HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-05/03/2012 Hearing 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
COUNTY OF SUFFOLK: STATE OF NEW YORK
X
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
Southold Town Hall
Southold, New York
May 3, 2012
10:12 A.M.
Chairperson/Member
- Member
- Member
- Member (Left at 12:15
Member (Left at 3:13 P.M.)
Board Members Present:
LESLIE KANES WEISMAN
GERARD GOEHRINGER
JAMES DINIZIO, JR.
KENNETH SCHNEIDER
GEORGE HORNING
JENNIFER ANDALORO - Assistant Town Attorney
VICKI TOTH Secretary
Jessica DiLallo
Court Reporter
P.O. Box 984
Holbrook, New York 11741
(631)-338-1409
RECEIVED
BOARD OF APPI~AL~
P.M.)
1
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:
Oliver and Gloria Seligman, #6555
Robert Sullivan, #6563
Linda Pizzolla, #6564
Elizabeth A. Gardner, #6560
Richard Meyerholz, #6556
Justin and Susan Smith, #6561
Laura Yantsos, #6562
Lisa and David Cifarelli %6488
William Tonyes #6553
George Schneider, #6558
Barry Root, #6559
Hernan Michael Otano
(Breezy Shores), #6557
Page:
3-18
19-25
25-31
32-45
45-81
82-88
89-99
99-164
164-179
179-188
188-193
193-231
May 3, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
HEARING #6555 OLIVER AND GLORIA
SELIGMAN
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The first public
hearing before the Board is a carryover for
Oliver and Gloria Seligman. It was
adjourned from April 5th. Since this is a
carryover, there is no need to read the
Notice of Disapproval again. Would you like
to come to the stand and enter your name
into the record, please?
MR. SELIGMAN: Good morning. My name
is Oliver Seligman. I had met you all last
month. Yeah, it is carryover, and I am
hoping that we have satisfied all of your
requests. You should have received a packet
of materials. Did you all receive a packet
of materials?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Yes, we just got
it. So we're just going to need a second to
take a look at this.
MR. SELIGMAN: Okay, sure.
wants to just take a minute.
If everyone
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: So why don't you
review with us, if you would, sir, the
changes from the original application? I
May 3, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 4
1
2
3
4
5
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
see the pool and the garage are essentially
in the same area.
MR. SELIGMAN: They are, but they have
been moved back. Both of them have been
moved back. We have increased the setback
for both of them. We pushed the pool back
as far as we could without pushing it into
the house. It's still a way that we would
like it, which is parallel to the house.
Taking advantage of the house and actually,
when the pool was parallel to the house, you
will notice now, we have like 17 foot from
our property line. It's actually much
further from the road. It's more like 25
feet at least. And if the pool were placed
parallel or, I should say perpendicular to
the road, you would have 20 feet of pool
much closer to the road. This is -- there
is only one little point that is close to
the road, and it's angled inward. And it
takes advantage of the way we -- the way the
house was constructed before we renovated
it. And it will look a lot nicer. We tried
to move the pool other ways, but we really
couldn't because it runs into the house. It
May 3, 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
gets too close to the house. We also looked
around the neighborhood, and we were able to
find at least four properties, which are
included in your packet. We found at least
two pools, which are mentioned here. One on
Pequash. Right on the corner there of
Pequash, and one on the main road of Route
25, where the pool is only 15 feet from
?equash, which is a much, much, more busier
street than North Cross. And right off of
25, I understand that that pool could have
been placed to the rear of the house,
according to what I was told. But anyway,
you granted a right to build a pool there.
And then there is another pool over on
Stillwater, about 22 feet off of Stillwater
Avenue. We found a couple of garages too.
proposing right
months
The
now is 30
near --
Street,
One is a brand new one that was just
constructed, I think in the last few
with a 20 foot front yard variance.
garage that we're
feet off of Holden Avenue, and then there is
a second garage that is further down right
I think it's West Creek. West
anyway, it's right on the road.
May 3, 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
It's quite a larger garage. More than what
we're building, and that was also approved.
So I hope that we have satisfied your
requests. In addition, the architect also
located the cesspool and that in turns out
-- and I honestly didn't know where it was.
I think you provided that map, and he scaled
it onto that larger paper, and it looks like
it, it forces us to put that garage in the
only spot that is possible, which is right
there. There is really no other choice,
because if you put the garage in the back,
it would require us to go over the cesspool,
which is really not a good thing to do. And
to it, it would also take up a rather much
large area of gravel, that we rather not --
keep it as green as possible. So I am
hoping that that satisfies all members of
the Board.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I just would like
to ask you some questions, Mr. And
Mrs. Seligman.
MR. SELIGMAN: Sure.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Refresh my memory
regarding the pool. Is the pool on grade or
May 3, 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
just about on grade?
MR. SELIGMAN: Yeah, it's pretty much
on grade.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: What type of
product are you using as the decking around
the pool?
MR. SELIGMAN: We're thinking of using
-- the decking around the pool that we're
thinking of using? We're thinking of using
-- I am trying to think -- it's not Trex.
Azek around the pool with a three foot
walkway on the left and right side, length
wise. And a patio closest to the house.
And on the far end, a three foot decking.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The reason why I
ask the question, you show a proposed 12
foot setback and the decking is also to be
included in the setback because it is
literally a little bit above grade. Where
you were using stone pavers at grade, that
would not necessarily -- and I am not saying
this 100%, because I have made this
determination for many years on this Board,
that no property is really flat. And so
some portion or some area of that is going
May 3, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
to
And so
be above grade.
MR. SELIGMAN: Okay.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER:
setback is not 12 feet. While I am looking
at this, and this is not meant to be a
sarcastic statement in any way or being
smart. So you really should show that
setback, okay, if you intend to use a
decking material as opposed to stone
really the
materials. And of
difference between
stone gets hot,
necessarily.
course we know the
the two of them, the
whereas, the decking doesn't
MR. SELIGMAN: Well,
trying to do that.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER:
the actual distance is on the
you are going to
decking that
that is why we're
I need to know what
anticipated
be putting
around the pool?
MR. SELIGMAN: I said, I
anticipating three feet.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No,
property line?
MR. SELIGMAN: Oh.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: You
am
no. From the
can ask your
May 3, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 9
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
architect just to scale that for us.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Let me just
clarify this. The proposed pool was
originally 12 feet, at the closest point.
You are not proposing 17 feet. This is a
very small survey.
MR. SELIGMAN: Would you like this one?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: That would be
helpful. We just have this little guy. So
I am just double checking that I am reading
this correctly. So it's 17 feet at the
closest and then it looks like 27 feet at
the farthest point?
MEMBER HORNING: To the pool.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Right.
MEMBER HORNING: Not to the deck.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Well, we can
simply say that anything surrounding the
pool must be at grade.
MEMBER DINIZIO: The Building
Department determines, you are just saying
stone on the ground, that is just patio.
You have to build a structure in order to
hold something. So that needs a variance.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Absolutely. That
May 3, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 10
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
is what I am saying. That is -- you're in
agreement --
MEMBER DINIZIO: Although we need to
get a revised Notice of Disapproval and at
least have a survey that shows that a
setback is -- like Gerry said, we need to
have that survey changed to what the actual
setback is going to be, to the edge of that
deck.
the
one.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER:
pool.
MEMBER DINIZIO:
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
That
The 12 feet is to
angle --
That's the old
MEMBER DINIZIO: It could be six feet.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: 12 foot side
yard. It was a 12 foot front yard setback.
You understand what we're talking about? If
you put down Trex or Apex or any of these
composite materials, you have to have joists
underneath it. You have to have some
structure underneath it. So you can't run a
mower over it. Therefore it's considered
part of lot coverage and you would have to
have -- it's a not a bad thing of what
May 3, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
feet, whatever that setback
about probably about 6 feet
yard.
MR. SELIGMAN: You mean if you did a
deck?
MEMBER DINIZIO: Yes,
deck, that's right. Ail
I just want that correct
at
is, looks to be
from the side
if you did a
I am saying is that
number. The same
thing on the front yard. You know, it says
17 to the corner of the pool. What is it to
the corner of the deck? That is all I want
to know, in order for me to make a decision.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Let's take a look
testimony from the previous hearing.
Board asked the Seligman's -- we carried
this over so that they could come back
to try and be
In other words,
the distance,
because we were asking them
more conforming.
MR. SELIGMAN: Right.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
even though it's really not
it's the fact that they both are in front
yards. Nevertheless, both were proposed
quite close to the road. It's a limited
rear yard. You have indicated where the
The
May 3, 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
you're proposing from the pool. It's
whatever you put around it. If it's at
grade with a patio, than the setback would
have to be at the pool.
MEMBER DINIZIO: Ail we are saying is
you need to have -- in order for us to make
a decision, we need to have the right
setbacks.
MR. SELIGMAN: Ail I am trying to say
is, and I understand what you meant. I
understand that the structure will require
it. So in order to expedite this, I guess
we should give up doing the Trex and just
put something at grade level.
MEMBER DINIZIO: Honestly, sir --
MR. SELIGMAN: Yes, sir.
MEMBER DINIZIO: We're really not
saying that. I don't think Gerry is saying
that, and I know that I am not. Ail that I
want is, on the survey what the actual
distance is. You have 12 feet and that's
because whoever did the survey assumed that
the deck, it doesn't need a variance.
MR. SELIGMAN: Right.
MEMBER DINIZIO: It does. So that 12
May 3, 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
septic is, as we requested. So as to show
why you can't put that swimming pool or
garage in the rear yard. That has been
done. And you're going to increase the
front yard setback from 25 to 30.11.
MR. SELIGMAN: Right.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: So that's where
we
left it. The attempt was to try and get
away, you know the farthest away from the
front yard property line, as it's feasible.
To give you room for privacy screening.
MR. SELIGMAN: Right.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: We also asked you
to provide information on other pools and
garages that were in front yards that were
similar to what you are proposing, and you
have done that. We have the lot numbers and
so on. So when we say correct setback, the
goal here was to improve the setback. So I
don't want to see a deck there. I mean,
you're trying to push that pool back. And
if you put a deck on, you're going to defeat
the purpose of moving the pool back further
because you are going to wind up with a deck
that is really close to the property line.
May 3, 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
Do
you understand what I am saying?
MR. SELIGMAN: So I can't put
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: That is
decision, but I believe if
the setbacks for the pool
proposing on this survey,
a deck?
your
we were to grant
that you are
then you are going
to have to use pavers.
MR. SELIGMAN: Right.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Because that is
the least setback the Board is going to
consider. Does that make sense to the
Board?
MEMBER DINIZIO: I understand that, but
I don't have any objection to a rail around
the deck, if that is what the gentleman
wants. My preference would be when we make
a decision, we have the proper setback. Hot
what is on the survey right now.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: You know what we
could easily do because this is very quickly
remedied. We can close this hearing today
subject to receipt of a survey showing that
the pool is as proposed and the surrounding
is an at grade patio.
MR. SELIGMAN: Let me look here.
May 3, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 15
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I don't think --
MR. SELIGMAN: I don't think it says
any of that here.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: No, it doesn't.
It just shows a brick walkway and
rectangular area around the pool.
MR. SELIGMAN: That is correct.
it shows a
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I did notice that
you haven't proposed reducing the size of
the pool. That was one thing that we talked
about. It's still 20x40.
MR. SELIGMAN: Right.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: If that
you want to propose at this point,
Board will act on that.
MR. SELIGMAN: What we will do is just
do it at grade level.
is what
then the
pool, we
now, it's
anything.
could be anything.
Does
know what we're looking
unspecified. It could
It could be a raised
at. Right
be
deck. It
the Board have any other comments
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: What you need to
do is have it specified on the survey. So
that when we see that rectangle around the
May 3, 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
or questions?
MEMBER HORNING: I do.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: George?
MEMBER HORNING: I'm curious, because
again, I am looking at the tiny diagram.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Take the bigger
one, George.
MEMBER HORNING: What are the other
wider circles around it?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: That's a
depression.
MEMBER
existing
HORNING: That
filled in area?
would be the
MR. SELIGMAN: Yes.
MEMBER HORNING: And the dotted line
circled around the leaching pool itself is
-- that's the ten foot radius. The
documentation that you provided with the
latest information, we can get the variance
case numbers for that and corollate that? I
am curious as to the dates when these
variances were granted.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I don't see why
they couldn't do that.
MR. SELIGMAN: As far as I know, I know
May 3, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 17
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
one
had a 16 page packet with it.
MEMBER HORNING: Well, you provided lot
numbers, and you're suggesting that
variances were granted.
MR. SELIGMAN: I have a packet
one.
for each
application because the pool
been placed in another area.
particular reason why
should have
There was a
they needed that pool.
I don't remember if it was a medical reason
or what the situation was. I just wanted to
put that in the record.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I am going to
give all these to you. Give these all to
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I just have one
thing for the record regarding the variance
on Pequash. I personally voted against that
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: You can submit
it, that's all.
MEMBER HORNING: Thank you.
MR. SELIGMAN: I submitted this.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Ail we got was a
cover letter with a small survey. So you
know what, not a problem. Our Board
secretary will make copies.
May 3, 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
George. Okay.
Is there anyone else 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 the hearing subject
to receipt of a survey indicating that the
survey around the proposed pool is at grade.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Seconded by
Gerry.
Ail in favor?
MEMBER DINIZIO: Aye.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye.
MEMBER HORNING: Aye.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Aye.
(See Minutes for Resolution.)
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I need to do a
two minute recess. So moved.
Is there a second?
MEMBER GOEHRINGER:
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
Second.
Ail in favor?
May 3, 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
MEMBER DINIZIO: Aye.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye.
MEMBER HORNING: Aye.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye.
at
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Aye.
(Whereupon, a short recess was taken
this time.)
********************************************
HEARING %6563 - ROBERT SULLIVAN
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The next
application before us is for Robert
Sullivan, #6563. Request for from variance
Article XXII Code Section 280-116(B) based
on an application for building permit and
the Building Inspector's February 8, 2012
Notice of Disapproval concerning proposed
additions and alterations to a single family
dwelling at; 1) less than the code required
bulkhead setback of 75 feet, located at:
2715 Nassau Point Road, adjacent to Hog Neck
Bay in Cutchogue.
MR. SCHWARTZ: Hi. Mark Schwartz,
architect for the project. The owners are
looking to create a screened in porch over
an existing deck. The deck is 38 feet from
May 3, 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
the bulkhead. And the porch is proposed at
46 feet from the proposed setback of the
existing deck itself. And it's kind of in
between a u-shaped portion of the house. So
it's a one-story proposed porch, and they're
really just looking to have their parents
that are in their 70's and 80's out of the
sun. This is the reason for the proposed
porch.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Mark,
ask you about the -- what is the
drainage for the roof runoff on
MR. SCHWARTZ: We do plan
drywell to pick up the drainage
Audible.)
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
I wanted
proposed
the porch?
to install a
or (In
Because that is
to
noted
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: None of that is
on the survey.
MR. SCHWARTZ: I think that is on the
gutters and leaders that will go into a
drywell. So you have existing drywell's on
the property?
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yes.
not indicated here, and obviously you are
going to have to drain that roof runoff with
May 3, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 21
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
application.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Let me see. You
have a copy of the LWRP indicating it's
exempt?
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I don't see any
-- I don't see anything noted on the survey
one way or the other. I am looking at this
survey.
MR. SCHWARTZ: It's not on the survey.
I thought we had it on the application.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: You may, but we
need to see it. I am just going to check.
I think you might have put it down there. I
am going to look and see. It's probably
under reasons.
MR. SCHWARTZ: It's actually under
No. 4.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Here we are. It
just says all stormwater will be retained on
site.
MR. SCHWARTZ: I will add that to the
survey.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay. The Town
getting the LWRP coordinator, who is also
May 3, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 22
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MS4 Stormwater Management Officer, and has
brought to our attention certain additional
concerns that the Town is going to have to
start addressing because it's a State
requirement. So it's in the future and
going forward. So it's very useful to see
drywell's existing and proposed.
MR. SCHWARTZ: Okay.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: George, any
questions on this?
MEMBER HORNING: Yes, I have a couple
of details. Looking at the property record
card, the house was originally built in
1971, around then? Does that sound about
right?
MR. SCHWARTZ: Sounds about right, yes.
MEMBER HORNING: And at that time there
was no variance necessary for the setback
from the bulkhead, would you say that is
right?
MR. SCHWARTZ: I am not certain.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: George, that
variance came in some time around the mid to
early 80's, at the request of the counsel
person. Who was a noted environmentalist.
May 3, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 23
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1
2
3
4
5
So that is the reason why.
MEMBER HORNING: I am trying to get
into the record here that the house was
built before the requirement for the 75
foot.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That is correct.
MEMBER HORNING: And then it looks
like, incidentally, in 1978, there was a
the
back a couple of years, but the
predates the code requirement for
foot. That is why it is where it
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yes, I believe so.
MEMBER HORNING: Otherwise, you would
have needed a variance if it was built later
than that, and the code was in effect at
that time. Now, that it is there, it sticks
out closer than your proposed porch? The
existing house is closer to the bulkhead?
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yes.
MEMBER HORNING: Okay.
building permit to build an accessory
building, would you say that that was
garage that is there now?
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yes.
MEMBER HORNING: Even the
garage goes
house
the 75
is?
May 3, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 24
6
7
8
9
10
tl
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Ken?
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: No questions.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
MEMBER GOEHRINGER:
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
MEMBER DINIZIO: No
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
audience that wishes
application?
(No Response.)
Gerry?
No questions.
Jim?
questions.
Anyone in the
to address this
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Hearing no
further comments, I will make a motion to
close this hearing subject to receipt of a
survey indicating the location of an
existing or proposed drywell for roof
of the proposed porch. Second?
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
Gerry.
Ail in favor?
MEMBER DINIZIO: Aye.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye.
MEMBER HORNING: Aye.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Aye.
runoff
Seconded by
May 3, 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
(See Minutes for Resolution.)
HEARING #6564 LINDA PIZZOLLA
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The next
application before the Board is for Linda
Pizzolla, #6564. Request for variances from
Article IV Code Section 280-18, based on an
application for building permit and the
Building Inspector's January 24, 2012 Notice
of Disapproval concerning proposed additions
and alterations to a single family dwelling,
at; 1) less than the code required front
yard setback of 50 feet to Carrington Road,
2) less than the code required front yard
setback of 50 feet to Nassau Point Road,
located at: 4800 Nassau Point Road, corner
Carrington Road, Cutchogue.
Mark, go ahead and enter your name into
the record?
MR. SCHWARTZ: Mark Schwartz,
architect. I did hand in a revised partial
site plan. The other lot is merged to it.
So I am going to have to give you some
additional information. We're proposing to
put on a second floor on the house, pretty
May 3, 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
much over the existing footprint. There is
a slight 16 foot by 6 foot entry platform
that will have a proposed open porch above
it. That was not shown on the original
application. The distance to the road is
still the same. So it's not any closer than
what we proposed, the second floor proposed
addition. The owners wanted to create
bedrooms on the second floor and open up the
first floor for living space. So we're
looking to remove the roof of the first
floor of the house and add an 8 foot wall
with a hip roof. The hip roof to some
extent minimizes the mass of the roof. So
it slopes on all four sides. And we're just
a few feet short of the 50 foot setback on
the front yard, which is Nassau Point Road.
It's a corner lot. Kind of a paper road to
the north, and our setback there is 20 foot.
So we're just looking to extend over the
footprint and use a hip roof for this
structure.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: And the other lot
has merged with the developed lot. And
Carrington is also referred to as Carpenter
May 3, 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
sometimes. It's actually a
neighbor, is it not?
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
screened from view with a
Ken, questions?
MEMBER SCHNEIDER:
describe
driveway to the
And it is
stockade fence.
you just really
condition?
MR. SCHWARTZ: It's mainly a grass and
dirt road section. It's kind of flat but it
doesn't look like it is used much. It's an
accessory garage in that backyard there.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: And is open all the
way to the next street?
MR. SCHWARTZ: It
off.
Carrington Road, can
for the record the
would really use
MR. SCHWARTZ: It appears just the
neighbor next door.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Okay. And is there
a garage proposed on this parcel?
MR. SCHWARTZ: No.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: No further
that
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Who
road for any reason?
appears to be fenced
May 3, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 28
1
2
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
questions.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: George?
MEMBER HORNING: So you are describing
Carrington Road as a right-of-way, is that
right?
MR. SCHWARTZ: I am not sure if it is
or not. I am not sure if it's a Town road
MEMBER HORNING: And yet someone did
put a gated fence around --
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah. It wasn't the
Pizzolla's that put that fence there.
MEMBER HORNING: It is at the edge of
the Pizzolla's property, right, the back
edge?
MEMBER
MR.
fence got
asking?
MEMBER
HORNING: Yes.
SCHWARTZ: I can find out how the
there, if that is what you are
HORNING: I am just curious if
it's a public road or a private
right-of-way.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: It is used as
driveway access by the adjacent neighbor.
No one travels on it. If that is what you
a
May 3, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 29
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
are asking? Other than the property owner
who has a garage back there.
MEMBER HORNING: I don't have anything
further.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay. Gerry?
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: So the footprint
that you are actually using on the one-story
house is actually going to be the footprint
on the two-story house, with the alterations
that you are going to be doing on the
two-story?
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yes.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: So basically what
is only that we're going to see, is mass? A
two-story house with a hip roof?
MR. SCHWARTZ: Correct.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: And looking at your
Plan Al, that porch area that you are
referring to on that most recent survey that
we had just gotten, has the same or similar
setback that we have in the Notice of
Disapproval; right?
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yes, it is.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Jim?
MEMBER DINIZIO: It says a "6x16
May 3, 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
platform," and to me, constitutes a deck.
Then it says "open porch above." So this
going to be covered; right?
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yes.
MEMBER DINIZIO: Is it covered on the
open porch above also?
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yes. It wasn't like
heated space.
MEMBER DINIZIO: I was just wondering
why. It's unusual. I never saw it like
that. And Carrington Road, it's a road if
is
everyone wants to know, but this is an
extension of that road. There is a couple
of them along Nassau Point. Probably
between Wunneweta Road and Nassau Point
there. I think they could be used as roads
if they chose. No one is paying any taxes
on those roads. I believe they are not
anyone's own private road. They are
right-of-ways that are on a map. We're
talking 20 feet on that side anyway. I
don't think that is really a huge problem.
That's all I have.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay. Is there
in this audience that would like to
anyone
only
May 3, 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
address this application?
(No Response.)
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
further comments,
close this hearing
MEMBER GOEHRINGER:
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
MEMBER DINIZIO: Aye.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye.
MEMBER HORNING: Aye.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye.
Hearing no
I will make a motion to
and reserve decision.
Second.
Ail in favor?
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Ail in favor?
MEMBER DINIZIO: Aye.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye.
at
MEMBER
MEMBER
CHAIRPERSON
(Whereupon,
this time.)
HORNING: Aye.
SCHNEIDER: Aye.
WEISMAN: Aye.
a brief recess
was taken
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Aye.
(See Minutes for Resolution.)
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Motion to recess
for five minutes.
May 3, 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
HEARING
Request
Code Section
application for building permit and the
#6560 ELIZABETH A. GARDNER
for variance from Article XXII
280-116(B) based on an
Building Inspector's March 8, 2012 Notice of
Disapproval concerned screen porch with
outside shower over existing deck to a
single family dwelling at; 1) less than the
code required bulkhead setback of 75 feet,
located at: 1665 Shore Road, adjacent to
Pipes Cove, Greenport.
MS. MOORE: -- it's a Pre-CO. It had
received over the years permits for every
alteration and modification to the house.
In 1992, the Zoning Board -- prior owner,
pardon me, applied for a variance to
construct the deck that is presently there.
That variance application was #4053;
however, there was a condition placed on
that variance, which stated that it should
remain open to the sky. So we are here
before the Board due to that condition, even
though the screened in porch is within the
structure, the deck structure. As you can
May 3, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 33
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1
2
3
4
5
see the stairs are on the seaward side.
It's all occurring on top of the existing
deck. That condition does require us to
come back before the Board. We were
discussing out in the hallway, the
possibility that this is going to be roofed
in screened over porch and if the Board
would be willing -- the second floor, if we
could just keep the same roof, but just cut
into the roof for a second floor deck inside
the roof, which would allow the second floor
bedroom to have a -- to looking out onto the
bay. That is something that he may or may
not construct at this time, but we thought
best to ask now, because ultimately we would
have to come back again if there was a
modification to these plans. So if that is
agreeable with the Board, I could just have
Mark Schwartz make a small modification to
the drawings?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: That is what we
would require.
MS. MOORE: Yes, it's all within the
roof, so I don't believe a Notice of
Disapproval would need to be revised since
May 3, 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
2O
21
22
23
24
25
it's the exact same variance. If you have
any questions, I would be happy to answer
them?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Yes, I do have.
The application again says, drywell's for
the screened porch runoff, but they are not
shown on the survey, and also the site plan.
And there is no location of where the
proposed shower is going to drain on the
property. Again, the MS4 is now requiring
us to be --
MS. MOORE: Right.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I guess we are
all going to have to get used to that.
MS. MOORE: Yeah. I didn't include it
because it typically doesn't require your
approval. It's part of the MS4 and the
Building Department would require it. So
ultimately where that drywell will be, I
thought the Trustees would have more to say
about it than this Board, but I have Mark
Schwartz here. I think for the purposes of
the Trustees, I will show it, because it's a
disturbance to the property, to the land. I
didn't want to hold up the application for a
May 3, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 35
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
drywell. It is something that we do have to
provide for under the building permit.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: So if Mark is
going to give some revised architectural
drawings, perhaps the survey could also be
updated to show where the shower is going to
drain and gutters and leaders.
MS. MOORE: Not survey, the site plan?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The site plan,
yes.
MS.
need that
looks
MOORE: Yes. I will ultimately
site plan for the Trustees.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Jim, questions?
MEMBER DINIZIO: I don't know. It just
like you're covering something up that
you got a variance for and we asked you not
to cover.
MS. MOORE: True. But the open to the
sky is typically a very common condition
that you all place so that you -- you know,
even way back when in the 90's, you want to
see the application rather than
automatically think that you can put a cover
over it.
MEMBER DINIZIO: Well, I would beg to
May 3, 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
2O
21
22
23
24
25
differ with you, Pat. I seconded the motion
on that one. You know, we said open to the
sky because we didn't want to have it
covered. Once you cover it, it's more of a
problem.
MS. MOORE: Well, this would be a
screened in porch, so therefore it's not --
it just protects against the bugs and allows
for the use of the summer. This is a second
home. It given them the ability to use the
back deck more comfortably than -- and now
with the MS4 it's actually controlling the
runoff better than an open deck. The deck
right now has no need. It -- it was built
prior to the drainage requirement. I guess
the point is, I don't understand the
condition initially because if you walk up
and down the block there, the homes
generally have structures that are clearly
within the 75 feet. This is very -- to me
it seems like a very minor application.
Certainly requires your review, because the
issue of the setback of the bulkhead being
-- you know the 75 feet. The deck already
establishes the setback and we are within
May 3, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 37
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
actually a couple of feet within that
setback. It's really minimal on top of the
deck. You know, it's also -- it's a very
small. It's only a 13x13 deck. So with
respect to the square footage of this
enclosure, it really is small.
MEMBER DINIZIO: That's all I have.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Gerry?
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: A question to Mark.
The roof that you are now requesting is
going to be a flat roof. Will that have any
pitch to it?
MR. SCHWARTZ: I think what we have on
the plan --
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: It's a hip roof
that is going to come out with a cutout?
MS. MOORE: Yes.
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yes. Well, the way that
it was originally thought of, it's a hip
roof with a flat section on the top. So now
we are talking about -- if we are able to
get a second floor deck, it would kind of be
like a curve on top and then recess back
down with a deck up there. Maybe 8x8 or
something like that.
May 3, 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
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: So that has to be
drained, right?
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yes.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Okay. So it will
be some sort of draining that goes through
the roof area and back down?
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yes.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: So the draining
will have to be calculated to accommodate
that deck and whatever draining is coming
off the new one?
MS. MOORE: The calculation would still
be the same.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Not necessarily
because usually in those cutout's you get a
lot more water in those than you would get
in the roof -- I just had seen that in the
past. That is just my opinion. As long as
the drainage is big enough to accommodate
it.
MR. SCHWARTZ: We will make sure.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: George?
MEMBER HORNING: To wrap up a little
history of it. The house was built prior to
May 3, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 39
1
2
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
code?
has a
MS. MOORE: Prior
Pre-CO.
MEMBER HORNING:
requested a variance
they were approved for, as
remained open to the sky.
to zoning, yes. It
And then in 1991, they
to build a deck, which
long as the deck
Jim was tackling
that. I was wondering myself too, why that
condition was there. You're suggesting it
was somewhat sort of a standard. The ZBA
member stated that it was put there for a
specific purpose. And then you are saying
that the screened in porch is only going to
be erected over a small portion, less than
50%?
MS. MOORE: Yes. 13x13 portion. The
pictures are the easier way to look at this.
The back of the
windows. This
only one set.
overall deck.
where the
believe.
allows for opening
using the screened
of
is
house contains three sets
porch -- screened in porch
So I guess it's 1/3 of the
It screens in the small area
dining room area is right now, I
Living room, dining room. It
up of those windows and
in area, more flowing.
May 3, 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
MEMBER HORNING:
alteration of this 8x8
relation to the screened
to be in the vicinity of
porch; is that correct?
MR. SCHWARTZ:
MS. MOORE: Yeah.
It's just a cutout. You
opening. It just gives
little more life.
MEMBER HORNING:
can provide for us, Pat
setbacks, and I want to
neighborhood
provide some
character of
And
the roof
-- where is that in
porch? It's going
the screened in
Right over the top.
Not completely.
have a small
the second floor
Is there anyway
-- you mentioned
talk about
variances also. Can you
background material for the
the neighborhood, variances
a
you
within six parcels, let's say, on either
side of this parcel, and setbacks? You
mentioned -- the photos show them almost
lined up.
MS. MOORE: You didn't do that work
Vicki? You attempt to do all of it already.
By chance, did you?
MS. TOTH: No, I didn't.
MS. MOORE: I can do that. That's
May 3, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 41
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1
2
3
4
5
fine.
useful for the
typically what happens when you
nonconforming setbacks, is that
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: It might be
record to reflect that
have
the granting
of the deck is considered less substantial
than enclosed space with regard to a
setback, because of the mass. So I think
the Board has often conditioned leaving
things open to the sky because it's a
reflection of the fact it's a lesser
variance, generally.
MS. MOORE: Right.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: We have in the
past, I can think of one example a couple of
years ago, we had the same situation. It
was a rear yard setback. It wasn't a
bulkhead. It was nonconforming and the deck
was to remain open to the sky. The
applicant wanted to put on a small extension
off the dining room, which would have just
taken a small portion of the existing deck.
So in that particular instance, the Board
granted it. Removed the condition and then
reapplied the condition for the deck that
May 3, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 42
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
remained.
MS. MOORE: That's fine.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: That is how
was handled. I am not suggesting that
what the Board is going
had happened previously.
we want to make sure, as
to do here,
The point
you said,
it
is
but that
being,
if there
is an alteration that
substantiality of the
that we have a chance
would increase the
original variance,
to review it.
MS. MOORE:
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
are here.
Understood.
Which is why
MS. MOORE: Yes. I just have -- I
happen to pull up one of the photographs,
which is in your packet. Maybe I can come
up. Actually I don't know if it's in your
you
packet. There is so many photographs here.
I have this one and I will submit it with
the request. Here is the house. Here is
the deck. The neighbor is the gray building
and you can see that it has a little bump
out and it extends beyond that. They also
have a hot tub here. So you can see that
the small 13x13 will almost mimic the
May 3, 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
adjacent properties -- looks like it's more
of an enclosure living space. I think there
is also a window.
MEMBER HORNING: Pat, is that on this?
There is several buildings on here.
MS. MOORE: Let me see. This
photograph that is in your packet. This one
shows -- this portion of the house actually
extends over the area that would be
uncovered. It's a little more of an angle
but you see it more directly when you are
standing --
MEMBER HORNING: You mean, it's closer
to the bulkhead?
MS. MOORE:
the bulkhead.
bulkhead. It
the bulkhead.
It's absolutely closer to
It's much closer to the
look like 50 feet closer to
MEMBER HORNING: That's why to
substantiate the character of the
neighborhood having nonconforming setbacks
from the bulkhead, we would like you to
provide as much information as you could.
MS. MOORE: That's fine. I will also
get you the Google map because that will
May 3, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 44
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
show you the setbacks with everyone else.
This is pretty much a preexisting
neighborhood, I can't be sure that these
other property owners have gotten permits
the past that
MEMBER HORNING:
research variances in
Thanks.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
any questions?
MEMBER SCHNEIDER:
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
would give me --
Well, we could
the neighborhood.
Ken, do you have
Hearing no
am going to
requested more on
character of the
to bulkhead
of drywell's for
the drainage of the roof and shower. And
finally, alterations to the architectural
we the
neighborhood with regards
setbacks and the location
Special Meeting date, two weeks from today,
subject to receipt of the information that
No questions.
Is there anyone
else in the audience that would like to
address this application?
(No Response.)
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay.
further questions or comments, I
make a motion to adjourn this hearing
to the
May 3, 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
drawings that include a
floor deck.
Is there a second
MEMBER GOEHRINGER:
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Ail
MEMBER DINIZIO: Aye.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye.
MEMBER HORNING: Aye.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Aye.
potential second
to that motion?
Second.
in favor?
based on an application for building permit
and the Building Inspector's
January 12, 2012 Notice of Disapproval
concerning proposed demolition and
reconstruction of a single family dwelling,
at, 1)less than the code required front yard
setback of 35 feet, 2) less than the code
require minimum side yard setback of 10
Meyerholz, #6556. Request for variances
from Article XXIII Code Section 280-124,
(See Minutes for Resolution.)
HEARING %6556 - RICHARD MEYERHOLZ
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The next
application before the Board is for Richard
May 3, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 46
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
feet, 3) less than the code required total
combined side yards of 25 feet, 4) more than
the code permitted lot coverage of 20%
maximum, at: 4245 Bay Shore Road, adjacent
to Pipes Cove, Shelter Island Sound, in
Greenport.
Please state your name for the record.
I am Richard
MR. MEYERHOLZ: Hi,
Meyerholz. I made the
Zoning Board for the
stated. I also have with me Robert Brown,
architect from Fairweather & Brown. He and
I will be able to answer any questions that
you might have.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
application to the
issues that you just
green
you have any of the
the mailing?
MR. MEYERHOLZ:
Let's ask you
cards back from
Yes,
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
those forward, please?
Ail right, variances
neighborhood. And this is
character of the neighborhood.
to give this to you, sir. This
from Suffolk County
I do.
Can you bring
if
in the
to testify to the
I am going
is a letter
indicating that this is
May 3, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 47
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
for local determination. Just a formal
thing. And the memorandum from the LWRP
Coordinator, Local Waterfront Revitalization
Program, indicating that the actions that
you are proposing is inconsistent with the
LWRP, and making some recommendations on how
to mitigate for consistency. So let me give
you a copy. Perhaps, Mr. Brown is maybe
going to want to take a look at that.
Let me just characterize the
application in terms of what the basis of
this application is all about. You're
proposing to demolish and reconstruct a
single family dwelling on the parcel, which
is 7,526 square foot parcel. With a front
yard setback of 31.6 feet, plus or minus,
where the code requires 35 feet. The side
yard setback minimum of 3.4 feet, where the
code requires a 10 foot minimum. A combined
side yard setback of 9.9 feet, while the
code requires 25 feet. Let's note that both
those side yards are what exist now. The
combined and the single. And a lot coverage
of 28.9%, where the code permits a maximum
of 20%. That is largely because of a new
May 3, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 48
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1
2
3
4
5
attached garage and deck in the front yard.
So the current lot coverage, it would appear
as 19.3%. So let's see where we go. What
would you like to tell us about this
application?
MR. MEYERHOLZ: Just if I could give
you an overview. You probably know this
already. The Bay Shore Estates was
established in the 1920's. The lot sizes at
that time, were on average of approximately
50 feet across each lot. There were several
lots that were purchased by individuals that
were combined. So there are lots that are
single. 50 foot lots. There are some that
are doubles and there are some that are
triples. So you have a 25 foot side yard
setback is a very difficult to near
impossible requirement to achieve. As you
can see from some of the photographs that I
have provided, some of the houses do not
qualify for that new updated code. In
addition the lot coverage that is now
required under the code of law, as you say
maximum 20%. There are properties, there
are homes on that street that were built
May 3, 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
prior to 1957, which is when the Zoning
Board was established here in the Town of
Southold. So it's very difficult to obtain
to stay within the current
the property, however, I would
the Board aware, this is an
The construction is not up to
documentation on some of those homes that
are 1957 construction. As you mentioned the
building details, which will provide in your
application is a -- as you defined a
demolition, which is greater than 50% of the
structure. We had proposed to retain some
of the walls
footprint of
like to make
older home.
current code, and may be difficult to keep
some of that structure. I don't know what
was damaged or disintegration. That will be
determined when the destruction takes place.
Of course I would come back to the Building
Department and inform them if we have to
make some additional tare downs, but I just
wanted to make you aware, the primary
concern is to maintain the current footprint
in its current location on the property,
with respect to the high water mark. I also
wanted to make everyone aware, and it's in
May 3, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 50
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
your packet as well, I have applied to the
DEC as well. I have submitted the
application and it was and has been
received. So that component of the process
is finished. I also put in an application
to the Health Department and received the
approvals from the Health Department for the
new septic system that is required. The
septic system is the new required system by
law, which is five rings plus an additional
two, if needed in the future. That is three
feet above the water table.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay.
MR. MEYERHOLZ: To address the side
yard issues first, that is probably a little
bit easier. So just to make the Board
aware, at least three lots that are very
close, Lot 24, Lot 15 and Lot 16. Lot 24 is
to the south of my property. It's on the
corner of Bay Shore Road and Island View
Lane. The approval that the Board made back
in 2010, was 5.7 feet on one side and 5.0
the other, which was a total of about 11
feet. The original home that was on that
property, which you might be aware, was
on
May 3, 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
ultimately destroyed
yard on the south
and rebuilt. The side
side was maybe a foot from
the property line. Lot 15, which is the
Mayor property, that is also 7.5 feet and
3.9 feet, for a total of 11 feet combined.
And Lot 16, which is Bradford, 6.5 feet and
7.5 feet, for a total of about 14 feet
total. So as I mentioned earlier, due to
the limitation of the lot size, it makes it
very difficult to conform to the lot size
side yard requirements of today. On the
front yard setback, there is a number of
properties. Just to give you a small
handful, Lot 25, Lot 2, 20, 19, 18, 3 and 4,
that are in violation of the front yard
setback. You can see that. I have
photographs of those properties.
Predominantly, garages that just 15-20 feet
off the road, that have been constructed at
various times that exist today. So we are
looking to do something that is out of
not
character to the neighborhood,
to the 31 foot setback. I
house as close as possible
with respect
maintain an aesthetic to
tried to keep the
and try to
the neighborhood
May 3, 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
and to my own property. The lot coverage
issue is a little more difficult, but I do
have some three comps, one actually exceeds
my current request from the Zoning Board of
28.9. That one is Lot 22, that is just on
the north side. The property that is next
to me, which is 29.6% coverage. That house
was built prior to 1956. I think it was
built in the 30's and 40's, and has a
two-car garage and a large porch on the
north side. The property directly to my
right, or the south side. That is Lot 24.
That would be Swing. The Board approved the
reconstruction at 26.4% coverage back in
2008. And there was a house interestingly
enough, Lot 15, Mayor, originally was a
27.3%. So you can see that there were homes
that were built with larger percentage, but
that was reconstructed based upon the new
design of the architect in 2001 at 24.8%
coverage. The Bradford property, which is
Lot 16, which was approved in 2001, is also
24.2%, and another one, Thompson property,
Lot 64, which was approved back in 1979,
which is 23.34%. I also want to make you
May 3, 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
24
25
aware of when we originally did the percent
for the lot coverage, we had did it without
the overhang. There are some parts of the
new design that have a rather large
overhang, so that you can walk without
getting wet, from the garage to the front
door, and without those overhangs, the lot
coverage would be approximately 26.5%, as I
recall. I can get that exact figure for you
because it's on the DEC survey. So it's
really comes down to the overhangs. From an
architectural perspective, it adds a nice
look to the house that we would really like
to try and maintain. As you can also see,
additions, front of the house, garage.
There is no garage on the property, and we
would really like to have a garage. As we
get older, it would be easier for us to get
in and out from the house. Without the
garage, it makes it very much more difficult
for my wife and I. This is the house that
we're retiring. That's necessarily -- you
know, part of your decision, but the fact of
life and that's where we're going with this.
It's not a house that is going to be built
May 3, 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
to sold. It's a house that we're going to
have -- it's a house that has been in my
wife's family for the last 40 years. The
property directly to the north is my
brother-in-law. You know, these are
properties that have been in my wife's
family for the last 40 years, and now, you
know, the next generation, these properties
are going to be maintained in our family to
be passed on to my children. So this is not
a mission to make money. It's a family
investment, if you will. For my wife and I,
and also my children for the future. I want
to remind the Board, the Health Department
with its current guidelines spells out -- we
didn't have to get an additional variances.
We were able to use the current design and
position of the house and put in the
required septic system with the overhang
still in the design. So that if there is
ever a need to come back and expand the
septic system or to replace the septic
system, there is no damage to the
construction process.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
Can I ask you a
May 3, 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
question,
please?
MR. MEYERHOLZ: Sure.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
the proposed -- I see that
about trying to obtain a part
existing seaward deck?
MR. MEYERHOLZ: Right.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
Can you address
you are talking
of the
CHAIRPERSON
property line.
MR.
MEYERHOLZ: Right.
Upon site
inspection, it would appear that it's pretty
spongy. It's likely with a new house, you
are going to want to put in a new deck, but
you are proposing to expand beyond where the
deck is at the moment to the side yard to
put in a hot tub?
MR. MEYERHOLZ: That's correct.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: That's going to
be extremely close to the side yard's. You
know, by extending that even farther into
the side yard, the side yard of the house is
one that is on the corner, is very, very
close.
MR. MEYERHOLZ: Yes, it is.
WEISMAN: To that shared
May 3, 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
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: So can you please
address the necessity of that?
MR. MEYERHOLZ: Well, it would be
difficult for me to say that there is a
medical reason for this or any other reason,
other than this is what my wife wants, to be
candid. She always wanted to have a hot
tub. There is no other place to put that on
the property. It was put here, and I think
we're talking about extending the deck an
additional five feet to accommodate that hot
tub. There is a drainage facility just to
the -- off the south side of the deck. It's
a small circle there. That would allow for
any discharge of that tub to be placed in
the proper underground drywell. So we took
care to make sure there is no impact to the
environment. We also chose not to put in a
retaining wall or any kind of seaward
construction. If anything, we seeked
approval and asked the DEC to add beach
material to that area to make sure that it
provides some protection to the house. And
also when you raise the house up, you would
have some stairs to go down. You know, this
May 3, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 57
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
house had to be raised approximately three
feet, I believe. Rather than have those
additional steps, just raising the beach
from it's current footing of the house, out
15 feet seaward, which I think is some 74-76
cubic yards beach material, which the DEC is
allowing us to do. We also wanted to take
care, there are several trees on the
property, on the beach side, which are not
visible on this site plan. We're going to
take great care to maintain those trees.
We're going to lose some trees on the road
side because of the construction activity
and largely because of the septic system,
but we can not help that. But we do want to
take every care that we can to maintain
that. We're very concerned about disrupting
anything on the water side. Yes, you are
right, the current deck is in disrepair.
the description, I made sure that whatever
goes into the ground is not going to be
contaminated with a CC8 type of material.
want to make sure that that material is
out of the ground, so that there is no
leaching into the water table.
In
I
well
May 3, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 58
1
2
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: You are also
proposing a new outdoor shower on the south
side?
MR. MEYERHOLZ: Yes, we are. That is
the only place that it could go. It's a
standing shower just for rinsing saltwater
off your body as you are coming in from the
beach. Now, this side of the house now,
it's almost a "no man's land" right now.
With the new constriction that went on -- on
the south side, the Swingts property, that
whole side there is very tight. There is a
tank for fuel oil that will be removed and a
concrete pad that will be removed. That
would be located in a different place, to
allow us to walk through a little more.
There is practically no windows on that side
of the house. So --
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: We have all
visited the site. We have all seen it.
MR. MEYERHOLZ: So you see the
limitations, there -- we tried to design
something, you know, that was nice. The
coverage issue, I know, is probably your
most concern here, but we do have some
lot
May 3, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 59
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
comps. If you notice, there is a small
cottage across the street that is on a piece
of land, I don't know, maybe the size of
this room. And it has to be half the house
that is sitting on the land. I can't even
think of the names of the folks, but there
are some cottages that have been built many,
many years ago. So it would be difficult
for us to get some information to
demonstrate that it is not so different than
what currently exist. Trying to maintain
care and not disturbing the environment.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Well, I can
understand all the things that you want, but
it's a really small lot. I know the Board
is very familiar with that neighborhood and
with the various issues that you have raised
and addressing the character of the
neighborhood. But you have two absolute
nonfunctional side yard's when it comes to
any kind of emergency equipment accessing
the side of your house, it's not going to
happen. Not with these side yard's. So
further obstruction to the already tight
side yard's that you are proposing, is
May 3, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 60
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
something that the Board will have to
consider very carefully, because the law
requires us to grant the minimum variance
reasonably possible. And you have to make a
very strong case on why you require those
variances.
MR. MEYERHOLZ: Let me also point out
here that the side yard on the south side,
which is also the corner of the Swing
property, that was existing. That was
applied and approved by the Board. I have
don't have documentation. I have it written
down. I believe it was 1969 or even
earlier. It was a prior owner who put that
addition in. The proposed additions that we
are presenting here today, have setbacks off
that corner. So there -- we didn't even try
to come close to that corner. We're
probably about six feet from the edge of the
property for any addition that comes out to
the street side. It's a very difficult
property to manage here. I understand that,
but it's already an existing corner here.
That's why we have it. I am not asking to
come closer, it already exist.
May 3, 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
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: It does exist,
however, you have already made mention of
the fact, that both the Building Department
and you have testified to the fact, that
it's possible that this will be a total
demo, based upon what you discover when you
do reconstruction?
MR. MEYERHOLZ: Right.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I think that is
an accurate statement that you have made.
In fact, once that is demolished, the law
asks us to look at how to improve the
nonconformities that existed before. If you
were to look. You probably got a very tiny
cottage on this property with much greater
conformity, but to do a two-story house that
is the size of many other houses in the
area, is not feasible relative to the other
being conforming. So I just want you to be
aware of the kind of issues that the Board
has to examine when making a determination,
because if something is demolished, than the
previous CO is no longer applicable, nor are
the existing setbacks applicable. If it's
being maintained and being added onto, then
May 3, 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
that is another story. Then, you can argue,
yes, it's existing. But if it winds up that
you have to do so much reconstruction, that
it's literally Building Department has
called a demolition, than those
nonconformities that are there now, are no
longer considered relevant. I do understand
the testimony. I think the whole Board
does. I want you to understand that those
are the circumstances that the Board has to
grapple with. I am going to turn this over
to Ken, and see if he has some questions?
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Yes, I have a few
questions
guess it's your
28.9?
about the lot coverage. One, I
second submittal, showing
MR. MEYERHOLZ: Yes, I believe.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: It shows the
deck at 401 square feet and it
proposed deck at 334 square feet.
MR. MEYERHOLZ: Yes.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: The site plan shows
and extension to the deck. So I am a little
square
existing
shows the
confused, you're increasing the area
footage of the deck --
May 3, 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
MR. MEYERHOLZ: The only addition of
the deck that I am aware of is on the south
side where you see the proposed hot tub.
Everything else is existing. And there is
second-story deck, which is that hash mark
on the second-story over the current
existing deck.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: The proposed new
deck, I should say the proposed deck will be
a
Sure.
the
same place as the existing deck?
in the
MR. MEYERHOLZ: That is correct.
Except raised by some three feet --
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Oh, yeah. Okay.
So you plan, more or less, to rebuild
existing deck in the same location?
MR. MEYERHOLZ: Correct.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: And add to it, a hot
MR. MEYERHOLZ: Correct.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: That
tub?
proposing?
is what you are
MR. MEYERHOLZ: If we can save it, we
will save it. As you can see --
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: I am just talking
about the footprint.
May 3, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 64
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. MEYERHOLZ: The footprint will
Whether you
remain the same.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER:
save the
looking at
material is another story. I am
the lot coverage's and just the
calculations, the existing is 401
square
feet and the proposed is 334. So it's 60
some odd feet less --
MR. MEYERHOLZ: I am going to defer to
Mr. Brown on that question because I am not
the architect.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: I am just missing
something here.
MR. BROWN: Robert Brown,
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Hello,
MR. BROWN: Hi. This was
If my memory serves me correct,
the lower right hand corner of
proposed balcony over the
put that calculation into
additional
house. The
house.
MEMBER
balcony over
decking will
architect.
Mr. Brown.
a while back.
the area in
the footprint
existing deck, we
the area of the
square footage of the
SCHNEIDER:
existing deck. So
still be balcony?
That's a proposed
underneath
May 3, 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
2O
21
22
23
24
25
MR. BROWN: We included that into the
house.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: The house
calculation. Okay that is my answer to that
question.
MEMBER HORNING: I want to follow up
that because I am a little confused also
because I have these two site plans. They
on
are both dated that our office received them
on February 27, 2012, and one calls for the
total proposed lot coverage of 26.8%, and
total proposed
the other one calls for the
lot coverage of 28.9%.
MR. BROWN: The 28.9% is accurate. The
initial site plan that was sent to you in
error. We were not including the overhang
in front of the entrance of the house into
the square footage calculation of the house.
When we realized that was done in error, we
added the square footage of the overhang and
that brought it up to 28.9, which is the
accurate calculation.
MEMBER HORNING:
questions, Ken?
MEMBER SCHNEIDER:
Do you have more
Yes. The
May 3, 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
Chairperson addressed it before and
explained it upon demolition, you will
existing side yards.
lose
Let me just
reiterate the question on the deck, while
we're still on it. Just so we're clear on
it, especially while you are here, Rob. The
survey indicates the existing deck is 401
square feet, and we have just been told that
you are going to keep that footprint but add
to it in the side yard. So why is the
proposed structure of the deck listed as 334
square feet, which is less than the 401 that
you currently have?
MR. BROWN: Okay. The existing deck
was L-shaped. In the lower right hand
corner of the house, you see the hatched
area. That was deck that is being covered
by a balcony. So we removed that square
footage from the deck calculation.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Gotcha. That
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: And front yard.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: I don't have any
questions right now, unless any other Board
member has questions?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
May 3, 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
just needed to be clear on the record.
George?
MEMBER HORNING: I just have a couple
of questions. Referring to the variance
that was granted quite some time ago, 1961,
which from what I can tell, that is a
variance that actually established the
current setbacks on the side yard?
over
MR. BROWN: Yes, sir.
MEMBER HORNING: I just wanted to go
a couple of statements from that
variance. And this statement here says,
"this residential area consists in the main
or mostly of summer cottages. Many
undersized lots with insufficient sides and
front yard areas." At that
summer cottage?
MR. MEYERHOLZ: Yes,
MEMBER HORNING: And
round --
MR. MEYERHOLZ: The home
that would probably qualify it
time, was this a
it was.
was it year
has heat, so
to be year
round. It's very small. It's antiquated.
The construction is interior. So I am
proposing 2x6 interior construction. So
May 3, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 68
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
that we have
thickness to
any wind resistance.
MEMBER HORNING:
year round residence?
round
the integrity of the additional
accommodate the insulation and
MEMBER
proposing?
MR. MEYERHOLZ: It's going to be a year
residence. My wife and I are --
HORNING: That is what you are
MR. MEYERHOLZ: Yes, sir.
MEMBER HORNING: So somehow between
1961 and now, which is a long time, this
building transformed from a summer cottage
to a year round residency?
MR. MEYERHOLZ: In effect, there was a
heating system that was added, but there was
no insulation added at the time. The story
behind it as, my in-laws put that heating
system in because my sister-in-law was
working in Riverhead, and she needed a place
to stay for a year or two, and she was there
while she was a young teacher. Up until
this day, there is no year-round living in
that house.
MEMBER HORNING: But there could be and
It's going to be a
May 3, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 69
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
there will be?
MR. MEYERHOLZ:
the intent, sir.
MEMBER HORNING:
There will be. That is
The
addressing that in 1961,
main of summer cottages.
door, the Swing's, was that
residence?
MR. MEYERHOLZ:
MEMBER HORNING:
time that the Swing's
MR. MEYERHOLZ:
three bedroom, heated,
MEMBER HORNING:
the neighborhood
cottages to year
MR. MEYERHOLZ:
Several of the homes,
neighborhood is
it consist in the
The house next
a
summer
Yes, it was.
Was it up until the
got a variance?
It's now a full-time --
year round residence.
Has the character of
changed from summer
round residences?
Most definitely, sir.
I would say at least
half. If not more than half, have been over
the years reconstructed. There was several
years ago a large vacant land across the
street, it's Lot 27, 27.1, 27.2, that was
subdivided. I have the documentation,
can't remember the date. Right now, there
is two year round residences on that
May 3, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 70
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
property. So the area is transforming into
a year round living environment for
residents. So it was a new house built up
the street, that Mr. Swing actually wound up
buying. I think his parents own the house
next to me now, and he bought that house
about a quarter of the mile up the street,
to my understanding.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Hold on, we will
be right with you.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Can I ask you a
question? How are you today, sir?
MR. MEYERHOLZ: Good, how are you?
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: In the evaluation
of the overall foundation of this house,
because that is one thing that I did not
necessarily take a look at when I was there.
Is there any portion of this that can be
saved? I understand it has to be raised
three feet?
MR. MEYERHOLZ: It does have
raised three feet to comply with
regulations. Gosh, I am trying to
now. I believe, if memory, serves,
The intention was to add onto
to be
remember
yes.
the existing
May 3, 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
foundation.
MR. BROWN: We
engineering study.
what we see, that we
foundation.
haven't done an
That we believe from
can add onto the
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Does your client
understand based upon the demolition, and
this is not a sarcastic statement, that all
bets are off on the side yards and setbacks
from the water? In my particular opinion.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I think we have
already stated that.
MR. MEYERHOLZ: I understand that.
MR. BROWN: The hope from the design
point of view was to maintain as much of the
footprint as possible. So going forward, if
it's deemed a full demolition. And we have
gone back and forth on that before. I
certainly understand that it creates a
different set of circumstance for you, but
in order to maintain as much of the
character as we could, we wanted
the footprint.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The problem that I
see that we have, we have had an application
to maintain
May 3, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 72
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
in four different public hearings for a
property over on another waterfront source
on the edge of Greenport, and we finally got
a recommendation from the engineer, and this
has nothing to do with you, that indicated,
yes, they are going to be able to do a
significant amount of under plaining to the
foundation, so that we could allow the major
portion of the house to be kept, but it took
four public hearings to do that. In this
particular case, you know we have an
existing cottage that has some sort of heat,
that have a total setback of 10.3, where you
should have 25, and I can't see the
possibility from my standpoint of being able
to get to the water, and as the Chairperson
has said, with at least a minimum of 8 feet.
So if you put 8 feet there and you increase
the setback a little on the side of the
Swing property to 5, maybe 13 as total side
yard. I don't see it as it exists today,
that it can accommodate that situation. I
don't think there is ever a problem with
working with an applicant, but this is a
very, very difficult situation based upon
May 3, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 73
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
this particular project. And even more if
this is a total demolition. And I don't
know how you add onto a house, without
picking up a house, without placing the
whole situation into a demolition, and then
places the setbacks to more of a conforming
situation. So I don't see it at this
particular point, and I am certainly willing
as a member, to work with this fine
gentleman and you sir, and we have worked
with you tirelessly on all kinds of
applications over the years.
MR. BROWN: Yes.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: And a very, very
nice person.
MR. BROWN: Thank you.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: As the applicant
appears to be. In the past, I always
suggested that in my particular opinion, and
this has nothing to do with the Board, that
we take the garage away from the premises
first, and then worry about that later
because of the excess lot coverage and then
get the frame of the dwelling in place
first, then deal with the lot coverage for
May 3, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 74
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1
2
3
4
5
the garage later. Unfortunately, in that
particular case as you see, many of these
houses on this block have detached garages.
So that would be the case, in my particular
opinion. So we worry about how big the
garage is going to be after a finished
project of the dwelling first. I have done
that with swimming pools over the years and
so forth.
MR. BROWN: I understand your point of
view and my feeling in this particular
instance, is that due to the size of the
property, detaching the garage becomes more
problematic because of the lack of space.
That was why we had this specific design.
CHAIRPERSON
of time,
comments
if there
WEISMAN: In the interest
I want to see if Member Dinizio has
or questions at this point, and see
is anyone else in the audience has
sure that he has the full benefit of the
testimony on this application. So Jim, do
you have comments or questions?
MEMBER DINIZIO: Just a comment. That
any questions. Member Schneider has to
leave fairly soon, and I would like to make
May 3, 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
2O
21
22
23
24
25
I think 28.9 is a lot. I will leave that up
to you.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay. Is there
anyone else in the audience that would like
to address this application? Please come to
the mic and state your name, sir.
MR. SWING: My name is Robert Swing and
I am here with my wife Celia Swing,
C-E-L-I-A. We have been residents in
Greenport since 1971. We have lived at 445
Island View Lane until 2007. We bought the
house from my son just recently, and I have
some comments. We presently live at 4295
Bay Shore Road in Greenport. We are
permanent residents living adjacent to the
proposed variance application before you
We have reviewed the proposals and
today.
have a few concerns regarding the
encroachment of the preexisting
nonconforming side yard setback at the
property of 4295 Bay Shore Road. The site
plan calls for the construction of a hot
by an additional 5 feet. At 5 feet
encroachment, this would be right outside
our bedroom window. In addition, the
tub
May 3, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 76
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
proposal calls for an outdoor shower on the
same side. This would be outside our guest
bedroom window. This appears to leave only
about 4 feet between the two properties.
The above encroachments would make the
enjoyment and use of our property very
create a
That
difficult. It addition, it would
problem for any emergency equipment.
is our statement.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Thank
MR. MEYERHOLZ: Can I just
that?
you, sir.
respond to
be
taken into consideration. I just wanted the
Board to know that when the Swing property
was constructed, the original design did not
call for a elevated platform staircase on
that common property side, for the side door
of that residence. The construction of that
is a 6 foot area and now reduced the access
to that side of the property for both of us
really. Less than two feet to his property
line. So while I understand and can
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Yes, you can.
MR. MEYERHOLZ: I understand Mr.
Swing's comments and everything. It will
May 3, 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
2O
21
22
23
24
25
appreciate his comments and his security, as
far as I understand, it is very important.
I have a family and I have children. Here
we are addressing a side yard issue, where
the concerns apparently wasn't there when
they built that staircase. My understanding
is that the stairs wasn't in the original
plans, but as I watched that being
constructed, I had expressed some concern to
the Building Department. The Building
Department said that that was going to be
approved. If there is an issue for fire or
emergency vehicles or access, it's already
impaired, at least on that side of the
property. It would difficult for me to just
physically move it to now address a concern
that Mr. Swing has, and I share that
concern. When I came down here it was okay,
and I say to myself, wow -- first of all,
how do I have a staircase right outside my
house and it being less than 2 feet from the
property line? So I am a little confused as
to how we reconcile that.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Ma'am, if you
wish to speak, you have to come to the mic
May 3, 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
and state your name.
MS. SWING: My name is Celia Swing and
-- we did not build the house. To my
understanding, and I can't attest to this
100% but my understanding that staircase was
turned around. So that it is parallel to
the house. That was the only comment that I
wanted to make. It doesn't go this way. It
goes this way, right on -- I guess, they are
the blue stones that are there. So it goes
this way.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: We have observed
it. We have been to the site. We look at
the surrounding neighborhood. That is part
of our job. We do that for every
application.
MS. SWING: Okay.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Are there
comments or questions from the Board at this
point? How do you want to proceed? You
have given us some very significant
testimony about the character of the
neighborhood and so on. We would like to
take a look at the other various variances
that you have supplied. Is that information
May 3, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 79
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
all in the same with
used?
MR. MEYERHOLZ:
I used that information that
your office.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
some concerns about lot
particularly about side
shower and the hot tub.
the notes that you
Yes, that is correct.
I received from
You have heard
coverage and
yard, the deck, the
MR. MEYERHOLZ: Right.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Some suggestion
about a garage, lot coverage. How would the
Board feel and how would you feel, if we
gave you an opportunity to contemplate those
comments as we will yours, and to come back
before the Board, to see if there is some
way you can do some adjustments to make this
property a little more conforming?
MR. MEYERHOLZ: I would be happy to
Board
look at anything that would allow the
to consider our application for
construction. So I will go back
the side yard.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay,
are going to have to come before
and address
because you
us.
May 3, 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
upon
need
may
MR. MEYERHOLZ: Sure,
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
the nature of the
amended Notice
It depends
MEYERHOLZ:
information from your
second meeting?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
going to do based upon this
an
not.
MR.
with some ideas.
And depending
amendments, it may
of Disapproval or it
on how you proceed.
I assume I can get that
office regarding a
Well, what I am
discussion is
make a motion to adjourn this hearing to,
June 7th?
MR. MEYERHOLZ: Is that a Wednesday or
a Thursday?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: It's a Thursday.
It's always on a Thursday.
MR. MEYERHOLZ: I am not sure. I may
from a business trip, an
So I may or may not be able
The next public
be getting back
oversees trip.
to do it.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
hearing date is July 5th.
MR. MEYERHOLZ: Let me first check.
don't want to delay the procedures.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: We can't delay.
I
May 3, 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
There is formal procedures that we have to
do. t am going to make a motion to adjourn
to June 7th at 1:00 o'clock; however, if you
are unable to be here, all you need to do is
write a letter requesting an adjournment
till July.
MR. MEYERHOLZ: Okay.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Write to the
Board and we can handle it that way.
MR. MEYERHOLZ: Ail right. Thank you
very much.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: So I am making a
motion to adjourn this application to
June 7th at 1:00 o'clock to receive
additional information on revised plans.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Seconded by
Gerry.
Ail in favor?
MEMBER DINIZIO: Aye.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye.
MEMBER HORNING: Aye.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Aye.
(See Minutes for Resolution.)
May 3, 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: I am
make a motion to recess for two
there
a second?
MEMBER GOEHRINGER:
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
MEMBER DINIZIO: Aye.
Second.
Ail
going to
minutes. Is
in favor?
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye.
MEMBER HORNING: Aye.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Aye.
(Whereupon, a brief recess was
taken.)
HEARING #6561 JUSTIN AND SUSAN
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The next
SMITH
application is for Justin and Susan Smith,
#6561. Request for variances from
Article XXIII Section 280-124 and
Article III Section 280-15 based on an
application for building permit and the
Building Inspector's July 29, 2011, updated
March 20, 2012 Notice of Disapproval
concerning additions and alteration to an
accessory garage attached by a breezeway,
at; 1) less than the code required front
May 3, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 83
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
yard setback of 40 feet, 2) more than the
maximum height allowable of 22 feet, located
at; 1040 Founders Path, corner Landon Road
in Southold.
Could you please just state your name?
MR. SMITH: Justin Smith. My wife
Susan.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: What would you
like to tell us about your application,
Mr. Smith?
MR. SMITH: You guys have been around
the neighborhood. You drive around the
neighborhood.
So I am pretty much
approval.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: So your front
yard setback is what is there now, of your
accessory garage of 34 --
MR. SMITH: I think it's 34.1.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: 34.1, plus or
minus. The code requires 40. The maximum
the new accessory code allows for a garage
on your size lot is 22 feet and you would
like it to be 25 feet. Can you tell us why
you would like it to be 25 feet?
A lot of houses are closer.
just asking for
May 3, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 84
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
1
2
3
4
5
MR. SMITH: Storage. I don't have any
basement in the house. It's a slab and I
have two kids, a growing family, and no
place to put anything.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I can certainly
understand that for storage, but you can
accomplish the same number of square feet
with
a different configuration
be as high. You're
hip roof to a gable roof.
little bit about why you
that wouldn't
proposing to change a
Can you tell us a
want to do that?
So it matches the house.
It would look a
is -- being that
Okay. Jim, do
Can you turn
Meaning, make it
the
MR. SMITH:
The house is a gable roof.
little weird if the garage
it has two front yard's.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
you have any questions?
MEMBER DINIZIO: Yes.
roof the other way?
flat --
MR. SMITH: It
it. Gabled on each
side you turn it, it's
MEMBER DINIZIO:
MR. SMITH: Yes.
would be the way we got
side. No matter what
going to be the same.
Like a pyramid?
It matches the house.
May 3, 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
MEMBER DINIZIO: No dormers or anything
like that on there?
MR. SMITH: No. Inside the garage now,
the guy had a tac room before I bought it.
MEMBER DINIZIO: Do you keep your cars
there now?
want.
MR.
heated.
MR. SMITH: Yeah.
MEMBER DINIZIO: Okay.
MR. SMITH: Classic cars.
MEMBER DINIZIO: It can be any car
I am not concerned about it.
SMITH: But it's not going to be
you
MEMBER DINIZIO: It's on a corner lot,
so that's limited to you also. The adjacent
property looks similar. You're a corner
lot,
so you have some more restricted side
yard's. It's probably unique. It says area
gable roof is not substantial, can you just
reiterate on that? Explain that to me?
MR. SMITH: Like I said, it would be a
little weird if I put a hip roof back on it.
MEMBER DINIZIO: You're going to go up
on the sides of the garage --
MR. SMITH: Yeah.
May 3, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 86
1
2
3
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MEMBER DINIZIO: And then you're going
to have this roof, right?
MR. SMITH: Yes.
MEMBER DINIZIO: The peak of that is
going to be 25 feet; is that correct?
MR. SMITH: That's correct. The
maximum height would be --
MEMBER BINIZIO: Would be what you are
asking for?
MR. SMITH: Right.
MEMBER DINIZIO: Ail right. I think
that is all I have.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay, Jim. We
who
did receive a letter from Mr. Fischetti
is your engineer on your project.
MR. SMITH: Unfortunately, he is not
here.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Who is your
neighbor. Indicating that his house is 15.3
from Landon Lane and his garage is 34.5 from
Landon Lane, and yours is 34. So you're
talking about five inches. In driving
around the area, it's just about every other
house has two -- on Landon, are corner lots
with two front yards. And in my
May 3, 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
observation,
a number of them are actually
They're even much closer to the street.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Gerry?
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: You know it's
funny, I am looking at the picture of the
garage and I could understand why you want
to change it. The lack of overhang. The
lack of everything. I have been over there,
but it doesn't give you that impression when
you're standing on the driveway then looking
at it right here and there. So I really
don't have any further questions.
MEMBER HORNING:
of this drawings here,
height railing,
exterior --
MR. SMITH:
interior.
is that on
the
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The railing for
staircase.
MEMBER HORNING: Ail right. So this is
CHAIRPERSON
WEISMAN: George?
Just one. On
there is a 3
Sheet #2
foot
the second floor
No. No. That's the
closer to Landon --
MR. SMITH: The houses are. Not even a
garage. Some of the garages are too.
May 3, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 88
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
the interior view?
MR. SMITH: Right.
MEMBER HORNING: There is no little
deck outside?
MR. SMITH: No deck.
MEMBER HORNING: I was just curious.
MR. SMITH: I am not changing the
footprint at all.
MEMBER HORNING: Okay.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Is there anyone
else in the audience that would like to
address this application?
(No Response.)
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Hearing no
further comments, I will make a motion to
close this hearing and reserve decision to a
later date.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Ail in favor?
MEMBER DINIZIO: Aye.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye.
MEMBER HORNING: Aye.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Aye.
(See Minutes for Resolution.)
May 3, 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
HEARING #6562 - LAURA YANTSOS
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The next
application before the Board is Laura
Yantos, #6562. Request for variance from
Article XXIII Section 280-124 based on an
application for building permit and the
Building Inspector's March 6, 2012 Notice of
Disapproval concerning "as built" addition
to an existing single family dwelling, at;
1) less than the code required side yard
setback of 10 feet, located at; 3455 Bay
Shore Road, adjacent to Shelter Island
Sound, Greenport. Hi.
MS. YANTSOS: Here is my problem --
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Excuse me.
Please enter your name into the public
record, we're tape recording this.
MS. YANTSOS: Laura Yantsos,
Y-A-N-T-S-O-S.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I have some
things for you. One is a letter from
Suffolk County indicating this is a matter
for our local determination. Just a formal
letter. Thing that we have to go through.
The other is a memorandum from the Local
May 3, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 90
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Waterfront Revitalization Program
coordinator, indicating that this is a
waterfront property, that what you propose
to do is exempt from regulations. So if you
would like to have a copy, we will be happy
to provide them to you.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay. So please
tell us what you would like us to know?
MS. YANTSOS: My problem is, my parents
own this house from 1956, and both my
parents are deceased and now I have the
house. I went down to the Building
Department to look in the file and found
that there was absolutely nothing in this
file. I knew my father had enclosed a
carport that built in '56. It had a roof,
gable, ceiling, a foundation and it was held
up by four posts. I don't know -- I
included a picture. I don't know if they
took it out.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: No, it's in here.
We have all done a site inspection also. We
have seen your property and the neighbor's
properties.
MS. YANTSOS: So that's why I am here.
May 3, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 91
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
I went down to get
enclosure and they
the variance.
CHAIRPERSON
question in your
in a letter that
considering a
house?
a permit for the
told me to come here
for
WEISMAN: I just had one
application. You indicated
in future you were
proposal to square off the
MS. YANTSOS: I was thinking it would
look a lot better if it were squared, which
would mean it would come out that 6 feet. I
think it's 6 feet. I am not sure. If it's
6 feet, the den would come out to meet the
rest of the house.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I just want you
to be aware of the fact that since that is
not before us now, it is as built?
MS. YANTSOS: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: What we're
looking at right now is a 5 foot variance
MS. YANTSOS: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: And that would
bring you up to date. If you do
to do anything in the future, it
just
propose
will
increase the degree of nonconformance,
May 3, 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
and you will have to come back before this
Board?
MS. YANTSOS: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Just so you
understand.
MS. YANTSOS: I do.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay. Gerry,
questions?
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Situations like
this, we have many variances on a road
called Carol Road, and when you have a
diminished side yard in this particular
nature, the carport in those cases were
upgraded from a carport to a garage. The
Board at that time, requested you to put
garage doors on both sides, so in the case
of a firefighting situation, both doors
could be open. Now why I am emphasizing
that is because you only have one access and
that is the south access, from Shelter
Island to your waterfront portion property.
And that access has to remain open. The
pictures that you provided, which I did not
look at the opposite side of the house.
There is absolutely no way a fire person
May 3, 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
could drag hose through the house to that
side.
MS. YANTSOS: That is the other side of
the house.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I understand that.
I am just saying that it is absolutely
important to keep that side open.
MS. YANTSOS: Oh, yes.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Because
only access to your waterfront
house for emergency purposes.
MS. YANTSOS: I understand that.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: We understand what
went on and it's really conforming to your
house apart from the restricted side yard.
It is what it is.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
MEMBER DINIZIO: Well, I
this house when I was in high
that is the
know, I don't remember
dad must have done this
MS. YANTSOS: Yes.
of '76 or '77.
MEMBER DINIZIO:
out with your brother,
the carport, but your
a real while ago.
It was the winter
I think I used to hang
Mike. I am Jolene
Jim?
had been in
school. You
side of the
May 3, 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
Dinizio's --
MS. YANTSOS: Yeah, I know.
MEMBER DINIZIO: You know, I have no
objection to it.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: There is a
comment that we got -- even though you are
exempt from the LWRP. The question that was
raised by the coordinator was, the gutters
that are on your house, do they go into any
type of a drywell, or are they just spilling
out? The leaders that come down.
MS. YANTSOS: They are just spilling
out, yeah.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The one thing, I
certainly am not going to suggest that you
go into the expense of putting in a drywell,
in order to connect the leaders to a
drywelt. The law requires the drainage from
roof and things like that to be contained on
the property. That it doesn't roll off your
driveway into a street. It doesn't roll off
into the bay. That is the current drainage
code, and that is really up to the Building
Department to address. But there is a
possibility of improving onsite drainage to
May 3, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 95
1
2
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
ll
12
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
where the gutters and leaders are by putting
in a small buffer of native vegetation along
the water edge of property. Native grasses,
rosa rugosa, things like that, that would
prevent rather than spilling onto your
driveway. It will filter and prevent runoff
from the driveway or the roofs into the bay.
He has raised that as an issue here. So I
am raising it here in the hearing to see if
you have any thoughts about planting a
buffer on the bulkhead.
MS. YANTSOS: Along the bulkhead?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Yes. You have
just grass there, right?
MS. YANTSOS: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I am saying that
the recommendations of the LWRP coordinator
has made is to improve drainage on the
property. To keep it on the property, is to
put a bed of native plants. Not tulips and
rose bushes and hydrangeas, but things that
are drop tolerant. There is a definition in
the code, I can provide it for you, of the
things that grow here that filter roof
runoff. You look confused?
May 3, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 96
1
2
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MS. YANTSOS: Well, I don't see anyone
that has improved their property on my road,
everybody, except my mother. I don't see
anyone having that. I am setback from the
water further back from anyone on the road.
My next door neighbor and I are about 75
feet back. Everyone else is closer to the
water.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I bring it up not
to make judgement or suggest that you have
to do this. I bring this up, so you can
answer it the way that you just did. Which
it is your opinion that it is not
characteristic of the neighborhood.
MS. YANTSOS: It's not at all.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Ail right.
MS. YANTSOS: I can't imagine the water
running that far.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: That's all I
wanted to hear. I raise it because we need
to have the applicant to address it. So I
think she has adequately addressed it.
MEMBER DINIZIO: It's not really a big
huge deal. The LWRP coordinator is reading
from a book of best practices. Best
May 3, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 97
1
2
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
practices that on a bulkhead, is to buffer
that bulkhead. You haven't done anything
for 35 to 40 years, unless --
MS. YANTSOS: 60.
MEMBER DINIZIO: They will tell you how
to do it. It's not drywell's. It's the way
it comes down. It's pretty simple.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: George, did you
have
one,
any questions?
MEMBER HORNING: No,
the second memo.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
memorandum. It was
to me from Mark.
MEMBER HORNING: Okay.
that.
wasn't a
e-mailed
see
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
to the LWRP format, per se.
MEMBER DINIZIO: There
applicants on that e-mail?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
one?
three.
I didn't see that
Actually,
an e-mail
it
I would like to
It wasn't related
is a couple of
MEMBER DINIZIO:
Yes.
It wasn't just this
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: No. There is
He mentions three properties that
May 3, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 98
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
are exempt. Nevertheless, he put on his
stormwater management hat. The Town is
increasingly mandated to become State
compliant with new regulations that talk
about preventing pollution through
stormwater runoff. You know, our roadways
are full of oils and things like that. So
we're going to become more vigilant as times
goes on. Making sure that all property
owners contain all of the runoff from their
roofs and accessory structures, on their own
property into drywell's.
MS. YANTSOS: Okay. The deer have
eaten everything.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: You are not the
only one. Okay. There is no one else in
the audience. I assume there is no further
comments. Is there anything else from the
Board?
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I am going to
make a motion to close this hearing and
reserve decision to a later date.
Is there a second?
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second.
May 3, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 99
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Ail
MEMBER DINIZIO: Aye.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye.
MEMBER HORNING: Aye.
in favor?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Aye.
(See Minutes for Resolution.)
HEARING #6488 LISA AND DAVID CIFARELLI
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I am going to
open the next application before the Board.
This is for Lisa and David Cifarelli, #6488.
Re-opened from August 4, 2011 public
hearing. On August 18, 2011 the Zoning
Board of Appeals granted a front yard, rear
yard and side yard variance to the applicant
based upon a Request for Variances from
Article XXIII Code Section 280-122 based on
a building permit application for additions
and alterations to a nonconforming building,
located at; 1335 New Suffolk Road,
Cutchogue. The Zoning Board of Appeals, at
its April 5, 2012 Regular Meeting, voted on
its motion to re-open the public hearing to
consider additional facts not in the record
concerning two principal uses on the site
May 3, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 100
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
and compliance with lot area requirements as
set forth in the memorandum from the
Planning Board to the Zoning Board of
Appeals dated February 15, 2012 and other
pertinent Town records. Before we begin on
this application, I would like to make some
opening comments. How many are here to
address this application one way or another?
Pretty much everybody. So for the benefit
of the public in general and the applicant
and agents, I would like to mention a couple
of things. The purpose here today is to
enter into the record the facts that were
not made part of the original record. And
we're not here to revisit the variance that
was granted to this applicant, but rather
we're responding to a letter from the
Planning Board that we received on
February 15th as a consequence of their Site
Plan Review process, and the public hearing
that
time
was held at that time. Between that
and April, the Zoning Board asked that
our assistant and others undertake research,
so that we may properly respond to the
concerns presented to us by the Planning
May 3, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 101
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Board. And that
research was quite
extensive. A copy was provided to the
applicants counsel, and to the Planning
Board and Planning Department, and that
established a timeline of the history of the
property, which we are here to look at. How
it evolved. How the structures appeared to
have evolved on the subject property. We
have collected copies of all the Building
Department records, all previous variances,
all property record cards, all CO's and
Pre-CO's, and established a timeline of what
went on on that property. Not easily done.
Records were not always carefully kept. We
did a good deal of investigation, and feel
we have a better sense of what went on, on
that property. That is what we want to, in
part, enter into the record today. We
acknowledge the existence of the two CO's on
that
the property. That is not something
we're questioning. And we want to look at
this history, probably back in the day when
things were done less formally. Two CO's
were issued. They likely, as it appears
were not necessarily looked at in
May 3, 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
relationship together. Rather in terms of
individual structures. Had that not likely
been the case, there is a likelihood the
Building Inspector at the time, would have
issued a Notice of Disapproval for the two
uses on a substandard size property that
does not meet the code required bulk
schedule. That was not the case. We're
here to appropriately address that
concern
and after reviewing all of that research.
This reopening was voted on unanimously,
without prejudice. So that we could hear
all pertinent testimony in order to how to
best understand how to proceed here. We
will not be making a decision on any of this
today. The Board -- we will see how this
unfolds based upon testimony from all
interested parties, but no decision of any
kind will be made today. I want to make
sure that you all understand. Let me review
for the record, so we understand what
happened on
also be for
research is
our office.
this property. And that would
the benefit of the public. That
available to the public through
It has appropriately already
May 3, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 103
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
been provided to counsel, so that they may
respond to it at this hearing or in any
future action. The Planning Board has
indicated that they will not proceed with
Site Plan Review until they heard from the
Zoning Board. So it's really our effort to
help -- the Zoning Board, to help the
process along and to address some of these
concerns for both the Planning Board and the
neighbor's. This is a diagram that kind of
summarizes the written research. And I am
going to just read into the record of what
that says. Now, the timeline incorporates a
full assessor's card with photos dated
approximately 1/19/62. The card indicated a
structure with a guest room and a garage
along with a 50x24 garage.
Beebe's building. This is all Beebe's
property at the time, which was a shop
office, B. Tutleo To the west side of New
Suffolk Road, Tutle property, and convert to
a dwelling. A portion of the building less
than Beebe's property as noted on the
March 29, 1962, the Building Department
issued a permit for removal of a portion of
May 3, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 104
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Assessor's card was the guest room garage.
This supported by the minutes of the
7/24/1996 Zoning Board of Appeals public
hearing, wherein, Beebe had stated that he
had moved his shop years ago, and he was
constructing an addition onto the existing
foundation.
December 1, 1966, Beebe applies for a
special exception for a business ground
sign. It was granted and the Zoning Board
of Appeals noted in the decision, that the
business was in existence prior to zoning.
December 5, 1978, Beebe applied for a
Pre-CO and indicated on the application that
the parcel is a business lot. The
inspection reports notes two structures on
the property as follows: Office and one car
garage, cement block foundation with a
partial cellar, oil fired heat and full
bathroom. 2) an accessory structure, four
car, with storage upstairs, cement block.
Other notations on the report is, "this
building is used for storage of building
materials and equipment used in contracting
business."
May 3, 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
Next, January 4, 1979 the Southold
Building Department issues a Pre-CO #Z9374,
for an office building and one car garage
and accessory structure for the parcel.
September 1, 1982, Beebe applied for
and received a building permit, 11886Z, to
enclose in garage door and install new
windows. Within the file, it's noted that
amended plans are required for an addition.
An 8X13 addition was added and the floor
plan was -- reveals two bedrooms, kitchen
and a bathroom. The bathroom was existing.
A CO was issued on February 15, 1989.
Addition was noted on the CO.
June 20, 1996 -- sorry, the CO was
issued on February 15, 1989. The addition
was not noted on the CO.
June 20, 1996, Building Department
issued a
Notice of Disapproval to construct
an addition to a dwelling. Lots selled
(sic) in common ownership, need Waiver of
Merger. Zoning Board of Appeals hearing
4/3/95, granted the Waiver of Merger. The
Zoning Board of Appeals decision notes that
each lot family
is improved with single
May 3, 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
dwelling and separate
increase in density with the
since the property has been
septic system and "no
lot waivers
improved with a
family dwelling constructed prior to
single
1970."
June 7, 1996, permit
addition to existing single family dwelling.
As noted in the transcript, the addition was
constructed on the existing foundation. See
No. 2, above. The dwelling is now four
bedrooms. CO issued 11/12/97 for addition
to existing one family dwelling as applied
for.
issued for an
That in summary, is the rather complex
history of the way in which the two
structures evolved on this property with
used for both
CO's or Pre-CO, and has been
dwelling and for a business
to instruct, but important
Now, what I would like to do is ask the
applicant counsel, or the applicant, if they
have any comments that they would like to
make regarding this research at this time?
MS. MOORE: Patricia Moore.
Mr. Goggins is supposed to be continuing
use. Not easy
to construct.
May 3, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 107
2
3
4
5
7
8
9
l0
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
with this hearing. I just heard from you
that he was delayed in the city. So I at
this time don't have any comments. I would
defer to him to review those documents. He
was just brought in yesterday or the day
before. So we have not had a chance -- in
fairness to him, I don't want to comment in
one way or another. So I just ask that the
record be left open, and I think this
hearing, is really to hear what you have to
say. What this is all about, and to give
the neighbor's an opportunity to voice their
concerns on the record. Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay, fair
enough, Pat. Let's do this. There are a
number of you here that want to address this
application. So why don~t you at least do
that at this point. Let's see who would
like to come forward. If you have anything
that you would like to say, to let us know
about, this is your opportunity. You need
to come up to either one of those podiums,
and state your name and spell it for the
record. And then say whatever it is that
you would like us to know.
May 3, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 108
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. RICKABAUGH: Okay. I am Mark
Rickabaugh.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
spell that name for us?
MR. RICKABAUGH: Sure.
R-I-C-K-A-B-A-U-G-H.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
MR. RICKABAUGH: And
Would you please
Thank you.
I and my family
say this to point out, that the road is not
commercial in our view. It is residential
and very pristine road. Everybody loves the
road. And it had improved greatly over the
years that -- I should say that it has
have owned the property that is the second
house north of the property under
discussion. And we have been there for
about thirty plus years. We have made a lot
of improvements and restorations over time.
The house is on the Southold Town Historical
Register. Pre-1700's, and we note that the
character of New Suffolk Road is very
historical. Very pretty, in our view.
Almost prestige. There is at least two
other houses, Pre-1700, and several other
houses that are historical nature. I only
May 3, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 109
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
improved nicely over the years. It evolved.
I just want to make that point. We have
some concern with the business property.
Relating to myself, the visual impact that
can occur and has already occurred. I think
particularly as a result of the trees that
are no longer there. The visual impact is
now such that you see buildings that are not
that attractive, and it definitely has much
more of a commercial feel. There is also
much more activity than what was the case
for as long as I knew of the property. And
that includes vehicles, and from what I
understand about the proposal, that the
number of vehicles could increase. I know
that the previous owner, Bill Beebe was a
local builder and he primarily used the
site
he
for storage and had two employees, since
mainly subcontracted all the work for his
building business. It was relatively low
amount of activity. And while I have been
there, I have never noticed almost anything.
As I said, it was well shielded by a
continued tree environment. So you never
really felt that there was a break in that
May 3, 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
situation. And to me, that is a very large
change. It seems difficult to understand
how a property, and I might not know the
Zoning laws accurately, but how a property
designated as "limited business" and where
the requirement under the Town Code is to
have 80,000 square feet, where there is
approximately 20,000 on this property. It
seems difficult to understand how a full
commercial operation can be allowed in that
situation. To me that seems like a
tremendous intensity particularly
considering a -- the small size of the lot.
Also regarding the two uses, again, it seems
like the property is small. And the two
uses, again would increase the intensity of
the file a lot further. And also, if it
involves multifam±ly, it would seem that
would be inconsistent with general
residential structure or feelings that
encompasses New Suffolk Road. So my major
thought is that I would like -- it would be
wonderful to see some kind of
crystallization that would get to the point
that the business operated would be more
May 3, 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
consistent with the size of
And the one primary business
probably more than the
property could handle.
essentially my comments,
forward to your deliberations.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Thank
-- or what
So that's
and I
the property.
would be
the
would look
you. Thank
piece of property next to the primary house,
which is to the south, and Mr. Beebe has
asked to construct a garage, or the garage
was there with the property initially. Is
that kind of what you are saying?
MS. ANDALORO: It appears that there
were two structures on the property prior to
zoning. So we're talking 1956, okay? And
then from the first records that we have on
file with the Town, which I believe is 1962,
you very much for your comments.
Who else?
MS. MCGRATH: Hi, I am Elizabeth
McGrath, M-C-G-R-A-T-H. I am one house
north to the property in question. And
would just like to clarify the timeline,
that you were just mentioning. Essentially,
you are saying that that lot was a vacant
May 3, 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
the tax card --
MS. MCGRATH: Okay.
MS. ANDALORO: It noted that this was
used for business purposes only. So those
structures were used for the business.
MS. MCGRATH: On the one site?
MS. ANDALORO: On the one site.
MS. MCGRATH: Which was attached to
primary dwelling?
MS. ANDALORO: It appears that there
were two lot that Beebe's owned. The house
-- the lot, which now has a house, and the
four bay garage and the parcel immediately
next to it, which has another house on it.
At some point, those two lots merged, which
means they became one lot. And Mr. Beebe
applied to the Zoning Board for a Waiver of
Merger to separate those two lots. So that
it had the lot, with just the house on it
and then the
the lot with
garage.
MS.
MS.
appears
lot in question here, which is
the house and the four bay
MCGRATH: Right.
ANDALORO: So from the records, it
that there -- there used to be one
May 3, 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
use on this lot. The office business use,
and then at some point throughout time, it
looks like it happened in the late 70's,
perhaps early 80's, what was part of the
office or
house.
MS.
MS.
acknowledge,
business use, became part of the
MCGRATH: Right.
ANDALORO: And it would
given a CO, but there
may have
been
the necessity to get additional relief
from this Zoning Board because the lot was
so small.
MS. MCGRATH: Right.
MS. ANDALORO: Okay, and that is what
the summary shows.
MS. MCGRATH: Okay. And that is what I
wanted to address, as time went on, way back
when, when there was vacant lands, the use
was -- you know, he was using it as an
office and perhaps a garage housed with
equipment. And as time went on and the area
developed, it developed into a residential
area. So much so, that he ultimately, if I
am reading this
for two primary
correctly, obtained two CO's
dwellings that were wooden
May 3, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 114
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
structures that were homes. Is that right?
MS. ANDALORO: I think the issue here
is that you have one lot with a business
use, and a residential use, that does not
have enough lot area.
MS. MCGRATH: Exactly.
MS. ANDALORO: The lot adjacent to it,
with the house on it, is not part of this
proceeding.
MS. MCGRATH: I know it's not a part of
this proceeding, but entirety, the same
owner owns that house. They own both lots.
MS. ANDALORO: But they're separate
lots and that is not before the Board.
MS. MCGRATH: But my point is, as time
went on, the area has become -- it's a
residential area. It's no longer an area
that is peppered with, you know, businesses,
if it ever was. And Mr. Beebe, I have lived
there for 15 years, never ran any kind of
business even close to what we're talking
about. I don't think he ever had anything,
except use that cinder block structure as a
house for the equipment. So going forward,
just to get down what the bottom line is,
May 3, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 115
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
the property does not conform to what code
is today. The code today is an 80,000
square foot piece of property -- I believe,
if I am right, have one principal use and
not two. So I think that is what the bottom
line is, you have to read what the code
says, and not to mention the fact that
Mr. Beebe ceased even having a business
there way prior to two years ago. He was
retired the whole time I lived in that
house, over ten years ago. So to go forward
to say it's okay to have a continued use on
that property, I mean, I don't even -- there
was a mistake made at the beginning of this
process as far as I can see at the Building
Department level, and I don't know how
exactly -- whether it was going for the
variance or what the procedure was, that
allowed us to get to this today, which is,
you know, kind of -- I can't believe that
we would be even entertaining -- allowing
this use on this site, being that there is
no continued use. You know, that the
business use, which was never even close to
what they wanted to do. Ever. And everyone
May 3, 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
here in this room -- these people have lived
there much longer than I have. These people
are talking about -- at the last Planning
Board meeting, I think the first time there
was five parking spaces on the property.
The last Planning Board meeting, I think it
was ten. I am not sure, don't quote me.
And the other day, I went by there and they
have right now, I believe -- I know that I
can't prove this, but there were
multifamilies living there. There were four
cars just on the asphalt that is there now.
Four cars take up most of the asphalt on
that property. So you are talking about
putting ten cars on that property and taking
over -- I mean, what is the ratio of asphalt
to green space, you know, on that property?
I mean, that needs to be taken into
consideration for the character of the
neighborhood. And what also needs to be
taken into consideration, is that he was in
Planning Board -- site planning or whatever,
and he wasn't supposed to do anything to
that property and he removed three decades
old trees, that added to the character of
May 3, 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
the neighborhood. And that it is forever
changed. It can never go back, and say
fine, I will plant a tree. And what's it
going to take? 50 years and I will be gone,
before our neighborhood is where it was six
months ago. And my point in bringing that
up, it has been my point that Mr. Cifarelli
is very uncooperative and he is not very
nice. And he does not plan to adhere to any
codes or restrictions that are put upon him.
As you can see, by his cutting down of the
trees, the week before Christmas. I think I
can speak for everyone here, we all thought
and felt it was an act of aggression,
because he was not getting his way, and I
might addition, after the last meeting, we
were not privileged to see what the Planning
Board had recommended another five spaces or
two spaces or whatever it was, until we were
getting up to speak to you. I was very
like, I couldn't believe it. And I got a
call from him the next day. He called me up
and threatened me and told me that if he
gets pushed, he pushes back and if I don't
cease and desist, he is going to turn the
May 3, 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
place into a junk yard, and he is going to
tell everyone that I did it, and it was my
fault. I told Mr. Cifarelli that was very
negative of you, and if there is anything
else that you would like to say. You know,
and that is how that conversation went. So
I am not in any way comfortable with this on
any level. And I think there also is a
couple of other people that he said the same
thing to here. I would like to make sure
that this
get to the
even going
is.
MS. ANDALORO:
is deferred until we can really
bottom of this, and how it could
forward with the code the way it
I don't want anyone here
to be mislead about what we're here today
about. I think that there may have been an
error that was made in the Building
Department in the 80's and unfortunately
that issue has perforated in two
Certificates of Occupancy that have been
issued for two uses on this site, for an
office use, which is allowed in the LB Zone
and a residential use, which is also a
permitted use in the LB Zone. The only
May 3, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 119
1
2
$
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
issue before this Board is the insufficient
lot area. That's it. I don't believe that
this Board is going to be in a position to
say -- unless they say the lot is too small
and it can not withstand an area variance,
that two uses are not permitted on this
site. In this Town, my understanding is,
two uses are allowed on any site, as long as
there is sufficient lot area.
MS. MCGRATH: But they don't.
MS. ANDALORO: That is why we're here
today. With respect to the multiple
families, this Board did raise the issue
when
they changed the original variance and
there is a condition on that variance -- is
there a condition?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
There is
additional
hearing about
dwelling.
MS.
requirement
is the case
families, it
That is not
information made at a public
one family only in the
ANDALORO: Which is -- that's
of the Zoning Code. And if
that there are multiple
is a code enforcement issue.
something that the Board can
a
May 3, 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
handle either. Finally, with the original
trees that are on the site, again, that is a
code enforcement issue. This Board can not
handle that. You know, you have to talk to
the code
things.
MS.
MS.
you have
we're
because I think
its entirety. I
restricted by --
MS. ANDALORO:
enforcement officer about those
MCGRATH: I --
ANDALORO: If you want to
to come back to the mic,
creating a record here.
MS. MCGRATH: I was just bringing it
it's important to know in
know that you are
We all are.
speak,
because
Jurisdiction here is very limited. I don't
want there to be a misunderstanding with the
community about what this Board's role is.
MS. MCGRATH: Can I just ask one
question? If you do impose certain
restrictions upon them, whatever it may be.
If the Board does impose whatever the
restrictions are, a one family dwelling, it
can only have one -- or whatever, going
forward, if they were to not adhere to that,
up
May 3, 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
do you have the right to remove the use?
You know, revoke -- this is what we're
zoning it for and you are not doing that --
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Only under
special exception permits. That is not what
they are here for.
MS. ANDALORO: However, they will be
going for Site Plan approval, which they can
be violated for and we
legislation, that says,
conditions of your Site
a public hearing, the
revoke that approval.
just passed a
if you violate any
Plan approval after
Planning Board can
So the Planning Board
may have that jurisdiction.
MS. MCGRATH: Well, do they have that
jurisdiction because they removed the trees?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: That you would
have to ask the Planning Board.
MS. MCGRATH: Well, maybe that is
something that we need to look at. So we
need to go there, is that what you're
saying? We need to go into the Building
Department?
MS. ANDALORO: Well, I believe they
have already looked into the issue. I don't
May 3, 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
know if there
don't know what
that the Town is
on that property.
MS. MCGRATH:
CHAIRPERSON
has been a violation issue. I
the status is. I do know
aware that they moved trees
Right.
WEISMAN: And the
line is, unlike some municipalities
actually have tree laws about tree
our Town doesn't.
MS. MCGRATH: It doesn't?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Not
property.
MEMBER
approval --
Board, that
until the
a look at
bottom
that
removal,
on private
DINIZIO: They have Site Plan
if they are before the Planning
lot is supposed to be left alone
Planning Board has chance to take
it, correct me if I am wrong?
MS. MCGRATH: I would like to believe
that you are right.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Has any
construction began on the property?
MS. MCGRATH: Not to -- well, they have
put up a fence and they took down the trees.
Nothing that I can see. I don't scrutinize.
MS. MOORE: Just so I can address the
May 3, 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
2O
21
22
23
24
25
tree removal. What happened is, I have a
letter from Russ Tree Service Inc., dated
January 24th. It was due to the Planning
Board asking why did you take down the
trees. And it says -- it's a letter by the
owner and the tree company, and says this
letter is to certify of removal of two trees
located in the front of the above property
and also another tree from your property
located at 1455 New Suffolk Road. So that
is on the other property. The other house.
One of the trees had partially fallen on our
arrival. Once that tree had been removed,
it was noted two other trees were also in
danger of falling since they were dead and
hollow. Russ Tree Service is not in the
habit of removing trees unnecessarily. We
have a trained and certified arborist on
staff. We believe that the trees should be
maintained and not removed, unless it's
absolutely necessary. It is in our
professional opinion that these trees needed
to be removed for the safety of the
property. If you should have further
questions, please do not hesitate to contact
May 3, 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
us at the above number. And it is signed by
Russell Brisson, B-R-I-S-S-O-N. He is the
owner of Russ Tree Service, Inc.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Who was that
letter sent to?
MS. MOORE: This was a letter -- when
the issue came up with the Planning Board,
asked Lisa, "why did you take down the
trees?" And she said, they were rotted.
They were dangerous. So I asked her to get
I will send it
a letter from the arborist.
to the Planning Board so it explains that
I
there was nothing malicious. Nothing
intended to be out of order in any way. It
was not trying to be -- penalized the
neighborhood or react to the neighborhood
about this issue. It was purely safety
issue and I think on the record, she has
told you that she has her kids there on the
property. The house has a single family use
and they didn't want to have any issues with
having a tree fall on somebody that is
living in the house. So it was really
imperative that that be done. Certainly,
had that been provided to the Planning Board
May 3, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 125
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
in advance, I am sure they would not have
wanted to have the liability that would
develop if a tree
Town would refuse
trees to be removed.
addresses that issue.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
does. Is there
like to address
fell on somebody and the
to allow hollowed out
Hopefully that
Yes, it certainly
any other person that would
the Board?
MS. PAETZEL: Hello. I am Stacy
Paetzel, P-A-E-T-Z-E-L. I will keep my
comments somewhat brief, because I did
submit a letter today. And I am going to
stick to things that this Board does
address, although I am not an expert at that
sort of thing. I do have questions about
this -- basically, it's my understanding
that this is a preexisting nonconforming use
lot area. That is a true statement?
MS. ANDALORO: No, that is the problem.
It's a preexisting nonconforming use.
MS. PAETZEL: So it's a preexisting
nonconforming use because of the lot area;
correct?
MS. ANDALORO: No.
May 3, 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
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: No, not quite,
lose it's preexisting nonconformity.
MS. PAETZEL: Right, but if you expand
upon a preexisting nonconforming structure
or use, they would need a variance for that?
This Board would, I believe, permitted to
grant up to a 50% increase?
a permitted use for the zone, and it falls
within the scope. It's not so much changed
to what was there, that would cause it to
the structure.
MS. ANDALORO: The structure is
preexisting nonconformity and the use on the
property. The office use on the property
was a preexisting nonconformity.
MS. PAETZEL: So if the applicant were
to want to expand that, they would need to
get a use variance really, if they wanted to
expand that use or intensify it?
MS. ANDALORO: It appears that the
determination of the Building Department was
-- what was there was an office and a
business office. And professional offices
are now permitted in the LB Zone. So
whatever they proposed by the Cifarelli's is
May 3, 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
MS. ANDALORO:
but that has never been
the Building Department.
That's what the law is,
the determination of
The Building
Department did not -- was not of opinion of
what the Cifarelli's is proposing is not an
expansion of the use, of a nonconforming
use. And that issue is not going to be
before this Board.
MS. PAETZEL: Okay. One of my
questions, and I understand that may not be
the issue today, but one of my questions I
have is, how the storage of vehicles, how
does this not constitute as a contractors
yard? I have personally, and I do not speak
for my neighbor's. Obviously we would like
to see it as a nice quaint little house like
the rest of the houses are on the little
street but I understand because of what is
on that CO, that might not be an option.
But I have questions about how all those
cars fit on that property. I don't have a
problem with the office use, if
Mrs. Cifarelli wanted to have an office, a
corporate headquarters of some sort. You
know, but the problem that I have is the
May 3, 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
-- the amount of commercial
amount of cars
vehicles, vans that are
on that site. I don't
that does not constitute
And that is my concern.
before Planning Board, I
five or seven spaces proposed, and then
going to be stored
really understand how
as an expansion.
And they were
think there were
all
of a sudden that number ballooned up to ten
or twelve, I forget what it was. And that
is really where my concern comes from. I
think there are issues with the character
the neighborhood, which inside of it, has
lot of historic structures, a bike route.
think the use that is being proposed does
of
intensify, clearly intensifies the use on
the site. Traffic should be looked at. I
know that is not something that this Board
does, but I think intensification of a use,
clearly when you look at the components that
are in the Site Plan and the parking, it's a
contractor's yard. I am also interested in
looking at that history. I hope that you
are going to leave the record open, I think
that you probably will, but I would be
interested to look at that work that you all
May 3, 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
put together, because we have
questions. We're just really
this is an intensification
very, very undersized lot.
a lot of
concerned that
of this use on a
It's a very
quaint residential neighborhood. So we
thank you very much for taking another look
at it.
MS. HESTON: Prudence Heston,
H-E-S-T-O-N. And I live in the house that
is just south of the property -- of the
second Beebe property. Not the one you guys
are looking at today, but the other. To put
it out there, I think it's a mistake not to
be looking at them together, because I think
in the way this has developed over time, is
because it has been piece-mealed. This and
this and this, and it hasn't been looked at
as a whole, and that concerns with the two
houses. I think that they should be looked
at together, especially when we are looking
at the number of people that are coming into
a community. It is a lot more people that
are in there now. You know, I don't have a
problem with it being zoned like this. I do
have a problem, as we pointed out, the
May 3, 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
intensity has changed with that, and it's no
longer a light business kind of a thing.
This is a much more intense kind of thing
for such a tiny little lot that we're
looking at. The changes over time that have
been made to that have always been made with
a residential mindset in place, even with
Mr. Beebe. And every one of those changes
that were made over time, were made for
residential reasons. And it was because of
family problems. You put an extra apartment
in here because your son has terrible,
problems. And so of course, the
going to allow them to make an
terrible
Board is
exception with that. You have a child who
has a place to live in the community. You
ask for a change for that, but those
exceptions have always been made with a
residential mindset in place. This is
certainly not residential what we're looking
at. And that's okay, to have an office
there, fine, have an office there. You
know, this is really an intensely different
use on a very small lot that we're looking
at here. And I think that the Board needs
May 3, 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
to be very aware of that.
on the National Historic
our one other home, also
are also other homes on the street
on the local historic, and it has
changed the build of everything.
CHAIRPERSON
much for your comments.
Any one else that
this? The Board?
MR. CARTER:
live up the street
this is occurring.
there for a good many
in Westhampton at one
place because the traffic
WEISMAN:
would
And our home is
Register, and so is
national. There
that are
really
like to address
My name
a little bit
And my wife
is Fred Carter. I
from where
has lived
years, and I had lived
time. And I left that
got so bad and I
had a fellow drive right on my lawn here and
messed it up, because he was running through
a red light. Traffic is gettin heavy on
here, even on New Suffolk Road. People
going down to the restaurant and Legends and
like that, boats and stuff. It's bad
enough. This is like a farm country and
residential. The business, I thought they
had a plan for the businesses to go up by
Thank you very
May 3, 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
the Route 48. I thought they were going to
allow businesses up there. That's an ideal
place for this business here. I'm real
sorry, if this man doesn't win out on these
thing, but if he lived here himself, he
would know how we all feel. It's a
residential and farm country and shouldn't
have that type of business. Too many cars
running up and down the road, and it's not
good. And you got to think about the
firemen too. Ail the cars going up and down
there, and these firemen got to cross the
road to that equipment and go to a fire.
And they're running like the devil. I've
seen them with my own eyes. Running like
the devil to get to these equipment.
Running there to get their equipment on or
when they put their clothes on and stuff,
boots -- you know, I've been there. I be a
fireman myself at one time. It obstructs
the firemen too. Even myself at times, I
got's to watch out too. That fire starts a
blows and give them a chance to get their
equipment on. People don't do that and they
don't give them enough room. That's another
May 3, 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
thing, people don't move. When they see
these blue lights coming, get over to the
side of the road and help them, because they
may be going to your house, you never know.
Anyway, I am getting off the horse. I just
wanted to have my opinion. I feel sorry
that this man doesn't get what he likes but
if he doesn't get it, okay. I have done
what I can. I don't think it belongs there.
That type of business doesn't belong on New
Suffolk Road there. That is all I have to
say.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Thank you very
much for your comments.
MR. CARTER: Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Is there anyone
else that would like to address the Board?
You need to come back up to the mic.
MS. HESTON: Actually, the only other
thing that I forgot to say when I was up
here was that I didn't point out that every
other business that has always been along
there, when Bill was there, you know, I run
a business along there, they are always
owner occupied. And that makes a huge
May 3, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 134
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
difference when you're looking at how
intensely a lot is being used. And the way
that it feels for the rest of the community,
because you are part of the community. And
you care about that, and in this situation,
it is being used in a very, very different
way.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Thank you.
Anything else? Please state your name.
MS. MCGRATH: Elizabeth McGrath. I
just wanted to say regarding the number of
vehicles on the property, and the traffic on
the road, that I was wondering why there
wasn't a traffic study done. I mean, we're
talking about -- I mean, anywhere's from l0
to 25 to 30 vehicles, that will be coming in
and out of this property. Between the
people that are living at these houses
already. Four vehicles already, which take
up most of the asphalt already, and we're
talking about trucks. He has different
vehicles from fair size vans, to trucks, to
cars, that are going to be coming in and out
of that.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: That may be the
May 3, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 135
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
case, but that would be something that the
Planning Board has jurisdiction. The Zoning
Board doesn't have jurisdiction over --
MS. MCGRATH how many cars could be
there or traffic?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: That is Site
Plan. Anything on that lot is going to
require Site Plan approval by the Planning
Board and we're here because in our original
application, all that the Building Inspector
noted as nonconforming was the setbacks
required for additional alterations for the
garage. We were never given the opportunity
-- the Zoning Board is not allowed to act.
We're an appellate. A Board of appeal. You
have to have a decision that is appealable.
The Building Inspector has got to write a
Notice of Disapproval stating what is not
We
conforming to the code for us to act.
don't even have a Notice of Disapproval
before us, nor have we had a Notice of
Disapproval before us for the two uses on a
lot that does not conform to the code
required bulk schedule for those two uses.
We don't even have that. We didn't address
May 3, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 136
1
2
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
it in the first hearing because we were not
-- we did talk about what was going on
there, but we didn't address any area
variance for this substandard lot size
because we didn't have a Notice of
Disapproval in front of us, which would have
allowed us to that. Do you understand what
I am saying?
MS. MCGRATH: Because he didn't write
it?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: He didn't write
it because of two Certificates of Occupancy
for two structures that were issued and have
legal standing.
MS. ANDALORO: Just to correct you.
Had the Board discovered the issues during
the hearing, even though it wasn't written
into the notice, they could have requested
that. They got a new notice, which is what
we're looking at here.
MS. MCGRATH: A new what?
MS. ANDALORO: A new Notice of
Disapproval.
MS. MCGRATH: A new Notice of
Disapproval from Mr. Verity?
May 3, 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
MS. ANDALORO: From the Building
Department. During the public hearing, they
could have looked at the issue and asked the
Building Department to issue another Notice
of Disapproval citing the two uses on the
property.
MS. MCGRATH: Right. And isn't that
kind of subject to his interpretation?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Yes, it is.
MS. MCGRATH: Right. And he hasn't
done it yet. I was wondering, this has been
going on for months. Why hasn't that been
done? Why is it taking so long for him to
do that?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: What I am trying
to tell you, he didn't do it because it's
not his jurisdiction to make that decision.
We don't have that jurisdiction. We could
have requested it, as counsel said, and we
may wind up doing that; however, the
applicant will have to go to the Building
Department and make that request for an
amended Notice of Disapproval. We're not at
that place yet. We will see where that
goes. We really need to find out what the
May 3, 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
issues are to let
understand what our
let the public know,
the Planning Board
research disclosed.
to hear what your
To
Planning Board is here and the Director of
Planning is here, is to also listen. It is
their letter that we're responding to. So
we're equally concerned. And I am going to
ask them to make a few comments today for
our records also, when you all have had a
chance to speak. And then we will see where
we need to go here, okay.
Is there anyone else here from the
concerns are. So that we can respond
appropriately with an informed insight and
in substance. We're attempting to, I think,
address the deficiency and the history of
what happened on this property, okay. We're
here to do what our job is, which is to
balance the reasonable rights of property
owners with the welfare of the community.
That is also what the Planning Board is.
They have different jurisdiction. They
address traffic impact. Number of cars on
the site. I think that when you all are
done, the reason why the Chairman of the
May 3, 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
public
at this time?
MS.
points.
The uses
that would like to address
the Board
he in fact, ran a window cleaning business
as well. He ran the window cleaning
business from the house at the same time the
other building was being rented out. It's
my understanding, I don't know if I have
this right, S&Z or Z&S Contracting. He was
the contractor. So the uses here on the
property have
always been
multiple uses.
of residential
contractors
And it has been a combination
use, as well as commercial, a
business. I would also like to point out
that we have also been going through the
Site Plan process. The Site Plan process
has been extremely vigorous. The parking
owner/occupied, as the CO is actually
disclosed. Mr. Beebe when he was before the
Board asking to do a modification on what
was the house with the Waiver of Merger,
that was in order to have Paul Smith, his
grandson, be able to live in the house. And
MOORE: Just responding to two
To try and keep the record clear.
on this property have never been
May 3, 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
has been identified. The applicant is
prepared to comply with the Site Plan
requirements.
public hearing,
Stacy provided
Actually, after
we met with
her input,
our Site
upgrading. Changing the
Stacy. And
as far as the
landscape plan.
Plan
Removing the roadway. So my client did
agree and did try to appease the
neighborhood and modify the Site Plan to
incorporate as many suggestions,
particularly Stacy, as a design
professional. We respected her opinion. We
pretty much absorbed into the Site Plan and
did 99% of those matters that she
recommended. So I do want to emphasize
that. They have been very patient and have
been trying to cooperate throughout that
process. So I did want to addition that
information as the uses, since we did have
another window cleaning company there in the
past. Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Thank you. At
this time, I think it would be appropriate
to ask either one or both of the folks from
Planning step forward. You have heard
May 3, 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
comments, both in your own Site Plan
hearings and work sessions and today. What
I would like you to do is comment on what
you have heard and to let us know what some
of the tools you have available through the
Site Planning process to somewhat mitigate
any adverse impacts on the community.
MR. WILCENSKI: First of all, Donald
Wilcenski, Chairman of Planning Board. My
first
Being involved in this, I am very
disappointed that those trees were
and we did seek action, but
and help mitigate that with the
landscaping that we're going to
comment, and this is my own comment.
removed,
that will try
additional
request.
What we're basically contracting now, we
will look at traffic. We will look at
mitigating parking and more landscape
buffering. We realize it is a residential
area and I agree with a lot of -- almost all
of what your statements that were said. I
can just -- I can promise you that we will
help do our best and try and mitigate that
area. And be sure that the applicant does
everything to keep the quaintness of the
May 3, 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
neighborhood.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: You will also, I
presume, be calculating what kind of parking
yield is reasonable on a property of that
size?
MR. WILCENSKI: Yes. The parking we
have discussed. We have gone back and forth
a few times with the parking. What we have
-- we have also made reference to keeping
all the commercial vehicles behind the
buildings. And we're going to try and seek
enforcement of that, because we know that
this is such a contentious situation. And
we're also working on that whole procedure
too. At the last plan that we had, the
parking was twelve. There was two for
residents and ten behind the homes for the
work vehicles. That is what we have.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Two for the
residents.
MR. WILCENSKI: And then ten parking
stalls in the back that could be used for
either residents or the vehicles. So I know
there is a lot of concern about the number
of vehicles and I do have concern with it
May 3, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 143
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
also. It seems that they do have a large
fleet, and I think that the applicant, once
it comes back to us from the Zoning Board,
will be put on notice that we will be
keeping an eye on the amount of vehicles. I
will assure you of that.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Member Dinizio
would like to ask you something.
MEMBER DINIZIO: I would just like to
ask you a question, if I could?
MR. WILCENSKI: Yes.
MEMBER DINIZIO: How did you determine
how many vehicles could go on that piece of
property?
MR. WILCENSKI: I will let Heather
speak on that. She has more. There is a
formula on that.
MS. LANZA: For this, a lot of
applications where the formula in the
code --
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Please state your
name.
MS. LANZA: Oh, Heather Lanza, sorry.
It doesn't fit the actual use of the
property. We'll often interview the
May 3, 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
applicant and ask how many they need. In
this case, we heard sort of various stories
about how many parking spots they would
need, and I think that's where we came up
with the twelve. Seemed like that was the
most that could fit there with also having
buffering in place, and that they also
needed. They told us ten vans and two
people to park for the office.
one car for the dwelling.
MEMBER DINIZIO: Can I ask
question? What if they said,
MS. LANZA: It wouldn't
And maybe
you one
twenty?
fit there.
MEMBER DINIZIO: That is what I am
trying to get at. What is the cutoff?
are you justifying twelve and not justify
twenty? Is there a formula?
MS. LANZA: It's not a formula per se.
Like I said, the Planning Board works with
the applicant to figure out their needs and
also what the site can accommodate. We have
buffers that have to fit on site. Buildings
are there obviously, the driveway, and the
landscape coverage requirement. We were
still in the middle of reviewing some of
How
May 3, 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
that. We don't have -- for instance the
last letter that we did prior to all of this
happening, we wanted them to put the
We hadn't had that
So that was still a
If that doesn't meet the
to have to change their
and maybe their parking
down.
landscape coverage on.
on the Site Plan yet.
matter for review.
code, they're going
whole situation,
number will come
MEMBER DINIZIO: Okay. I think that is
what I am looking for. The landscaping, is
that a formula? Is that --
MS. LANZA: That is a percentage that
is in the bulk schedule, 280.
MEMBER DINIZIO: And even on a
nonconforming lot?
MS. LANZA: Yeah.
MEMBER DINIZIO: Do you know what the
percentage of the lot is? Just
approximately?
MS. LANZA: LB, I think is 35.
MEMBER DINIZIO: And does that include
distances from the side yard's.
MS. LANZA: That is whatever
sort of vegetation on it.
has some
May 3, 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
MEMBER
front of the
the building
MS. LANZA:
way to do it and lay
percentage. So it's
MEMBER DINIZIO:
DINIZIO: Meaning that the whole
place is green and the back of
is blacktop?
Yeah, it doesn't give you a
it out. It just says
whatever.
That will eventually
determine how many cars can go
on it?
That
usually
MS. LANZA: Absolutely.
is definitely a factor in it.
MEMBER DINIZIO: Ail right. Thank you.
MEMBER HORNING: I have a question to?
Regarding the parking area, the one diagram
that we have shows a porous surface.
Someone mentioned a paved surface. And if
it was paved, you would need some drainage
area for it. What do you think that your
Site Plan would call for?
MS. LANZA: I have it right here. The
Site Plan -- they proposed porous pavers in
the back. What they have in the front, I
think, you're saying asphalt, but I think it
might be gravel actually. No, it is
payment. So whatever is on the Site Plan is
what we go with. And we have drains, they
May 3, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 147
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
ll
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
have drainage plans and it has to pass
through the Town Engineer.
MEMBER HORNING: So the main part of
the gravel area will be an open porous type
of surface?
back.
MS. LANZA: Yeah, the main part in the
that
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The other thing
has to be considered in Site Plan
Review, is safe ingress and egress. And no
backing out onto the street. That takes up
a certain turning radius. So in the end
what needs to happen is an analysis of the
-- there is a state of need, but if the need
can not be accommodated on a site that is
that size, then they're going to have to
take some of their needs someplace else.
That is the way that that works. I mean,
there are such things as satellite parking
facilities. That is not within our
jurisdiction by the way, but I happen to
have planning in my background, also as an
architect. I am just letting --
MS. LANZA: For your knowledge, Leslie,
the last letter that we sent to the
May 3, 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
applicant does have a limit. It says no
more than so many cars on site. And like,
you know, just to acknowledge what Mr.
Dinizio was saying, we -- you know, we're
still in the middle of evaluating this Site
Plan and reviewing it. So what that number
is, is probably not set in stone at this
point. We also said no on street parking.
We also wanted to make sure that did not
happen.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: And you can also
control onsite lighting?
MS. LANZA: Absolutely. We have a
lighting code.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: So it's not like,
you know, some security lighting is going to
be on the building 24/7 and waking people up
by shining in their bedrooms and things like
that. Are there any other comments that you
would like to
Board's point
point of view?
MS. LANZA:
CHAIRPERSON
signage. That is
make, from the Planning
of view, Planning Department's
NO.
WEISMAN: They will
all part of their
control
May 3, 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
jurisdiction. So let me do this now --
MS. PAETZEL: I hate to ask to make
another comment, but I would like --
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: If you would like
to make another comment, you need to come to
the microphone and state your name, please.
And please be very --
MS. PAETZEL: I will be very quick.
just wanted to clarify the last statement
that was made by Mrs. Moore about the
meeting that I did have with the applicant.
Yes, it is true. We did meet and we did
have a lot of discussion. I offered some of
my professional advise as a landscape
architect to them. And at the time, I did
that, there were either five or seven cars
proposed. And I gave them a lot of feedback
and they incorporated some of the things
that I asked for. Not all of them, but when
we came back to the next meeting, I believe
that is when we saw the twelve cars and I
think that is really where this is
disjointed. It's not even probably what
they actually need. But it's closer than
what the five to seven was. But I don't
May 3, 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
2O
21
22
23
24
25
think any one of us in the neighborhood
comfortable with that amount of cars. I
think the idea of having the contractors
yard
is a
achieve that, but that
us happy. Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
Now --
MR. WILCENSKI: Leslie,
comment. Everything that we
for the fleet in a different
fabulous idea. I don't know
would make
is
location
how we
a lot of
You're welcome.
just one more
have heard here
today, we will take back to our Board, and
we will obviously review all that
information.
MS. ANDALORO: Don, do you want us to
send you a copy of these minutes when we get
them in?
MR. WILCENSKI: Yes. That would be
great.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: We tape record
all of our hearings all the time. We will
ask our transcriber to do an expedited
transcription on this particular hearing for
all those reasons. And of course, that is
part of the public record, and you will have
May 3, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 151
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
a part of that to review.
a chance to review that
were here today or not.
In order to figure
I am going to pole
your opinion is.
but we have
Anyone will have
record, whether they
out where to go from
the Board and ask
We will not close
here,
what
today,
public
while.
we're
and counsel,
a request from both the
to leave this open for a
I would like to ask the Board, if
clear enough where we agree, as to
whether we want to ask the applicant to go
to the Building Department to request an
amended Notice of Disapproval, so that this
Board can formally address the possibility
of an area variance for the two uses on the
subject property, since we're going to hold
it up anyway, is that something this Board
wants to consider asking --
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Here comes
Mr. Goggins right now.
MEMBER HORNING: I am in favor
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Gerry?
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I am still
the air about it right now.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Jim?
of it.
up in
May 3, 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
MEMBER DINIZIO: No, because I didn't
hear anything that addressed that particular
issue here. I heard mostly complaints about
the intense use of that property, which is
not what we would be asking him. And I
didn't hear anything that would change our
record. I don't think that I would vote for
sending it back to the Building Department.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The advantage of
doing that is simply that we can then
formally address the area variance. If we
don't have an amended Notice of Disapproval,
we can close the record, and we can write a
letter of recommendation to the Planning
Board, which is what they requested. They
wanted us to provide them with comments, so
that they can go forward. Some of the
things that they want us to address, have to
do with the size of the lot relative to the
two uses on it. That is our jurisdiction.
We don't have authorization, legally, to
address it in a formal way, through the
granting of variance without the actual code
enforcement officer. So that is why I am
poling the Board to see where we want to go.
May 3, 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
I see you have arrived, Mr. Goggins. We're
just about done, but we're going to get an
expedited transcript from this hearing and
give you an opportunity to review it. We're
not going to close. I think the public is
interested in research that we have provided
you a copy of. I think you have just come
on board here and you want to have an
opportunity to discuss that. Do you just
want to adjourn to next month then?
MEMBER DINIZIO: I think Mr. Goggins is
here --
MR. GOGGINS: Yes, I would like to
address the Board, if I may?
can.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Absolutely, you
MR. GOGGINS: Thank you for allowing me
to speak. My name is William Goggins on
behalf of the applicant. Sorry I didn't
have the benefit to hear what happened
before, just now, but I don't really
understand how this process happened. The
normal process is, a person applies for a
renovation or some kind of renovating to be
done. They go to the Building Department
May 3, 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
and the Building Department reviews the
application. And if it meets the Zoning
requirements, then they go and look at the
building structure and so forth. If it does
not meet the Zoning requirements, than the
Building Department Building Inspector
issues a Notice of Disapproval. And it's
that Notice of Disapproval which gives
Zoning Board of Appeals authority, whichever
that Notice of Disapproval says is the
limited scope of the Board's authority.
This Board on August 18th of 2011 made a
decision based upon a Notice of Disapproval.
And you approved a variance for this
property. That was eight months ago. Now,
as I understand it, the Planning Board is
now second guessing what the Zoning Board of
Appeals has done and has asked you to reopen
this hearing and you have.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: No, let me
clarify that.
MR. GOGGINS: Okay.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: If I might, they
didn't ask us to reopen a hearing. They
asked us to address the area that we have
May 3, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 155
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
jurisdiction over with a Notice of
Disapproval, which we didn't have in terms
of the area variance and bulk schedule. For
two uses on a single substandard sized lot.
They asked us for comments. These concerns
were raised before the Planning Board. They
were not raised before us, because we didn't
raise them, because they weren't before us.
We didn't have a Notice of Disapproval for
an area variance of that kind. We had a
setback variance, which we granted. The
purpose in reopening this hearing was so
that we may properly address some comments
to the Planning Board that were not in our
public record. We are not here to revisit
the variance. We are not here to
questioning the two CO's. We are here so
that the public might be heard. Planning
might be heard and the applicant and their
agents might be heard. So that we best know
how to proceed with making comments to the
Planning Board.
MR. GOGGINS: With regard to what
issues?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: With regard to
May 3, 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
the fact that there are two uses -- we have
just gone through, prior to your arrival, an
extensive history on how the structures
evolved. What the uses were. What CO's and
Pre-CO's were issued. Our Board, at our
request, undertook extensive research when
we got a letter in
of this property and
record, and you will
And in order to -- we
facts into our record,
February on the history
it will be in the
have time to read it.
wanted to enter those
address them to the Planning Board. This is
not a predetermined outcome. What we have
concluded is that we have a couple of things
that we can do. We can accept this
information, close this hearing and write a
letter. The other option was to ask the
applicant to go back to the Building
Department and get an amended Notice of
Disapproval that does acknowledge the area
variance. We're not questioning the CO's.
We acknowledge that they are there. The
Board has a right to reopen the hearing, as
long as they see there is no prejudice to
the applicant's best of interest. To our
so that we could
May 3, 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
knowledge, they have not done construction
on variances that we have granted. And so
think we are on safe grounds.
MR. GOGGINS: Well, they haven't
started construction, but they have spent a
lot of money, and Site Plans and engineers,
and architects and building plans and
landscape plans.
lot of money and
applicants, if
hearing.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Well, we have
reopened the hearing, and I believe we
done so responsibly. If however, you
disagree with that, you know very well
you and your clients have legal remedies
through the court system.
MR. GOGGINS: I understand.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: By filing an
They have already spent
it will prejudice these
you were to reopen the
a
have
that
Article 78, we would hope that that would
not come to that. That was not our intent.
Frankly, there were deficiencies in the
history with a previus Building Department,
and our goal was to try and cooperate with
the applicant, the neighbor's and the
May 3, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 158
1
2
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Planning Board
situation. In
deficiencies.
MR. GOGGINS:
in order to improve that
order to address those
I understand that, but
the public had a point to be heard at the
prior public hearings. And now, if the
public wants input, they have to do it
through the Planning Board process, as far
as landscapes, screening, parking and so
forth.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Which they have
done and will do.
MR. GOGGINS: Which I am sure they will
do, but to reopen the hearing and try and go
through the process to amend a variance that
has been issued, I think it's improper, and
I don't think the Board has the authority to
do that.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: We're not
amending the variance that we granted.
We're not even considering doing that. That
was done and we feel that we did -- this was
the decision of he Board, and we all stand
behind that. That is not what we are here
for.
May 3, 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
MR. GOGGINS: Ail right.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: How would you
like to proceed, do you want to give counsel
and the public and opportunity to look and
do some more research? Do you want to talk
to each other about whether you want to
formalize a procedure, whereby the
possibility of an actual area variance for
these uses or you don't want to go that
route, that really is the applicant's and
their attorney's decision. We can request
that you get an amended Notice of
Disapproval, but I don't believe there is
consensus amongst Board members as to --
MEMBER HORNING: Can we go into
Executive Session and come up?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Well,
that.
MS. ANDALORO: Well,
my advice?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Yes.
MS. ANDALORO: If you want
we might do
deliberate the issue, you can do
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
before the public.
do you guys need
to
it in open.
We can do it
May 3, 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
MEMBER DINIZIO: I think we should
digest what we have, Leslie. You know, you
asked me preliminary, my reaction is I don't
think it was addressed, but you know let's
go over with what we gathered today and make
-- you know two weeks we talk about it, and
we can make a decision about it one way or
another.
MS. ANDALORO: And that would give
everybody the opportunity
to provide
additional comments.
MEMBER DINIZIO: You know, Mr. Goggins
wasn't here. Does he want the opportunity
to come back after reading the record and
commenting, or do you want to have input?
There is a possibility that we can wait for
two weeks and then listen to you, a month?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Well, we can
certainly hold this -- the fastest way to
that, would be to hold this open till our
Special Meeting in two weeks, to give the
do
public and to give counsel to submit and the
Planning Board for that matter, anyone here
or anyone interested, to submit additional
information to the Zoning Board. And we can
May 3, 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
close
me.
this hearing in two weeks.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That's fine with
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Or not, depending
on what happens in two weeks.
MR. GOGGINS: The applicant objects to
the whole process. So I have to put that on
the record. And I don't believe that the
applicant will go through a process of
amending its application. We put in the
application. We went through the process,
and we don't think it's procedurally proper.
That is our position now. My client might
change his mind after I speak to them, but
our position is this thing has already been
done. It has already been decided. It's
been eight months, and we think it's
procedurally improper.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
would just like you to be
Ail right. I
aware of the fact
that in voting unanimously to reopen this
hearing, the Board did not wish to burden
the applicant in any way. And as a result,
we have waived all fees. We took care of
the legal notice ourselves, internally, in
May 3, 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
our department.
The mailings, the postings.
Ail of those were done at our expense,
because what we're trying to do, is clarify
the best outcome possible for all concerned
parties, because we have been asked to make
comments. The Planning Board provided us
with comments at the beginning of the
variance hearing for the dormers, and in
fact, supported it. As long as there was
one family in that dwelling, okay. That was
part of it. That there was some mitigation
for noise and things like that on the
property. The things that came out of the
Planning Board's hearing were different than
ours because we're addressing different
issues.
MR. GOGGINS: And that makes sense,
because you have different Boards.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Right. Ail they
can do is mitigate, through Site Plan
Review, okay. That is why they came back to
us, because they have no jurisdiction to say
these are two permitted uses on this subject
property given the size of the lot. That
would be the ZBA's jurisdiction. So we're
May 3, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 163
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
really trying
deficiency in
to collaborate
the history of
But I understand your point
that counsel plays in this.
just leave this open to the
to remedy a
this property.
and the role
Why don't we
special meeting
to take in any further information or any
further comments, depending on what happens,
we will close at that time --
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Written comments.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Yes, written
comments. No more oral testimony, but
anything in writing that you want to respond
to we can do that. How does that sound?
MEMBER HORNING: Do we need a motion
for that?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Yes, I will make
that motion.
MEMBER HORNING: I will second that.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay. I am going
to make a motion that we adjourn this
hearing to the Special Meeting on May 17th
and we will take it from there. So moved.
Is there a second?
MEMBER HORNING: Second.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Ail in favor?
May 3, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 164
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MEMBER DINIZIO: Aye.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye.
MEMBER HORNING: Aye.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Aye.
(See Minutes for Resolution.)
HEARING #6553 WILLIAM TONYES
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The next hearing
for William Tonyes, #6553. This is a
carryover and was adjourned from the last
public hearing on April 5, 2012. So there
no need to read the legal notice.
MR. THORPE: Good afternoon, I am
Chartie Thorpe, representing Will Tonyes.
Trying to figure out if we can built this
garage or not. Last time we were here, you
asked us to take some pictures of the
adjacent houses in the neighborhood to get
an idea of the surroundings of the
neighborhood. Between 9th, 8th and 7th
Street, the houses are very tight. Blocks
are three or four houses long. They're back
to back. So everything is pretty much
tight. Ail pretty close to the backyard
setbacks, stuff like that. If I may
May 3, 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
approach? I have a survey that I can hand
you of the (In Audible) and the pictures.
On the Site Plan, if you will, I drew in on
the bottom right where the cesspools are,
the septic grease track runs out to his
cesspool in the back corner. It goes on a
45 degree angle to the garage. This is
another issue with the setback from the
cesspool. The code requires us to be
10 feet from a foundation, Mike said that he
would allow us to move the cesspool, swing
it over to the right, and have the cesspool
where the shed is right now. And the shed
is going to be taken away. So that was one
issue. We were able to work that out with
Mike. And so we are able to be 10 feet from
the foundation with the cesspool. The other
issue is taking down the fence, because it'S
one foot over the line. No problem with
that. I have pictures of the fence put in,
installed there, assuming that the line was
there that the other existing fence that the
neighbor has. A lot of these grass on these
lawns grow anywhere's from 3 feet to 15 feet
into the road from their property. So there
May 3, 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
is a lot of extended lawns into the roads.
A lot of the kids park over there, along the
side. It's right across the street from the
school. There is one picture across the
street where the -- there has been a Belgium
Block curb put in, and a dumpster across the
street. The garages are probably less than
20 feet from the actual road. The driveway
is on that side. The one across the street,
I believe is 15 feet because his truck
sticks out in the street when he parks it.
And that's about it. That is what you asked
me for.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: How was this
location of the cesspool and the -- these
were drawn by hand? How did you determine
the location?
MR. THORPE: I drew them in. He went
down and got -- as soon as we left here, we
got Doug Morris, the cesspool guy to come
down and we dug them up. We found out
exactly where they were. We measured -- the
existing one is exactly 5 feet off of where
we want to put the foundation. So we know
we have to swing that around to go under the
May 3, 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
shed. That is what Mike suggested that we
put. Doug Morris has put this in years ago,
and gave us a number for moving it over,
and --
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay, and based
upon this discovery and putting that here,
are you now saying that you are going to
take the fence down --
MR. THORPE: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Rather than
relocate it onto your property?
MR. THORPE: Take it all down, yeah.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay. And were
you able based upon this, to set that
proposed garage any further back? It looks
from
like you still have it at three feet
the property line?
MR. THORPE: It still is
said if we move it over -- move the
because Mike
cesspool
over 5 feet more, which would be 10 feet
from where we would like to put the garage,
it would be within 5 feet of the other pipe
coming -- the existing pipe from the house.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay, which you
have also drawn in, I see.
May 3, 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
2O
21
22
23
24
25
MR. THORPE: Right.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Ail right.
other words, based upon where all these
other things are located, you have no
at a 3 foot
closer --
MR.
Maybe I can
wanted that
foundation.
conforming alternative
setback? You
but to propose
can't
So in
full
code
this
move it over
THORPE: Maybe we got a foot.
talk to Mike -- basically Mike
cesspool 10 feet away from the
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Right.
MR. THORPE: So being as close as it is
to that pipe, I feel a little weary going
closer. I am comfortable where it is. The
circumference is 8 feet. It leaves us maybe
3 or 4 feet away from the pipe. So if I
move it a foot over -- I mean, we can find
out after we dig it, where the pipe is and
then dig up the pipe.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: See
dimensions on the surveys because
we don't have
you
basically drew stuff in by hand.
MR. THORPE: Right.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: A surveyor
would
May 3, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 169
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
1
2
3
4
5
have actually calculated. However, I don't
know how far away that cesspool -- where the
shed is now that you are drawing in, how far
that is to the closest point of the garage
as currently proposed? In other words, you
know that side of the garage that is closest
to it.
MR. THORPE: If we move that cesspool
away from the garage, it would be right dead
center of where that shed is.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
MR. THORPE: That
cesspool would go.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
Right.
is marked where
the
MR. THORPE: Right. Mike asked us to
move the cesspool over.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: So in other
words, where the garage is on this survey
and where you are proposing to move the
I understand
that. What I am saying is, how far is the
cesspool from the side of the garage?
MR. THORPE: Right now, it's 5 feet.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: But you are
proposing to make it 10 by where you are
putting the cesspool where the shed is?
May 3, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 170
1
2
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
cesspools 10 feet?
MR. THORPE: Correct.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
Okay. Gotcha.
MR. THORPE: Mike wanted us to do that.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: That is all I
wanted to know. Because if it had been 15
feet, than I was going to say that you can
make your garage 8 feet from the property
line.
MR. THORPE: Right.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Jim, do you have
any questions?
MEMBER DINIZIO: Well, I know the
neighborhood well, and I couldn't think of
another two-car garages here. Is there any
driving
20 feet,
are going
a
within
way you can make it smaller?
MR. THORPE: It really being
it's not a real full two-car. You
to -- it does have a small mini and
motorcycle to try and get in there,
that 20 feet. You have the 20 foot
garage --
MEMBER BINIZIO: It's 24?
MR. THORPE: 24 deep. See where we are
into the garage, it's narrower than
May 3, 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
2O
21
22
23
24
25
the depth. I also have a pick-up truck. To
be able to get them both in there and open
the car doors, 20 feet is -- the width is
really the minimal that you can get.
Generally a garage would be 24x24.
MEMBER DINIZIO: Honestly, Chartie,
this is as big as some of the houses that
are on that street.
MR. THORPE: Not really, if you look at
some of the pictures.
MEMBER DINIZIO: I grew up at the other
end of this street, on 8th Street. The
house that used to be there, it's my wife's.
She had a single car garage. I mean, I
can't think of any on 8th. You know, the
old dog catcher, he had single car garage
that is on the next block. And then most of
them don't even have garages. And I am just
wondering why you need such a big one.
MR. THORPE: There is a garage on the
next block over, 7th Street, that is two
feet off the road and it's a four-car
garage. It's the red house from Main Street
to Front Street, all the way back to the
property.
May 3, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 173
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
was torn down. The previous owner had
gotten a permit to tare it down. And the
garages across the street, Steve Ryan's old
house with the barn. You know, he has a
little tiny garage right up on the property
there.
MEMBER DINIZIO: Single car garage.
MR. THORPE: Right. Single car garage.
Well, you wouldn't be able to put a two-car
garage there. There is no room at all.
Bill has a little more room on his property
to be able to squeeze that in there.
MEMBER DINIZIO: No, he doesn't. He's
on a corner lot. He's 3 feet away from a
front yard. So that's a fairly large
variance, and you know, I don't see any
reason there can't be a compromise on the
size of that building. Why does it have to
be 3
feet from a property line?
MR. THORPE: We wanted a pitch roof.
So we tried to keep it low. We didn't want
to put a flat roof. A flat roof is
something that doesn't make a lot of sense.
The gable in the front of the house, is
somewhat of a -- somewhat of a Victorian
May 3, 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
look. It has a lot of gingerbread on the
front of the house. It's very nicely made.
We want to present it that way for the
garage
to take the
going to be
going to be
to match the house. And we're going
shed out of there. The shed is
removed. Ail that other area is
grass. If the cesspool wasn't
we would gladly move it towards that
there,
end of the property. Then all the garages
on that corner would be sort of backed up.
There is another caddy corner to this
property in the backyard. We talked to all
the neighbor's and nobody had any problem.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: You know, in
removing the shed, you will be reducing the
lot coverage by 87.4 square feet. Did you
calculate what that reduction is because
currently you are at 23% and you're
proposing a garage with the shed on there
and that will be 31% lot coverage. Did you
calculate with the removal of the shed, what
the newer proposed lot coverage would be?
MR. THORPE: Probably about another
to 5 percent less. So I would guess
conservatively 28% lot coverage.
May 3, 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
barn.
MEMBER DINIZIO: Yes, it used to be a
But it's a pretty big lot too.
MR. THORPE: Yes.
MEMBER DINIZIO: It's almost like it's
two different lots. It's not like this one,
where we are trying
here, 3 feet away
MR. TONYES: If
to approve it then --
MEMBER DINIZIO:
to cram everything on
from the property line.
the Board doesn't want
I want to mitigate it
some way. It's a pretty large building.
Three feet from the property line. A lot of
those houses are built right on the front
property line. I will grant you that.
MR. TONYES: There are other garages
over there that are bigger than what I have
in that general area. If you go deeper back
into the neighborhood, you go to the left
side of the neighborhood. If the Board
needs more pictures, and I got to come back,
I will gladly do that, but I just
MR. THORPE: There was a previous
garage there years ago. I left the picture
in the file from the last time. That's a
1972 Suburban there with a garage, and it
May 3, 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: No, I think
that's --
MEMBER DINIZIO: I think the Board
would want to have that calculation before
it makes its decision anyway.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Yes, because what
you are doing is amending your lot coverage.
You are reducing it, which is good because
you are making it more conforming to code,
which is exactly what that is. I think the
surveyor has to sort of figure that out. We
talked about it last time. You have to take
the 84.7 off of the 1913 and see what
percent that is, and see what that total
percentage of that total figure is, 6,178.
less.
shed.
or
sense.
MEMBER HORNING: Probably around 30%.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Probably about
MR. THORPE: I have 3 1/2% in my head.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: That's a small
1%
MR. THORPE: You go from 31% to like 28
27 1/2.
MEMBER DINIZIO: This is not making
Look, with the shed, a deck and a
May 3, 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
house, you have 23. You take 84 square feet
out of that --
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: So 1826 --
MS. TOTH: 29.6.
MEMBER DINIZIO: 29.6, that is a lot to
ask for a lot coverage.
MR. THORPE: Our argument is that with
all the pictures, the lot coverage's on all
these other properties and houses, it is not
unlike the rest of the neighborhood, to have
that much lot coverage. As a matter of
fact, the houses that are around the
neighborhood, I would say half of them have
a lot more lot coverage. If you look at
Steve's across the street, that is a good
memory. He has that little tiny backyard.
His house -- you know, the guy across the
street he has a big house on that. I have a
picture of a house on 7th Street and from
where the road is, his house is only 3 feet
from the road.
MEMBER DINIZIO: He has a single car
garage.
MR. THORPE: But it's a small piece of
property.
May 3, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 177
1
2
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
MEMBER
MR.
coverage is
MEMBER
compound
is fine.
are
DINIZIO: Yes, I agree.
THORPE: His percentage of
probably, you know 60%.
DINIZIO: You don't want
that. If you got a nice lot
lot
to
that
You are already 23% over and you
asking now to go almost to 30%.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Well, I think we
have heard from you. You have given us the
information requested. And we do know the
neighborhood. You have provided some
evidence since we asked you to of these
properties relative to what they have.
the Board can approve it, the Board can
it or the Board can grant what we call
alternative relief. We can -- all right,
we're going to offer you 29% lot
Do what you want. You know what
That is something that the Board
to deliberate on and come to some
I don't know, we're certainly not
coverage.
I mean?
will have
to do that now. We don't. We will
at the earliest two weeks from now.
see that we need --
MR. THORPE: If we contact the
And
deny
vote. And
prepared
do that
I don't
surveyor
May 3, 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
when
that
and we ask him to give us the lot coverage
we remove the shed, we can give you
information?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: That is fine.
THORPE: We will write it in a
MR.
letter.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: That's fine.
MR. THORPE: Just the situation and
what he thinks to maybe help the situation.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: It's better to
come from a surveyor. So a letter is fine.
And if you want to look at other -- you have
really addressed what we asked you for, but
if you want to look at other properties with
excessive lot coverage, that also speaks to
the character of the neighborhood. If in
the process you want to submit more
information, do you think in a weeks time
would be good?
MR. THORPE: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
that
else in the audience
this application?
(No Response.)
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
Is there anyone
wishes to address
So I am going to
May 3, 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
make a motion to close this hearing subject
to receipt of lot coverage information.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Ail in
MEMBER DINIZIO: Aye.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye.
MEMBER HORNING: Aye.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Aye.
favor?
structure, request variance from Section
280-13B(13) (a) total square footage of more
than the maximum livable floor area of 750
square feet, at; 1125 Pequash Avenue, corner
of Willow Street, in Cutchogue.
MR. SCHNEIDER:
Hi, good afternoon.
CHAIRPERSON
WEISMAN: Could you just
(See Minutes for Resolution.)
********************************************
HEARING %6558 - GEORGE SCHNEIDER
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The next
application before the Board is for George
Schneider, #6558. Applicant requests a
Special Exception under Article III, Section
280-13B(13). The applicant is the owner
requesting authorization to establish an
accessory apartment in an accessory
May 3, 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
state your name, please, for the record?
MR. SCHNEIDER: George Schneider.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Thank you,
George. Okay. What would you like to tell
us about your application?
MR. SCHNEIDER: Just that I am trying
to make the use legal to the now accessory
housing code.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Mr. Schneider, who
is going to live in the apartment?
MR. SCHNEIDER: Currently there is a
tenant in there and he is in process of
qualifying for the affordable housing list.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Okay, great.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: How far along
have you gotten with that?
MR. SCHNEIDER: I spoke to Philip this
morning and said that he has to contact the
tenant to come in and verify with some bank
statements, but that if he can prove it, he
does qualify from the initial applications.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Well, we're going
to need something from Philip --
MR. SCHNEIDER: He said he could
provide something as soon as he meets up
May 3, 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
2O
21
22
23
24
25
with the tenant, which will be in
day or early next week.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay.
garage has a CO from early 1996.
MR. SCHNEIDER: '967
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: 1996.
MR. SCHNEIDER: 2006, I believe.
MEMBER HORNING: Is that when it
built?
MR. SCHNEIDER: Yes, sir.
the next
square feet permitted; however,
authorizes us to also address
area variance as code, and it
in the legal notice.
MR. SCHNEIDER: I am not
Fine. The
was
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: We have
documentation on the insurance bill,
electric bill for residency. You are the
owner. You have seen on the application
that there is a series of questions that you
have answered. Pretty standard. That we
have to take into consideration. Terms of
occupancy, square footage and so on. We
have a calculated area of livable floor area
of 800 square feet, rather than the 750
that
that as an
is so stated
sure how
May 3, 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
Mr. Verity came calculation.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Well, I did check
the code and the State code differs from the
local code, in that the local code does in
fact, does not exempt, does not exempt
bathrooms and closets from the calculations
up with that
saw that as well,
taken into
Yes, I believe
in, the two
of livable floor area.
MR. SCHNEIDER: I
the knee walls would be
consideration; correct?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
the part that is cut
but
that is
L-walls.
MR. SCHNEIDER: Yes. Did he account
for the walls also, because if you are using
the outside dimension, I mean, there is six
inches between the walls. I know I am
getting petty, but isn't that livable space?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Apparently, they
either add up the total of the separate
rooms, but in your case, you have no hallway
and you have no stairs. So it's perfectly
reasonable to calculate the perimeter of the
whole structure and we have to go by his
calculation.
May 3, 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
2O
21
22
23
24
25
MR. SCHNEIDER: Okay.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: But it isn't
really a problem because it's already
written as a variance from the 750 square
feet.
MEMBER HORNING: Is the property for
sale?
MR. SCHNEIDER: It is.
MEMBER HORNING: Does that have any
bearing on the tenant or the change of
tenants?
MR. SCHNEIDER: To my understanding,
it's up the purchaser. I mean, they have to
reapply for the permit. I was looking to
get the CO, whether I stay there and don't
sell it. My real estate agent is familiar
with the Town Code. So should any potential
purchaser, they should have to apply for a
permit, that is the way I understand it.
MS. ANDALORO: (In Audible).
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: That is correct.
If the legal notice reflects the calculation
of livable floor area --
MS. ANDALORO: I am saying that there
is no application for an area variance.
May 3, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 184
1
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
the
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: That is correct.
is none.
MEMBER DINIZIO: If you have determined
square footage, can you give us those
calculations, can you give us what you think
it is?
MR. SCHNEIDER: Well, I was under the
impression when I applied that closets and
the bathroom would be deducted. But I
determined with the Town Code itself that
that is not the case. You know, I have few
different answers from a few different
people. So whatever you require.
MEMBER DINIZIO: How many square feet
is it?
MR. SCHNEIDER: Why I think if it even
-- going by the Town Code by saying the
bathrooms are included and so
I mean the knee walls -- each
4x6. I was told by someone that
not a builder. I don't have
know, this is not my area of
they were telling me that livable
would be the interior dimension.
going by an outside dimension, it
is the closet,
of them are
-- and I am
a lot -- you
expertise, but
space
By just
would be
a
May 3, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 185
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
six inch difference for the entire
perimeter.
MEMBER DINIZIO: I agree with that.
have 800. Ail I want from you, if you
dispute that, just give us your calculation
We
MR. SCHNEIDER: I am saying between the
six inch difference between the walls and
the two knee walls, I would say my
calculation is 728 square feet.
MEMBER DINIZIO: You couldn't possibly
live in a knee wall. So we're talking about
livable space, okay. Common sense says you
can't live in a knee wall.
on how you think it should be calculated.
And that is not going against the Building
Department. That if you think knee walls or
whatever your interpretation of it is --
MR. SCHNEIDER: 728 square feet.
MEMBER DINIZIO: How much?
MR. SCHNEIDER: 728 square feet.
MEMBER DINIZIO: That is kind of what I
wanted. We do establish, you know, we know
that the Building Inspector has the final
say. He says it 800. You differ from that.
Ail I wanted is that difference.
May 3, 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
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. SCHNEIDER: I don't think you would
want to live in a closet either, but I
didn't write the code.
MEMBER DINIZIO: I just wanted to get
that out there.
MEMBER HORNING:
excused.
needs
day .
this
Leslie, I need to be
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
to leave --
MEMBER HORNING: Horning.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: We've
Member Goehringer
-- I
very,
I am
had a long
questions for
Gerry, do you have any
applicant?
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No, I am still a
little confused about the square footage,
but we will deal with it. And you actually
didn't see the interior, but I had a
very bad situation occur that day and
sorry that I didn't make it over.
MR. SCHNEIDER: Is there something that
I need to apply for my current addition for?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: No. Notice of
Disapproval's are not part of the Special
Exception permit. The
Board has a right to
May 3, 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
review those. They don't go to the Building
Department, but with this particular Special
Exception permit, the Building Department is
given the application from us as a referral
and they have the jurisdiction to calculate
the livable floor area to make sure that it
is conforming, or that it is not conforming.
And that is our Notice of Disapproval. If
they say that it is nonconforming for that
section of the code, and we are authorized
to act, although it is our Notice of
Disapproval. So you don't need a separate
application.
MEMBER DINIZIO: That's why this
particular application is here. We had a
hard time getting from the Building
Inspector any application at all. At least
this way, we have one person who knows at
least is the point person on our code, the
Building Inspector, that gives us a hard
number that should be consistent for every
applicant that comes to the Town, and then
we can go from there. We can grant a
variance.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
What we will need
May 3, 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
from you of course, is documentation from
Philip for the current applicant as
qualified for the Affordable Housing
Registry.
Is there anyone else in the audience
that would like to address this application?
(No Response.)
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Hearing no
further comments, I am going to make a
motion to close this hearing subject to
receipt of information received regarding
the eligibility for the Affordable Housing
Registry of the current occupant.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER:
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
MEMBER DINIZIO: Aye.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Aye.
Second.
Ail in favor?
(See Minutes for Resolution.)
HEARING #6559 - BARRY ROOT
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The next
application before the Board is for Barry
Root, ~6559. Request for variance from
Article XXII Code Section 280-116(B) based
May 3, 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
on an application for building permit and
the Building Inspector's February 14, 2012
Notice of Disapproval concerning proposed
partial demolition and reconstruction with
additions to a single family dwelling, at;
1) less than the code required bulkhead
setback of 75 feet, located at: 6315 Indian
Neck Lane, adjacent to Richmond Creek in
Peconic.
Please state your name
MS. ROMANELLI: LeeAnn
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay.
This is a partial demolition with
with a bulkhead setback of 62 feet,
the code requires 75 feet.
MS. ROMANELLI: Yes.
for the record?
Romanelli.
Thank you.
additions
whereas
CHAIRPERSON
proceed with
know.
what
WEISMAN: Okay. So please
you would like us to
MS. ROMANELLI: Well,
he is adding on
which I believe
The two adjacent
water than this
to the existing structure,
has been there since 1957.
dwellings are closer to the
dwelling is. It's really the most feasible
for him to just add on and do the additions
May 3, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 190
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
to the house instead of move or tare down
the house and move the house forward. He is
upgrading his sanitary system. So that will
be applied for. And he's got all water
runoff contained on his property. There
hasn't been, I don't think any objections
neighbor's. The houses are so far
from any
set back
anything
away
So
from the road, you can't see
from the street.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Set very far back
from the street. A long right-of-way.
this dwelling has existed in its current
location since prior to 1957. There is a
Pre-CO on it.
MS. ROMANELLI: Yes, prior to 1957.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I noticed that
there is a newly installed bulkhead with
rip-rap on the property.
MS. ROMANELLI: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Quite a few
cottages in that area that have had some
construction done to it, over time.
MS. ROMANELLI:
not going out.
He is going up. He is
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
So there is no
May 3, 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
increase in the proposed nonconformity?
MS. ROMANELLI: No.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: And that 62 feet
is the closest part to the house?
MS. ROMANELLI: Yes. It's the closest.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: So it's just
really to the one corner that exist right
now. I don't actually have any more
questions. Gerry, do you have any questions
on this?
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: When you use the
word, "partial demolition," why are those
words used? You're not demolishing the
existing structure next door, are you? I
mean, the part that you're adding onto?
MS. ROMANELLI: No, well I guess
partial for partial of the existing house.
I don't know.
roof
just
make
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: You are taking the
off the existing cottage that is there?
MS. ROMANELLI: Yes, I believe they are
going to make it all conformed, and
everything the same.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: But the walls
themselves are not coming down?
May 3, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 192
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MS. ROMANELLI: No.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
perimeter, but all the
being reconstructed.
MS. ROMANELLI:
CHAIRPERSON
Actually, no.
Not the
interior walls are
Right.
WEISMAN: And then
going to be a partial
addition?
MS. ROMANELLI:
new foundation
Yeah.
there is
for the
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: We just sort of
that question, because it gets a little
confusing after a while. Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Jim, questions?
MEMBER DINIZIO: No, it's just a
bulkhead setback. The demolition is just --
You
there
you're going to add onto the house.
know, make whatever is going to be
bigger.
MS. ROMANELLI: Yeah.
ask
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Is there anyone
in the audience that would like to address
this application?
(No Response.)
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Hearing no
further comments, I am going to make a
May 3, 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
motion to close this hearing and reserve
decision to a later date.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Ail in favor?
MEMBER DINIZIO: Aye.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Aye.
(See Minutes for Resolution.)
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Our last hearing
Michael Otano. I am
is for Hernan going to
make a motion for no more than five minute
break.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: It's been a long,
long day and we just need to regroup.
Ail in favor?
MEMBER DINIZIO: Aye.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Aye.
(Whereupon, a short recess
this time.)
was taken at
HEARING #6557 HERNAN MICHAEL OTANO
(BREEZY SHORES)
May 3, 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
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
application before the Board
Michael Otano, Breezy Shores,
Our next
is for Hernan
%6557.
Request for use variance from Article XXIII
Code Section 280-123 and the Building
Inspector's December 12, 2011, updated
March 6, 2012 Notice of Disapproval based on
an application for building permit for
demolition and construction of a cottage 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, located at: %5 Breezy Shores
Community, Incorporated, Sage Boulevard,
adjacent to Shelter Island Sound in
Greenport.
We now have
use variance.
MS. MOORE:
behalf of Mr.
I think some
a request before us for a
Correct. Patricia Moore on
Otano, and Mr. Otano is here.
representatives from Breezy
Shores are also here, for support. What I
did was, I took my previous use variance
application. I elaborated on it. It
May 3, 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
2O
21
22
23
24
25
incorporates some of what you already had in
the application but I elaborated on it. Got
some additional documentation. So hopefully
it addresses all of your issues and all of
your questions. It's lengthy because I am
getting paid by the word here, and I
apologize. I don't really want to read from
this but going through the different
elements of the use variance, it's really
not a use variance. It's kind of more of a
directive of it, in a sense -- essentially
what the Board, I think was asking me to do
was to get the use variance to maintain and
preserve the cooperative unit #5 within the
Breezy Shores Community, and the reason I
say that is, as you know, my client owns 1
share out of the 31 shares that are
comprised out of the 31 shares of Breezy
Community. He is one share interest, but
has no authority to change the use. Any
other use that is listed in the zoning
ordinance. Nevertheless, what I did in
order to address all of the standards, what
I did was -- to begin with the principal of
equity that -- and I cited it, equity will
May 3, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 196
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
not do or require a vain or futile or
useless thing. That is from New York
jurisdiction prudence. And it seems that it
would be applicable here, in that, when I go
through the specific listed permitted uses
in the R80 Zoning District, it presumes a
great deal. It presumes that we have
unanimity of the Breezy Shores community to
agree to sell or develop the property as a
whole, within the context of the permitted
uses. Again, my client has no authority to
do anything on this property other than what
is between the four walls of his unit. What
I did do is based on the history of this
property, I did start out with the permitted
uses. I also -- just based on my notes
here, to tell you about the property, my
client brought for me his original
documents. Obviously I can not give you his
originals, but I can provide copies of them.
You can tell me if you want any of these for
your file. What I have from him is a copy
of the Breezy Shores proprietary lease. He
purchased it in 2001. I did correct one
place. I was under the impression that he
May 3, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 197
1
2
3
4
5
7
8
9
l0
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
bought it in 2002. So my correction of the
paperwork is 2001. So he purchased the
property in 2001. He had been renting the
unit for quite some time before that. I
have a Breezy Shores stock certificate here.
And we do have proof of the real estate
taxes. His share requires a payment of
$1,613.04, and the Assessor charges the
community one large tax bill and it gets
portioned amongst the unit owners. He also
provided me with a balance -- like a Quicken
sheet that shows all of the payout~s that he
has made since September -- is it 2002?
AUDIENCE SPEAKER: 2002 is when we
first started using Quicken.
MS. MOORE: Okay. Thank you. The
property manager started using Quicken in
2002 and was able to give me a print out of
all the payments that Mr. Otano has made
with respect to this unit and it reflects
three and five hundred dollar payments,
miscellaneous payments that were required of
him as a unit owner. This particular
Quicken program, does not have the total
balance but it's four pages in length and it
May 3, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 198
1
2
3
4
5
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
does amount quite a bit of money over the
years that he has paid in management fees,
co-op fees, and that are his obligation as a
unit owner. So I will definitely give you
this sheet. The Quicken outline, I don't
know if you do care, and I will give you a
copy of the taxes. To shew you that he did
pay his taxes. I also put it in my use
variance application. I did refer to it,
but you were asking for a little proof
behind it, and that's fine. We were able to
get that. When it comes to the actual price
of the unit, I can swear Mr. Otano in and he
can give you the price. Unfortunately he
does not have the paperwork, and the
attorney that was able to provide me with
the sales in the last two years, because
that is when they were the attorneys that
were exclusive agents to handle the
transfers. But Mr. Otano would be happy, if
the Board wants to swear him in or you can
accept my representation that he paid
$118,000.00. So I will leave that up to the
Board, and at the end, you can tell me what
you prefer. So I will give this back to
May 3, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 199
1
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. Otano because I don't want to be
responsible for these very important
documents. So as you can see, I have an
affidavit. The original is attached to the
original packet, from Les Cortes. She is
the original attorney at Cohen & Warren.
They have provided the proof of the value in
the last two years of the units that they
are aware of. Prior to that, she does not
have that information available, but
certainly in the last two years, the units
have sold from anywheres of $250,000.00
minimum to $350,000.00 max, for the
different units. Those units differ in the
square footages. What I did is, for
purposes of our application and what it
would take -- what the value is of the
property, I took an average of those numbers
and I came to the average being $309,000.00.
With 31 units, I calculated that the
property would be worth one whole, that is a
unit owner, $9.58 million. For purposes of
determining if this property could be used
for anything else by any other user, you
have to -- again, we have to look at it and
May 3, 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
say will somebody come forward and buy the
property from the unit owners or the unit
owners themselves will agree, that 31 people
will agree to a common concept of
development plan, but we will give you that
hypothetical anyway. Many of these reasons
are not economically feasible on this
property, given the uniqueness of this
property. Over a thousand linear feet of
waterfront. There is open space involved
and so on. So some of those issues would be
really be Breezy Shores coming in for a use
variance for the whole because again, my
client only has a small 1/31 interest in
whole. I was asked to elaborate on this,
and I will. So with respect to the
permitted uses of the one-family detached
the
property and they attempted a subdivision
application, which didn't really go too far.
That entity went -- I want to say bankrupt,
in the process of trying to subdivide. They
defaulted on the Town and County taxes and
dwelling, there had been prior applications.
I know I had given that to you before but in
1987 Harper View Realty acquired the
May 3, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 201
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
the mortgage on the Sage property. So the
Sage Family recovered the property. So
there had been an attempt to subdivide here.
There was also -- Mr. Goehringer you have
the longevity on the Board. In 1985, they
appealed #3320, Bayview Corporation who
purchased from the Sage Family in 1985, also
attempted to redevelop the property in a
clustered environment, and the variances
were denied. There is a little unique to
that application but the effort was made.
So partializing and splitting this property
up has been attempted in the past and has
been unsuccessful. With respect to other
uses that are permitted uses in this
two-family dwellings. Not exceeding one
dwelling on each lot. Again, would require
the subdivision of the property. Places of
worship, including pastor houses. Those
developments certainly would be -- I don't
know many churches or places of worship that
could afford this property. It probably
would be a more significant financial impact
to the Town on adverse impact because it's a
church and it's related uses would probably
May 3, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 202
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
be tax exempt. So whether that is feasible
or not, again, we are creating a real
hypothetical that the property would be
redeveloped. Elementary or high school,
colleges or other educational institutions.
Again, that is most likely not a
possibility, because public funds are just
not there for those type of uses to acquire
the property. The philanthropic, health
care, continuing live-in facilities, I guess
if something like a Brecknock Hall would
want to buy the entire property, I think in
the long run, that would be a significant
intensification of the property. Even
though it's considered a preexisting
nonconforming use here. It's a very minimal
use of the property versus the redevelopment
of one of these properties and that would be
a significant intensification. Town
structures, I mean, if you would like me to
proceed, it's all in writing here. It
really is -- the uses -- the whole analysis
is really not feasible here. I am doing it
to comply with the standards under a use
variance. More importantly, the standards
May 3, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 203
1
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 proof here would be the (In Audible) the
price of the property. Mr. Otano knew that
one of the seven had sold for $385,000.00,
but more importantly, I have the affidavit
of the properties that were sold in 2010 and
2011. So you can see that. Even that
number -- all the numbers are in the threes,
and was consistent with what Mr. Otano was
hoping after he made improvements to his
property. His property would be worth
around the same range of three hundred's,
after the improvements were made to his
property. With respect to the maintenance
of the property. I will give you that
outline of all these expenses, and they are
significant. I think we calculated basic,
the $3600.00 for the taxes, plus the certain
maintenance fees were easily over
$36,000.00. Also importantly here, each of
these unit owners have made a significant
investment, without a mortgage. And
understand that without a mortgage, in some
cases would be an additional loss because
you owe the mortgage if the building is
there or not. You continue to pay. But
May 3, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 204
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
there is another way of looking at it, which
is that you have to come to the table with
your savings in place, you don't have the
ability to get a mortgage and pay it over
time. Because of the nature of the
ownership, these homeowners come in with a
bundle of cash and they have to invest their
life savings essentially into buying this
unit, which is what my client did. He took
his savings and bought a unit, and that is
what is at risk today. There has also been
the rental value of the property. He
himself rented this unit prior to his
acquisition, and other units here are able
to rent. So the rental value is also
applicable here. And then finally the
amount that he spent to date for all of his
expenses are in the range of $40,000.00, and
going up with all of the processes that he
has had to go through.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Pat, do you have
any documentation of those expenses?
MS. MOORE: The labor, material,
professional fees and so on? I mean, we
could -- could we do it by sworn statement?
May 3, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 205
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
I don't like to say that he has paid in
legal fees "x" amount and I just think that
that is (In Audible) but I don't know -- do
you have something?
MR. OTANO: Hernan Otano. I have
invoices from Riverhead Building Supply that
easily come close to that. And then I have
at least two signed estimates up to this
work here with me. One for the lifting of
the house, which was $8,000.00 and the other
one was for the mason with the new
foundation. That was an estimate of
fifty-seven but I know that went beyond
that.
MS. MOORE: I can make copies and
provide it for the record, if that's all
right?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Yes.
MR. OTANO: The invoices are
There is at least 50 pages there of
materials.
RBS .
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The reason that I
ask it, it's fairly obvious because the law
-- the first of the four tests that one must
pass for this type of variance requires that
May 3, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 206
1
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 argument for financial information has
to be demonstrated by competent financial
evidence and it's not personally that I am
questioning what you have submitted but we
have to have in the record, you know, a
statement from counsel. Have to have some
evidence.
MS. MOORE: That is fine.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I think you are
getting closer to that information. Sworn
affidavit, notarized affidavit is fine. I
assume it could be corroborated by the
association that these fees are what people
pay.
MS. MOORE: This actually came from the
Breezy Shores community directly.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: That's
MR. OTANO: I picked it up
Teers (phonetic} this morning.
MS. ANDALORO: Can they
it on their letterhead?
MS. MOORE: It says
Community Inc. Customer Balance
Transactions.
CHAIRPERSON
fine.
from Mary
certify it? Is
Breezy Shores
Details,
Old
WEISMAN: Let's see those.
May 3, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 207
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
I would have to look --
MS. MOORE: That's fine. We will
provide you those and he can put on the
record that he picked it up from --
MR. OTANO: Mary Teers who is the
property manager. When I asked for it last
night, I said to her, could it be in some
official form? She said, well it's
Quickbooks and I don't know Quickbooks, but
she said it's a standard --
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: It's a printout.
MR. OTANO: Yes.
MS. MOORE: So take a look at it, if
you want it certified in some way, let me
know? So we will get you the documentation
on the labor materials and certain fees that
he has already incurred.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Yes. In view of
not having a contract of sale, we will need
a sworn affidavit.
MS. MOORE: We do have a contract of
sale?
MR. OTANO: I have a contract for
whole Breezy Shores. The original sale
the Sage's to
Breezy Shores
Community
the
from
Inc.
May 3, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 208
1
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: No, that is not his
contract.
MR. OTANO: Okay. I will shut up now.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I see you have an
affidavit corroborating the transfer of
sale, you know prices were comparable.
MS. MOORE: Okay. Is that better for
you?
better. Do you
test?
MS. MOORE:
relating to the
ready for that?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Definitely
want to move onto the second
Yes, the allege hardship
property is unique. Are we
Again, it's a cooperative
owned with multiple units. They have been
in existence since the 1900's and were
constructed as worker housing for the Sage
Family Brickyard. And again the cooperative
is comprised of the 31 stock shareholders,
where they are a designated unit. No change
is allowed to the property without consent
of the 31 shareholders. Each individual
shareholder has an obligation to the
corporation to pay their share their
maintenance and repair for their individual
May 3, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 209
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
unit. They can not independently -- they
can't act independently. They have one vote
of the 31 shares. So each unit has the one
vote. What I did describe is, the
uniqueness of this property is also that the
linear feet of bulkhead, which faces
Island Sound, the road is a private
maintained by Breezy Shores Inc. The
amenities come with the unit, and can
used independently of the unit. For
not be
rented
there,
unit. So if this unit were to not be
it would be questionable if he would
have any right to be on the property at all,
since the units gone and there is marinas
and other amenities of open space. Also,
the redevelopment of this parcel for luxury
homes or condos has been attempted and it
has been without success. So there is a
uniqueness here that this property --
probably it appears that this is the best
possible use.
Do you have any questions with respect
to that?
Shelter
road and
example, if the unit is rented the owner
can't use the amenities independent of the
May 3, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 210
1
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
uniqueness of
understood by
Certainly you
WEISMAN: No,
this property is
everyone on this
go to talk about
apply to substantial (In Audible)
that is clear also. The request
the character of the neighborhood.
that is pretty clear also.
MS. MOORE: Right.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Cottages
fairly uniformed bulkhead setbacks.
have fairly uniformed sides. I would
make the point that the 82 acres that
I think the
well
Board.
it does not
District
won't alter
I think
have
They
simply
really a major point one way or the other.
MS. MOORE: I would also like to point
out in reading the R80 AC property purposes
section, that it was interesting in reading
that purposes section, it actually would be
consistent with the way that this property
is developed because it's -- the intention
here is to prevent the unnecessary loss of
those currently opened lands and those areas
with sensitive environmental features, which
are referring to, much of that acreage is
unbuilt because of wetlands. That is not
you
May 3, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 211
1
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 recharge areas. Also,
provide open rural environment
valued by year round residents
these areas
so highly
and those
persons who support the Town of Southold's
recreation, resort and second home economy,
which is essentially what this is. At least
in reading that, they're describing this
community. So I thought that -- I put it
into the memo because I thought it was
extremely relevant.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I would actually
like you to address the self created or not
self created hardship issue.
MS. MOORE: Sure.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
addressed
you just
brief.
MS. MOORE:
elaborated on it.
this community in
place, it's 2001.
You have
it a little differently in what
submitted, relative to your first
Correct, because I
He purchased the unit in
2001. I did find another
He has had to comply with
the community By-Laws to maintain the
structure, make the necessary repairs.
Including reconstruct the structure as
May 3, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 212
1
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 did
immediately.
needed. There was an action brought by
Breezy Shores Community Board threatening
that they were going to bring legal action,
not replace the foundation
By immediately, obviously he
had to go through the permitting process.
Obviously nothing is as immediate plus
coming up with the funds and getting a
contractor,
inpatient with Mr.
get that job done.
regulatory permits,
Department approved
new foundation. He,
Breezy Shores was gettin
Otano and he did finally
He got the required
and the Building
the replacement of the
as he described before,
he raised the house to replace the
deteriorated foundation, and he made
every
effort to preserve the existing structure,
but it was only after the foundation work
was completed, some walls were exposed.
That latent defects of the original
construction of the house were discovered.
We cite a case that the scope of the work to
make the existing house more conformed to
the minimum standards in the State Building
Code exceeded everyone's actions. His
May 3, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 213
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
actions are not self created hardship, which
would preclude the grant of the variance.
There was a case where I believe supports
what happened in this situation. In
addition, he and Breezy Shores always
believed that the continuation of the use of
the cottage was not threatened in any way by
making the improvements. Otherwise, only
Breezy Shores wouldn't have pushed so hard
for him to make the improvements -- because
it impacts Breezy Shores financial
investment and value of the property when a
unit is jeopardized. They were under the
impression that it was a permitted use. And
we had previous memorandum to that effect
and preserve our rights and that argument in
tact. I will not go over it all again, but
more importantly, building permit's had been
issued in the past. And to an outside
observer, Mr. Otano and Breezy Shores
Community, after he had purchased the
property in 2001, there were building
permits issued back from 2003, to as late as
2007, for alterations and additional
improvements to the cottages. So he was not
May 3, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 214
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
-- neither side was under any impression or
notice that this was an issue and this would
be a problem. So with respect to the self
imposed hardship when he bought -- even
after he bought it, the building
were being issued. So I believe
of itself, would point out that
he was doing everything right.
permit's
that in and
he thought
Breezy
Shores thought no -- had no impression that
this was going to be a problem. And they
were quite upset when the Town came and
stopped him and now thought, "oh, what have
you done? You have done something wrong
here." And we, as a community, and I have
heard this many times from the community,
they want a good relationship with the Town
and the Building Department. So I think
over -- now they understand the whole
concept of why it stopped and why it has
been such a difficult process because the
Town has been considering it a nonconforming
permitted use, but that was not the
understanding of the community or by
Mr. Otano throughout his ownership of the
property. Finally, I believe the new local
May 3, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 215
1
2
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
law may actually be relevant here. I am
raising it to preserve the argument,
preserve the issue. I spoke briefly with
Mike Verity and really wasn't sure how to --
how this particular application would fair.
However, as a matter of the proof that we
have given you, all of the new definition of
demolition, less than 75% of the structure
has been "demolished" and it's very
possible, that given the definition, we
don't need any variances or use variance,
but we are here. We are so far down the
process. I want to preserve that argument,
if we end up in Court. For now, let's move
forward. I think we have given you adequate
proof to grant the use variance and it would
benefit at this time for my client to have a
use variance. After all the money that he
has spent to cut the process out and you
know, it seems like a waste of money at this
point.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Let me just make
a comment that you raise in your conclusion.
In your brief, you make a very important
point prior to that about the importance of
May 3, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 216
1
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 Breezy Shores Community, culturally
important in Southold. It's uniqueness as a
cottage community. It's seasonal in nature
and so on. I think the Board understands
that. Does not take exception to that at
all. In your conclusion; however, you
indicate, should the use variance be granted
then, this structure in fact will become
conforming and as a consequence they may
therefore proceed to alter this dwelling in
the future without limitations applied to
nonconforming buildings. In that point, I
would like to put in the record, in order to
maintain the existing character of this
neighborhood, I disagree with that
statement. In fact, the cottages are all
seasonal cottages. And to suggest that it
could become larger than what it is now or
taller than what it is now, or expand the
footprint in any way without limit because
it is now "conforming," would in fact
totally alter the unique historic seasonal
cottage type character of this neighborhood.
So I simply want to explain that I believe
that this Board recognized approaching the
May 3, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 217
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
strategy, the fact that we have a choice of
saying that it's demolished, go away,
good-bye, all bets are off or try to
approach it this way so as to recognize
Mr. Otano's investment and to try and find
some way of preserving the character of the
neighborhood instead of leaving a big hole
there. And so I simply want to state my
position here, which is that a
reconstruction of the footprint of the
seasonal cottage, I am comfortable with
going forward in that regard. To suggest
that it now becomes conforming and you can
do whatever you want with it, as a result,
is a flying in the face of what the actual
character of this property is.
MS. MOORE: I respect your opinion and
certainly there is no plan to expand or
anything else, but that seems to be the law.
MS. ANDALORO: I think she is talking
about the conditions
MS. MOORE: Oh.
on the variance.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Yes. And I
believe the association
MS. MOORE: Well,
they have to approve
May 3, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 218
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
anything that gets --
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: So I am simply
saying that from my perspective, we're
reinforcing those kinds of decisions through
conditions on any type of Board action is
likely to be the case, from my point of view
anyway.
MS. MOORE: He has no problem with
that. He just wants his cottage back. I
think the community was always concerned
that they wanted to do some small
alterations, bathroom -- you know,
everything within the character of what they
had. Somehow or another, the interpretation
that comes through the Town is, you can't
touch this, you can't do this. And what I
think a use variance would allow is if the
community came back to you overall and asked
for a use variance for the entire facility,
maybe they could say to you, listen we -- if
we approve anything, it won't be more than
"X" percent of whatever. Whatever the
limitations are. That's not our argument --
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: That is not what
is before us.
May 3, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 219
1
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: No, no. But know -- the
reason I raise it, knowing how they felt, I
don't want to come later and say, you know
what, we just want a little more flexibility
when we have to fix something. To have some
percentage of allowed bump out because the
State Building Code may require it,
hallways or whatever.
decision, but what I
is, that you give the
community and because
That will be
don't want
or
your
to happen
blessing to the
of we being the
pig, the first one through the shoot,
the limitations places on us -- that
everybody in the neighborhood can put in a
second bathroom or a hallway or something,
and now we're precluded.
MS. ANDALORO: I think what she is
saying is, if the Board were to any point
time in the future to consider a global
variance --
MS. MOORE: Right.
MS. ANDALORO: -- for the entire
community, that Mr. Otano's property or
other conditions thereon, be similar to
those.
guinea
that
any
May 3, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 220
1
2
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MS. MOORE: That's would --
MS. ANDALORO: We could probably do
something like that. If the Board would
like to, I can do it.
MS. MOORE: I always think to the
future. Anything else?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Let's see if the
Board has any questions?
MS. MOORE: Yes, do you have any
questions because the rest -- again --
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Jim, comments or
questions?
MEMBER DINIZIO: Yes. I would like to
see her explore the 75% rule. I would like
to see it, if you get a Notice of
Disapproval on that or an approval.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I think in order
to do that, we have to deal with this
hearing. We left the previous area variance
open. We adjourned it in order to address
this, and said that we would revisit that
when this was concluded.
MEMBER DINIZIO: But the use variance
is such a drastic undertaking here. That I
-- I can see what Pat is saying. You are
May 3, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 221
1
2
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
giving a use variance and
going to be a conditioned
it seems like it's
use variance and
to be hard to
you can't even see
you know, things
knowing the place
you know, that is going
maintain in a place that
from the road. I mean,
have gone on down there,
that I know, that cottages look different
then when I was a kid. And you know, I
don't anticipate that that will ever stop.
You know, just from your comments on wanting
to add a hallway or do something because the
State statute says, and quite honestly, my
approach would be, they stay rustic as they
are right now. And I think that if you
qualify for the 75% not having been
demolished, if you qualify for that, that
leaves
the community right where they were
before he applied to us. And that is where
I would prefer that you be.
how about I let you
the majority wants
I made the phone call
it's just too fresh for
MS. MOORE: Well,
guys deliberate on what
me to do. You know,
to Mike, but I think
him to --
CHAIRPERSON
WEISMAN: This is new law.
May 3, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 222
1
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 have proceeded under an old law. I
believe we need to see this through under
the old law. Going forth, we have a
different set of conditions and we might
have approached that area variance
differently, had the new law been in effect.
We can't say what we would have done. Ail I
know is that this Board made it pretty clear
that based upon lots of testimony from the
Building Department and then plus, your
architect and all of us, that this was
considered a demo. It's a new foundation
and virtually an all new house. If there is
few roof rafters that remain and so on and
so forth. It was considered a demo and when
we decided to go and youTre absolutely
right, this is not a conventional use
variance. But the closest thing of being
able to establish -- reestablish a use that
was there already. It's not like you are
going to put a restaurant there.
MS. MOORE: And reestablish one unit
out of 31.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: This is
unorthodox, but it is a strategy that the
May 3, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 223
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Board tried to meet the test, so that we can
find a legally responsible way of finding
loss of equity. You know, other then saying
it's gone and you're done. You are out of
there. So I am happy that we have gotten to
this point, and we will see where we want to
go.
MS. MOORE: Jim, I had to put it on the
record because God forbid, you decide
against the client, and I am in court, the
change in the law with a architect
certification, would I think be beneficial
to my client.
MEMBER DINIZIO:
that.
I have no doubt about
MS. MOORE: I don't want to necessarily
revisit everything. The building is subject
to the elements everyday and it's -- you
know, I rather have it decided based on what
you got, because I have the sense that you
are trying to be helpful to the client. You
know, the equity is there. And we're so far
along, I appreciate it and I respect your
opinion, and I don't disagree with you, but
at this point, that should have been -- you
May 3, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 224
1
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, months ago.
MEMBER DINIZIO: What does it take, two
weeks, to ask for a building permit? Based
on that. I am not going to argue the case.
I don't like -- and I know that the Board
senses that. I don't like to deviate from
the norm. I don't like these special things
that go on because they are -- to me, they
are just little ticking time bombs that
down the
sudden, we're right back where
but only worse. And you know,
laws and this falls under the
currently have today, from the time that you
walked into this room, you know, I think
that is where we should be going. I mean,
we made the effort, the Town made the effort
to define demolition. They went through all
of that work. Granted they did it during
the time that we had this hearing, but that
has no bearing whatsoever on this, other
than a lot of lost time, but you know, the
time is moving. You snap your finger and
from now,
all of a
we started,
if we have
law that we
someone will misinterpret somewhere
line, ten years or twenty years
and reach back in here and then
May 3, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 225
1
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 not there anymore.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Here is the
point. We can conclude this proceeding
today and make a determination. Once that
is done. We will reopen -- we actually have
it schedule --
MS. MOORE: When is it?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I
adjourned it till June 7th.
we said, we will entertain
additional adjournment,
scheduled it then, not
long this was going to
request.
MS. MOORE: Because
was --
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
I am saying is, is that
there is any additional
Board needs, other than
were going to submit.
think we
Remember what
a request for an
if needed. We
really knowing how
take, at your
we didn't know this
Correct. So what
I don't feel that
information that the
what you said you
much
MS. MOORE: Yes, but even as to the
other June hearing, I think that was pretty
thoroughly heard.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Right, but we
May 3, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 226
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
20
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
adjourned it in case there were additional
things to think about.
MEMBER DINIZIO: We didn't want to make
a decision on this but would have had to, if
this taken more than 62 days.
MS. MOORE: No, no. I agree. I asked
for it because I didn't want to be -- I
didn't want to have my time clicking on one
and knowing that this was running parallel.
So yes, absolutely. But you will tell me if
you want additional information on the other
variance?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Fine. Is there
anyone out there who would like to testify?
Any comments that you would like to say on
this --
MR. OTANO: I would like to make one
more thing?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Just come back up
and state your name, Mr. Otano?
MR. OTANO: Mr. Dinizio you have had
the benefit growing up here and watching
this place, and I know Jim and everybody.
Before the community bought the place, yeah,
there was a lot of stuff that went on. Our
May 3, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 227
1
2
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
community has and my case in particular,
this is uncharted territory for our
community. Some people have reacted to such
an extreme. I am the biggest villain of
this community. And all I ever tried to do,
was do it right. I was completely naive
going through this process. I love this
community very much, and you suggested that
things will continue to be done hazardly.
Let me assure you, this community has gotten
to a point, such a type of a point that they
don't want to do this. Like Pat suggested,
we want to be in good standing with the Town
of Southold people. Some people have said
you forced the community into such a
careless position against the Town, I was
just trying to do the right thing, and here
we are. I am still trying to do the right
thing. I appreciate that you guys are
working with me on this and our community.
Let me tell you this, and if I could speak
for the whole community, they are not doing
any kind of stuff that was happening 15-20
years ago. We are definitely doing it by
the book.
May 3, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 228
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MEMBER DINIZIO: I have been on this
Board for 25 years and I have seen some
things and I have seen things come and go
and go around and around. And that lady
standing right next to you, has been before
the same thing, different, but many times.
MS.
25 years the
differently.
MEMBER
do things by the
try and modify a
MOORE: And I must say in the last
Board has interpreted things
Change is inevitable.
DINIZIO: That is why I like to
written law. Let's go and
use variance which is a
recent occurrence in Town, and you know, I
will work with you on and see where we could
go with it, and if not, we will try some
other stuff.
MR. OTANO: Thank you. Fair enough.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay. Hearing no
further questions or comments, I am going to
make a motion to close this hearing and
reserve decision to a later date, subject to
receipt of additional documentation of
financial evidence from counsel.
MEMBER DINIZIO: Second.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Ail in
favor?
May 3, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 229
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Vicki
you
MEMBER DINIZIO: Aye.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Aye.
MS. MOORE: Just to simplify things,
were you keeping track of things that
want?
MS. TOTH: I really don't want a
hundred pages from Riverhead Building. I
know how they operate. If they can just
give us one statement. That and the -- what
was the other thing --
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Let me go back to
MOORE: Estimates.
TOTH: That's what
from the
my notes.
MS.
MS.
estimates
invoice.
CHAIRPERSON
regarding the
certification
indicate that
MS. MOORE:
certification.
CHAIRPERSON
work. See what I
it was, the two
foundation people,
WEISMAN:
purchase price.
of the Quicken
Affidavit
Possible
spreadsheet,
they are true and accurate.
So maybe we can just get
to
a
WEISMAN: Yes, that will
am trying to do is have
May 3, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 230
1
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 proper evidence, so that when we are
writing a decision, we can refer back to
specific documentation. It isn't again,
that I question the voracity of the claims,
but the claims have to be documented,
according to the law.
MS. MOORE: That's fine.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Just look at all
the list of things. Frankly, not that every
single one of these points is valid, but I
am going to go through them anyway. One,
contract of sale or affidavit of price.
Two, you provided some -- you have a
notarized comparable Three,
those have to deal with the is
the spreadsheet that you're We
just talked about some sort
representation for construction costs and
sale document.
fees, that
proposing.
of
estimates on the foundation, materials and
so on. The loss of revenue for potential
rental. You don't need anything on that.
That is just the point that you are making.
I can equally argue that although you have
paid the maintenance all these years, you
have also enjoyed the benefit of the
May 3, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 231
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
property and living there.
to pay our rent, don't we.
wash at that point. So I am
gather information that will
that we need in order
decision.
MS. MOORE:
building is not
continue to pay
because you are
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
understand. That is
hardship. All right.
think we have already
So we all have
So we are at a
just trying to
give us data
to write a valid
For example, if the
there, you still have to
the maintenance fees,
a stock owner.
Yes,
a self created
We're done here. I
closed this. Do we
all know what we are doing?
MS. MOORE: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay.
good evening.
(See Minutes for Resolution.)
Have a
make a
of
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I am going to
motion to close the Regular Meeting
the Zoning Board of Appeals.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Seconded by
May 3, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 232
1
2
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
Gerry.
Ail in favor?
MEMBER DINIZIO: Aye.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER:
Aye .
Aye.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
********************************************
(Whereupon, the public hearings for
May 3, 2012 concluded.)
May 3, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 233
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
C E R T I F I C A T I O N
I, Jessica DiLallo, certify that
foregoing transcript of tape recorded
Hearings was prepared using required
electronic transcription equipment and is
true and accurate record of the Hearings.
Signat
J~ica Di~lo
Jessica DiLallo
Court Reporter
PO Box 984
Holbrook, New York
11741
Date: May 14, 2012
the
Public
a