HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-07/05/2012 Hearing 1
2
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
COUNTY OF SUFFOLK: STATE OF NEW YORK
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
REt%'B~'D
JUL 2 7 201Z
BOARD OF APPEAL~
Southold Town Hall
Southold, New York
July 5, 2012
10:10 A.M.
Board Members Present:
LESLIE KANES WEISMAN -
GERARD GOEHRINGER
JAMES DINIZIO, JR.
KENNETH SCHNEIDER
GEORGE HORNING
Chairperson/Member
- Member
Member (Left at 2:53
- Member
Member
P.M.)
JENNIFER ANDALORO - Assistant Town Attorney
VICKI TOTH Secretary
Jessica DiLallo
Court Reporter
P.O. Box 984
Holbrook, New York 11741
(631)-338-1409
2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
INDEX OF HEARINGS
Hearing:
Richard Meyerholz, %6556,
D.F. & J.M. Harris Children's Trust,
#6570
Mill Creek Partners, LLC, %6575
Alan Fidellow, #6578
8925 Bay Avenue, LLC, #6577
Vincent and Carol Manago, #6576
Brian Ziegler, #6572
Paul A. & Elizabeth L. Reinckens,
John & Angela Reinertsen, #6574
Edward J. Conner, #6566
#6573
Page:
3-33
33-47
47-77
78-92
92-103
103-108
108-122
122-139
139-170
170-176
July 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
For the
here to
request
in May when we
original plans that
around a variety
individual -- my
HEARING #6556 -
MR. MEYERHOLZ: Good morning
record, Richard Meyerholz.
represent Meyerholz property,
for zoning variance. Okay. Back
first met and we submitted
RICHARD MEYERHOLZ
again.
I am
drew some concern
of items. I also had an
next door neighbor make
some commentary that can go on the record,
regarding the hot tub and shower. The
Board also still maintained some concern
around the side yard boundary, the front
revised set
say, and a
yard setback and the
originally proposed.
meeting in May, the
of plans,
site plan.
lot coverage as
Subsequent to that
Board received a
drawings I should
Before we continue
any further, there were -- there were two
minor omissions from the drawings. One
was the actual location or the relocation
of the shower for the front, which is on
the site plan, and the drawings did not
include a staircase that was off of the
deck that was originally proposed. So
July 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
from the initial time, those were the only
two minor changes on the drawings. Okay.
So let me start with the two concerns by
Robert Swing from our May meeting, that
was the location of the hot tub, and the
shower. You will note here that on the
new site plan, there is a smaller proposed
tub on the north corner of the property
that measures around 5 feet across. The
shower, as I mentioned, which was also on
the southern line of the property line,
was relocated to the southern front corner
of the house, tucked in along side the
stoop area.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Can I ask a
question, Mr. Meyerholz? That is the
little box that you're showing there?
MR. MEYERHOLZ: Yes, it's difficult
-- where it says, "proposed FL 3.0
elevation," that is to the left of it. So
it's in that corner.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Now, the oil tank
is in the ground?
MR. MEYERHOLZ: The oil tank is
currently above ground, which will be
July 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
removed.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: So there will be
no encroachments on that side?
MR. MEYERHOLZ: No, sir.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That will be a
clean 5 feet?
MR. MEYERHOLZ: Correct, sir.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Mr. Meyerholz,
I just have a question about that hot tub.
I don't see any drywell for the discharge
of the water that you occasionally require
to be removed, and replaced?
MR. MEYERHOLZ: Yes, ma'am.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: You're
proposing a hot tub
dwelling?
MR. MEYERHOLZ: Yes,
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Which is quite
close to your setback, and you're going to
need to mitigate that, I think.
MR. MEYERHOLZ: Mitigate the
discharge or mitigate the tub?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Well, the fact
that the tub requires discharge.
MR. MEYERHOLZ: It will be down
seaward of the
Ma'am.
July 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 6
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
graded.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
But we will
need to see something on how the water
will be discharging onsite.
MR. BROWN: That was an omission on
my part. I apologize. There was a
drywell for the discharge in a previous
location. That would of course be
relocated.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: So if we ask
you to submit an amended survey showing
the location of the drywell for the hot
tub --
MR. BROWN:
Sure.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
Did you want
MR. MEYERHOLZ: If I could just
continue on with the changes? To address
the side yard issues, the Board had
concerns with the 3 1/2 foot side yard on
the south side of that corner near the
shower -- where the shower is going to be
located, in that corner there. It was
3 1/2. We went and made that 5, by simply
shifting the house 18 inches off of the
July 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
north -- off of the northeast corner. So
taking that off the northeast corner and
basically shifting the house 18 inches to
give us 5 feet of relief on that side
versus the current 3 1/2 feet that exist
today. That essentially is 5 feet on both
sides, equal. Now the previous plans also
had a combined of 5 feet. As you may
recall also that there was a 3 1/2 foot
and 6 1/2 side yard setback previously.
So it's effectively having shifted the
house 18 inches between the
lines.
MEMBER HORNING: Do we
amended Notice of
CHAIRPERSON
yes. Let me just
two property
need an
Disapproval?
WEISMAN: We have that,
go over the variances
front
we're clear
for the record. So
happening.
MR. MEYERHOLZ: Okay.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
yard setback at 32.5
on what
You have a
feet, it was
previously 31.2. The code requires 35
feet. We have a previous side yard
setback of 5 feet, which was previously
July 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
3.4 feet. The code requires 10 feet. And
there was a 10 foot, and there is now a 10
foot side yard, as well as another one of
9.9 feet. Combined side yard setback of
15 feet, where the code require 25 feet.
Lot coverage of 26.9 percent. Original
application was for 28.9 percent. The
code permits a maximum of 20 percent. So
there are the variances.
MEMBER DINIZIO: (In Audible).
MR. MEYERHOLZ: The combined side
yard is 10.
MEMBER DINIZIO: So it's 5 and 5?
MR. MEYERHOLZ: That's correct.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Can I ask a
question?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
MEMBER GOEHRINGER:
opinion, the planning is
MR. MEYERHOLZ: Thank
MEMBER GOEHRINGER:
figure out what that jet
MR. MEYERHOLZ: The
old road to the --
MEMBER GOEHRINGER:
Yes, of course.
In my particular
getting better.
you.
I am trying to
out is.
jet out from the
The one-story
July 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 9
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
frame to the -- what is that? Is that
1 foot 6 inches?
MR. MEYERHOLZ: Yes. That's correct.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: About 18 inches?
MR. MEYERHOLZ: About 18 inches.
That's correct.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I just want you
to -- I can't express to you the need to
have as much as of a setback on one side
of this house to get something to the
waterfront, if you really needed to do so.
In the past, in my particular situation,
it was always 8 feet, okay. 6 foot 6
inches, is definitely a relatively good
start, okay, but then when you drop it
down to the 5, you know, it just kind of
-- I have to be honest --
MR. MEYERHOLZ: The use of the garage
space is to accommodate the fuel tank, a
staircase to get into the home, and a
heating system. So it makes it difficult
to narrow -- the narrower you make the
garage, it makes it difficult to move
something back out. 6 inch beam is
effectively 15 1/2 material. So it gets
July 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 10
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1
2
3
4
5
kind of narrower as I propose. If I cut
it back any more than, I am not -- it's
going to be unusable space almost. It's
to use for the cars. I don't think I
would be able to open the doors easily.
In addition, just to your point, sir, on
the lot coverage side of this, the
original plans had called for a 4 foot
overhang to the garage doors all the way
wrapping around the front door. That has
all been taken out; however, I was able
to, if you will, and if you would allow me
to, extend that garage out 18 inches. So
I effectively increase the length of the
garage from 21 feet to 22.5 feet. It was
20 feet or so, and now it's 21.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Here is the
problem also. We can't really 9ut a
ladder on your property in a two-story
situation on that side at 5 feet. We've
had significant testimony over the years
regarding that. I can personally -- this
is not my application, in reference to
Board members, 60 was the max if you
needed to put a ladder up two and a half
July 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 11
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
tl
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
stories, or two plus stories. The
minimum, excuse me. That's the most
difficult thing. The 5 feet on the south
side is pretty good, but that's the major
problem that I have with the 6 foot or the
5 feet on the garage, and I am just
throwing it out to you, okay.
MR. MEYERHOLZ: The jet out, that
area that looks over the current one-story
frame house, that portion, it's 6 1/2
feet. So just the jet out portion is
proposed one above it. There are no
windows designed on it, on that face.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That is where the
ladders is going to go then?
MR. MEYERHOLZ: Well, would it -- if
there is a need for evacuation, because I
think what you're probably referring to,
the windows on the western side, which is
the side facing the street, and the window
facing the south side, are easily
reachable. So those would be the exit
points if there is ever an issue.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: It's not only
evacuation issue, it's maintenance of the
July 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
house. That is one of the issues that I
looked at. The other situations,
because I have gone back down and looked
at the beach area, and for you to get any
of your equipment around -- because you're
only the second parcel from Island View
Avenue, would be very difficult also.
Even at 6.6 feet, you could get a small
backhoe back there if you had too. You
know, meaning to the waterfront area, but
I am looking at it as access to that area.
MR. MEYERHOLZ: If I may, to address
that issue of access to the beach side?
The only alternative that I could offer
here, is that any equipment that need to
come into the beach come in by barge.
They float it in, truck load it in, if
there is any maintenance work required. I
propose no seawall or any such
construction here. Minimal if any access
is going to be required to this side of
the home, but in the event there is severe
beach erosion or some other issue, I would
propose then my access option would be
barge, and bring a small piece in, in that
July 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 13
1
2
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
tl
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
way. Not to disturb any properties on the
north and south side. So that would be an
option.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: It is an
option. The difference here, you're
demolishing this and building pretty much
from scratch. So the Board is obligated
by law to create the benefit -- it's not
just for you, it's for your neighbor
emergency access and so on. It's
important that we try and make this as
conforming to code as possible. That is
what our obligation of the law is. So
we're exploring with you the possibility
of expanding that side yard. It's easier
to expand that side, than it is on the
other side, because the angle of the
property line. Mr. Goehringer is
referring to the fact that when you have
very limited access to both side yards --
you're not a typical, that one side yard
is nonconforming. In fact, sometimes
there are both side yard's that are
nonconforming. One of them has to be more
conforming than 5 feet. That is what the
July 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 14
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Board is talking about. I actually had a
question with regard to the LWRP
inconsistency, and you have a copy of
that.
MR. MEYERHOLZ: I'm sorry, the LW --
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The LWRP. We
have a decision, a recommendation from our
Local Waterfront Revitalization
Programmer, Mark Terry. You do have a
copy of that?
MR. MEYERHOLZ: I don't.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: That was from
the previous hearing.
MR. MEYERHOLZ: Okay.
check my records. My apologies.
needs to address this.
inconsistent with the
in the Town LWRP
look at ways you
consistent. Mitigate
Move the structure. I
I will have to
CHAIRPERSON WE~SMAN: Well, the Board
Because it's
policies set forth
document. We need
can either make it
to
some of the issues.
think you have
already addressed moving the structure.
Let me show you in particular. There is
recommendation here that landscape, is
a
July 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 15
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
going around existing trees and area could
be filled with 18 inches of beach
material. I presume -- there is not that
many trees that are going to remain on
this property once you're done with this.
MR. MEYERHOLZ: Unfortunately,
because of the septic system, numbers of
trees -- the trees that you're referring
to, there is only one tree that grows
slightly through the deck that has to be
removed. The other trees that I am
proposing, in fact, I want to leave alone.
I want to protect those trees.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The way in
which the coordinator recommends
protection of those trees is to install
landscape wells around those trees.
MR. MEYERHOLZ: Okay. I am perfectly
comfortable with following those
guidelines. I think I was on record the
last time I was here, those trees I would
really like to save.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Those are on
the seaward side that weTre talking about?
MR. MEYERHOLZ: That's correct.
July 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 16
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Ken, do you
have any questions that you would like
ask the applicant?
to
would be bring
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Yes, I do. I
would defer to Mr. Goehringer's comments
also. I am particularly concerned with
the neighboring parcel to the south, and
the location of that dwelling. It's also
a two-story structure, and your's would be
similar to that. And I feel that a 5 foot
setback to your structure
structures too close together. I
to see more distance between
Goehringer had mentioned 8
those
would like
that. Mr.
feet, is there any reason why you could
not locate your house at an 8 foot side
yard on that southern part?
MR. MEYERHOLZ: Why would I shift it
northward, and then that would be a 2 foot
side yard on the north side, which would
create an issue, I think, regarding any
ladders or maintenance access to that
second-story.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: This is going
be a demolition, I assume, and you're
to
July 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 17
1
2
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
willing to build a new foundation, because
you wrote down the structure on a
property. So that would require a new
foundation. So basically it's going to
require --
MR. MEYERHOLZ: I would have to defer
to the architect because I don't know
exactly how this is going to be
accomplished.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Sure.
MR. BROWN: There are of course two
options. One is tare down everything and
rebuild from scratch. The other is to
maintain as much of the structure as
viable, and turn it on axis, to sit down
on the foundation, which is something that
our office has done in the past. In one
instance, we picked up a house and put a
new foundation under it and turned the
house 180 degrees, and put it down exactly
where it was. So those are two options.
So when we get to the point of talking to
contractors to find out the most
economically feasible in doing this, we
would be making that decision, but I do
July 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 18
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
hold out the possibility that we would
maintaining some of the structure.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Okay.
be
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Well, actually,
Ken makes an important point. If you look
at the copy of the LWRP that we received
from our Board assistant, you will see in
bold on the first page, "the site plan
dated as last revised, February 21, 2012,
does not reference the demolition of the
structure. It is recommended that the
Board clarify the structure to be
demolished."
MR. BROWN: That of course goes to
the ongoing conversation with the Town
with the definition of "demolition,"
of course is entirely up to you.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Well, it's
really up to the Building Department.
MR. BROWN: When I say "you," I
really mean the Town.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: It's now 75
percent.
MR. BROWN: When --
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Can I ask a
which
July 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 19
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
question,
MR.
MEMBER
situation
the house
Mr. Brown?
BROWN: Sure.
GOEHRINGER: This was a viable
on this plan to almost square
off on the property. In other
words, turning the house a little bit.
doing so, we would assume that the
existing structure that is there is still
in the same position. So it's probably
going to affect some of the demolition
issues, is it not?
MR. BROWN: I am not sure I
understand.
In
MR. BROWN: Yes.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: And
going to build a new house,
super-implanted or a renovation of the
property line, doesn't that affect the
whole aspect of it, by just rotating it
just 18 inches on one side? I mean, I
think it would because now those
you're now
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Well, if you have
a house that is not square to the
property, in other words, it's cocked a
little bit.
July 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 20
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
particular lines are not in sync. They're
not parallel to.
MR. BROWN: Well, the structure is
self contained. The entire structure
rotates -- pivots along the central point.
That structure can be maintained in its
integrity, if that is what you're asking.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: It can be?
MR. BROWN: Yes. As I said before, I
have been in situations where we have
lifted a house -- in this case, it was a
perfectly rectangular house, there was new
foundation underneath it, and rotated 180
degrees, and it was still Pthe same house,
just with better views.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Well, we can keep
on investigating this situation. As I
said, this plan -- you know, I think is a
better plan. I just think the side yard's
are extremely nonconforming. I mean, if
you take percentages and give you
percentages, it's nonconforming, but
they're significant.
MR. BROWN: I would offer that it is
an improvement over the existing --
July 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 21
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
that.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER:
Not withstanding
proposing is too close together.
Two-story buildings within 20 feet of each
other, it's just too close.
MR. MEYERHOLZ: I am not happy by
that either. It's a tight side yard. The
plans that were approved for that
property, with it being 6 foot on that
gentleman's property, with zero setback on
the southern side, at least one corner of
the property. I know, that it comes in on
the new construction some distance, but
effectively, the property has a zero side
yard on the southern side and a 6 foot
side yard on the north side of the
property, which is common to my property.
Now, the original plans that I mentioned
back in May, I looked at those plans that
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: The only issue
that I have is the side yard on the south
side. I believe 5 feet is just not
enough. Those two dwellings, the
neighboring dwelling and what you're
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Ken?
July 5, 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
2O
21
22
23
24
25
were submitted, it did not include those
staircase that goes up to the side door.
That staircase was subsequently installed,
which I don't believe was considered as
part of the side yard calculation. I may
be wrong, but from my understanding of the
Building Department, it didn't count. So
effectively, there is 18 inches of that,
between the outside plane of the staircase
and the gentleman's property line. Now,
how that happened, why that happened? I
wasn't aware of the distance. There has
been a preexisting home, as you know. The
6 foot side yard extended it back,
understanding the restriction of these
neighbors and the size of the lot. I
wasn't overly -- there wasn't much concern
that could be done about it. You know,
having this huge dispute, and involving
myself with another property's owner and a
debate with the Village. Not knowing --
had I known that there was a staircase
there, then I would have been here. That
clearly creates an encroachment on my
property that, again, I am not too happy
July 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 23
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
about. And you will notice in my plans,
there is no windows on that side. It's
like, "hello, hello." I can't change
what's already in place there, nor could I
change the dimension of this property. I
am trying to make the necessary changes so
that we can improve what is now a rather
very nonconforming piece of property on a
short piece of land, but there are only so
many things that I can do to try and make
those improvements. In each case that we
had discussed back in May, your concerns
and the concerns of Mr. Swing, were
incorporated into this latest design. So
if I could buy more land. If I could
create more, I certainly would, but I
can't. So that leaves me with my options
the way that they're now. The original
plan had 6 1/2 feet on that other side,
but because I am having to turn the house
about 18 inches, I am now losing a foot
and a half on the north side. So it's a
give and take. You know, short of
stripping that garage to 14 feet or
basically 13 feet, once I got an inside
July 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 24
1
2
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
diameter, I can't do anything with that
because I still have to incorporate in
that area, if I can't find a place to
locate it, a fuel tank, a heating system
and a staircase. I am out of ideas when
it comes to fitting all of that into that
confined space and still have room to
effectively use the garage as a parking
space. So having consulted with
Fairweather, Brown and reviewing these
documents at length, we thought this was
an alternative that -- isn't a perfect
plan, but it's
it was,
of the neighborhood.
speak for my neighbor to the
house is sitting much closer
a heck of a lot better than
and still maintains the character
You know, I can't
north, their
to their
northern boundary, northern side because
of the way that house was built. I don't
to happen there, nor do
of what happens on the
of the property. I am just
a plan here that
to the Village's
yet allow me to
know what is going
I have any control
other side
trying to make a -- draw
is going to be sensitive
issues, my neighbor, and
July 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 25
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
build something that is going to be a
full-time residence and --
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Ail right.
Let's see if the other Board members have
fact
too
any questions. Jim?
MR. MEYERHOLZ: I am out of ideas.
MEMBER DINIZIO: No, other than the
that 5 feet for the side yard is just
small. I understand (In Audible).
MR. MEYERHOLZ: Sir, I am not
a reason. I am just offering a
offering
fact.
MEMBER DINIZIO: (In Audible) that
one of those setback issues. Honestly,
that is not anything that I am going to
consider. It's very hard for me to agree
with you there. I think you're just
trying to put a lot of house onto a small
piece of property. You have a lot of
other things to live up too. The
drywell's now. The septic system is
probably much larger than it needs to be.
I know that all makes a difference to
setbacks and how you can position your
house. That I understand, but if you're
is
July 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 26
1
2
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
just going to take this thing and demolish
it, get at least 8 feet on that one side.
The architects are expensive. I know
that. Honesty, you have to consider the
laws of the Town and the setbacks of the
Town when you do this. You know, "as
built's" or when you're building in place,
think of the Town when it comes to
nonconformity. Don't just put that
setback because
you have it already.
MR. MEYERHOLZ: Is that what
entire Board recommends that I go
shorten it, cutting back another
I don't know how I would do that.
relatively narrow house to begin
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Well, the
has to deliberate. We don't do that
You get a feel of what some of the
concerns are from the Board.
the
back and
5 feet?
It's a
with.
Board
here.
MR. MEYERHOLZ: Gotcha.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: We aren't going
to be doing that here. We do at a Special
Meeting two weeks from now, that's
assuming we close the hearing today.
Before I carry on, George, I think you had
July 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 27
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
a
question?
MEMBER HORNING:
MEMBER HORNING: I just want to ask
about the visual, I am losing myself in
it. Where is that in relationship --
MR. MEYERHOLZ: This is the north
side. This is the south.
MEMBER HORNING: Right. There is one
tree there?
MR. MEYERHOLZ: I took that out. You
can't see it here. This is the front
door. The window. Window.
MEMBER HORNING: The tree --
photos.
April.
dated, and it looks like they may have
been taken perhaps at different times or
went
something. Ail different angles.
MR. MEYERHOLZ: No, they were taken
within a one to two hour period. I just
up and down the block and snapped
Those were probably snapped in
I should have asked
that at the original hearing, perhaps.
You did submit some photos?
MR. MEYERHOLZ: Yes, sir.
MEMBER HORNING: And they're not
July 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 28
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
MR. MEYERHOLZ: This is the big one.
This is the big one here. This is the big
one that is here. This one -- there is
see where this driveway turns? This was
taken -- you can see how far back the car
is.
MEMBER HORNING: Okay.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Leslie, I just
have a couple of questions?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Yes, sure.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: I have a question,
I guess this would be for Mr. Brown. I
have a question for you, please. Looking
at the survey, the existing finished floor
is 7.5, at elevation. I am looking at the
original survey from Metzer.
MR. BROWN: We're proposing to finish
the elevation at 8 feet.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: 8 feet. Okay,
that is 6 inches?
had
how
you were going to raise it 2 feet or 3
feet higher. If that is 7 1/2 feet now,
MR. BROWN: Yes.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: And we had
discussions and you explained to us
July 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 29
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1
2
3
4
5
and you're going to 8, that is only 6
inches. Where is the extra? I don't
understand. The foundation has to be two
courses of cinder block. Are you
following me?
MR. BROWN: I am not sure.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: You were going to
add to the existing foundation?
MR. BROWN: Yeah.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Two courses of
cement block?
MR. BROWN: I believe so.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: So that is 18
inches. So 18, plus 7 1/2, that would be
9 feet. So the finished floor would be 9
feet? Ail of being equal, I am assuming
that this structure technique would be
similar.
MR. BROWN: Yes, I have to double
check. I don't have the background
information with me. I would have to
double check. The point of the exercise
was to raise it to comply with FEMA code.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Which is 8 feet.
So you only really had to raise your house
July 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 30
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
6 inches because
MR. MEYERHOLZ: Yes. I see what you
are referring to, and that would be my
mistake, not the architect. It was my
understanding that there was two courses
because I just used my neighbor to
measure. That was my mistake.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: There were a few
incongruities there, where one stated you
were raising it 3 feet, and then two
courses of block.
MR. BROWN: The courses are to raise
it to FEMA standards.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Fine.
MR. BROWN: And we haven't done the
construction drawings yet.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: That's fine. I
just had a question because I was a little
confused on that.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay. Is there
anyone else in the audience that wishes to
address this application?
{No Response.)
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I believe we
have had ample testimony. I don't think
July 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 31
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
the Board needs to have any more hearings
on this. So to avoid any further delays
to you, the Board will write a draft and
will very likely suggest alternative
relief to the side yard setback that you
have proposed. We will deliberate and
determine what we think is a responsible
dimension, taking into consideration all
of the testimony that you have provided.
Then what will happen, once we deliberate,
it will probably be two weeks from today,
and you will then be asked to, assuming
that it is alternative relief, which means
that you don't have to submit more plans
and have another hearing. When you
comply, when you redesign the plans to
comply with whatever that relief might be,
you will then have to submit that to our
office, and we will stamp it as approved
by our office based upon the decision.
That goes to the Building Department and
you go and get your building permit.
MR. MEYERHOLZ: Ail right.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay.
hearing
So
no further comments, I am going to
July 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 32
1
2
3
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 and
reserve decision to a further date.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Subject to
receipt -- we will put that down as a
condition, and then when you amend the
plans, you can submit it.
MR. BROWN: (In Audible).
(Not near a microphone.)
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Ail right. So
let's not let that happen again.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Your plans are
well documented because you refer to a
survey.
MR. BROWN: Not a survey, it's a site
plan.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Understand.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: So no further
comments, I will make a motion to close
this hearing and reserve decision to a
later date.
Is there a
second?
MEMBER GOEHRINGER:
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
Second.
Ail in favor?
July 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 33
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MEMBER DINIZIO: Aye.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye.
MEMBER HORNING: Aye.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Aye.
(See Minutes for Resolution.)
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Motion to
recess for five minutes.
Is there a second?
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Ail in favor?
MEMBER DINIZIO: Aye.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye.
MEMBER HORNING: Aye.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Aye.
(Whereupon, a short recess was taken
at this time.)
HEARING #6570 - D.F. & J.M. HARRIS
CHILDREN'S TRUST
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The next
application before the Board is for D.F.
and J.M. Harris Children's Trust, #6570.
July 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 34
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Request for variance from Article
Section 280-15 and the Building
III Code
building permit for an accessory
1) accessory barn is proposed in
location other than the code
yard, located at: No number
Road, off East End Road, Fishers
Mr. Hamm, good morning.
MR. HAMM: Good morning.
barn at:
required rear
Clay Point
Island.
Steven
Hamm, 38 Nugent Street, Southampton, for
the applicant. I have the posting.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Thank you.
MR. HAMM: I will be brief. I have
given the legal argument in the memo that
I am circulating, but I will describe the
project involved and the demolition of an
existing house, which has been completed.
The garage is still standing. It's used
for storage now, but it will be removed.
And you will see from the chart or the map
actually, that I have given you, in red,
is the available front yard. The
waterfront line and the street line are at
Inspector's March 28, 2012 Notice of
Disapproval based on an application for
July 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 35
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
such an angle that this proposed
structure, which really is in a front
yard, except for Zoning Code definitional
purposes, throws it in a side yard, just
due to the angles of the two front and
rear property lines. One of which is a
waterfront line. And the point is, we're
-- at the completion of the project, the
very nonconforming garage, which is in
blue, I have just distributed, will be
removed. Some of the same functions will
be served by the barn, which will be well
off the street line now and close to an
adjoining property, but meeting the
setback requirement of that adjoining
property. A key point of that adjoining
property is the fact that it's owned by
the Henry L. Ferguson Museum, and it's
dedicated to open space. So it will never
be improved. Attached to the memorandum,
Exhibits A as the declaration, with
respect to this property that was filed by
the Ferguson Museum, showing that it's
completely incumbered. So the impact here
on the neighborhood will actually be an
July 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 36
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
improvement, because this very
nonconforming garage that doesn't meet any
setbacks in the front, will be torn down.
The barn will serve the same function in a
location, which is for all intent
purposes, is a side yard but due to the
anomaly of the angled of the streets and
the waterfront line, it's thrown into a
side yard. So it's a technicality in a
way. So if you have any questions, I will
be happy to try and answer them?
MEMBER
going to have in
MR. HAMM:
for storage.
it. There is
GOEHRINGER: What is the barn
it, Mr. Hamm?
That is going to be used
It will have a workshop in
a workbench, I think, it's
it
and
a
setting and so forth.
tractors in it and so
showed on the plans. In the winter
will probably be used to store a car
those are the basic functions. It's
typical accessory building. It's called
"barn," I am told by that architect for
schematic purposes. It's a country
It won't
forth.
have any
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Will it have
a
July 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 37
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
electricity in it?
MR. HAMM: It will have electricity
in it and a half bath, and a sink.
Unheated.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Our attorney
and I were thinking the same thing. It
would be best schematically if it was
referred to as an "accessory structure" or
a "garage," simply because by being a barn
it becomes an Ag structure, with no Ag
property here.
MR. HAMM: No.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: So
technicalities matter here, I guess.
MR. HAMM: I asked the architect
about that.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: We don't want
to grant something --
MR. HAMM: Then please, make the
application amended to reflect that
accessory structure for storage and other
permitted uses, in this R-120 Zone
District. And if you need us to have the
nomenclature changed on the survey --
rather the site plan, let me know, and I
July 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 38
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
will have that arranged?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Yes, because
the Notice of Disapproval will suggest
that it's for an accessory barn. So it is
a
doesn't want to create a precedent
MR. HAMM: Aren't there some
agricultural uses permitted in a
Residential District?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: There are.
MR. HAMM: Let me know what you
me to do on that.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: You know,
don't we just get an amended Notice of
Disapproval stating a garage or an
accessory structure.
MR. HAMM: And I will have the
surveyor change it on the site plan.
technicality but again, the Board
here.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
some notes here.
need
why
Just making
is 18
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The max we can go
feet right?
MR. HAMM: In height?
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: This is --
MR. HAMM: It's conforming in height,
July 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 39
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
I know. You can go to 22, I think. It
has enough lot area. So the permitted --
there are two permitted places, basically
each of them is really not feasible.
can you explain
MEMBER HORNING: And
in detail why that is?
MR. HAMM: The rear yard location is
undisturbed and very slopping, and would
require permitted from the environmental
authorities, and disturbance of more or
less a pristine area. Where the front
yard location has been disturbed, as has
the side yard location where the barn will
be. So that is not so much a factor, as
the fact that the available front yard,
that is a sliver of about 14 feet, as you
can see from the map that I have
distributed at the beginning of the
hearing, and that is really insufficient
to support this structure, which is fairly
modest. It's larger than existing garage,
but the new house is actually fewer square
feet than the former one. It's not
unreasonable for the applicant to have a
structure of fairly modest size there and
July 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 40
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
the available front yard not really
supported. Another factor that I didn't
mention, but it's mentioned in the
memorandum, is the fact that they want to
take advantage of the existing
which is another disturbed area.
would interfere as well, trying
driveway,
So that
to enforce
it into a front yard. It will also --
putting it in there, would have more
impact on the only other nearby property
that uses the same street, which is the
Walsh's property. So this is more of an
advantage to Walsh. It's more away from
the street and it's closer to a lot that
will never be disturbed, or never be
improved, I should say.
MEMBER
both sides?
here
HORNING:
Which you have on
That I am not sure of the
MR. HAMM: Exactly. Well, we were
a few years ago.
MEMBER HORNING: How about the --
it's going to be used as a garage, did
they consider attaching it to the
principal house?
MR. HAMM:
July 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 41
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
design feature. I think in the summer
it's not going to be used so much as a
garage. It's going to be used for storage
of a car in the winter. It's right off
the -- the existing situation had a
nonconforming accessory structure that was
detached, and this is becoming more of a
conforming situation.
MEMBER HORNING: What kind of
foundation does the accessory building
have?
MR. HAMM: It's a slab of 4 inches
above grade.
MEMBER HORNING: And then it's going
to be tied into new septic system also?
MR. HAMM: I believe so. I would
have to refer again to the site plan. I
think that is shown on the site plan.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Yes. There is
a half bath shown in the structure.
MEMBER HORNING: I went out there
without the Board a couple of times, and
the first time I went there, there was
nothing staked out and no notices posting
of a hearing or anything. The second
July 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 42
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
time, I went out there, which was a week
ago, last Friday, actually arrived in the
middle of the day. I had a chance to go
there, and the contractor was actually
carrying the Notice of Disapproval sign
out to the street to put it in place, and
then they gave me something on how they
had been advised not to put it up until
the very last minute, and take it down
immediately
MR. HAMM:
me, no.
MEMBER HORNING:
after the hearing and such.
That wasn't advice from
I am just mentioning
that to you. And then the accessory
building staked out, was still not made
and the contractor basically showed me
where it was. I had been to that property
many, many times through my line of work
anyway. So I am familiar with the house
and the old folks that live there, and now
their children have it. There is a giant
Oak Tree right in the middle basically,
where this accessory building is going to
be, and the contractor went on to kind of
say -- and there was a (In Audible) soil
July 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 43
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
and this was the reason why they couldn't
stake it out. And then he went on to
mention, digging up the tree and trying to
move it. Are you aware of any --
MR. HAMM: No, that has not come up
in any of my discussions with the owner or
the architect. I -- In terms of when he
posted the property, he told me on the
19th, and so the affidavit --
MEMBER HORNING: So the 19th of?
MR. HAMM: Of June.
MEMBER HORNING: I can guarantee you
it was not then. I was there last Friday
and the guy had it in his hands. I
already explained what I saw, and it got
me a little bit concerned, because I am
thinking of my fellow colleagues or
anybody would go there to do an
inspection --
MR. HAMM: I agree with you, but he
had it from me, well in time to do it in
time, and had instructions as to when to
do it.
MEMBER HORNING: Probably did.
MR. HAMM: I put it in a transmittal
July 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 44
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
letter and I sent him a copy of the notice
from the Board, and I highlighted it. And
Mr. Shillow (phonetic) has done many of
these for me in the past. I think he is
aware of what's going -- what it should
be.
site,
He was not on the
for many,
the sign.
there. They scoped out
and I didn't know them,
main onsite person, and
told
note
next
MEMBER HORNING:
but the same man that I have known
many years was there carrying
A few other contractors were
don't
me what I related
MR. HAMM: Well,
for myself to put
time I send it to
MEMBER HORNING:
involve
a lot of the work,
but I did know the
he's the one that
to you.
I am making a mental
it in bold face
them.
Keeping the peace,
me too much, but just
mention that there was some
ZBA about whether it was
and staked out for the
Thank you.
MR. HAMM: Thanks.
question from
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
posted properly
accessory building.
The accessory
July 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 45
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
will
have no heat?
MR. HAMM: No heat.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
questions?
MEMBER SCHNEIDER:
No
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
questions?
MEMBER GOEHRINGER:
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
MEMBER DINIZIO:
Just to go on record,
why it's not going to be
house? You wouldn't need
it.
Okay. Ken,
questions.
Gerry,
No questions.
Jim?
No, not at the time.
is there any reason
attached to the
a variance for
MR. HAMM: That did not come up. So
I can ask the architect. I think for
architectural purposes. Visual purposes.
Keep it away from the house.
MEMBER DINIZIO: On the survey, is
there some sort of right-of-way?
MR. HAMM: Let me see. Which side
are we on? Oh yeah. What happened was,
two years ago, and this was before your
Board, David Harris had given the Ferguson
Museum land to the north, and gave too
July 5, 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
much. We came back to your Board for a
lot line change, and added both to the
south and north of this property. So that
was a Citgo road spur on a paper road that
they acquired from Citgo. That part of
it. It's part of their property and
adjoins Ferguson now.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
other questions?
(No Response.)
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
anyone in the audience that
address this application?
(No Response.)
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
further comments,
Is there any
Okay. Is there
would like to
Hearing no
I will make a motion
close this hearing and reserve decision
a later date subject to receipt of a
Notice of Disapproval and survey to amend
the language from "barn" to "accessory
structure" or "accessory garage."
MR. HAMM: Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Is there a
second?
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second.
to
July 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 47
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Ail in favor?
MEMBER DINIZIO: Aye.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye.
MEMBER HORNING: Aye.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Aye.
(See Minutes for Resolution.)
******************************************
HEARING %6575 - MILL CREEK PARTNERS, LLC.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The next
application before the Board is for Mill
Creek Partners, LLC, #6575. Request for
variance from Article XXII Code Section
280-116(B) based on an application for
building permit and the Building
Inspector's February 29, 2012, revised
May 7, 2012 Notice of Disapproval
concerning permit to construct a dock
master's building and addition/alteration
to existing restaurant, at; 1} dock
master's building at less than the code
required bulkhead setback of 75 feet,
2) additions/alterations at less than the
code required bulkhead setback of 75 feet,
located at: 64300 Route 25, adjacent to
July 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 48
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Southold Bay, Greenport.
Is there anyone here that would like
to address this application?
MS. STEELMAN: Nancy Steelman,
Samuels & Steel Architects. I think the
first place to start is the proposal, we
have for the existing restaurant that
really wasn't very clear, I feel, on the
Notice of Disapproval, but we're planning
there, there is a new entry, which is
going to be on the eastern end of the
building. We felt that most of the
parking was further down on the site on
the marina area. For people to walk all
the way around to the very front of the
building, that faces the street, really
didn't make a lot of sense. So what we're
proposing is a new entry on the side. The
existing will stay, "as is." Most of the
area in the front of the building will be
used for handicap parking, there is an
existing ramp there. So part of that is
one-story portico covered entry area that
we're asking for relief on. That is
set-up at 45 feet from the existing
July 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 49
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
bulkhead. Actually we're in construction
now of that new bulkhead area. So that is
45 feet in that area. So that is a new
stone terrace and covered entry. The
secondary variance that we're asking for,
is for a new dock master's building. This
is primarily for the marina to the south,
with two handicap bathrooms on the lower
floor, and a dock master's office, an
administration office on the second floor,
with a small deck that faces the marina.
This building is really only for support.
It's very small. We were really tight on
parking. So we created a building, maybe
the size of a one-car garage,
16 1/2 x 20 feet, and that was really
because of the bulking restrictions that
we have on this property. So that is our
basic proposal to the Board, and we're
here to answer any questions or concerns
you might have.
CHAIRPERSON
couple of things
on the record.
entrance, the
WEISMAN: There is a
that we should sort out
With regard to the
side entrance.
July 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 50
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
have
Planning
MS.
them.
MS. STEELMAN: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The LWRP -- you
copies of the LWRP?
MS. STEELMAN: Yes, I do.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: And the
Board memorandum?
STEELMAN: Yes, I do have all of
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: And we just
received a copy from the DEC.
MS. STEELMAN: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: You also
have --
MS. STEELMAN: I have
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
indicates that the entrance,
is consistent with
STEELMAN: Yes.
WEISMAN:
entrance
MS.
CHAIRPERSON
it.
The LWRP
the side
the LWRP.
The dock
yard
master's building is not consistent
because it doesn't show sanitary systems.
And the cesspool or the leaching pool, is
supposed to be 100 feet from the wetlands,
and the septic tank is supposed to be 25
feet from the wetlands. Had that been
July 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 51
1
2
3
4
5
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
shown, and had that been the case, then it
would have been consistent.
MS. STEELMAN: Okay. I --
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The other issue
-- let me just flush them out and then you
can address them any way you would like.
There is some notice from the Planning
Board that the proposed parking is on the
adjacent property, that may require
another variance. We need to determine if
the applicant leases that property or owns
that property, and we need a Notice of
Disapproval because obviously, if it's a
property that doesn't have a principal use
on it, then it is accessory to nothing.
So you're going to need to address that
also. So let's address those comments.
MS. STEELMAN: Okay. At the time we
submitted our application to the Board for
our variances, we were in the process of
having an engineer design that sanitary
system, that is why that is not on our
drawings. Those drawings have been
submitted now to the Health Department for
review. We know we may need a variance
July 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 52
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
for that system because it's less than
100 feet from surface water. That has
been part of the Health Department
process. So we're very aware of this.
There has been proposals. The DEC
actually acknowledged to newly locate just
some form of a system where we can connect
into the existing system, which is up
towards the street, but that is
approximately 300 feet away, and it would
need probably a pumping station to do
that. So we're sort of taking -- we have
been working with the Health Department
and DEC on this issue. We can provide you
any additional drawings on that, if that
would be helpful? The design of that
system, so you can have that as part of
your record. Until we really start
working with those two agencies, it's
going to be really difficult to tell you
how we're going to finalize that
application.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The reason it's
important, is because this Board will be
looking at ways of mitigating, what would
July 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 53
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
likely be inconsistencies. So we would
like to see on how you can make work it
work through mitigation, because the DEC,
right now on this application, the letter
that we just got, indicates what you just
said, which was to eliminate the new
septic system and try and plug into the
existing.
MS. STEELMAN: Correct.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: And the other
was to replace rip-rap with a low sill
bulkhead instead of extending the rip-rap
out into the vegetative wetlands. To turn
the low sill bulkhead landward's and make
rip-rap at the bank. This should provide
erosion protection for the intertidal
marsh without cutting off tidal flow
rip-rap. Would you like to address that?
MS. STEELMAN: Actually, we can
address that. Bruce Anderson has been
handling all the permits for the DEC, and
he can speak a little bit about this.
This is very new to us, in terms of when
it was actually written.
MR. ANDERSON: Bruce Anderson,
July 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 54
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Suffolk Environmental, for the applicant.
We're working with DEC, as Nancy has told
you. The reason for the rip-rap, prior to
making this application, we met the DEC in
the field before we actually designed it.
It was their suggestion that we in fact
use the rip-rap. So what's happened here,
they have had a change of heart,
apparently, and now prefer iow sill
bulkhead over the rip-rap. I don't think
we have a problem with amending our
project plans for that, and so we will
just proceed accordingly. So whether it's
rip-rap or iow sill bulkhead, for us, the
purpose is the same, and that is to
stabilize the side banks to a dreaded
channel. So it doesn't constantly fill-in
and create issues as part of our
application. So we're just trying to put
an entrance to that basin, that is
sufficiently deep and that can maintain it
at that depth with minimal maintenance
dredging while protecting the onsite
intertidal marsh. The iow sill will
accomplish that, same as the rip-rap did.
July 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 55
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay.
Questions from the Board, George?
MEMBER HORNING: I have a hands on
survey and it shows like a wooden deck,
and then we have the site plan and it
shows the proposed new dock master's
building. Are they in the same location?
MS. STBELMAN: Actually the proposed
dock master's building is
south of that dock area.
out. We have photographs
just to the
We had staked it
which I think
show those stakes in there. They probably
weren't in there at this point.
MEMBER HORNING: They weren't there
yesterday.
MS. STEELMAN: Yeah, because they
have parking. It was right in that
parking area. It is just to the south of
that deck area. That deck area is going
to be demolished. That is currently what
they're using right now for the marina.
They have several port-a-potties up there.
That is the only toilet facilities the
marina has. We're basically trying to
upgrade from that condition.
July 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 56
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MEMBER HORNING: And what type of
foundation are you proposing for the
proposed dock master?
MS. STEELMAN: This is going to be
slab on grade. So we will have a
perimeter crawl foundation, 3, 3 1/2 feet
deep. We would be making it handicap
accessible. We really don't have steps.
So it will come right off the grade.
MEMBER HORNING: And as you stated,
you're going to be working with the Health
Department and the DEC to come up with
some sort of a plan for the sanitary
system?
MR. ANDERSON: Yes.
MEMBER HORNING: And the proposed
location?
MS. STEELMAN: Yes.
MEMBER HORNING: You submitted some
covenants and restrictions, what is that
all about?
MS. STEELMAN: From my understanding,
I think the covenants and restrictions
were something that were put in place many
years ago, and that it could no longer be
July 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 57
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
used as a brick yard. John, do you want
to come up?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: He has to come
up and state his name for the record.
MR. INGRILLI: I am John Ingrilli. I
own
name.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Spell your last
John Ingrilli,
towards, I guess where Brick Cove Marina,
down in that area, and the new owner of
the property, the purchaser of the
property bought the property under a
condition that it would not be used to
continue what the prior owner did,
manufacture and develop bricks.
MEMBER HORNING: So they basically no
longer apply is what you're saying, the
MR. INGRILLI:
I-N-G-R- I-L-L-I.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Thank you.
MR. INGRILLI: I only know what I
have been told. Basically, that site some
time ago was used to manufacture bricks
and I guess after a hurricane some time
back, the owner moved his site down
July 5, 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
covenants and restrictions that you
submitted a copy of? They are no longer
applicable?
MR. INGRILLI: I don't believe
they're applicable. We are not planning
on developing brick. No brick.
MEMBER HORNING: Let's go on to the
main structure on the site there.
Approximately when was it built?
STEELMAN: The restaurant that is
HORNING: Right.
STEELMAN: Probably 2005,
I am not really sure. I
MS.
there now?
MEMBER
MS.
believe.
all watched it under construction.
hard for me to actually date it.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: 2009,
provided a variance for the deck
MEMBER HORNING: Well,
another variance, for a shed,
shed. So this building goes
MS. STEELMAN: Yeah.
MR. ANDERSON: This -- As
can recall, the Mill Creek Inn,
construction and then a marina.
I
know we
It's
the Board
addition.
in 1995,
an existing
back --
far as I
brick
There
July 5, 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
were two apartments upstairs. There was a
cooler that was attached to the -- meat
locker, that was attached to the west side
of the building. The property was
purchased by Princeapeed (phonetic) and
they proceeded to build it from the inside
out, and I am going to say that that
construction was commenced around 2005,
2006. There came a point when it was no
longer feasible to do that. So they wound
up knocking down the building and
reconstructing it, which is what you see
today. The previous meat locker then
integrated into the overall structure and
that happened after the fact. I have
handled the wetland permits and the
building permits for that. Mark Schwartz
had done the design for the building in
2005 -- I'm sorry, 2007, 2008. So I
believe Gail Wickham had to come back
after the fact, after the building permit
had issued and the construction was
ongoing, then legalized what would have
been the conversion of the west side
building from what was once a meat locker.
July 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 60
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
MEMBER HORNING: Let me back track a
little bit. Was there a building there
for a long, long time?
MR. ANDERSON: Yes.
MEMBER HORNING: Then a new operation
went in, new owners. They started
renovating, the ended up demolishing?
MR. ANDERSON: Yes.
MEMBER HORNING: Right
MR. ANDERSON: Yes.
MEMBER HORNING: Got
permit for a new structure?
to the ground?
a building
right?
MR. ANDERSON: It hasn't been used
since -- it hasn't been an active
restaurant since about 2005, I would say.
MEMBER HORNING: Okay. So it ceased
being a restaurant in 2005?
MR. ANDERSON: That's right.
MEMBER HORNING: Built it. Is this
right, about 2006?
MR. ANDERSON: Well, I am going to
say maybe 2007 is more accurate.
MEMBER HORNING: Around 2007. Then
it was vacant since then; is that about
July 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 61
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. ANDERSON: There is existing
foundation. It was rehabilitated under
that existing foundation. What makes this
confusing is the way they tried to rebuilt
it, which had a lot of us scratching our
head, because they were attempting to
rehabilitate the building from inside
The best way to describe it. So they
utilized the foundation. They utilize
out .
point, the Building Department had made a
finding that the building was unsafe, and
then at that point, we came in with
revised plans and rebuilt the overall
existing foundation, albeit, rehabilitated
it.
MEMBER HORNING: So it stopped being
a restaurant in 2005?
MR. ANDERSON: I believe so.
some of the existing structural features
of that existing building. As they
entered the building to remove more and
more, and there was a point, and I drive
by there everyday, that you can look
through the building and see the bay from
the street as you're driving by. At that
July 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 62
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MEMBER HORNING: And
basically since that time?
MR. ANDERSON: Well, it
it's been vacant
feet. And the addition of the one-story
entry to the restaurant, and the side yard
is open at two sides, is at 45 feet from
the bulkhead, whereas the code requires 75
feet. The restaurant is about 6 feet from
the bulkhead. So those are the two
variances, and again, an awful lot of
environmental issues that have to be
resolved through various agencies. The
other thing that I do want to ask you
about is, what is the situation with
regard to the parking? That is on an
adjacent piece of parcel. Do we need to
get a new Notice of Disapproval, etcetera?
has been
under construction since that time.
MEMBER HORNING: Right.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: While you're
looking, George. Let me just clarify for
the public record exactly what the
variances are. The dock master's building
is proposed at a 15.25 foot setback from
the bulkhead, where the code requires 75
July 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 63
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MS. STEELMAN: I notice that the
Planning Hoard had made that
recommendation in their letter. At the
time parking has been proposed
adjacent site. That is
It is zoned Marina II.
have acquired a lease for
that adjacent parcel, for
in the
eastern parcel.
The owners now
twenty years for
parking and also
for a boat yard. A boat yard is
considered a principal use on a property
with accessory parking too, and that has
now been discussed with Brian Cummings
from the Planning Department, and Mike
Verity, and we have all agreed that that
would be acceptable. We would not need a
variance.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay. I think
we're going to need something in writing,
either from Building or from Planning.
MS. STEELMAN: We can do that.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Updating
their
aware
recommendation.
MS. STEELMAN: Okay.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: So that we're
of the fact that there is now a
July 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 64
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
principal use on that property, and it's
not a concern to us as long as there is a
principal use on the property. So we're
going to need that information. We're
also, I guess going to need a copy of that
lease.
of
MS. STEELMAN: We can get you a copy
of the lease. We have that. Sure.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: So we have that
for our file.
MS. STEELMAN: Sure. We have that.
MEMBER HORNING: And how much of that
going to be onsite parking --
MS. STEELMAN: There will be
a total
on both properties, I think we have
a total of 140 spaces total now. We're
needing 120 for the restaurant and the
marine use that is required by the zoning.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: So you need 120
total?
MS. STEELMAN: Yes, total. For the
marina and also the restaurant.
MEMBER HORNING: And that would be a
combination onsite and the additional
parcel?
July 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 65
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MS. STEELMAN:
MEMBER HORNING:
breakdown of that?
Correct.
Can you
give us a
MS. STEELMAN: Yes. We have part of
that now. On your plan now. We didn't
show the use of the adjacent parcel. That
in the works when we submitted.
was still
So your plan shows just the Mill Creek
property. It does not show the lease. I
can submit that drawing for you. So that
we can show both parcels and get the whole
picture?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Yes. So we
need an updated site plan showing the
parking on the adjacent parcel. We're
going to need a copy of the lease
agreement. We're going to need something
in writing from Planning --
MS. STEELMAN: Yes, we can do that.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Probably from
Planning. That would be more appropriate.
MS. STEELMAN: Okay.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: So the adjacent
parcel is an accessory to a boat yard?
MS. STEELMAN: Boat yard, which is
July 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 66
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
all a permitted use within that Marine II
Zone.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay. Another
question, whatever is going on with your
relationship with the DEC and the Health
Department, so this is no extra variance
required. That will clear that up. We're
going to need an amended
we have the information.
LWRP
review once
MS. STEELMAN: Okay.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: We can find it
on our own. Okay. It's the Health
Department's determination.
Ken, do you have any questions?
MEMBER HORNING: I just want to ask a
couple of more questions just from the
historical perspective. You stopped off
at around 2007 when the building was
rebuilt. It had a variance granted in
2009 allowing for a one-story addition on
a crawl space, some decking and some
as-built decking. Can you mention
anything about that variance and the
circumstances?
MS. STEELMAN: I think the first
July 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 67
1
2
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
thing that we would just like to put on
the record, Samuels & Steelman was not
involved in any of the original building
or the variances. We have new owners,
Mill Creek Partners, LLC, they were not
involved in that either. Bruce would
probably be better to answer that.
MR. ANDERSON: Bruce Anderson. After
the fact, inclusion of the meat locker is
(In Audible) and the decking, I believe,
is the -- refers to the other decking on
the other side of the building, which was
also built pursuing to a building
and subsequently legalized. My
recollection is that there was
deck in that area.
MEMBER HORNING: So anything
to infringe
going on is not going
these variances that were
You're not doing anything
MR. ANDERSON: No.
whole process was like a
because it wasn't picked
the building permit's were
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
permit
always a
new
upon
already granted?
beyond that?
I believe that
housekeeping,
up at the time
issued.
The survey
July 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 68
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
shows the landscaped buffer, the screening
on Evergreens on the westerly side of the
property, that was conditioned on the
previous variance. So that has been
a question that you
brought up to date.
Nancy, I do have
can answer.
MS. STEELMAN:
CHAIRPERSON
Sure.
WEISMAN: There is
second floor plan submitted in the
application. There is a second floor?
MS. STEELMAN: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I believe there
is an elevator in the building too?
no
the capacity of the parking?
MS. STEELMAN: That has all been
factored in, in the parking requirements
MS.
STEELMAN: There is an elevator.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I just wanted
to find out what is planned for that
second floor?
MS. STEELMAN:
second floor of the
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
affect the site plan? Will
We have planned a
restaurant.
Will that
that affect
July 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 69
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
that we had to meet.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay. So it's
just additional restaurant?
MS. STEELMAN: Yes. And the Planning
Board has the plans, and they know what
we're proposing for a second floor.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: You know me, I
like --
MS. STEELMAN: Yes, I know.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Jim, do you
have a question?
MEMBER DINIZIO: I just (In Audible).
MS. STEELMAN: Actually, we're going
to be removing that deck and this is going
to the southern edge of it. It's not in
the same exact location.
MEMBER DINIZIO: Not necessarily
require a variance, other than what you're
asking for today? You say that it's an
entrance, but you have an entrance that
follows (In Audible). Now you're trying
to accommodate entry into this building
where most of your parking is going to be.
MS. STEELMAN: Right.
MEMBER DINIZIO: And therefore you
July 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 70
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
need a variance, simply because anything
you put anywhere on that building, you're
going to need a variance?
MS. STEELMAN: Correct.
MEMBER DINIZIO: So those really (In
Audible) parking just states that you're
building a building here and you're going
to have two bathrooms on the first floor,
and where is the septic?
MS. STEELMAN: Exactly. That's it
very much.
MEMBER DINIZIO: Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Ken?
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Just a question,
do you have a projected opening, assuming
everything goes well? Just next year?
MS. STEELMAN: Yeah.
MR. BURGER: Eugene Burger, I am the
owner of the property. Getting the work
done is really not the issue. It's just
really getting through this process.
Getting all the "I's" dotted and no
issues.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: And the proposed
dock master's building, that will also
July 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 71
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
serve as any transient diner's with
boat's, boater's, who would come to the
marina to have dinner or whatever?
MR. BURGER: Right. Exactly. There
is 50 slips, and we're anticipating people
coming off the boat, maybe a shower. You
know, they can use the facility. We
wanted to make sure that it was handicap
and it was right there for them.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: There is no fuel
service there, right?
MR. BURGER: We're not anticipating
fuel service.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: At this time?
MR. BURGER: We're trying to keep a
Green marina. You know, that is kind of
the thinking at this time.
MS. STEELMAN: Would there be
portable pumps --
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Back to the
mic, because we have to get it into the
transcript.
MS. STEELMAN: There will be a
portable pump-out system for all the
boats. So it won't just be onsite.
July 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 72
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Thank you.
MEMBER HORNING: Can I ask about
Green marina?
whatever. Can
details?
MR. BURGER:
need to have
fuel. Those
It was mentioned or
you give us quickly
some
Few things about it,
the
a pump-out requirement.
are two things that we
you
No
have
mentioned, and then all the people
the dock need paperwork, no oil
That's pretty much -- we're
not to do.
HORNING: Do
leasing
your
not
discharge.
just educating
boaters what
MEMBER
paper?
MR. BURGER: I would imagine
have them sign it; right?
MR. INGRILLI: Actually, the
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Please
name, again?
MR. INGRILLI:
sure at this
requirements are.
agreements,
marina will
agreement.
they sign a
we would
state
John Ingrilli. I am
point exactly what the
With the lease
the requirements for the
be sent out with each lease
There will be a signature cage
July 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 73
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
for the tenants to just sign that it is
there intention to follow it as we go
forward. We actually, this year sent out,
a list of -- I think they were 20 year --
I don't recall the exact number, of the
requirements to them, and letting them
know it is our intention to comply with
that, and that we will give them further
information as we get that information,
and the requirements to them in the
future.
MR. ANDERSON: I want to make a point
that I have not heard yet, and that is
this Board is Town like very well, viewed
the dock master building as a water
attendant use, and therefore, is actually
consistent with the LWRP. So I am not
entirely clear it would be inconsistent,
because it seems to me it would be a water
attended use.
MEMBER DINIZIO: It showed a
bathroom, but it didn't indicate any where
you were going to put it.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The septic.
MR. ANDERSON: Okay. Then that will
July 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 74
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
be self corrected.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Gerry, is there
a questions?
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I think the
side yard entrance is very practical and
aesthetically pleasing, and I don't think
there is too many issues around that.
It's primarily straightening out the
environmental impact, which you are
working on. So I will ask the Board how
they want to proceed. We can just hold
the hearing open to a later date so that
you can obtain that information and submit
it to us, and just schedule it for a later
time. Do you have any idea on how long
this will take, because you're not going
to be able to do anything until you get
it? Until you get Health Department
approval, and when we see where the septic
is, we will need another -- well, we won't
need another LWRP, but we will have the
information if they find it consistent
look at that. How does the Board feel
about that, and how do you feel about
and
July 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 75
1
2
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
that?
MS. STEELMAN: I would -- I think
because the Planning Board now is waiting
for some sort of determination on the dock
master's building and the entry, because
they're doing a major review, to leave it
open will kind of delay that to a certain
degree. The variance process for the
Health Department can be any where from
three to four months. So I potentially
could request that you write a
determination, you know, that Health
Department is required, DEC approval is
required on that sanitary system, and if
you're accepting to give us those
variances, then we would proceed. So we
can get that back to the Planning Board,
and everybody is working together.
MS. ANDALORO: {In Audible) we're
waiting for X, Y, Z.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Well, we often
get comments from the Planning Board
saying we generally support the
application; however, such and such is a
concern. And we get that from Planning.
July 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 76
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
I am just polling the Board to see what
they want to do.
MEMBER HORNING: We're going to ask
for review from the LWRP, No. 17
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: No, because we
have one, and the main concern is the
inconsistency review of the dock master's
building. They were addressed by what we
received by the applicant and the
applicant's agent. And we can proceed
without another review.
that these concerns
whatever.
that,
going to give us
documentation?
MS. STEELMAN: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
condition a variance. It
We can indicate
have been mitigated by
MEMBER SCHNEIDER:
and we condition.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
some additional
Yes, I say we do
Department, DEC approval and then with
regard to the parking, it would be
Planning Board approval and so on. I am
just making notes.
We can just
would be Health
Fine. You're
July 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 77
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
Okay. Is there anyone else in the
audience that wishes to address this
application?
(No Response.)
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Hearing no
further comments, I am going to make a
motion to close this hearing and reserve
decision to a later date, subject to
receipt of a copy of the lease agreement
for parking on the adjacent property, the
site plan showing that parking. Comments
from the Planning Board indicating that no
extra variances are required because now
it's a an accessory to a principal use,
and do not need a new LWRP. Okay. I
think that is it.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER:
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
Second.
Gerry seconded.
Ail in favor?
MEMBER DINIZIO: Aye.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye.
MEMBER HORNING: Aye.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Aye.
(See Minutes for Resolution.
July 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 78
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
HEARING #6578 - ALAN
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
application before us is for
Fidellow, No. 6578. Request
from Article XXII
and Article
application
FIDELLOW
The next
Alan
for variances
Code Section 280-116(B)
IV Section 280-18, based on
for building permit and the
Building Inspector's February 17, 2012,
updated April 26, 2012 Notice of
Disapproval for demolition, reconstruction
and addition to single family dwelling, at
1) less than the code required bulkhead
setback of 75 feet, 2) less than the
minimum side yard setback of 15 feet, 3)
less than the code combined total side
yards of 35 feet, located at: 4030 Great
Peconic Bay Boulevard, adjacent to
Peconic Bay, Laurel.
Good morning. Good
MR. ANDERSON: Good
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
quickly go over
are before us.
feet, where the
Great
afternoon, now.
afternoon.
Let me just
the three variances that
A bulkhead setback at 37
code requires 75 feet, and
July 5, 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
a minimum side yard at 5.7 inches, where
the code requires 15, and a combined side
yard setback of 25.1 feet, where the code
requires 35 feet. Okay?
with
MR. ANDERSON: Yep.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Let me start
couple of questions to clarity for
the record. When I was reviewing the
plans that were submitted, it would appear
that there were no changes to the first
floor, other than interior changes.
MR. ANDERSON: That is correct.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: There was no
foundation plan. It is pretty clear that
the half-story is going, and a whole new
second-story coming; however, this was
deemed to be demolition by the Building
Department.
MR. ANDERSON: Okay.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: And the first
thing that I would like you to do is
address that.
MR. ANDERSON: Okay. As you know,
this application entails essentially
pulling the roof off and creating
July 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 80
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
additional bedrooms on the second floor.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I don't know
why, but I am having trouble hearing you.
Can you come on over.
MR. ANDERSON: Is that better?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: A little bit.
MR. ANDERSON: What we're talking
about doing is essentially pulling the
roof off the house and creating that
second floor to house the rooms, for the
Fidellow Family, which is a big family.
This particular house and property has
been in the same family, owned as near as
I could tell since 1960. In fact, it came
before the Board in 1964, for an addition
that was subsequently built in 1961, a rip
off of the left side of the house. And
you should know that, and I believe that
is in your application packet. At that is
what
westerly side lot line.
is being done this way,
created the 5.7 foot setback from the
The reason why it
because it sits on
an existing foundation that is sound. The
vertical structure members are sound. So
it's a relatively easy and inexpensive
July 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 81
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
construction project for the applicant.
Had there been structural problems with
the foundation on the existing house,
might very well be looking at a situation
where we would be in fact demolishing the
house. Here there is no need to demolish
the house, and there is no intent to
demolish the house. It is merely, lift
the roof off the house and create the
additional bedroom space that is needed
for this family.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: So how much
renovation would be happening with the
foundation or the --
MR. ANDERSON: None.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: What kind of
foundation is it?
MR. ANDERSON: I believe, it's a
block foundation, I believe.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Is there a
basement or a crawl space? Do you know?
MR. ANDERSON: I am not sure.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: You know, I see
there is a deck. There was something in
the Trustees -- a note from Trustees about
July 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 82
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
including
MR.
there. I
ago,
SO.
new.
the deck in your permit --
ANDERSON: There was a deck
gather it was refinished years
and --
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I don't think
It looks really, really new. Pretty
MR. ANDERSON: I thought it was Trax.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Yes, Trex
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: We couldn't
find a building permit for the deck.
MR. ANDERSON: There may not be one.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: We looked, but
we couldn't find one.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Can we do an
interior inspection of the house, Bruce?
MR. ANDERSON: Sure.
material.
MR. ANDERSON: So the Trustees when
they looked at it, they said, well, we
didn't know. So they said, we will
include it in the permit as paperwork --
sort of a housekeeping measure. I do
believe there was always a deck in that
area.
July 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 83
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
MEMBER GOEHRINGER:
appointment and do one?
Can we make an
MR. ANDERSON: Yeah. I would suggest
to do it with the architect to point out
some of the features, because he will be
better equipped to addressing the
structural questions you might have
regarding the foundation, crawl space,
what have you.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Actually, it
would be better to get a letter in
writing. The drawings are about a year
old, and they're not working drawings.
MR. ANDERSON: Correct.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: They look --
the first floor looks as though not much
is being changed at all.
MR. ANDERSON: The
plans
show no change.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
There are some
reorientation of
staircase
MR.
first floor, the
Well, no.
changes. There is
the bathroom. There is
a
being added in the interior.
ANDERSON: Okay.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: But that is all
July 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 84
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
interior stuff. That is not going to
have any land disturbance or anything
like that. The building envelope
appears to be remaining the same, but
would be very good to get from the
it
architect, a letter indicating that
foundation is structurally sound and will
not be excavated. It will be able to
support the weight of a full second-story.
That the existing exterior walls, remain
in place. That they will not need to be
replaced, or if they needed to be
sured-up, they will be minimal. That kind
of information will be very helpful,
because we do have something that says
"demo" on the Notice of Disapproval.
we need to balance that out with some
So
MEMBER GOEHRINGER:
nature of the building in
What is the
the back?
The building in the
building. It
I was told the
MR. ANDERSON:
back is an accessory
contains a bathroom.
information that says that it is not a
demo. What questions does the Board have?
Gerry?
July 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 85
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
bathroom -- Mr. Fidellow, who is -- has
personal knowledge as to many, many years,
his father-in-law, obtained a variance in
1960. So this has been there, we can go
back at least 25 years, and the property
record card, indicates that the bathroom
was improved in 1995. So there are rooms
back there that are presently being used
for storage. There is a half bath back
there, because we were upgrading the
septic system, the house and the half
bath, was previously served by an
individual, possibly a block type
cesspool. So that cesspool would be
removed. A septic tank would be installed
with a compliance septic system, as per
the Health Department. So the line coming
from the half bath in the accessory
building to the septic tank is part of
this application as well.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: So there is going
to be a new septic, which will be used for
the house?
MR. ANDERSON: Yep. Both use the
same septic system. That is about all I
July 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 86
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
can say. I have spoken to the applicant,
and I have advised him that it can't be
used as a living as a dwelling unit,
unless you apply for an accessory
apartment, which the code revised;
however, the code provides for that, in
the event that it is a principal year
round residence. Now, I suppose the Board
could bury that requirement if they so
chose to. My thinking is that, they
wouldn't want to entertain such an
application because of the present setting
nature that is. If not principal owned
and occupied, you can create a situation
where you could have rentals. So I have
explained to him that it can't be used as
an accessory living quarters. And it
can't be legalized for that purposes,
unless are occupied by principal
residents.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Thank you for
clarifying that. I did see that there was
a bed. There was a lot of storage stuff
in there.
MR. ANDERSON: Yes.
July 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 87
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:
cot or a small bed in one of
MR. ANDERSON: Right.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: So
But there was a
the rooms.
it's my
understanding, you want us to get in touch
with Mr. Fidonfire (phonetic), to make an
appointment to go into the house, and if
we have further questions that we want on
the record, do we continue the hearing
regarding the -- because of the way the
drawings are and so on and so forth --
MR. ANDERSON: The drawings will not
lead you to a conclusion to the structural
integrity of the house.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No, no. We're
not saying that. The problem is load.
Load on the bulkhead.
MR. ANDERSON: Right. I will say
this, if you can accommodate that, the
applicant's hope to commence construction
this Fall. So if we could expedite that,
and leave it open to any questions that
come up, to say -- the next meeting, I
believe is in early August; is that
right?
July 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 88
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1t
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Yes.
MR. ANDERSON: We would greatly
appreciate that accomodation.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I don't think
that is a problem. We could fit you on
for August, next month.
MR. ANDERSON: What is the date of
that?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: August 2nd.
That way, we can meet with the architect,
if you can do that for us?
MR. ANDERSON: Yes, sometime between
now and then.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: And then you
can also ask him to provide in writing a
structural analysis of the foundation.
That it is stable --
MR. ANDERSON: Right.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
And strong
enough to support a second-story addition,
as are the exterior walls on the first
floor, and that footprint is remaining the
same.
MR. ANDERSON: Right.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
Just for the
July 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 89
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
record, the LWRP exemption, is based upon
that, despite the Notice of Disapproval
calling it a demo, said in fact everything
was remaining in place and in kind and
would be rehabilitated from there.
Therefore, would be no land disturbance,
nothing seaward of the existing building.
MR. ANDERSON: That is my
understanding.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: That is what
it looks like in the application, but I
want to get it on the record for
clarification of the Notice of Disapproval
on calling it a demo.
Any other questions?
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Jim?
MEMBER DINIZIO: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Jim has some
questions.
MEMBER DINIZIO: While you're talking
about the demo part, this is going back
to February (In Audible on that survey,
you have that garage --
MR. ANDERSON: Right.
July 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 90
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1
2
3
4
5
MEMBER DINIZIO: It's not improved
upon.
MR. ANDERSON: That is correct.
MEMBER DINIZIO: The survey should
reflect that.
MR. ANDERSON: We did.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Yes, this one
says "accessory building."
MR. ANDERSON: The reason why we did
that was, I can't speak to what is going
on in there since 1960, okay. But what I
can say, and what I have advised, is that
it can't be used as a dwelling unit. And
so the idea was to make clear on this
record that by labeling it accessory
building with a half bath, so it's clear
to everyone and it's clear for purposes of
this Board's records, that it is just
that. It can only be used as an accessory
building.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Yes. They're
going to be a resident full-time?
MR. ANDERSON: Right. Now, I
said, if you retire out here,
also
you can make
an application
have
then
at that time.
July 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 91
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
I1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: As long as it's
occupied by a family member or someone on
the Affordable Housing Registry --
MR. ANDERSON: Right.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
Then they could
apply for a Special Exception Permit.
MR. ANDERSON: Right.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Anything else
from the Board, comments or questions?
(No Response.)
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Anyone in the
audience that would like to address this
application?
{No Response.)
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay, hearing
no further questions or comments, I am
going to make a motion to adjourn this
hearing to August 2nd at 10:00 A.M.
Between now and then, we will do an
interior inspection with the architect,
and receive written analysis of the
structural sound of the foundation and the
first
floor walls.
Is there a second?
MEMBER GOEHRINGER:
Second.
July 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 92
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.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye.
in favor?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Aye.
(See Minutes for Resolution.)
HEARING #6577 - 8925 BAY AVENUE, LLC.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay. The next
application before us is for Bay Avenue,
LLC, No. 6577. Request for variance from
Article III Section 280-15(F) and the
Building Inspector's May 15, 2012 Notice
of Disapproval based on an application for
building permit accessory tennis court at:
1) in the case of waterfront properties
accessory building may be located in the
front yard, provided that such accessory
meet the front yard principal setback
requirements as set forth by this code.
Proposed location is other than the code
required front or rear yard, located at
8925 Skunk Lane, adjacent to Little Creek,
in Cutchogue.
July 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 93
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Good afternoon.
MR. SCHWARTZ: Hi. Mark Schwartz,
architect for the project. On our site
plan, we have shown the setbacks, building
setbacks and some of the environmental
setbacks. Show what is available for a
tennis court. We're able to meet the
front yard and side yard setbacks. The
location of the house, as it exist, we
only have a space
in the side yard.
rear yard is very
from the water,
that location.
owners or the
we're asking for
CHAIRPERSON
Vicki to ask you
and it was
There was
flags like
did find
you know,
to put this tennis court
There is really -- the
tight for the setbacks
and certainly visually in
Wouldn't be good for the
neighbor's to the west. So
the side yard variance.
WEISMAN: Mark, I asked
to stake the location,
a little hard to understand.
like four really tiny yellow
you use for sprinkler, and I
them, not easily. And somehow,
maybe the survey looks like one
thing and the field inspection is
something else. Did you stake the court
July 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 94
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
or the fence? You must have staked the
fence.
MR. SCHWARTZ: Michael, who works
with me in my office staked it. I assume
he did all four corners.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: It has to be
fence.
MR. SCHWARTZ: It should be the four
corners where the fence would be.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: It looks as
though that was closer to the wetland than
what is -- that 75 feet, that's the
setback from the wetland, that you're
talking about?
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay. That's
not a buffer?
MR. SCHWARTZ: No, it's just a line
to show you where the 75 feet is.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: You're a little
bit closer than 75 feet to the wetlands?
MR. SCHWARTZ: Correct.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: And it started
to slope a little bit. There are a couple
of trees or so in that area. So talk to
July 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 95
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
us a little bit about mitigating any
environmental impact and so on?
MR. SCHWARTZ: Well, we would
certainly have drainage for the tennis
court. We would pipe in some drywell's.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: That is
obviously not shown yet on the site plan,
so. What about any sort of buffering from
the edge of the wetland. Right now, it
looks like it's cut grass that is going
right to the wetland.
we go
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah. Generally, when
through the Trustees process, they
will require a setback also, a buffer. So
we didn't delineate that at this point.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Well, we were
interested in that also. We tend to try
and coordinate their determination with
ours, as we possibly can. It would be
easier for the applicant.
MR. SCHWARTZ: They seem to want
to come to you first.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: That's fine.
the
us
MR. SCHWARTZ: To try and figure out
best way to go about it.
July 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 96
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
questions?
MEMBER GOEHRINGER:
Okay. Who has
I will just say
that I think it's a positive place to put
it, where you're suggesting from the past
hearing. We really need to see how you're
going to catch the run-off. As the
Chairperson just said, this whole issue
environmental buffers, are issues that
of
but substantially in a side yard. How is
that going to work with a tennis court, a
4 foot high fence?
MR. SCHWARTZ: Well, we may re-buff
it, a couple of feet, to get a little bit
of a height. Last time we came to you
really effect us Boards, as the
Chairperson just said. But we still need
to see what the Planning Board is going to
-- what the local Trustees are going to
say in reference to that, if at all.
That's it.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: You're
proposing a 4 foot high fence, obviously
this is in a front yard -- well, it's a
side yard. Partly in a front yard too,
July 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 97
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
with a number of variances, and we're
trying to eliminate as much as we can.
thought we would drop the tennis court
down 18 inches and 24 inches. So we
should have a 6 foot barrier in the
meantime.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Well, that is
fine. That would be information that we
want to have in front of us. Certainly,
would, anyway.
MR. SCHWARTZ:
Okay.
We
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: So then any
change of grade on the property would be
completely taken care of by dealing with
what you just said?~
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yes, it would.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: So all we would
really see from the road is fence and
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I can
understand that, but then a number of
times and a number applications, where the
fence could not be as high as you would
need to play tennis. That information
would be very helpful to the Board,
especially when we're looking at drainage.
July 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 98
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
possibly some
rubberized surface.
MR. SCHWARTZ:
hard surface.
MEMBER
Audible).
MR.
whatever composite or
We would like to do a
DINIZIO: I am looking at (In
SCHWARTZ:
tennis court is 60
court surface that
run around. Those
MEMBER DINIZIO:
MR. SCHWARTZ:
the tennis court
CHAIRPERSON
was
spoken to the
impacted, the
MR. SCHWARTZ: No, they have not.
We have sent them the notices that this
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The green
The standard size
X 120. The tennis
you need in order to
are really just lines.
(In Audible).
It is still part of
surface.
WEISMAN: Has your client
neighbor that's most
25 foot side yard setback?
cards?
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: What would be
the difficulty in moving that side yard a
little bit further, maybe to 35 feet?
July 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 99
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. SCHWARTZ: I don't think it would
be too much difficulty, except for the
flag pole and I would have to look at
maybe where the trees are, because there
are some pretty good size trees there.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I think the 50
feet from the road is not a problem at
all. I mean, it's green and it's far away
and it's not going to have much impact.
The 25 foot is fairly close, by the time
you get an Evergreen screening of any
size, and it grows a little bit. It looks
like it's going to be a hardship to move
it over a little bit more, closer to the
driveway. So what we're going to need is
an updated site plan and perhaps
showing how you're
section
install
below
this tennis court,
grade.
MR. SCHWARTZ: Okay.
a site
proposing to
to drop it down
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: You're going to
have to show how you're going to mitigate
runoff during land disturbance, and we're
going to need to see whether or not some
sort of vegetative buffer is required or
July 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 101
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Anyone in the
audience who would like to address this
application?
(No Response.)
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Hearing no
further comments, I will make a motion to
close this hearing and reserve decision to
a later date subject to receipt of an
updated site plan showing an increased
side yard setback, proposed drainage for
the tennis court, and a section showing
the actual height of the fence and depth
to which the court will be excavated.
And, for landscaping along that property
line and then some sort of buffer. What
would the Board suggests along there?
There is plenty of room.
MEMBER DINIZIO: What is the normal,
20 foot?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: 20 foot buffer.
MR. SCHWARTZ: Okay.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: 20 feet is
good, at least for the area adjacent to
the creek, where the tennis court will be.
We will consider that an amended
July 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 100
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
whether or not the drainage that you're
proposing would be sufficient, which may
be the case, if it's going into a drywell.
The possibility of moving it over a little
bit from the side yard.
ought to do it. Maybe
I think that
it would be good to
actually locate the trees on the survey.
MR. SCHWARTZ: I can do that.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: So we can see
what you're going to retain and what
you're going to cut down?
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: And that
restructure would not have an impact
soil drainage and so on. Okay. Any
comments or questions from the Board?
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: No.
on
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: It's a
perfectly feasible location for a tennis
court. It's just a matter of tweaking it
and getting information we need of
potential adverse impact. Anything else,
Jim?
MEMBER DINIZIO: No.
July 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 102
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
application, and the process will start
as soon as we get that information from
you.
MR. SCHWARTZ: Okay. We will give
you information on the site section as to
contour of the land as it drops down to
the water.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Good. It's
quite flat for a while and then it starts
to slope down. It's hard to really see
with those little flags to determine
exactly where the slope is and so on.
Okay?
MR. SCHWARTZ: Okay.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
So motion to
close the hearing
and reserve decision to
a later date subject to receipt of the
documents stated.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Ail in favor?
MEMBER DINIZIO: Aye.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye.
MEMBER HORNING: Aye.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Aye.
July 5, 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
(See Minutes for Resolution.)
HEARING #6576 VINCENT & CAROL MANAGO
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The next
hearing before the Board is for Vincent
and Carol Manago, No. 6576. Request for
variance from Article XXII Code Section
280-116(B) based on an application for
building permit and the Building
Inspector's April 6, 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: 8225 Nassau Point Road,
adjacent to Little Peconic Bay in
Cutchogue.
MR. SCHWARTZ: Mark Schwartz,
architect for the project. The owners are
here also, Vincent and Carol Manago.
We're asking for a variance. There are a
number of roofing changes that we're
proposing on the site plan. There is only
one area that requires a variance, the
distance from the bulkhead. We need 75
July 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 104
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
feet. If it was beyond 75 feet, we
wouldn't be here before the Board. The
existing screened porch on the first floor
-- currently it is one-story. The owners
are looking to expand their bedroom to
create some office space, a little more
space in their master bedroom. Also to
free up the middle room, so they could use
that as a bedroom for their children and
grandchildren. So we propose a
second-story addition
porch, which is about
bulkhead, and we're asking
approximately 6 feet.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: I
pretty straightforward, I
questions.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
Just let the record reflect
evaluation indicates it's
LWRP policy. A couple of
extensions going on here.
George, do you have
MEMBER HORNING: No,
over the screened
69 feet from the
for
Ken?
think it is
have no
Ail right.
that the LWRP
consistent with
dormers
any questions?
I don't.
July 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 105
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Gerry?
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: It's a beautiful
piece of property.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Jim?
MEMBER DINIZIO: Nope.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I guess I will
ask a verbal question, how long has the
apartment been in the garage?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Hi, just please
come up to the mic.
MR. MANAGO: Hi, Vincent Manago. I
believe you looked at that Mr. Goehringer.
Maybe -- it's probably around the year
2000, and when we had to refurbish it, it
was you who came there and inspected it.
In fact, you walked in the garage with me.
You looked at all the rooms. So it's been
there since the year 2000-2001.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Okay.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Is there a rear
CO on that building?
MR. MANAGO: C Of O.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: For a second
dwelling?
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I don't know, I
July 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 106
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
i1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
didn't
CO's.
see it. Of course, we don't issue
MR. MANAGO:
if you would like?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
MR. SCHWARTZ: I
in the package.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
come to the mic and address
please.
MR. MANAGO: I believe
have it there?
MEMBER GOEHRINGER:
additions and alterations
I can send that to you,
Please.
think that should be
You need to
the Board,
it says -- you
There is another one.
'99 one,
existing
for as per
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The
additions and alterations to
accessory garage was applied
applied for as ZBA
11/24/99.
One-family
garage and
rooms and
the CO reads
from 1996.
MR. MANAGO:
dwelling with accessory two-car
attached guest cottage with two
half bath. That's the way
accessory garage was
#4618. The date on this is
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
Yes. It says
existing
July 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 107
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
ZBA #4618, okay. That is the one that
you're referring to. I have to say, I am
usually pretty good on this. I was so
enamored with the beauty of the property
and the day that it was, I have no idea
why I don't remember you. I usually do
I apologize.
that, and
MR. MANAGO: That's okay.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That answers that
question.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Just again, to
reiterate, we have a 69 bulkhead setback,
where the code requires 75. The
construction also proposes a new existing
footprint. The house already sits -- it
predates zoning. It sits at 69 feet from
the bulkhead. So it's just a small
second-story addition above an existing
porch on the water side, two dormer
extension with a roof alteration?
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Is that a good
summary?
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yes, it is.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Any other
July 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 108
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
questions?
(No Response.)
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
else in the audience who wishes
this application?
(No Response.)
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
motion to close this hearing
decision to a later date.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER:
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
MEMBER DINIZIO: Aye.
Is there anyone
to address
I will make a
and reserve
Second.
Ail in
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye.
MEMBER HORNING: Aye.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye.
favor?
HEARING #6572 - BRIAN ZIEGLER
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The next
application before the Board is for Brian
Ziegler, No. 6572. Request for variance
from Article XXIII Section 280-124 and the
Building Inspector's May 3, 2012 Notice of
Disapproval based on an application for
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Aye.
(See Minutes for Resolution. )
July 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 109
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
building permit for a deck addition to
existing single family dwelling at: 1)
less than the code required minimum side
yard setback of 15 feet; 2) less than the
total combined side yards of 35 feet,
located at: 1165 Saltaire Way in
Mattituck.
Hi, would you state your name for the
record, please?
MR. OLIVER: Dennis Oliver, 924 New
Bridge Road, Bellmore.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay.
Mr. Oliver, we have a Notice of
Disapproval that indicates that the deck
addition as proposed, and we have a side
yard setback of 10.5 feet, where the code
requires 15 feet, and a 33.7 foot combined
side yard, where the code requires 35
feet.
What would you like to tell us about
this proposal?
MR. OLIVER: First of all,
Mr. Ziegler's property is located in the
R-40 Zone, which requires a lot width of
140 feet. The existing lot is only 100
July 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 110
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
feet. So if this lot was in compliance
with the code, we wouldn't be here in the
first place. We would have sufficient
side yards. In addition, this proposed
will be built, if this should be approved,
in line with the deck that has been
existing -- had been existing on the
property since 1985. There was a permit
and a CO issued for that deck, on
February 14, 2011. I have copies of the
CO and of the survey dated
November 12, 1985, showing that existing
deck, and pictures of that existing deck
for the Board. Again the proposed deck
will be built in line with that. With
this deck being built, the distance from
this deck to the nearest property, which
is the property to the north, would be
approximately 143 feet. It should be
noted that Mr. Ziegler's property is lower
than his neighbor's to the north. So
there wouldn't be any intrusion, as far
as
privacy or anything else on their
neighbor's property. In addition to that,
the deck itself will be built in level
July 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 111
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
with the first floor, because of the
change in grade on the property, the deck
goes from 20 inches high to a lowest of 8
inches. So it's really not a second floor
deck. It's not going to be overlooking
anybody's
property or imputing on
anybody's privacy. There is one other
house on the same street, 550 Saltaire
Way, it appears to have a similar setback
condition to what we're requesting. That
condition appears to be for a Mudroom. I
have pictures of that from the street, and
an aerial photograph of that, which I will
submit to the Board. And just to prove
that Mr. Ziegler's property would not be
the only one in the area that has a
similar condition, it should also be noted
that from the street, from -- of
Mr. Ziegler, when you stand in the street,
you wouldn't even notice that it is even
there. The landscaping, the topography,
location of the fence, really there is
privacy as far as the construction of this
deck goes. Should the Board see fit to
approve the application, Mr. Ziegler,
July 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 112
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
would agree to of course, never enclosing
the deck at all or turning it into living
space.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I just have one
question. There is a very large mature
hardwood tree.
down?
MR. OLIVER: Yes, sir.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
Is that coming
MR. OLIVER: No, ma'am. It is
actually going to be built around it.
That tree is standing -- that is actually
part of the design. The deck designer
took that into account. There is a
seating area that goes around that. That
tree is staying.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Just so you're
aware, for every application before the
Board, all
inspection.
vegetation
Ken,
Board members do personal site
So we have seen the existing
on the property, and so on.
do you have any questions?
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: What was the
reason why you can't have a conforming
setback?
July 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 113
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. OLIVER: Well, the lot width
existing is only 100 feet. And again,
according to the zoning in the area, the
lots have to be 150. So the lot is
nonconforming to begin with. Now, if the
lot width were 150 feet, we wouldn't be
here. I would have been able to get the
permit as a matter of right.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Or if your lot
square footage was less than 20,000 square
feet, you would only be required to have a
10 feet side yard?
MR. OLIVER: Right. And
unfortunately, he is 20,273. So he is
just over.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: No further
questions at this time, for me.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: George?
MEMBER HORNING: I have the same
questions, differently then Ken, I guess,
but same question. Why couldn't the deck
be at a 15 foot setback?
MR. OLIVER: Well, given the design
layout, the way the deck design, the
anticipation of a barbecue and an outdoor
July 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 114
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
cooking space, and space limitations,
pushes to asking the Board go to this
variance, because we were trying to stay
in line with the deck that is already
there.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Is there any
anticipation of closing the deck in at any
portion of time?
MR. OLIVER: No, sir. Mr. Ziegler
would stipulate that he would not close
any of it at all.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I did go there
and no one was at home, and I believe the
gate -- if there is a gate. There may not
be a gate on the north side. So I went to
the opposite side. Carrying all my
paraphernalia in hand, as usual, nobody
said anything to me, so I simply entered
into the rear yard. It's a very beautiful
yard. Very nice. And I am sure that it
would look very nice with this deck.
Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I realize that
you wanted to extend this deck along the
existing setback. There are steps that
July 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 115
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
go up to that deck that are 3.8 inches in
width, okay. Since this is being rebuilt,
and you're agreeing to that, if you were
to simply go out from that line, and you
can still incorporate steps there, you
could add another 3.8 feet and bringing it
up to 14 something in feet, and it would
be very much closer to code. Are you
following what I am getting at?
MR. OLIVER: Yes. Yes. I see what
you're saying.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: What hardship
would be involved in doing that?
MR. OLIVER: Well, the way this deck
designer had it laid out, that areas that
we would be cutting back, is where he is
proposing to put the outside kitchen area,
and based on the location of the barbecue
and everything else, we would need that
extra square footage to push it out, this
way we have enough seating capacity.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Well, you know,
I respect the design, but a design can be
done a many of ways, and the code does --
the law does require us to grant the
July 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 117
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
saying that you have to do that, but that
certainly would have been possible if the
whole thing was coming down. You would
have had more conforming.
MR. OLIVER: Correct.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: It wouldn't
have been before us at all. What I am
trying to do is discuss with you the
possibility of looking at increasing that
single side yard and if you can make a
convincing argument as to why you can not
do that, it's not feasible for you to do
that, then the Board will certainly
consider it.
MR. OLIVER: Again, the argument that
we have is that the previous deck that has
been in existence since at least 1985, we
feel that it is an established drawing.
Building to that established drawing, at
least in our opinion, it would seem to be
that much of an intrusion, since it's been
in existence to that length of time.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay.
MEMBER DINIZIO: (In Audible)
the tree itself, you can still
Jim?
even
build
July 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 116
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
minimum variance feasible, should there be
a grant of a variance at all. I am
looking at the plan before us. This is a
deck plan, and I don't know -- I see a
hole. I see that is where the tree is.
Do you see what I am looking at on the
it would
that over.
and a very
large backyard. And it looks as though
it's going to be all new deck; is that
correct?
MR. OLIVER: That's correct. The
existing deck is being removed.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The framing is
not the issue. If you were going to talk
about maintaining the existing joist or
something like that, but you're not.
whole thing is going to be replaced?
This
MR. OLIVER: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: If the house
were there, and you were taking the house
down, then that is another story. You're
taking the whole deck down, you could have
lined it up with the house. I am not
deck plan? It doesn't look like
be that big of a deal to move
It's quite a substantial deck
July 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 118
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
around the
avoid the tree,
MR. OLIVER:
is no well.
MEMBER DINIZIO: If
back with something that
(In Audible).
MR. OLIVER:
me a few seconds
client?
tree. If you were trying to
then (In Audible).
The Town water.
There
you can just come
is a little more
Can the Board just
to consult with my
give
a conforming side yard.
MR. OLIVER: Correct.
MEMBER DINIZIO: The whole decking?
MR. OLIVER: The whole deck. Around
the whole side. This way we conform with
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Sure.
MR. OLIVER: Okay. As far as the
setback goes, would the Board be willing
to consider if we took an additional foot
and a half and at least met at the
aggregate side yard? Instead of the total
3 feet, can we meet at a foot and a half?
The aggregate would still be short on the
required minimum?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: That would have
July 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 119
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
the aggregate, but we're still short of
the required minimum.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Well, you
propose at the moment, 10.5, you want to
add 1.67
MR. OLIVER: Yes. So it would be 13.
MEMBER HORNING: Are you saying --
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: No. 12.
MR. OLIVER: 12, I'm sorry.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: 12.1. The
other side is 33.7. So if you add 1.6 --
no wait a minute.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: 23.2.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: 23.2, okay.
MEMBER HORNING: Sir, are you saying
that the deck was put on the building at a
time and then zoning was changed? The
setbacks were changed?
MR. OLIVER: That is my
understanding, yes.
MEMBER HORNING: That is your
understanding.
MR. OLIVER: The permits and the CO's
for the deck wasn't issued until 2011. So
apparently the deck was built in sometime
July 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 120
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
after the house was built
proper filing.
been
have
that
were
without any
MEMBER HORNING: So it might
nonconforming the whole time?
MR. OLIVER: Possible, yes.
have
MEMBER HORNING: I mean, unless you
some documentation that showed us
the code changed and the setbacks
increased over a certain time?
MR. OLIVER: Over a certain period of
time.
MEMBER HORNING: See if it was
nonconforming, and you were issued a
variance for the deck for a nonconforming
setback, then as soon as you demolish the
deck, you lose that variance. So we are
looking at in from the perspective that
you're going to make a whole brand new
deck and you should be able to have some
flexibility with that deck, rather then
just artistic design, which we all
appreciate.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: A 12 foot side
yard setback is a reasonable size,
particularly when it eliminates the
July 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 121
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
nonconformity for the combined side yard.
MR. OLIVER: Okay.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: So let's do
this, do you want to submit to us an
amended survey? A site plan?
MR. OLIVER: Yes, ma'am.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
the proposed -- We don't
Notice of Disapproval.
Is there anyone
that wants to address
(No Response.)
Showing what
need an amended
else in the audience
this application?
for
MEMBER HORNING: I just want to note
the record, and I think I asked the
applicant this on site inspection, the
nearest neighbor on that side, the east
side, north side, on the proposed deck
side, the nearest neighbor is
approximately how many feet away?
MR. OLIVER: 140.
MEMBER HORNING: Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: So you're going
to do that, I would suggest that that gets
submitted to our office as well, as well
as an amended survey, that we can stamp
July 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 122
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
them. So we can send them over the
Building Department at the same time, and
we can save time for your client. So you
have heard what alternate relief, and you
agreed to, with the deck. So I am going
to make a motion to close this hearing
subject to receipt of a amended deck plan
and an amended survey indicating minimum
12.2 foot side yard setback, and then by
the
eliminating the nonconformity of
combined side yard setback.
Is there a second?
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Ail in favor?
MEMBER DINIZIO: Aye.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye.
MEMBER HORNING: Aye.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Aye.
(See Minutes for Resolution.)
HEARING %6573 - PAUL A. & ELIZABETH
REINCKENS
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The next
application before the Board is for Paul
July 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 123
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
and Elizabeth Reinckens, and that is
No. 6573. This is a request for a Waiver
of Merger under Article II, Section
280-10A, to unmerge land identified as
Suffolk County Tax Map #1000-63-2-25,
based on the Building Inspector's
April 27, 2012 Notice of Disapproval,
which states adjoining conforming or
nonconforming lots held in uncommon
ownership shall merge until the total lot
size conforms to the current bulk
schedule, minimum 40,000 square feet in
the R-40 Residential Zone District, this
lot is merged with lot ~1000-63-2-26,
located at: 955 & 1065 Hummel Avenue,
Southold.
MR. LARK: Hi, Richard Lark, Main
Road, Cutchogue, I am here for the
applicant. I just have a few comments.
By way of background, when
Mr. & Mrs. Reinckens came to see me, they
were trying to -- and I will refer to it
as Tax Lot's 25, which is subject, and the
lot next door, which is Lot #26, they
wanted to give Lot #25 to their son Paul,
July 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 124
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
and they went to the Building Inspector to
take out the necessary paperwork. They
were going to submit some plans, and they
said, "no," because it was merged, and
that is the reason why we're here. I
believe the application before you is
complete. I believe it's got everything
that you need to make a decision; however,
I will make a few comments. The subject
property is at 955 Hummel Avenue in
Southold. Hummel Avenue is the northerly
boundary, which separates business from
residential in that area. In fact. The
property immediately to the south is zoned
-- north of the railroad, but on the south
side of Hummel Avenue, is zoned
Industrial. Light Industrial. And
everything from Hummel Avenue to the north
is zoned Residential. So from my own
knowledge, this particular section from
the Zoning Law, which we appear today
before, is probably one of the most
misunderstood in the Town of Southold
Zoning Code, it causes a lot of
unnecessary problems. The Reinckens truly
July 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 125
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
believe that they have two lots. We had
two deeds, but unfortunately one of them
was for a life estate, because it really
came out of an estate and that is how they
wound up purchasing the property really
from the Dickerson Family. They get two
tax bills since they bought the property.
They have a preexisting CO for tax lot
#26, which refers to it as a one-family
residence. The property cards when you
look at them, Lot #25 is described as a
vacant lot. Lot #26 is carried with the
preexisting house on it. So the two lots,
#25 and #26 are very, very similar, size
and shape, but they're merged under the
Zoning Code into one lot. Whether that is
unfair or not, that is what the code says.
That is why they're here seeking relief
from the Board. Looking at some of the
merits from the Board, all of the lots
basically on the northerly side of Hummel
Avenue in this particular section are
nonconforming. None of them are 40,000
square feet. I submit, and I think if you
look at the tax map, they all have the
July 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 126
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
same depth. It's just a question of lot
width. This lot is a average lot in that
area. I think there are six or seven of
them when I last counted, that were
smaller. One being proposed, and the rest
of them were slightly larger, but none of
them met any of the code. I think to
unmerge them, it will not create any
adverse impact on the physical or
environmental conditions of this
neighborhood. I know they want to say a
few words to the Board in substance, but
that is relay all I have to say, unless
you have any questions. Yes, George?
MEMBER HORNING: I have a question.
You spoke about the character of the
neighborhood and adjacent industrial
neighborhood, or whatever.
MR. LARK: Right.
MEMBER HORNING: You also spoke about
the average size on Hummel Avenue. Are
of the other lots merged?
MR. LARK: I don't think so.
any
Mr. Reinckens is going to be able to
answer that a lot better than I do,
July 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 127
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
because when I asked about the other
larger lots, he said it had some kind of
approval for a two-family. I don't know
which one it was, but I was not looking
them from that point-of-view. I think
they're all preexisting lots. That is
point. This in effect was a preexisting
lot, and unfortunately, you can't argue
with the law. It's merged. That is the
way it is under the statute. So here
we're, and we're doing what we have to.
MEMBER HORNING: Let me rephrase it
little differently then. Of those lots
that are shown on the tax map, the one
is vacant. The one that is now merged.
MR. LARK: #25.
MEMBER HORNING:
The other parcel,
there is a lot of other houses on that
street. I would imagine then that every
single parcel has a house?
MR. LARK: It will if
application is granted.
have a house.
MEMBER HORNING: So
lots --
this
Every parcel
all of these
at
the
a
lot
will
July 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 128
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. LARK: I think this is the only
vacant lot.
MEMBER HORNING: That is what I am
asking.
MR. LARK: That is correct.
MEMBER HORNING: So none of the other
houses are merged because if they were,
then they would have two principal
dwellings?
MR. LARK: Right. I misunderstood
first question there.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Jim?
MEMBER DINIZIO: (In Audible). The
that have been merged have not been
your
lots
transferred; is that true?
MR. LARK: No.
MEMBER DINIZIO: (In Audible).
MR. LARK:
MEMBER DINIZIO:
Dickerson's?
MR. LARK: Yes.
MEMBER DINIZIO:
MR. LARK: Right.
MEMBER DINIZIO:
MR. LARK: Right.
It came out of the
Out of the
(In Audible).
estate.
In Audible).
July 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 129
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
lot?
will
MEMBER DINIZIO: (In Audible) the
MR. LARK: The day they bought
get you it in just a second.
MEMBER HORNING: 1997, to my
it.
knowledge.
MR. LARK: I can tell you from the
title search. They took title on
June 4, 1997. Excuse me. May 7, 1997.
It was recorded on June 4, 1997.
MEMBER DINIZIO: Okay. (In Audible)
Town of Southold (In Audible) building
permit.
MR. LARK:
The house is there. It
was built by the Dickerson's way back, I
think in the 40's.
MEMBER DINIZIO: All right. So it
was preexisting. So that has to be the
lot.
MR. LARK: #26, that is correct.
MEMBER DINIZIO: There is no
building.
MR. LARK: No.
MEMBER DINIZIO: (In Audible).
MR. LARK: No, not at all.
I
July 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 130
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MEMBER
creating
HORNING: So it would not be
a nonconformity? (In Audible).
LARK: Yes, because it's on the
MR.
other lot.
MEMBER DINIZIO: I think that is all
I have.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Gerry?
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Ken?
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: No. No questions.
MR. LARK: Okay.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I would like
you to be aware, if you don't have copies,
that
from
for you.
John Asco
the Board has received two letters
your neighbor's, and we have copies
One letter is from Elizabeth and
(phonetic.) The other is from
Aaron and Mary Doyle.
MR. LARK: That is
immediately to the west.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
letters are letters of
MR. LARK: Okay.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
questions from the Board?
the neighbor
Both of these
support.
Any other
July 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 131
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Hi, I am Paul
Reinckens, Sr., and I just wanted to say
that I have only owned two homes in my
life. So when I went to the second
closing, I was unaware that the two
would automatically be merged. So at
time, I wasn't informed of it. Being
closing for the second time, you know
it is. It's signing hundreds of papers
MR. REINCKENS SR.:
lots
that
at a
how
Well, the
1997. So when you
I have one other
a date as to when
MEMBER HORNING:
question. Do we have
they were merged?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
merger law predated that.
MEMBER HORNING:
and people talking back and forth, and
boom, you're done. So that is basically
the reason why we're here. So that is the
circumstance at that time, otherwise we
might have done something about it then.
Now that my son is older, usually they
want to run, but he wants to stick around
and he loves the Town. He's with the fire
department and everything. So we thought
that this would be a good start.
July 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 132
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
the
signed at the closing, the merger went
into effect?
MR. REINCKENS SR.: And I literally
had no clue.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
only
And you're not
person in this Town who is
unaware of the merger law, and how to
handle it.
MEMBER DINIZIO: (In Audible).
MR. REINCKENS SR.: No, it wasn't.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: It is the code.
Any other questions from the Board?
MEMBER HORNING: No.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Is there anyone
else in the audience that would like to
address this application?
MR. FROHNHOEFER: Good afternoon,
Ladies and Gentlemen.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: State your name
please?
MR. FROHNHOEFER: Joe Frohnhoefer,
Southold, Hummel Avenue. Sea tow is the
company that owns the block and (In
Audible). That entire block is made up
very small houses, and lots. There are
of
July 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 133
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
none that are empty except for this one.
We would like to keep our kids in the
Town. I think it would be very good of
you
sending a message and getting it back
because we want to
else?
MR. T. REINCKENS: Good afternoon.
My name is Tom Reinckens and I am Paul
Jr's uncle and Paul's brother. I am also
a owner of property in Southold. I own
the vineyard behind the property that
stretches to all the way to Young's, over
7 acres. Paul helps me out by keeping
to the way that it was,
keep our kids in Town. It's hard to get
people (In Audible) and right now, I have
52 over there. And it's difficult to find
places to live, if I don't hire locally.
So of course we want to hire locally. So
to keep our kids in Town, that's kind of
important. Pauly got Proby of the Year.
He is in my firehouse. In my company. He
just became an EMT. We don't want to lose
our kids. We want to keep them. Thank
you. See what you can do to help.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Is there anyone
July 5, 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
2O
21
22
23
24
25
some of the varmint out of the vineyard,
and it's important for me that he is here,
and hopefully some day we will all become
residences and in my second career when we
hopefully start to make some wine. Right
selling grapes. It's
Family is very important
now, we're just
important to me.
to us. Both my brother and I are close,
and my nephew, and I think -- as Joe has
well said, I think and believe that it's
important that Town's look at their young
people and hopefully allow them to stay as
prosper. That's pretty much it. Thank
you.
much.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Thank you very
MS. REINCKENS: I am Elizabeth
Reinckens. I am one of the owners of that
property. I am quite nervous. So this is
a little hard for me, but I do want to
speak my mind and say my peace. Up until
a while a go, Paul and I were really under
the impression that we had two separate
properties. And unfortunately with two
different tax bills and everything else --
July 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 135
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
tl
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
we moved out here. We set our roots to
come and belong to a community and
hopefully one day retire. And you know,
we found our roots. We're very much
involved in our community. We found a
perfect home -- and to raise a family, and
next door was something that we were
hoping to use for our future. And you
know, I am quite sad at this point. When
we purchased the lot, I kind of feel that
we were deceived. You know, if this merge
information at the time of us trying to
obtain the property, was it even mentioned
to us in any way. Knowing that there was
an auction, I mean, anybody in their right
mind would have tried to stop
and it really blows my mind, but
of embarrassed. You know, maybe
have been aware of this prior to
this merger
I am kind
we should
purchasing. The home that we purchased
was an estate sale and had been on the
market for a very long time. There was 12
people involved. It was very hairy. Our
closing of our house took place and it
closed almost immediately. I am not
July 5, 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
blaming my attorney in any way. There
were a lot of other things involved, and I
just feel bad that we weren't really
informed and did not have the knowledge of
this. As Paul's parents, we don't know
what our children's future is going to
hold. And you know, even prior to my
husband, he became disabled and was
operated on (In Audible) that is not
doing very well. You know, my son had
already set down his own roots right here
in Southold. You know, he is determined
to remain. He is continuing to work in
the community. A lot of his friends have
gone and now some of them are coming back.
As much as I love my son, I would like him
to move, even if it's right next door. We
need our peace and quiet. My husband and
I are here, and we really want to help our
son remain in Southold. This is very
important. You know part of my sons
future. If something should happen to me
or my husband and with his condition, and
has taken a turn, it's kind of helpful to
know that my son is going to be right next
July 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 137
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
door and nearby to help with whatever is
going on at that time. I am actually
going to be a little selfish because I
would like to be able to see and hug my
grandchildren. I would really like it if
they lived next door, so that I could do
it every day, whether my son likes that or
not, but it's going to happen hopefully.
We're not looking to unmerge the property
and sell it in any way. We're not looking
to make money. We would like to keep it
in the family. You know, we want him to
very much remain here and support the
community and grow with us. I pray to the
Board that you take all the bits of
information that was presented and really
think about it, and the future of the
community. And to unmerge the property.
Like Joe says, we really need younger
generations staying and growing with us.
So I hope you guys take it into
consideration and really think about this.
We appreciate your time. Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: You're very
welcome.
July 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 138
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Anyone else?
MR. REINCKENS JR.: Paul Reinckens
II, Hummel Avenue. They pretty much
summed it up. I grew up around here and
went to Southold High School. I graduated
in '06, and I have always considered where
I am going to go to college and what not
and I am just trying to stay local. To
hopefully one day build a house for myself
and my family. Other than that, I have
been involved in the (In Audible) which I
think is a big part of the community out
here. Everybody helps each other and it's
very great. House prices has been on the
rise in the last few years. Rentals are
expensive. So it's very tough being a
young adult trying to find a place to
live. That's pretty much it. I hope you
guys consider granting this application.
Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON
WEISMAN:
Any other
audience
(No
CHAIRPERSON
comments or questions
or the Board?
Response.)
WEISMAN:
You're welcome.
from the
Okay. Hearing
July 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 139
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
no further questions or comments, I am
going to make a motion to close this
hearing and reserve decision to a later
date.
Is there a second?
MEMBER GOEHRINGER:
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
MEMBER DINIZIO: Aye.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye.
MEMBER HORNING: Aye.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye.
Second.
Ail in
favor?
March 29, 2012 Notice of Disapproval based
on an application for building permit for
an accessory pergola and in-ground
swimming pool/spa at: 1) accessory
pergola is proposed in a location other
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Aye.
(See Minutes for Resolution.)
HEARING #6574 JOHN & ANGELA REINERTSEN
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The next
application before the Board is for John
and Angela Reinertsen, #6574. Request for
variance from Article III Code Section
280-15 and the Building Inspector's
July 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 140
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
than the code
accessory in-ground
proposed in a
required rear
required rear yard, 2)
swimming pool/spa is
location other than the code
yard, located at: 590
Arrowhead Lane, Peconic.
Who's here to represent
this
application? Please go to the microphone
because this is being recorded. So
everyone speaking has to go to the mic and
state your name
spell it for us.
MR. LAURO:
for the transcript and
My name
A-N-T-H-O-N-Y-
MR. REINERTSEN:
R-E-I-N-E-R-T-S-E-N.
L-A-U-R-O.
John
is Anthony Lauro,
Reinertsen,
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Thank you.
This application, I am just going to go
over the variances. The pool is in a side
yard proposed location, where the code
requires a rear yard location, and the
in-ground swimming pool/spa is in the
location of the front and side yard, where
the code requires a rear yard location.
What would you like to tell us about this
application?
July 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 141
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. LAURO: Well, the
has a full depth of 24 feet,
setback of the property line
house. So there is no way that the
structures would fit in that area. Okay.
And the property is 316 foot long, and
only 124 foot total depth. There was two
lots combined and now is combined to one.
So the density of the lot was brought
done. The only place that where this
rear yard only
with the
from the
approved,
would work is in the side yard, where
there would be enough room to put the
project together. Okay.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Let me just ask
you a question, so that it reflects in the
record. I am sure that you're aware of
the fact that this Board granted an
application under application No. 5973 in
2006, a variances for a home, as well as a
pool, and so I would just like to clarify
why you're before us again?
MR. LAURO: Well, when that pool was
the homeowner wanted to just get
the house built and was considering a
pool, but didn't really think about it
July 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 142
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
yet. Now that the house is finished,
we're readdressing the issue and
redesigning it on how they want to use the
property. The pool that was approved was
very close to the house. The pool was
right up on the house. There was room for
only pavement. It would give a very
commercial look. The property, they
wanted a little bit of space to move the
pool back a little bit and have some
plantings and make it more of a country
look than just of a rectangular look, a
20x40 pool.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: That clarifies
that. So you have specifically changed
the design that had been approved
previously. In looking at your survey,
the proposed pool and that was
accomplished -- we observed the site and
looked at it. We can see where the pool
is proposed and the property at the moment
is not clear cut. It's still a lot of
scrub and hardwood trees. This particular
site plan from Platinum Site Development
is showing a green screening between the
July 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 143
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
pool; and the adjacent property --
MR. LAURO: We're proposing another
set of screening to make it even more that
the pool can not be viewed from the
street, and from the neighbors.
up
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I
in tick country. I don't
the adjacent neighbor's property line
So my question is, will you be clear
am not going
know where
is.
cutting all the way to edge of the
property line or will you be leaving a
buffer of natural vegetation?
MR. LAURO: That is to the edge of
the existing infrastructure proposed.
Right to the edge and that's it.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: So the
that is going to remain --
MR. LAURO: Untouched.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: As it
Gerry,
is?
MR. LAURO: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
questions?
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Not
this time. It's pretty self
rest of
currently
really at
explanatory.
July 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 144
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1
2
3
4
5
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Ail right.
George?
MEMBER HORNING: Are there rather
large trees along the border of the one
end of the side yard where the pool is --
to the south?
MR. LAURO: There is about two trees
that would be affected. It would just be
minor scrub and brush. We were removing
those two, and that is why we deiced to
put another green buffer, and all the way
around. From the pool side, you would not
see anything. We just wanted to make that
no one from the street or the neighbors,
that it could be visible from the street.
MEMBER HORNING:
trees remaining along
MR. LAURO: Yes.
MEMBER HORNING:
MR. LAURO: Yes.
And there will be
that boundary line?
Rather large trees?
than
MEMBER HORNING: And how about the
root structure of those trees, will that
be impacted by anything that you're doing?
MR. LAURO: Only those two, other
that, we will box around it. And we
July 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 145
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
will put temporary protection up so that
the root system is not disturbed.
MEMBER HORNING: Ail of those trees
are on your property?
MR. LAURO: Yes.
MEMBER HORNING: And you're not
concerned about leaves falling in the pool
or things like that?
MR. LAURO: No, the filtration
system, should be able to handle all of
that. That should not be a problem at
only mention it,
on a
and thought that
all. The pool is not going to be open
during the fall.
MEMBER HORNING: I
because we have assisted
nonconforming location,
be closed up and have a full safety cover
on it and won't allow anything to get on
the pool.
MEMBER HORNING: Ail right. That's
it.
the tree leaves would be a problem --
MR. LAURO: As long as the filtration
system is running, it should take the
leaves off, but most of the time, it would
July 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 146
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Ken, questions?
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: No questions.
CHAIR?ERSON WEISMAN: Jim?
MEMBER DINIZIO: No.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Let's see what
happens here. Is there anyone here who
would like to address this application?
Please come forward to the mic and state
your name.
MR. J. MURPHY: Good afternoon. I am
Jim Murphy. This is my son Adam. My wife
and I live at 890 Arrowhead. We're the
house directly south of the Reinertsen's.
I would like to start off with, we went
through this four or five years ago, if
you remember, in 2006. Maybe six years
ago. And its stressful. So why would the
Board be entertaining this thing once
again? That is our one concern. I ask
the Board what is their rights to a
continuos appeal?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: If the
applicant changes the proposed locations,
then they're legally obligated to come
back before the Board to reconsider.
July 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 147
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Where else are they going to put it? We
still have to grant --
MR. J. MURPHY: But there is never --
I'm sorry, I interrupted you. Someone can
move it closer a foot every year.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: If they wanted
to -- if it was a very minor change, then
it would be up to the Building Department
to determine that it would be in keeping
with the previous variance granted;
however, if it's a substantial change,
then the Building Department will not
issue a permit, because it is not what the
Zoning Board permitted.
MR. J. MURPHY: I just want on the
record that it is stressful to go through
this again. Our concerns six years ago
have not changed. The noise level that we
may have to deal with. In six years ago,
there was a compromise to put the pool
from the north/south, east/west and to
give us more of a buffer. I believe it
was 45 feet to our property line. We
shook hands on it and it all went away.
Now he comes back, and we're back to 35
July 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 148
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
feet again. So our concerns have not
changed. We're still concerned about
noise level and we would like the Board to
consider that we go back to the 35 feet --
I'm sorry, 45 feet from the pool to our
property line, as the Board did six years
ago.
MR. A. MURPHY: Right now
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Can you state
your name, please?
MR. A. MURPHY: Adam Murphy.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Thank you.
MR. A. MURPHY: Previously -- right
now, it's 35 feet from our property line
to the pool and 45 feet from the pool to
the house. I believe those two should be
switched. It should be closer to their
property than our property. So I think
that is sort of the major crucks of our
concern around the variance. I think the
rest of it has to do with ordinance. With
respect to the tree planting, we would
like to get some assurance on when these
are going to occur. They have had this
property since I guess 2006, because that
July 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 149
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
is when the first
mean, the
driveway.
improvement
variance was filed. I
property still doesn't have a
It's been very little
or if any improvement to the
ground of the property when they built it.
It's a very nice house but no improvement
to the ground. You do have some
reasonable concerns around the expeditious
of the tree planting associated with the
building of the pool. I also had some
concerns -- are there any ordinances with
respect to a lockable fence around the
pool for safety concerns?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Yes.
MR. A. MURPHY: And are there
ordinances with respect to noise levels
with the pump?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: With regard
the fence, yes. There are codes that
anybody who owns a pool has to adhere
safety. Definitely. With regards to
noise levels, it is not infrequent that
this Board is in consideration of any
adverse noise impact of the neighbors
would require that pump equipment be
to
to
July 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 150
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1
2
3
4
5
placed in a sound proof container. It's
also for the pump -- it's proposed behind
a conforming shed. This is pretty far
distance away. Let's ask the applicant to
address those two concerns. Let's start
with the pump equipment.
MR. LAURO: Well, we have opted for
the (In Audible) pump, which at 70 feet on
a quiet night and no obstructions and
clear air, at 70 foot it's max decibel
rating is 54. And at best, it would be 56
to 57. It's very quiet. It's the
quietest one of the market as of now. It
uses the least amount of electric too. It
will also be in a sound proof box, and
there should -- with the trees, the buffer
and the screening, it shouldn't be heard
at all. And I have a print out right here
from the manufacturer showing that.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Would you
submit that to us, please?
MR. LAURO: Sure.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Talk to us
little bit about the side yard setback
that was originally granted at 45 feet,
a
July 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 151
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
and now it's 35.
MR. REINERTSEN: Well, Anthony wasn't
in the picture at that time. I will
address that. We were building the house.
We applied for the variance at the same
time, as we did for the variance on the
house. We didn't know how we were going
to build the pool. When we get a pool
person involved, they tell us what is
normal and what is correct and the same
way you build a house, you have ideas.
You then have a person like, Anthony, as
an architect and a landscape artist to
tell you what works, and if you put
something too close to your house, there
is really no room for planting beds.
There really is no room to create what you
want to create. So at the time, we just
had no focus on the pool. We were just
worried on the house. The house is built,
and now we have a pool person involved,
and Anthony said, look, this is what you
should do. At 35 feet off the property
line, Jimmy's house is 120 feet, basically
a half a football field away from the pool
July 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 152
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
and the neighbor from the south. I don't
see with trees, shrubs, plantings and what
have, the pool itself is not going to make
noise. You know, we're going to be noisy,
or anything else in
we're not looking to have
which was stated six years
as if I had a patio
that area. So
wild parities,
ago. We had
a pool could
Anthony gave
believed the
tranquil setting.
pool like he said,
what have you. That
looking for.
no knowledge at the time what
look like, would look like.
us the envision of what we
pool to be and kind of a
Not 20x40, commercial
with sliding doors and
a natural
between.
MEMBER HORNING: What is the status
of the variance that was already granted?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Well, they
reapplied for a change. They can still
build what they were granted. We should
also reflect upon the fact that the code
MR. LAURO: Basically what we're
looking for is a nature setting bed, with
patio, with a lot of space in
is not what we're
July 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 153
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
does not require that kind of a setback
from an accessory structure to the
property line. You know, swimming pool's
can be built quite close to a property
line. If
let's say,
the property
this is in a
problem.
because
concern
condition
will
Just
yOU,
this had been a conforming yard,
you could be 10 feet away from
is the fact that
is the
of some concern
of the neighbor's
Other
line. It
side yard, that
The setback is
we're also aware
to be able to try and create a
where everyone is satisfied.
keep these for the file?
MR. REINERTSEN: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
come to the mic.
MS. MURPHY: The way --
We
comments?
can't hear
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: We
Mrs. Murphy.
MS. MURPHY: I'm sorry.
The way our
is closest to
Are close to the
house is built, our bedrooms
the property line.
property line, and our concern is the
planting, you know, because they could run
out of money and they could be issued --
July 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 154
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. A. MURPHY: We want to ensure that
the plantings are being done with the
pool. There has been a history with no
on the property. I think that
your to-do list to talk about
planting
still on
here.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: They're
proposing the planting.
MR. A. MURPHY: Right,
we do to ensure the plantings --
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Well, I
like
but what could
would
to tell you.
MR. A. MURPHY: Okay.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
The Board can
make a determination in which we condition
the decision, should the Board decide to
approve it. Based upon the drawings and
plantings as proposed. Which means that
they will not get a Certificate of
Occupancy from the Building Department
until the plantings are accomplished.
MR. A. MURPHY: Okay.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: And I don't
know that it would be an issue because
it's being offered on the survey, but we
July 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 155
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1
2
3
4
5
6
could enforce their proposal. We can put
a condition on there whereby they must
continuosly maintain the planting. It is
not uncommon for the Board to do this.
MR. A. MURPHY: So they can do the 35
as opposed to the 45?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: They're not
really before us with a side yard setback.
They're before us because it's in a side
yard. They legally could be much closer.
We listened to them and they have
explained why they would like to move it
farther from the house.
MR. A. MURPHY: Then basically, we're
not going to contest the variance unless
there is a 45 foot setback. And if there
isn't, and it's a 35 foot, then we will
continue to contest it.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: If the Board
determines that that is the best course of
action to proceed, then you are allowed to
proceed with an Article 78.
MR. A. MURPHY: Right. I am just
trying to say with the planting and the
required gating, we don't really have any
July 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 156
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
issues at all at 45 feet from the pool.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay.
MR. A. MURPHY: I just wanted to make
sure that it was clear.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: No, it's
clear.
Does anyone have any
quite
questions?
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I don't think 10
feet is going to make much of a
difference.
MR. A. MURPHY: Six years it did.
Why would you reverse yourself?
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Why would I
reverse myself?
MR. A. MURPHY: I don't know if you
years ago, with all do
were here six
respect.
MEMBER
years ago.
MR. A. MURPHY: So
reverse yourself?
MEMBER GOEHRINGER:
GOEHRINGER: I was here six
why would you
I live in
where there are two swimming pools
back. In fact that neighbor is higher
than mine, and I can't hear them at all.
a place
back to
July 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 157
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
And I am just telling you in my particular
opinion, I don't think 10 feet is going to
make a difference. That is my
professional opinion.
MR. A. MURPHY: Fair enough, and
we're here to give our opinion as well.
MEMBER HORNING: Let me ask him a
question. Where does the 45 feet come
from?
MR. A. MURPHY: The 45 feet -- it
used to be 45 feet, not it's 35 feet from
the property line to the the house.
MEMBER DINIZIO: They got approval;
six years ago to build a swimming pool in
the side yard at 35 feet. That is where
it comes from, George.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: They're not
before for a --
MR. A. MURPHY: I understand that
completely.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: They're before
us because they changed the plan. It
still is in a side yard. They changed the
plan, and therefore the Building
Department determines that they're not
July 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 158
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
complying with what was previously
granted. They have to come back before
us. They have to go through the process
again, and pay for it again. We're here
to hear all interested parties. We're
unbiased.
MEMBER DINIZIO: They were granted
45, and now they want 35. I can see that
they want it further away from the house.
Six years ago, it was
I think that it's not -- (In
What do you need with that
feet?
REINERTSEN: Because with the
of the pool, and the improvement
(In Audible).
agreed upon.
Audible).
extra 10
MR.
shape
that is involved now,
envelope.
MEMBER DINIZIO:
the other side?
other
house
walk
it put us over the
And if you put it on
MR. REINERTSEN: You put it
side of the pool, it's closer
and will shorten up where you
again.
MEMBER DINIZIO: (In Audible).
MR. LAURO: Well, they're going to
on the
to the
can
be
July 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 159
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
adding planting beds that is almost 10
feet. They want it to be very
professional. It is a grey area. There
is also one central filtration system
instead of two, and the point is to be
able to see the water feature over the
spa .
MEMBER DINIZIO:
MR. REINERTSEN:
(In Audible).
I will tell you
ago when we agreed to
I didn't want
It was a
the
truth, six years
this, Jimmy was sick, and
create a lot of problems.
consideration at the time.
MEMBER DINIZIO: The thing is why now
are you asking for the 10 feet? What I am
getting from you is that you want to put a
hot
to
realized that he wanted a free-form pool,
and required a little more patio space,
and he said he didn't want a commercial
square paved look. He wanted a more
tub.
MR. LAURO: There was no landscape
design originally. He knew he wanted a
pool. He just didn't know where he wanted
the pool. After doing his research, he
July 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 160
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
country feel, which is more buffers
softening it. Planting beds does require
more space.
MEMBER DINIZIO: (In Audible).
MR. LAURO: Yes, basically what it
was patio space when you step out of the
doors. If we went with the pool that was
approved with the house, there is almost
no chair and table space. This is the new
one.
MEMBER DINIZIO: (In Audible).
MR. LAURO: By adding 10 foot on
each
is still plenty of room for you to be able
to move around. I understand why you want
to. {In Audible).
MR. LAURO: We kept it facing the
direction that it was approved. We did
not turn it back. We're are keeping it
north/south, and not east/west. The 45
side, we're adding more patio, which is
more for the tables and chairs, rather
than the 15 foot. We will leave the five
foot walking space on each side. It's
more of an aesthetic look.
MEMBER DINIZIO: (In Audible) there
July 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 161
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
feet is achievable for what they would
like to have movable space and planting
beds that would be enough to be
aesthetically pleasing to them.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The biggest
concern is noise and the privacy; right?
MR. A. MURPHY: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Your
explanation is that you're not cutting
down any of that buffer by the pool, and
you're going to put in an additional
planting beds and continue with
Evergreens, and together they will create
no visual intrusion and create a noise
barrier?
on
MR. LAURO: We can also build them up
a berm to raise them up a little bit,
desired.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: That helps.
MEMBER DINIZIO: That requires a
variance.
CHAIRPERSON
WEISMAN: For a berm?
that
MEMBER DINIZIO: I believe so, yes.
MR. LAURO: That is just something
we're offering to them.
July 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 162
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: You're now
proposing a 35 foot setback from the
property line. What would happen if it
was 40 feet, and not
It's a compromise.
your
Is
45 or 35, 40 feet?
MR. LAURO: I think that is okay.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: You will have
usable patio and you will compromise.
that reasonable?
MR. REINERTSEN: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Board members?
MEMBER HORNING: I just have a couple
questions still. There are a couple of
members now that are not on the
of
Board
Board when this other variance was
granted, and we don't have a copy of your
site survey at that time showing anything.
We do have a survey and a site plan
survey, with your existing house on it and
the setbacks on it and everything else,
and your proposed pool. The house that is
on the survey that you submitted, is that
exactly in the same place as you will be
proposing to put it when you got the
variance before?
July 5, 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
2O
21
22
23
24
25
MR. REINERTSEN: Uh-huh.
MEMBER HORNING: You didn't move the
house any way? In other words the house
is identically situated --
MR. REINERTSEN: That
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
condition, and George, not
is what we did.
The previous
to interrupt
you're talking
we will do the
you. It speaks to what
about, can require, and
same thing again about screening. The
pool and accessory structure will be
screened from the road and the adjoining
property to the south by Evergreen
plantings planted at a minimum height of
five feet. These plantings must be
maintained and in place so their
functional use is compromised. Are you
okay with that?
MEMBER
contentious,
looking at No.
Grant the front
does
pool
location
HORNING: Except not to be
Madam Chairperson, and I am
1, of the variance granted.
and rear yard reduction
apply except that placement of the
shall be rotated east/west of it's
and set back at a minimum -- this
July 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 164
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
one says 70 feet from the southerly
property line.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: This was for a
dwelling and the pool.
MEMBER HORNING: The description is a
little bit confusing.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Yes.
MEMBER HORNING: I am still not clear
as to why they can not have it as detailed
in the original variance at 45 feet. I am
certain about that.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Just so that we
don't go on repeating ourselves, it's a
design proposal. It has to do with usable
patio area that was not considered in the
original application. That is why it is
coming back before us to reconsider the
setback being proposed -- that is not to
close to that property line, and it will
be buffered substantially by the natural
vegetation and trees. We will incorporate
in the decision to have that Evergreen
screening to be continuously maintained.
The applicant has discussed with this
Board alternative relief, which would be
July 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 165
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
setback at 40 instead of 35 feet, and I
think that is all of the issues that were
flushed out, as far as I could see.
Just for the record, when is the
timeframe that you will want to begin
construction for the pool?
MR. LAURO: As soon as possible.
They're ready to start construction.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: And how about
the planting?
MR. LAURO: They will go in as soon
as pool is out of the way, because the
pool is going to be gunite, because when
the concrete is shot, it can affect the
plant material. We wanted to make sure
that was all of that way. So as soon as
construction is done, we will put in the
screening.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Would the Board
entertain a condition that this variance
will be granted in a particular time frame
for a year, is that feasible?
MR. LAURO: That this be completed in
a year, yes.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay.
July 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 166
1
2
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Typically variances don't have timeframe,
but sometimes timeframes do become
significant and the Board has the option
to do this.
MR. LAURO: Which part of the
construction are we're talking about?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The pool and
the planting.
MR. LAURO: Okay.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Ail right.
MR. LAURO: I think the pool can be
constructed in a year.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: You wanted to
address the Board, please come before the
mic and state your name?
MS. MCNAB: Hi, I am Yvonne McNab. I
live at 65 Arrowhead Lane.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Can you just
spell your name?
MS. MCNAB: Yvonne, Y-V-O-N-N-E
McNab, M-C-N-A-B.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Thank you.
MS. MCNAB: I live directly across
from the Reinertsen's and we have no
problem with wherever they want to put
July 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 167
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
their pool. And I just wanted to say that
I think -- it's a 140 feet from their
property to the edge of their house?
MR. REINERTSEN: 120.
MS. MCNAB: Well most of that
property is wooded, heavily wooded. So
they wouldn't see a pool if they were all
the way to their property line. Ail those
pieces are very long and narrow. So I
just wanted to say that for the record,
that they wouldn't even be bothered
really, and they're not there full-time.
They're there full-time, really.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: You have to
address the Board.
MS. MCNAB: That's all I wanted to
say. I have no problem with it, and our
property is exactly right across from
theres. So we're all for it and very
happy for them. There you go.
MR. A. MURPHY: With respect to
wooded area, it is not our responsibility
to maintain the woods to maintain a buffer
between the proposed pool and our house.
Yes, there are woods there now, but if all
July 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 168
t
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 those woods become necessary for the
pool, then it restricts our ability. Yes,
there is wood there now --
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: How much of the
property --
MR. A. MURPHY:
120 feet, right?
120 feet from the
know. I haven't
seen any plans.
MR. REINERTSEN:
Well, we just said
Apparently our house is
property line. I don't
measured it. I haven't
It's
from their property line.
another 35 feet to their house.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: So with
about 120 feet
They have
regard
to noise and intrusion, your house is
setback from your own property line. The
bottom line, you don't need to maintain
anything on your property. Your property
is not before this Board. There is about
a 35 foot vegetive natural; landscaped
buffer that will not be clear cut by your
neighbor. In addition to the planting of
Evergreens. Even if you did clear cut,
you're going to have a very substantial
buffer.
July 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 169
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12'
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. A. MURPHY: I don't think it's
going to be 35 feet.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The patio is
not before this Board. They can put stone
pavers down. They can clear cut the
property. They can put down stone pavers
till their heart is content. It does not
require any action before this Board.
We're now saying that they're proposing
the pool to be 35 feet. We just discussed
with them to making it 40 feet, okay. And
I think the Board has heard ample
testimony from all concerned parties.
They have attempted to address everybody's
concern fairly and accurately.
Is there anyone else in the audience
who wants to address this application?
(No Response.)
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Hearing no
further comments, I am going to make a
motion to close this hearing and reserve
decision to a later date.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second.
MEMBER HORNING: Aye.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye.
July 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 170
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Aye.
(See Minutes for Resolution.)
HEARING #6566 - EDWARD J. CONNOR
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: This is an
application for Edward J. Connor. That
was reopened before this Board to address
lot coverage that was not previously
discussed in the application. Let me read
it, because it is slightly a different
application. A request for variance from
Article XXIII Section 280-124 and the
Building Inspector's March 20, 2012,
amended June 12, 2012, Notice of
Disapproval based on an application for
building permit to construct a deck
addition to existing single family
dwelling; 1) less than the code required
minimum rear yard setback of 35 feet, 2)
lot coverage at more than the code
permitted 20%; located at: 1200 Gillette
Drive, East Marion.
So would you like to come forward and
state your name?
July 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 171
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. PANETTIERI: My name is Vincent
Panettieri.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Ail right.
Mr. Panettieri. What happened was after
we closed the hearing, and just so the
record reflects it, that we recognize that
the survey that was submitted to the
Building Department was different than the
survey that ws submitted to our
department, the Zoning Board of Appeals
Department. The one that was submitted to
the Building Department does not show lot
coverage on it. Your existing lot
coverage is already beyond what the code
permits. Previously we were looking at a
proposed rear yard setback to the deck,
with a 16 foot depth, and we talked about
making it 14. You said it would probably
be okay. Then we closed the hearing and
then we discovered the lot coverage issue.
The survey dated April 17, 2012, shows
your existing lot coverage of 24.4 percent
and a proposed lot coverage of 26.8
percent. Now that lot coverage is
probably the greatest in the neighborhood.
July 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 172
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Many of them are nonconforming lots and
many of them have excessive lot coverage
because they're fairly narrow lots. We
did this so that we can legally address
that issue and square everything away.
the proposal would be if the deck would
to 14 feet, alterative relief, instead of
So
.2 percent.
intent is to
conformance.
and legally so
an issue again.
all of that?
MR. PANETTIERI:
that I am not the
CHAIRPERSON
not .
My answer to you is
owners.
WEISMAN: I know you're
MR. PANETTIERI: I understand. Ail
16 feet. You're going to increase the
rear yard setback to 21.5 where the the
code requires 35 feet instead of 19.5,
which would mean that it is a little bit
more conforming to the code. We can then
grant the lot coverage. It will be
reduced a little. Very, very little, like
So it's almost -- but the
bring this into greater
The lot coverage properly
that it doesn't come up as
Are you clear on this and
July 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 173
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
you're saying is
smaller?
CHAIRPERSON
that the deck has to be
WEISMAN: By two
MR. PANETTIERI: By two feet.
feet.
Back
and it wasn't.
MR. PANETTIERI: Okay.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: And we bent
over backwards to do this, and do this
quickly and without under hardship for
applicant.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Because what
could have happened, you could have gone
to the Building Department with a building
permit and they could have said to you we
need to give you a Notice of Disapproval
for lot coverage and you would have say,
"what?" And so that is the reason why it
was facilitated in this particular matter,
because we know how important it is to get
this deck built. And that is why we did
should have been addressed in the
coverage
first hearing,
the
to the 147
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Back to the 14.
In case you're explaining this to the
owner. We had to do this because the lot
July 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 174
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
that.
fee .
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: And we waived the
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Now, and our
office staff prepared mailings and
notices. I should note that however, we
were under no obligation to do that
because the error was not in our office.
The error was that the application for
Building Department was different than
application to the Zoning Board, but as
great courtesy we extended to your
consideration.
MR. PANETTIERI: Which is
appreciated.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The Board is
very familiar with this and we have all
done site inspection. I am going to ask
the Board if there are any questions?
MEMBER HORNING: I have one question.
coverage going to
What
be?
is the actual lot
MEMBER GOEHRINGER:
14
the
the
a
MEMBER HORNING:
foot deck.
26.5 percent.
26.5, okay. With
a
July 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 175
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: 14x16.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: If we close the
hearing today, we can deliberate and we
know you want to get going on this. Once
the Board closes the hearing, the Board
can start to deliberate on this. It has a
draft decision before it. Again, we
rushed this through. We could have waited
for two weeks but we have a draft in front
of us, a decision, and the Board can close
this hearing now and proceed to deliberate
so that you can have an answer by the end
of the day?
MR. PANETTIERI: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: So any comments
or questions?
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: None.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I make a motion
to close this hearing and reserve
decision.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER:
Second.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Ail
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye.
MEMBER HORNING: Aye.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye.
favor?
July 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 176
1
2
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Aye.
(See Minutes for Resolution.)
(Whereupon, the public hearings for
July 5, 2012 concluded.)
July 5, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 177
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
CERTIFICATION
I, Jessica DiLallo, certify that the
foregoing transcript of tape recorded Public
Hearings was prepared using required
electronic transcription equipment and is a
true and accurate record of the Hearings.
Signatu~_~~__
Jessica DiLallo
Court Reporter
PO Box 984
Holbrook, New York 11741
Date: July 22, 2012