property, which is really nothing.
MR. SAMUELS: Well, one family.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Well, the only
thing that you could do is to establish
another residential use.
MR. SAMUELS: It's a shame that when
the Town went through the master plan, that
they didn't give these kinds of sites
recreational -- there were some other zones
discussed for multi-family, I think, and it
never happened. Well at least not here,
but as far as use of concerns, six houses
on one lot, plus a club house that exist.
To recreate it, I understand what you're
saying. How shall I address this?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: In your
application, you have a page that says use
variance, and there are standards there.
There are four strict tests, all of which
need to be met. The Board has no wiggle
room. We can not grant alterative relief
to a use variance. I mean, conditions,
April 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 176
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
yes, but not alternatives. So you need to
tell us about those four standards. Does
everyone have a copy of that? If you would
like, we can show you? It's in the packet.
Tom did fill it out. So let's take a look
at it and see what you filled out. I am
certain you might want to amplify it a
little or even consult with an attorney in
this case. It's entirely up to you.
MR. SAMUELS: If we get to that.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Here we go.
Part B, Reasons for Use Variance.
MR. SAMUELS: You know what Leslie, I
don't think --
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: You want a copy
of your own application?
MR. SAMUELS: For some reason it
didn't make it into my file.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: We have a two
page typed up addendum.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Tom, you think
this is the house that has been located
there since 1915 and hasn't been much done
to it?
MR. SAMUELS: No, hasn't been much
April 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 177
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
done. I have some old photographs. I
mean, it may have had a little more beach
then. Ail of those houses are at least
started then, and I don't think any of them
have been completely replaced.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I think that iow
water in the front actually helped those
properties.
MEMBER HORNING: I believe you
submitted an aerial photo of the point
there?
MR. SAMUELS: Yeah.
MEMBER HORNING: And then you put the
house numbers and then there was a prior
variance in 2005, and that was -- you said
it was two houses down. I presume that was
%9, Archer?
MR. SAMUELS: Yes.
MEMBER HORNING: This one is #7?
MR. SAMUELS: Correct.
MEMBER HORNING: And I saw in another
location that there was a questionnaire
with the ZBA filing, "are there any
proposes to change or altar the land
contours and you said, yes. And you had a
April 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 178
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
comment,
you have
Describe
contour?
MR.
sanitary
minimally contour changes. Now
a 5'6" foot elevation there.
what a minimal change of the
SAMUELS: Yeah. It's for
system, which of course has
meet Health Department and the DEC.
to have a DEC permit for it. It's
in that area between House %7 and
at the drawing to the right of it
the
to
Need
really
looking
and to
put a sanitary system into there that meets
the standard. We have to take a contour
line that now is contour %5 and run through
there and take it up to %6. So it's
probably a little more than a foot. Maybe
like 18 inches to get the height that we
need to put a sanitary system in. So
minimally meaning, you know when you dig
the hole and you put these rings in it, and
probably we put the same amount of dirt
back. Probably not adding fill. Putting
the rings into the ground and covering them
back up again.
MEMBER HORNING: Okay.
MR. SAMUELS: We're still talking to
April 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 179
1
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 Health Department and they may want us
to put a little -- waterproof retaining
wall on one side in order to maintain their
regulations, the slope of the grade on the
top surface.
MEMBER HORNING: Right. I probably
missed it, but I know you mentioned the
application was locust post pilings in the
ground.
MR. SAMUELS: And some masonry repair.
MEMBER HORNING: And what are you
proposing in terms of a new foundation?
MR. SAMUELS: I think we're talking
about a masonry foundation probably. It's
-- unless we were required to go to a
piling foundation, I don't think we would
probably do that. It's awkward in some --
but pilings are an option, if there is some
sort of a condition that warrants it.
MEMBER HORNING: Gerry mentioned about
storm conditions. Do you think that you
would be required to allow water to go --
flow through underneath the house, do you
think that will be one of your
requirements?
April 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 180
1
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. SAMUELS: Because it's in a flood
zone, we can not have a slab. So yes,
water will have to flow through. It's an
AE-6 Zone, so we have to maintain that
minimum flood elevation of 8. Now, the
house is -- I am not sure exactly, but it
is probably now around 6. So we would need
to lift it no matter what. And figure out
-- like I said, you lift the whole thing up
and build a foundation under it and put it
back down and then go through this process
of reconstruction/renovation or whatever.
It's to be called. It's a lot more
difficult then just starting from scratch
and reconstructing a house. But I
understand the reason why we're talking
about it and it doesn't have to do with the
practicality of the nature of a use
variances and restrictions that you guys
are facing as well.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Let me ask you a
couple of questions. In order to verify
economic hardship, primarily the most
difficult to prove but also most compelling
evidence in granting a use variance. We
April 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 181
1
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 to have some sort of financial
substantiation. Do you have any kind of
recent appraisal on the property as it is?
MR. SAMUELS: No, I don't.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Is there a
mortgage of some sort? We need to have
something that addresses it's current
value, the value of the property, the value
of the other houses around it. Do you
follow what I am getting at?
MR. SAMUELS: Yeah. I mean, from what
it was purchased for, I can point that out
very easily. If you want me to find out
what it's value was on the market place, I
am not sure if that is what you are asking.
When we get into the 50% rule with the
Town, they usually looking for a market
value of a structure, which is very -- I
mean, you can have an appraiser do that.
You can have this structure without that
property, find out what it's worth, the
amount of money?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Yes. I mean, I
don't want to suggest that you put your
client through a whole bunch of additional
April 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 182
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
costs, but we have to have -- the law
requires us to have substantiation of
economic hardship. We all may know that
the property is worth a lot of money, but
we have to have something in writing
indicating the necessity for a demolition
rather to the value of the property and the
current value of the structure.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Which makes it
really worse, because it's just the posts
that stands underneath the house.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: What they
essentially have in the way of ownership is
a footprint.
MR. SAMUELS:
What they have in
ownership is a share of the corporation.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Right.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Right, but
the right of that house being in that
location.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
MEMBER HORNING:
are there?
MR. SAMUELS:
two adjacent pieces
it's
That footprint.
How many shareholders
I believe 12. There are
of properties with six
April 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 183
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
houses on each. So this has six and that
one has six. The corporation has 12
members.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: To present such
an application that has potential for
yielding has very sufficient consequences.
And should this Board say go ahead and
demo, and build a bigger house, there is no
way that you can say no to anyone else's
request to tare it down. And the more you
do that, the more nonconforming
circumstances could come exaggerated. It's
like a domino effect. It would be
arbitrary and caprices to grant one
situation and completely deny --
MR. SAMUELS: Are there other Co-Op's
in the Town that are like this?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: There are.
There are. Breezy Shore's is one, and it's
before us also, which we are certainly
barred from talking about it. So we are
going to have to proceed with
thoughtfulness around this for everyone.
Not that we don't always give
thoughtfulness. We need to get some
April 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 184
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
~5
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
financial documentation of hardship.
MR. SAMUELS: Just so that I am clear
on what exactly it is that you are looking
for, we can tell you what this. The value
of the structure. We can determine that.
How are you applying that -- where does
that number go? Let's say $500,000.00,
what does that mean to you next?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: It's really not
the Board's responsibility to kind of
direct the application? I understand --
MR. SAMUELS: I just want to know what
you're making of that?
MS. ANDALORO: Usually you have to
provide proof of dollars and cents and
under the law. And why you are trying to
do your job and describe the valuableness
generally, this Board will need proof.
MR. SAMUELS: Okay. So we can do
that. We can give a number?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I would assume
that you need to speak to some real estate
agents, appraisers, you know. Also,
looking at the rest of the dwellings. Is
this substandard for the rest of the
April 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 185
1
2
4
5
6
7
8
9
t0
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
dwellings
burden to
the other
MR.
want
not .
in Kimogenor Point? Is this a
your clients in relationship to
SAMUELS: Does that mean that you
them all appraised?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
You can be
No. Certainly
an constructive --
MR. SAMUELS: Okay.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
to you to discuss it with
figure out on how to make
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Is
talking about the value of
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
structure, relative to the
waterfront property. To that
corporation.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER:
buys into the
It's really up
your client and
the argument.
this Board
the structure?
The value of the
value of the
ownership
the structure.
exist, there
applicant to
When that owner
corporation, they buy into
If the structure didn't
would be no reason for the
buy into the corporation?
that
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Sure.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: I am just
out there. I am not making a
throwing
April 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 186
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
statement of fact. I am more or less
asking a question. So according to value,
I would say most of the value would be in
that structure.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: It's all in the
structure, but it's location, waterfront
property.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: But what that
applicant buys is the structure.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: That's
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Because
right under the corporation.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
the land.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER:
the house without buying a
corporation.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
right.
he has no
He doesn't own
You couldn't buy
share of the
Are you
aware of
-- I don't recall if you addressed the
application but you may have, are there
covenants and restrictions on this
property? Is there a homeowners --
MR. SAMUELS: Well, it's not a
homeowners association, it's a corporate
Board. So they have to approve -- their
any
April 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 187
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
public Board has
application.
CHAIRPERSON
anything from them?
MR. SAMUELS:
something in there.
to approve this
WEISMAN: Do we have
great advantage to the collection of this
data.
MR. SAMUELS: Just so I understand
what it is that you are really looking for,
we find out that the structure "as is," and
I think it's probably not going to be in
excess of $300,000.00. So if you look at
don't have it, but they recently voted on
the project itself. So they have endorsed
the project itself, not just the actual
application.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: You know what's
interesting, Tom, when we get all this
information, probably something that would
behoove of the owner, just in case God
forbid, we ever had another crazy one of
those windstorms we had, you know, where we
had significant damage, fortunately it
missed Kimogenor, you know, there may some
Yes, I think you do have
And they recently, I
April 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 188
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
this and say what's the value of this?
Just on what is there, it's not going to
have a particularly high value. In order
for them to live here, they paid
$2,500,000.00, which I think is about what
they paid for this, that is the kind of
relationship that would be germane to this
discussion?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I would think
that would be something --
MR. SAMUELS: Because they're going to
of a million
spend close to three quarters
dollars to construct that.
MEMBER HORNING: Sir,
do they pay
The lawns
property.
CHAIRPERSON
WEISMAN:
are all mowed. They share the
Anything having
to do with the Board's endorsement,
assessment of the overall value, the way in
which they have the entire property,
whatever you come up with. I can't
predetermine without spending the next half
annual maintenance fees?
MR. SAMUELS: I am sure they do
because it's all communally maintained.
April 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 189
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
an hour just brainstorming, but I think you
get the gist of it.
MR. SAMUELS: I think I do.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Two and three
are the same question. We're looking at
character of this parcel and the adjoining
areas. That is not difficult to prove.
You can get other tax maps, and say that's
it, without a four mile radius. You need
to be specific. This is why lawyers
usually do this. No. 4, is that it speaks
to the character of the neighborhood. That
I think is also fairly clear. We
understand that character of that
neighborhood. I do not agree that it's not
a self created hardship, because if you
think about it, the applicant's knew fully
well what they were buying into. They had
knowledge of the limitations on that
property or should have had. And is it the
minimum relief necessary, a demolition and
a reconstruction of a house? You have to
answer that. You may not say it's the
minimum and it's the desirable lot, but you
want to base that on not that it's just
April 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 190
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
want they want, too bad, but the fact that
it is economically feasible. And you have
to demonstrate why you need to expand that
footprint. Why at the very least a
demolition will not increase the
removed and being
reduce
if
to expand the footprint
a much greater request,
to
know how to
nonconformity of what was
replaced. If you are proposing to
the bulkhead setback even further, you
are proposing even
more, that is if
you were essentially say we're taking it
down. It's not structurally feasible.
It's outdated in every way. It's a
valuable property. We want to rebuild the
footprint and that is the minimal we can
spell it out more
do. I don't
clearly.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: You really have to
define the whole uniqueness of this
property. I think that -- there is nothing
like this anywhere else?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: This is where
you go to the Assessor's Office and you
find out how many parcels in the Town for
that matter --
April 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 191
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MEMBER HORNING: There --
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: There
the immediate
If I may be
in the Town. Not in
It --
MEMBER HORNING:
excused --
are a few
area.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Sure. George
has to go catch a ferry.
MR. SAMUELS: Now so far we have been
talking about the use variance?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
MR. SAMUELS:
to do with a --
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
MR. SAMUELS: If my
Right.
And so these issues
Demolition.
client were
have
willing to take, what I am taking heroic to
save a portion of this house and not
demolish it, I am not sure what that means
this point. Means to
what we did at Archer,
floor structure.
which was
me
to you at
similarly
keep a
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Tom, I would
that the conversation take place
suggest
with
very,
the Building Department so that we are
very clear that if you are going to
April 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 192
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
t9
20
21
22
23
24
25
pursue not to demolish because the easier
way to go is to get a brand new building --
our definition of reconstruction, by the
way, I already know that they do not define
reconstruction as rebuilding in-place and
in-kind. Something has to be left. What
exactly that is, as you know, the code is
being revised, even as we speak to try and
clarify what that means.
MS. ANDALORO: (In Audible).
(Not near a microphone.)
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: We have never
interpreted reconstruction to mean the
piece by piece removal of a dwelling and
the rebuilding of it all brand new. They
have viewed it and their interpretation of
the code,
you are rebuilding
renovating, rather
whole thing. It's
at the moment, but
a substantial portion is left
in-place and in-kind
then demolishing the
and
all kind of a gray area
we can only go by what
the law says at this point. We have to.
We are not a legislative body. We can not
change code. We don't write code. We have
to uphold what is there, but I would
April 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 193
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
certainly go and talk to the Building
Department.
MR. SAMUELS: Okay.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Right now what
we have before us is demo, and if you are
able to say what would I have to save so
that this is not a demo? How much do I
have to build, you can make a better
decision and talk to your clients and see
what they think.
MS. ANDALORO: (In Audible) last
meeting come in and speak to the structural
integrity. Have someone open up the walls
in these houses.
MR. SAMUELS: They are actually open.
There are no walls. I can speak to that.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: He is qualified.
He has a license.
MS. ANDALORO: Just checking.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: But that is the
case too, we have had testimony where an
architect/engineer, somebody has really
managed to calculate the percentage of the
structure that can be sured up, what has to
be -- what has to come down and be
April 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 194
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
replaced. And I understand exactly why you
proceeded this way, but I think now you
understand why the Board is kind of caught
in this difficult situation because of the
nonconforming, and why we ask you to
approach it from a new standpoint, because
that nonconformity is gone with the demo.
MR. SAMUELS: That's why it might be
helpful for us to pursue that direction. I
am also interested in the other Part B,
which is the reason for appeal, and this is
having to do with most of the setback from
the bulkhead.
CHAIRPERSON
WEISMAN: That is the only
could be any additions. I know that it's
not before you right now, but is there any
guidance you can give me on that subject?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: If you are
rebuilding in a way that it's not
increasing the nonconformity of what is
already there, it's certainly from a legal
thing --
MS. ANDALORO: I am wondering in the
instance that we can work out, you know,
renovations and additions project, if there
April 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 195
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
perspective, from a
it's far less substantial
increasing or -- you know,
variance perspective,
request than
increasing the
nonconforming bulkhead setback, expanding
the footprint of a nonconforming structure.
MR. SAMUELS: We would be increasing
the footprint. There is no question. As
soon as we get pass the use variance issue
and the area variance issue, we are
certainly not anywhere close to the maximum
coverage on the site, would you -- can you
imagine giving us an additional footprint
in an area that does not increase the
nonconformity for the bulkhead?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: If it wasn't a
demo, I think the Board would entertain
that differently. You know, we all vote --
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: It's a difficult
request.
MR. SAMUELS:
asking it.
I know, that's why I am
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: You have five
people and five different opinions and we
can't predetermine --
MR. SAMUELS: No, but I am learning
April 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 196
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
from your responses.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Our area
variance standards require us to grant the
minimum relief necessary to avoid
unnecessary hardship. That is in a sense a
balancing act.
MR. SAMUELS: Understand, but in this
instance -- what I am really asking, the
primary addition is included here and is
conforming, and so why wouldn't you grant
us that?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: It's conforming
to a --
MR. SAMUELS: Setback.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: To a setback,
there are no setbacks other than
on this property.
although
bulkhead
MR. SAMUELS: Then that is all that we
are talking about.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: That is why the
Building Department wrote it that way
because there is no front yard and side
yard, really.
the
MR. SAMUELS: If we can get by with
use variance and somehow maintaining
April 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 197
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
part of the structure, then why can't we do
-- are -- I mean, are we even here for a
variance?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Nothing here
would be as of right because it's a
nonconforming building with a nonconforming
use, and any alterations would -- or
expansion of any kind is going to increase
that nonconformity. Even if it's a foot.
MR. SAMUELS: If I am not mistaken
though, if we had a building that was in a
setback and we were adding to the opposite
side of that building, we would not require
a variance, am I wrong?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: If it's on the
land side
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: You're wrong.
MR. SAMUELS: I have done it before
and gotten a building permit for it.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: He's not
completely wrong. Under
section of the code.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER:
piece of property.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
a different
On a different
Let's say it's a
April 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 198
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
waterfront property and you are adding on
the landward side, and the front yard is
still conforming and the side yards are
still conforming, then you are right, you
can do it as of right.
MR. SAMUELS: Because this is a larger
site, in a sense, is that what we are
talking about?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: That's the
problem. This is a really tough property.
MR. SAMUELS: I think we can run that
one up the flagpole again, if we can get
through the use variance issue. You know,
we will make a case for financial hardship,
and I think we can, you know, do a credible
job of that. In this instance, it's a tiny
little beach cottage worth millions of
dollars and to say you can't even add a
bedroom on the side, doesn't seem
appropriate to me, but I understand where
you are coming from at least. Okay.
MS. ANDALORO: (In Audible).
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: If there had
been a demolition, and the Building
Department you can't put that back, it's
April 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 199
1
2
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
gone. There may be a greater argument for
a building on that
then there is hardship.
other then pitching a
Okay.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
There is no demo
the restoration of
footprint because
You have no value
tent.
MR. SAMUELS:
yet .
are
MR. SAMUELS: Right.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
approaching this right,
So I think we
rather then go
and do
something and it backfires.
MR. SAMUELS: Right, but I don't want
to do it fruitlessly.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
to waste time, however, we
Nobody is trying
are trying to
offer a variety of strategies for you to
accomplish something for you and your
client, at the same time, protect the
integrity of the Board's precedence in
setting decisions, and you know, just
proceed here with a awareness of potential
consequences. That is about what we're
doing here. So I think the best
conversation is to go back to the Building
April 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 200
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Department and look at options from their
point of view, because they are the one who
is going to look at amended Notice of
Disapproval's or anything else and then
talk to your client, and really see where
you want to go with this, and maybe even
talk to an attorney.
MR. SAMUELS: Okay.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: And then decide
how you want to proceed. Today it just
appeared to flush out all the issues, so
that we can understand as a Board, and you
as an architect, where we might or might
not go with this. I am going to suggest,
if the Board so inclines to adjourn this
until June, because we're really clogged up
for May, and I think you are going to need
time to really get together and gather
information, depending on whatever way
want to proceed. June 7th, at 1:30 --
MR. SAMUELS: That's a Thursday?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Always a
you
Thursday. Motion to adjourn -- I'm sorry,
I forgot to ask, is there anyone in the
audience that would like to address this
April 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 201
1
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?
(No Response.)
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: So hearing no
further comments, I will make a motion to
adjourn this hearing to June 7th at
2:00 o'clock.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: favor?
MEMBER GOEHRINGER:
MEMBER SCHNEIDER:
Ail in
Aye.
Aye.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Aye.
(See Minutes for Resolution.)
(Whereupon, the public hearings for
April 5, 2012 concluded.)
April 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 202
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
C E R T I F I C A T I O N
I, Jessica DiLallo, certify that the
foregoing transcript of tape recorded
Public Hearings was prepared using required
electronic transcription equipment and is a
true and ~urate record of the Hearings.
Signature .....
Jes~ca DiLallo
Jessica DiLallo
Court Reporter
PO Box 984
Holbrook, New York 11741
Date: April 22, 2012