HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-06/07/2012 Hearing 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
COUNTY OF SUFFOLK: STATE OF NEW YORK
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
Southold Town Hall
Southold, New York
RECEWED
'AUG 0 2 2012
BOARD OFAPDEALS
June 7, 2012
10:22 A.M.
Board
LESLIE
GERARD
JAMES DINIZIO, JR.
KENNETH SCHNEIDER
GEORGE
Members Present:
KANES WEISMAN Chairperson/Member
GOEHRINGER - Member
- Member
Member
HORNING - Member
JENNIFER ANDALORO Assistant Town Attorney
VICKI TOTH - Secretary
Jessica DiLallo
Court Reporter
P.O. Box 984
Holbrook, New York
(631)-338-1409
11741
2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
INDEX OF HEARINGS
Hearing:
Hernan Michael Otano, #6525
Southold Historical Society, #6567
Judith Greco, %6568
James Wiltse, %6569
Edward J. Conner, #6566
Lisa and Anthony Sannino, #6565
Richard Meyerholz, #6556
Anthony and Daniele Cacioppo, #6571
Kimogenor Point, #6550
Page:
3-15
15-23
23-29
29-37
37-47
47-119
120-120
120-129
129-179
June 7, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
HEARING #6525 HERNAN MICHAEL OTANO
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Our first public
hearing of the morning is for Hernan Michael
Otano, #6525. It's a carryover. So there is
no need to read the legal notice. This is for
the application that was adjourned from
February, okay, which was an Area Variance.
We closed -- because this and the other
application is related, Pat, I'd like the
Board to be aware of the fact that we did
receive information on the Use Variance
application that was closed subject to
receipt. So the clock can now start ticking
on this one, and I am going to suggest that we
look at these two applications simultaneously.
That is the only way that it would make sense.
Then we can proceed to see if there is any
additional testimony that you would like to
submit, with regards to the Area Variance,
then we can close that application, and then
the time would be running on both
applications. Is that acceptable to you?
MS. MOORE: Yes, thank you.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Go ahead, Pat.
MS. MOORE: Yes. Good morning. The
June 7, 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
Breezy Shore homeowner's are here. Several
of them, including a Board member. Mr. Otano
is here as well. Very briefly, just outline
the Area Variance for you, because last time
we spoke on the record, it seems we got
sidetracked a little bit. So I want to be
sure that we have the points very clearly
outlined for your Area Variance consideration.
With respect to whether this Area Variance
will make an undesirable change to the
character of the neighborhood, a detriment to
nearby properties. We have already
established that the improvements were made in
order to maintain the character of the
neighborhood. Breezy Shore's operates under
their By-Law's and they require that the units
be maintained, and that the character of the
neighborhood equally be maintained, as is.
The existing cottage does maintain the "as
built" original location. I would ask you to
go back and look at the survey that was
submitted for the property, prepared by Young
& Young. That the survey that was submitted
early in the process and resubmitted with the
Use Variance application shows the 82.63 acres
June 7, 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
and the peninsula and basin. And it
accurately reflects the location of all
comprise of all of the units, and their
setback to the bulkhead. As you note from
your own inspection, the bulkhead was
replaced. The bulkhead is functional. It's
in very good condition, and the setbacks of
the cottages are all -- for the most part,
uniformly along the bulkhead. Some are closer
by a few feet. Some are a little farther by a
few feet. Our unit is C5, and it is about
average with all the setbacks of the cottages.
The benefits sought by the applicant cannot be
achieved by some method feasible for the
applicant to pursue, other than the Area
Variance. As a co-op, we only have the right
the existing
was in-kind,
to the proprietary lease area of
cottage. The construction again
as far as wood
location, with
Building Code
improvements.
construction
asbestos, lead paint and other hazardous
substances. So overall, the improvement
goes. In-place, the exact same
upgrades that the State
would mandate, as to the
Through the improvements, the
process, they were able to remove
is a
June 7, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
benefit. It also leads to the benefit of the
environment as well. As well, as health and
welfare of the individual occupants of the
unit. The amount of relief that is requested
is not substantial, in that, it was in-kind
and in-place. There was no further
encroachment towards the bulkhead, than the
existing foundation originally maintained.
The foundation does have a Building Permit,
and that foundation establishes the setback.
The variance will not have an adverse impact
on the various environmental conditions in the
neighborhood. Again, it's an environmental
improvement. Any time you have upgrades to an
existing structure, and between the
improvements of the foundation and the
environmental improvements to the structure
itself, all and all, it is a benefit. As far
as the setback to the bulkhead, there really
a
is no environmental impact, in that it is
piece of property. The setbacks does not
impact the Shelter Island Sound, in that it
adequately setback, as is. Was the allege
we believe
difficulty
wasn't.
self-created? Well, it
Again, it was in-kind and in-place.
June 7, 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
2O
21
22
23
24
25
The method of doing this, we have all
established, there is better ways of doing it,
but it was for the exact same cottage that is
-- that was there previously. Are there any
covenants and restrictions concerning the
land? No, however, there is a co-op
agreement. It operates as a co-op and under
the terms and conditions of the management of
the co-op Board. So I guess, indirectly,
there are C&R's that they have to follow, but
it's not the traditional C&R's that fall as a
single-family dwelling in a subdivision, for
example. This is the minimum variance that is
necessary and adequate, to preserve and
protect the character of the neighborhood. We
believe that it is, and we hope that you will
agree with us. That this was the minimum that
was possible, given the conditions of the
structure, and previous to the construction.
And any less, would deprive the owner the use
of the 600 square feet of the unit, the
proprietary leased area. So being in-kind,
in-place, is really the minimum possible. You
know, cutting it back in any way would be a
real hardship to the owner, given that it is
June 7, 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
only 600 square feet and some. You have the
dimensions. I don't have it in front of me,
but in the 600 square feet area. So it's even
less than a single-family dwelling minimum
State Code requirement. I would be happy to
answer any questions. I think you now have a
full record to address all of the issues that
were before you. Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: You're welcome.
We have taken ample testimony on this
application.
MS. MOORE: Yes, you have.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I am going to ask
if there is anyone in the audience that would
like to address this application?
(No Response.)
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Do the Board
members have any additional questions?
MEMBER HORNING: What became of the
discussion as to whether or not it was
technically a demolition or not?
MS. MOORE: Well, in the interim, the
code changed to the 75 percent, but I think
the Board -- it's the Board's decision, and
you have the Use Variance application to cover
June 7, 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
that issue. It's
MEMBER HORNING:
Department deemed it a
Notice of Disapproval,
testimony that was
MS. MOORE:
certification and so on,
There is a weight in the
decide whether or not it
your lap.
Well, the Building
demolition, in their
really in
but then you had some
indicating that it wasn't?
Well, we have given you
by the architects.
evidence, and you can
reflects -- at the
time, the testimony was that the code would
require less than 50 percent demolition.
code now is 75 percent. We believe that
50 percent, we were still maintaining the
existing structure, but again, you know, we
hope that we have given you enough testimony
that -- if it's not a demolition, then the
only other issue that you're dealing with is
The
permitted to rebuild the existing structure.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Anything else?
this case, given that Mr. Otano's investment
in this property would be gone, if he were not
the variances. If it is a demolition, then
you have asked me to address the Use Variance
criteria, and we think that there is ample
evidence that a Use Variance is appropriate in
June 7, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 10
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MS. ANDALORO: George,
Variance application is kind of
MEMBER HORNING: Right.
It was on the schedule today?
MS. ANDALORO: This is
Variance.
just the Use
closed.
As of when?
on for the Area
That is what I
of Disapproval of the Building Code, and she
can come again before the Board under the new
code. Okay.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: We have had
testimony for two separate applications that
are related. I believe the Board has had a
number of hearings, and --
MS. MOORE: Those --
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: We have all the
Building Department to take another look at
this, she would have to get a revised Notice
MEMBER HORNING: Right.
am asking about. At that Area Variance
hearing, they were -- they produced that it
wasn't a demolition. I was just wondering if
the condition has changed on that --
MS. ANDALORO: What is before you is a
Notice of Disapproval from the prior code.
Ms. Moore is well aware that if she wanted the
June 7, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 11
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
information that we need to proceed on a
deliberation.
MS. MOORE: George I think typically
the Board -- Excuse me, Mr. Horning. The
Board is a fair Board. We think that we have
met all the standards for all the applications
that we have made. Should this end up in the
court, then obviously we would have our
testimony, with respect to arguing issues. At
this point, let's move forward with what you
have, just so that we can hopefully move
forward with the project. Right now, you
know, with all do respect, and I apologize, I
thought this was the closing out of the
expenses that you were requesting. For the
record, we sent it over on the 26th. We
didn't realize that the Town's computer
couldn't read it. So fortunately, they did
alert us, and we brought the hardcopy over.
MEMBER HORNING: That is for the Use
Variance?
MS. MOORE: Yes. That is for the Use
Variance. So that closes out that hearing.
And we're now -- we're just closing --
wrapping up the Area Variance application,
June 7, 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
and
MEMBER HORNING:
the Building Department's
it was a demolition?
MS. MOORE: No, we did
from the beginning.
MS. ANDALORO: That is
record.
You're not contesting
determination that
contest it right
all on the
MEMBER HORNING: Thank you.
MS. MOORE: Think of it as two buckets.
We sort of put a lid on the Use Variance
bucket, and now we're dealing with the Area
Variance bucket.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: It has been a
number of months, and we have transcripts on
everyone's testimony and the Building
Department --
MS. MOORE: Right.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Is there any
further questions or comments?
MS. MOORE: Just one very brief
request. This is a summer -- primarily a
summer community, and we would ask for -- and
I know, you are all very diligent to get the
decision as quickly as possible. If there is
June 7, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 13
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
a way of communicating with the Trustees,
because we have to go back to wrap up the
Trustees application. We were waiting to
finish up the hearing processes here, with
this Board. So if there is a way of
communicating with the Trustees Board, so we
can move forward, kind of get both approvals
in hand. So we can go straight to the
Building Department presumably with the
approvals, and continue the construction,
because he has a contractor ready to roll,
and we're trying to do it, so that it can be
the least obstructive to the summer community,
and the people that are going to be there
now.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: We will do our
best to move
as quickly as reasonable.
MS. MOORE: I understand.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: It's fairly
complicated. Clearly, we're not going to be
able to provide anything to the Trustees until
such time deliberations are completed.
MS. MOORE: I know it's not formal.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Ail we can say is
that we have concluded both hearings.
June 7, 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
MS. MOORE: That's all right. Maybe we
could just wrap it up -- since they're both
independent applications and presumably we
could get the Trustees, and so we can finish
up. We missed the June hearing, but we're
hoping that we can get on the July calendar.
So we can move this along.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: We will do what
we can from our end.
MS. MOORE: Appreciate it very much.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Any further
questions or comments?
(No Response.)
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I make a motion
to close this hearing and reserve decision to
a later date.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER:
CHAIRPERSON
Mr. Goehringer.
Second.
WEISMAN: Seconded
Ail in favor?
MEMBER DINIZIO:
Aye .
Aye.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER:
MEMBER HORNING: Aye.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Aye.
by
June 7, 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
(See Minutes for Resolution.)
********************************************
HEARING #6567 - SOUTHOLD HISTORICAL SOCIETY
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The next
application before the Board is for Southold
Historical Society, #6567. Request for
variance from Article X Code Section 280-46
(bulk schedule), based on an application for
Building Permit and the Building Inspector's
March 9, 2012 Notice of Disapproval concerning
proposed front porch addition to existing
building located in the HB District, at;
1)less than the code required minimum front
yard setback of 15 feet, 2) less than the code
required minimum side yard setback of 10 feet,
3) less than the code required total side
yards of 25 feet, located at: 54127 Main Road,
Southold.
Is there someone here to address that
application?
MR. FLEMING: Yes. Good morning.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Good morning.
MR. FLEMING: I am Jeff Fleming. I am
the director of the Southold Historical
Society. We are here today to propose adding
June 7, 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
a front porch to the existing building at
54127 Main Road. The front porch, which you
will see in the application, is a historical
photo from about 1900. It was replaced about
the time of the 1937 hurricane when it was
damaged and removed, based on the 1941
photograph, which shows the present entrance
staircase, and that is there today. The
building known as the Bett's Hotel, was built
in the 40's and by the Lester Family. It was
owned by a number of other families until
Sherman Bedwith (phonetic) acquired it in 1964
for his ship chandlery shop. It was later
occupied by Frank C. Wells and an insurance
agency, and about 20 years, Robert Galeski
purchased it, and had his North Fork Real
Estate office is there. The Society acquired
the building last summer, and begun work on
it. The porch was an integral part of the
front of the building when it was constructed.
You can see in the historic photo and the
present photos that you have, that the porch
roof remains intact; however, the four columns
and the actual structural base of the porch
are no longer there, and that is what we're
June 7, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 17
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
requesting permission to put back into place.
It would be restoring an original missing
aspect of the building, very similarly to what
the Society did about twenty years ago on the
Prince building, which is located opposite
Rothman's Department Store, which had also
lost its porch due to various storms in the
twentieth century. You know, one of the
things that we're very proud of with the
Society, we continue to restore and maintain
properties along Main Road, which in some
parts of the Village have seen better times.
One of
doing,
way that
a way to
are
that
with a solution that meets the Society's
needs, basically replaces what was there
the things that we're excited about
is bringing this building back to the
it was and adding it to Main Road as
revitalize some of the buildings that
not in such good shape anymore. I think
the architect and designer have come up
originally, and I think that it would be a
wonderful addition to the downtown. I would
be happy to answer questions about the
building.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I just want to
June 7, 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
enter into the record what the actual setbacks
are that exist. The front yard setback is at
3.75 feet. The code requires 15. The minimum
side yard setback is 2.2. The code requires
10 feet, minimum, and the total side yard
setbacks are 17.5 feet, where the code
requires 25 feet. You propose basically
maintaining those setbacks. The porch will be
essentially no further toward the sidewalk
then where the steps are at the moment?
MR. FLEMING: No. It's going to be
right down to the original roof.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay. For your
records, we have a letter from Suffolk County
indicating that this is a matter for local
determination, and I would be happy to give
you a copy,
MR.
significant, but you
want to ask what the
the building for?
MR. FLEMING:
going to be our new
if you would like?
FLEMING: That would be wonderful.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: It's not terribly
can have a copy. I did
Society intends to use
have
always been
The building is actually
exhibition gallery. We
short on exhibition space for
June 7, 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
years. Our original gallery is located at the
museum across from the firehouse, which we
only use seasonally during the summers. We
wanted to have a secondary gallery where we
could do shows in the Fall, Winter and the
Spring for local residents outside of the
normal summer season. This new building will
allow us to do that, and its close proximity
to the Prince building makes it really easy
for people stopping into the offices and
visiting downtown, to
shows there.
me open
now,
go right over and see
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Very good.
it up to the Board. George?
MEMBER HORNING: The roof that
you say is the original?
MR. FLEMING: It is the original
structure.
MEMBER HORNING:
my understanding, how a
Let
to
down
a porch but not take out the roof too?
MR. FLEMING: In '38, a lot of the Main
Street damage was caused by a lot of the huge
trees that came down, not necessarily across
the roads, sideways. So when it came down it
And then explain,
storm could knock
is there
June 7, 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
2O
21
22
23
24
25
could have damaged the porch. We're not
really sure. We know that by 1941, the
replacement had occurred. And that was -- we
actually had a photograph of a World War II
WAC, standing in front of the porch of that
year, showing just the little step porch that
had been put in to replace it. It's actually
amazing how things get damaged. I am
constantly surprised. In 1954, there was a
large hurricane that hit the Eastern end of
Long Island, even the Prince building. At the
top of the Prince building there is a little
half round window. Originally that was a
round window, because in '54 apparently a tree
was picked up and thrown on top of the
building and crushed the
actually had to rebuild
The owners did at the
that happened in the
knew it happened in '54,
it
time.
front. And we
to the roof line.
We always thought
colored photograph in a
showing it right after the storm
So we're constantly surprised at
get damaged.
MEMBER HORNING: So again, you believe
'38 hurricane, but who
when we found a
slide collection
had passed.
how things
June 7, 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
at least the roof is original, predating --
MR. FLEMING: It is. Actually is
structurally joined with the structure. It's
pinned through the front of the building,
which is
original
have
proposing
why it actually survived. Once the
porch columns were removed, it would
collapsed.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: And you're
to now rebuild what was an original
porch area in the existing area that --
MR. FLEMING: It's underneath the
original roof, right. The four columns and
the actual
would look
years
roof base with the steps
like it did, you know, a
question,
approval from
Commission?
MR.
and it's
so that it
hundred
Ken?
ago.
MEMBER HORNING: Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Actually another
does this particular project require
the Landmarks Preservation
FLEMING: No. We did speak to them
not a town landmark.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay. Thank you.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Yes. What is the
June 7, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 22
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
other building in the rear being used for?
MR. FLEMING: Currently it's a
nineteenth century barn. It's just there for
storage right now. We hope to consider a
reuse down the line, because it's a great
building, and we don't want to not use it for
something. We figure, we will get the front
first and then look at what the other options
are
to do with the barn.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
MEMBER GOEHRINGER:
Gerry?
I have no
questions. I applaud you for doing
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Jim?
no
it.
MEMBER DINIZIO: I have nothing.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay. Is there
anyone else in the audience that would like to
address this application?
(No Response.)
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay. Hearing
questions, I will make a motion to close
this
date.
hearing and reserve decision to a later
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Ail in favor?
MEMBER DINIZIO: Aye.
June 7, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 23
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye.
MEMBER HORNING: Aye.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Aye.
(See Minutes for Resolution.)
**********************************************
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Motion to recess?
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 brief recess was taken.)
**********************************************
HEARING #6568 - JUDITH GRECO
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: This is for
Judith Greco, #6568. Request for variance
from Article XXIII Code Section 280-124, based
on an application for Building Permit and the
Building Inspector's July 8, 2011, updated
March 7, 2012 Notice of Disapproval concerning
"as built" deck addition to existing single
family dwelling, at; 1) less than the code
June 7, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 24
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
required minimum front yard setback of 40
feet, 2) less than the code required rear
yard setback of 50 feet, located at: 2450
Laurel Way, Mattituck.
Is there someone here to address that
application?
MS. BISHOP: Good morning.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Good morning.
MS. BISHOP: This is Stacey Bishop from
East End Construction Services. We made the
application. I also work with North Fork Real
Estate. I also have the listing agent, Gail
Marner Smith from Prudential. We're here to
seek an "as-built" variance. In going through
the paperwork, it was discovered that the
existing deck did not have a Certificate of
Occupancy. We're trying to figure out when
the deck was built. The homeowner believes it
was at least twenty years ago. Her now
deceased husband was involved in the project,
and she is not quite clear as to what
transpired. I did find in some more paperwork
in the Town, in reference to a slider, in 1974
inspection on the property, but there was no
mention of a deck. So again, we're just
June 7, 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
2O
21
22
23
24
25
trying to clarify when it was
Presumably, it has been there
twenty years. The deck is in
have the plans from local P.E.
It's with the character of the
It's a private community with 14
I am not aware of any objections
built.
for at least
good shape. We
Joe Fischetti.
neighborhood.
residences.
to approving
this "as is" variance, and we're hoping that
it will go through to help facilitate the sale
of the property, which is now on the market.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay. You will
have to give us all extra credit for finding
the property.
MS. BISHOP: I know, right. How many
of us have lived here forever and didn't even
know it existed?
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Just for the
record, there is 142 feet of property on
Laurel Lake, and I don't know who owns it. If
you were to go straight in, okay, and it was a
very familiar swimming hole by all the young
people out here, at which time I was one of
those, and in graduating high school in 1966.
MS. BISHOP: Did you notice the deck?
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: And I have to tell
June 7, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 26
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
you, I think that deck was on that house, at
that time, because anybody that did not make
the swimming hole went pass your house and
realized that it was a dead end. So they
turned around and said that swimming hole has
got to be here somewhere. It's actually a
beach area. It's not a hole. And so that is
the story.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Well, the Board
has made site inspection just to let you know.
Let's see if there is any questions,
Jim?
MEMBER DINIZIO: No questions.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Gerry?
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No questions.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: George?
MEMBER HORNING: I don't have any.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Ken?
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Yes. I just had
one. You said you found some reference to a
slider?
MS. BISHOP: Yes.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: I assume that's a
sliding glass door?
MS. BISHOP: Yes. This is off the
June 7, 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
master.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Okay. Are
other sliding glass doors off this
residence?
MS. BISHOP: No.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER:
one.
there any
So this is the only
MS. BISHOP: The only one.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Most likely
in reference to a deck because of the
elevation?
MS. BISHOP: Yes.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER:
briefly the character of
MS. BISHOP: It's
It's mostly summer residents.
a slider
converted back in 1962. There were long-term
residents in this community. I spoke with the
residents that have been there for thirty,
forty years, and she herself, has had the
property for thirty, thirty-five years. And
she is just looking forward to selling it and
the next transition of her life. So it fits
actually a converted stable.
some hoop-la back in the day
Could you describe
this neighborhood?
a private community.
This house was
So it did make
when it was
June 7, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 28
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
within the character of the neighborhood. If
you saw the house, it's really kind of
charming and quaint. It has a finished loft
and everything. So it fits in.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Very good. Thank
you. I have no further questions.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Just for the
record, let's read over what the actual
requests are. The front yard setback that
exist is 16 feet. The code requires 40. And
the rear yard setback
requires 50; is that correct?
about
deck.
is 17, where the code
MS. BISHOP: That's
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
162 square feet?
MS. BISHOP: Correct.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
correct.
Okay.
And it's
It's a very small
the side yard.
Actually seems to be in
MS. BISHOP: Exactly.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
The yard is
actually oddly shaped.
MS. BISHOP: It's like a curve
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: It's
The house at the narrow end. Just
have an accurate reflection on the
street.
triangular.
so that we
public
June 7, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 29
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
record of these circumstances on the property.
Okay.
Anyone else in the audience or the
Board that wishes to make a comment or have
any questions?
(No Response.)
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Hearing none. I
will make a motion to close this hearing and
reserve decision to a later date.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Ail in favor?
MEMBER DINIZIO: Aye.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye.
MEMBER HORNING: Aye.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Aye.
(See Minutes for Resolution.)
HEARING ~6569 JAMES WILLSE
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Let's open the
hearing, James Willse, #6569. Request for
variance from Article III Code Section
280-15(B), based on an application for
Building Permit and the Building Inspector's
March 14, 2012 Notice of Disapproval
June 7, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 30
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
concerning addition to accessory garage at;
total square footage at more than the maximum
code allowable of 750 square feet, located
at: 1665 Mill Creek Drive, adjacent to
Arshamomaque Pond, Southold.
Good morning.
MS. SANTORA: Good morning. My name
is Eileen Santora, representing Shannon and
James Willse. We're asking for this variance.
They have owned the house since 1988 as a
summer house. Living in New Jersey. They're
moving here full-time. They're asking to
enlarge the small two-car garage, so that
they could have more storage and a workshop to
do wood working. The house is on the water.
The basement is very {In Audible). There is
not much storage in the house. So they would
like to use the garage for storage also.
Right now the car is outside the garage, not
inside. We're asking for 174 square feet over
the allowable 750 square feet. The roof line
will not go any higher. In fact, it is lower.
The addition is lower than the existing
garage. We're moving towards the street, not
near the water. It's going -- as you see on
June 7, 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 plans, it's keeping up with the same
design as before. And we would like to go
ahead with it, so they can become full-time
residents. They have been here since 1988.
They have owned the house. That's it.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Let's have Jim
have a shot at this. Jim, do you have any
questions?
MEMBER DINIZIO: Yes. Is any part of
this going to be heated?
MS. SANTORA: No.
MEMBER DINIZIO: Not at all?
MS. SANTORA: No.
MEMBER DINIZIO: So you don't mind if
we put a condition in there that it must
remain unheated?
MS. SANTORA: I don't think it would be
a problem.
MEMBER DINIZIO: Any bathrooms?
MS. SANTORA: No.
MEMBER DINIZIO: Water at all?
MS. SANTORA: No.
MEMBER DINIZIO: Outside faucet maybe?
MS. SANTORA: Well, right now, I think
is an outside hose spickett.
there
June 7, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 32
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MEMBER DINIZIO: Right.
And is
any reason why you have to build another?
you can't just attach it? The reason you
here is because you're enlarging --
MS. SANTORA: Right, enlarging.
MEMBER DINIZIO: You could build
another building on your piece of property in
the same front yard area, twice the size that
you're asking for. Is there any reason why?
MS. SANTORA: They wanted to maintain
the look of the house. The cottage is small.
there
Why
are
The house is small. They wanted to keep the
garage where it is, and not overbuild the lot.
They want to take down minimal trees on the
property. If you have been to the property
and seen the survey, they have a very big
front yard, and they like it that way.
MEMBER DINIZIO: Okay. So it's going
to be storage and cars?
MS. SANTORA: Storage and cars.
MEMBER DINIZIO: What about electric?
MS.
electric.
MEMBER
MS.
SANTORA: There is going to be
DINIZIO: Just a few outlets?
SANTORA: Right.
June 7, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 33
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
I8
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
have.
MEMBER DINIZIO: Okay. That's all I
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The existing
two-car garage is going to remain a
garage? The drawings are unclear.
as though you are going to
the existing garage as the
MS. SANTORA: Right.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
two-car garage?
MS. SANTORA: Exactly. We're adding
the garage towards the street for the car
area, and the area closer to the water, will
be the area where he pudders around. So he
the water while he is puddling.
WEISMAN: Okay. I am sure
hear that he is a
can
that he
pudder.
two-car
It looks
be using part of
woodworking shop?
And adding on a
look at
CHAIRPERSON
would like to
MS. SANTORA: They're
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
retiring here.
Understood.
square
work area
Is
feet
there any reason why you need 174
more than what the code allows?
MS. SANTORA: It's just to be able to
put storage and two cars, and have this little
to be able to have this workbench.
June 7, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 34
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: How big is the
work area?
MS. SANTORA: I would say about 13 to
about the length of the existing garage, which
is 26.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: 13X267
MS. SANTORA: Yes, because that's the
length of the garage. We did get in the new
addition because side yards have changed over
the years. We thought we would do all the
requirements by the side yard. You know,
bringing it in, and then it was over the
square footage.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay. I have no
further questions. Gerry?
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: In the past, we
have had significant discussions with
neighbor's regarding noise from saws and so on
and so forth. Ail of which, my neighbor's
have complained about of me at certain times.
Is there going to be any of that problem?
MS. SANTORA: I don't think so.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I am raising that
issue because it's an open space. A
completely open all the way around this, and
June 7, 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
noise can travel.
MS. SANTORA: The noise will be kept to
a minimum. He's not making (In Audible).
It's not even -- I don't think he's even going
to have a saw. It's just small hand tools, to
say the least. Not putting extra electric to
take a large saw.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Ail right. Thank
yOU .
MEMBER HORNING:
reasons why you needed
existing garage built,
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: George?
You mentioned the
to expand on the
rather than build a
second accessory building that would conform
to code, as not wanting to disturb the parcel
as much as possible?
MS. SANTORA: Right.
MEMBER HORNING: Including taking down
trees?
MS. SANTORA: Right.
MEMBER HORNING: In your photos
submitted, there is one tree in the way. Are
you going to take that tree down?
MS. SANTORA: That one tree down.
MEMBER HORNING: As opposed to making a
June 7, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 36
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
second building and taking
MS. SANTORA: Yes.
MEMBER HORNING: Okay.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: No
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
time is
leave
else in the audience.
questions or comments,
close this hearing --
MEMBER DINIZIO: Just
the record what time it is?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
11:10.
MEMBER DINIZIO: We
it open.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
and see if someone happens
MS. SANTORA: Okay.
down more trees?
Thank you.
Ken?
questions.
There is no one
So hearing no further
I will make a motion to
I'm sorry, Jim.
to make note for
Ail right. The
should probably
We will just wait
to come in.
the
the
date.
(Whereupon,
record.)
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
hearing and
a discussions were held off
Motion to close
reserve decision to a later
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Ail in favor?
June 7, 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
MEMBER DINIZIO: Aye.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye.
MEMBER HORNING: Aye.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye.
CHAIRPERSON
MEMBER SCHNEIDER:
MEMBER HORNING:
(See Minutes for
WEISMAN: Aye.
Note the time.
11:12.
Resolution.)
HEARING #6566 - EDWARD J. CONNOR
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The next
application before the Board is for
Edward J. Conner, #6566. Request for variance
from Article XXIII Section 280-124 and the
Building Inspector's March 20, 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; located at: 1200 Gillette
Drive, East Marion.
Can you go to the podium please, and
state your name for the record?
MR. PANETTIERI: My name is
Vincent J. Panettieri.
June 7, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 38
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
it,
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
please?
MR. PANETTIERI:
Could you spell
P-A-N-E-T-T- I-E-R- I.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Thank you, sir.
We have a proposed deck addition at 19.5 rear
yard setback, where the code requires 35 feet.
The Board has made site inspection. We're
aware of what it looks like. It appears
you're proposing to replace a patio, a brick
patio. The application says it's an old deck
in need of repair of the same size and
location. The photos and site inspection
show steps down onto an at-grade patio with
pavers, and what you're proposing, a near
range attached deck; is that correct?
MR. ?ANETTIERI: I am a friend of the
family. From what I understand, there was a
deck there. It deteriorated, and about
three years ago -- these people are in their
upper 80's. So the daughter put the
application in and got it all done. And from
what I gather, one is in a walker and one is
in a cane. So that is why they're proposing
to put the deck right out over it.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay. Gerry? It
June 7, 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
looks as though it's slightly
the patio is.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: We have had a
significant amount of applications in this
area because of the nature of the depth of
these properties on Gillette Drive. So we're
not without understanding. I am not without
bigger than what
we do ask the question all the time, if the
deck can be reduced a little bit based upon
the factors that
and I don't know
that information
we deal with in State Law,
-- you know, if you can
to the applicant or
applicants, or to the daughter. And I am not
referring to something that is a significant
reduction, but a moderate reduction.
MR. PANETTIERI: Which would be?
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: 14 feet.
MR. PANETTIERI: Make it a 14 foot?
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Yes. As opposed
feet.
MR. PANETTIERI: So
16
feet.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I think it all has
relay
to
you're talking to 2
understanding. I am not speaking for the
Board, in these rear yard variances; however,
June 7, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 40
1
2
3
4
5
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
to do with hardship on the applicant's part.
If they're in need of that, 16 feet, they
should clearly tell us why they're in need
of that 16 feet. As I said, I am not without
understanding. We have had significant
applications on the Gillette Drive area based
upon the dwellings that exist out there today.
MR. PANETTIERI: What is the next step
for them?
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Well, the next step
would be for you to inform us of that, and we
would close the hearing at the regularly
scheduled meeting that we deliberate on in
with a plan
two weeks. And just come up
showing the reduction.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Not to
you. Let me clarify something so you
understand a little more. If you propose a
deck that is 14 feet deep and 16 feet deep,
what that means is that your rear yard setback
will be increased 31.5 and the code
requires 35.
MR. PANETTIERI: Understand.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: And the reason
for suggesting that, is that the Board is
interrupt
June 7, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 41
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
obligated by law to grant the minimum variance
necessary based upon the presentation of the
applicant.
MR. PANETTIERI: I understand.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: If there is an
absolute reason why 16 feet is required rather
than desired, then you have to explain to us
why.
MR. PANETTIERI: Okay.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: If that is not
the case, and they just want it, then Member
Goehringer is simply referring to simply
increase the setback to make it a little more
conforming to code.
MR. PANETTIERI: Okay.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: If you think that
is going to be all right, we can simply
continue to take testimony and close the
hearing today and possibly deliberate within
two weeks. If you think that you need to
speak to them about it, we can hold this open?
MR. PANETTIERI: I would like to make a
judgement, if it's 14 feet, than why not.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay. George,
questions?
June 7, 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
MEMBER HORNING: Okay. Going into the
character of the neighborhood, this Gillette
Drive is a residential --
MR. PANETTIERI: One-family homes.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Right. Ail along
the road?
MR. PANETTIERI: Yes. Behind them is a
large pond. So it's all open space.
MEMBER HORNING: And I happen to notice
that it's in a Ag Zone in fact. Is it
agricultural zoned?
MR. PANETTIERI: I don't know, sir. I
would presume so.
MEMBER HORNING: Do you know anything
about the history of the house, the
applicant's house?
MR. PANETTIERI: In reference to what?
There is a CO on the home, I know.
MEMBER HORNING: The previous owners.
MR. PANETTIERI: The name Cherrico, I
think is the name. They were Polish. They
owned the home and all that land, and I
believe they built it. And then the Connor's
bought from them, the original owners.
MEMBER HORNING: That is what I am
June 7, 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
asking. So the original owners is the one
that had the working farm --
MR. PANETTIERI: Right.
MEMBER HORNING: In the back there.
According to the survey map that we're looking
at, he sold the development rights,
apparently, to the working farm; is that
correct? Leslie, do you think the development
rights were sold on the Ag parcel?
CHAIRPERSON
knowing that.
WEISMAN: I have no way of
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: It indicates Suffolk
County Development rights.
MEMBER HORNING: That is what I wanted
to know. So this backyard, there will not be
a street there?
MR. PANETTIERI: No.
MEMBER HORNING: There will not be any
houses?
MR. PANETTIERI: No. It will be
nothing. In fact, you just see all the
beautiful deer.
MEMBER HORNING: Ail right. Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Ken?
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: No questions.
June 7, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 44
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1t
12
13
14
~5
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Jim?
MEMBER DINIZIO: No, I don't have any
questions.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Is there anyone
else in the audience that would like to
address this application?
(No Response.)
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Let me just ask the
Board a question. This gentleman has been
very kind to us in his presentation. Does
anyone have an objection, and I very rarely do
this, to the 15X16 foot deck as applied?
MEMBER HORNING: I don't have any
objection.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: I don't have any
objection.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I don't have any,
given the minimal impact that it will have on
any surroundings.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: More so, that the
nearby property is a big Ag parcel -- would
have any development rights.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: That's what we're
saying.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: So I will withdraw
June 7, 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
my request to reduce it to the 14 feet, and I
thank you.
MR. PANETTIERI: Okay. What is the
next step, if any, for the Connor's?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The next step,
is --
MEMBER DINIZIO: Maybe I should say
something?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay.
MEMBER DINIZIO: I would just be
cautious of writing this decision in saying
that the deck existed in its location, because
it did not.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Right.
MEMBER DINIZIO: Just so you know, it
didn't exist in that location.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay. So noted.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: So what you're
saying is that the CO that was granted in 1987
for the deck --
MEMBER DINIZIO: It was for a deck that
was behind the garage.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I understand that,
but it had a similar setback.
MEMBER DINIZIO: It was probably more
June 7, 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
of a setback than this. If you look at the
property card you could see it. Then he
turned that into a garage at some point in
time.
MEMBER
importantly,
request of
rarely
aware
Board
polling
do.
CHAIRPERSON
of the law.
considers,
GOEHRINGER: Okay. More
that is a reason why I made this
the Board, which I very
unless there is
consider the personal
applicant,
When it's
and there
individuals.
certainly consider the
out, then down
convenient for
age. There is
relatively flat.
the Board is so inclined
comments, anything else?
(No Response.)
WEISMAN: Just so you're
The variances that the
we're not permitted to,
some rare exception, to
circumstances of the
because it runs with the land.
granted, they can sell the house
it is. So it's not personalized to
Though the Board does
fact coming straight
steps. It is certainly more
everybody, regardless of their
no drainage issues. It's
So what will happen now, if
-- if there is other
June 7, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 47
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
further comments, I am going
motion to close this hearing
decision to a later date.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER:
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
Gerry.
Hearing no
to make a
and reserve
Second.
Seconded by
Ail in favor?
MEMBER DINIZIO: Aye.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye.
MEMBER HORNING: Aye.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Aye.
(See Minutes for Resolution.)
HEARING #6565 - LISA AND
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
application before the Board
Anthony Sannino, %6565.
Special Exception under
ANTHONY SANNINO
The next
is for Lisa and
Applicant request a
Section 280-13B(14) .
The applicant is the
authorization to expand
Breakfast accessory and
owner requesting
an Accessory Bed and
incidental to the
residential occupancy in this single-family
dwelling with four (4) additional bedrooms for
June 7, 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
lodging and serving of
casual, transient roomers
(5) bedrooms. Location of
Alvahs Lane, Cutchogue.
Would you like to
breakfast to the B&B
for a total of five
the property: 749
address the
this? Please step forward to the podium,
state your name for the record.
MS. SANNINO: Anthony Sannino. I
just
you have
Board?
Board on
and
looking to expand our existing B&B.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay. And do
some additional materials for the
am
MR. SANNINO: Yes. Just some parking
to make it a little bit better, we have
enlarged our survey, which I can give you guys
copies of. I should have enough for everyone.
We got an aerial view also, and of the
driveway.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Ail right.
MR. SANNINO: We do have a Letter of
Recommendation from the President of our
NFBBA, if you guys want that?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay.
MEMBER HORNING: Sure.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Just so the
June 7, 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
record reflects,
North
Board secretary will make copies,
it's a letter of support.
MR. SANNINO: We did take
additional notes there regarding
entry and exit of the driveway.
notice that Alvahs Lane is actually
we received a letter from the
Fork Bed and Breakfast Association. The
basically
some
the actual
You will
the same
size as our driveway. So we can clearly get
two cars up and down it. And that is cleared
space -- the existing property line trees to
Vineyard Road, not property line. And I
believe we have between three and five feet
additional, if we were to hedge and enlarge
it, if we needed more entry space.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Jim, have you
seen these photos?
MEMBER DINIZIO: Yes, I just looked at
them.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Let's clarify
some things for the record. You currently
have a Special Exception permit from this
Board to operate a one bedroom?
MR. SANNINO: Correct.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: And in that
June 7, 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
decision, which was fairly recent, 2009, the
Board indicated in one of the conditions that
an annual harvesting of grapes was permitted.
Is that still taking place?
MR. SANNINO: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: And how often is
that taking place?
MR. SANNINO: Usually Columbus Day
weekend we schedule it, and it could be two
days depending on the property and the
and weather permitting.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: And how many
people participate in that harvesting?
MR. SANNINO: Anywhere between
season,
50 and
your garage was being used
that wine club membership,
situation now?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
you please explain, I believe
And who are these
Okay. And can
at one point
in relationship to
what is the
75 people per day.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
people?
MR. SANNINO: Members that join our
membership program to learn how to grow and
then produce wine with us.
June 7, 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
MR.
anything right
CHAIRPERSON
SANNINO: Not being used for
now related to that at all.
WEISMAN: Where does that
take place then?
MR. SANNINO:
CHAIRPERSON
membership?
MR. SANNINO:
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
Which portion?
WEISMAN: Your wine club
tasting room also?
MR. SANNINO:
Correct.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Is that the one
that's got your name on it, along --
MS. SANNINO: (In Audible).
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: And that's where
any kind of wine tasting or music --
MR. SANNINO: Ail of it.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: What I am trying
to do is let the record reflect exactly what
is going on, on your site. It's your
residence. You have harvesting one or two
days out of the year. And you have one room
for B&B?
MS. SANNINO: Right.
MR. SANNINO: Correct.
Peconic Lane in Peconic.
That's the
June 7, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 52
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Also noted in
this decision, is that there shall be no
retail or commercial uses on the property
related to the manufacturing of wine,
including but not limited to wine tasting,
educational programs, wine production or sales
without an application for approval by the
ZBA for an Area Variance for acreage related
to the proposed winery, which is a permitted
use but required a minimum of 10 acres.
MR. SANNINO: Right.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: So that's not
happening, has not happened since this
decision was rendered?
MR. SANNINO: No.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay. So how are
you using the garage now?
MS. SANNINO: Just storage, freezer and
bicycles. Well, you saw it, both of you.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: We need to state
it for the record. So you have to tell us.
That's all.
MS. SANNINO: Okay.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: It has to be in
the record. The house is "as built." It's a
June 7, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 53
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
little confusing -- Well, wait a minute.
house has six bedrooms; correct?
MS. SANNINO: Yes.
MR. SANNINO: Correct.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Five
now being occupied by your family,
being used as a B&B?
MS. SANNINO: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: You're asking for
approval of the maximum number of bedrooms.
The
of them are
and one is
win, win.
MR. SANNINO: It definitely is.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I just wanted to
clarify it. That it is already "as built." I
just wanted to see what kind of activities --
what other kinds of activities were going on
on the property.
And the rest,
Unless you're
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
presumably, are your children?
kicking them out early.
MR. SANNINO: We were thinking about
sending them to my cousins in Italy.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: That could be
So one would always be your principle bedroom?
MS. SANNINO: Right.
June 7, 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
Jim, any questions?
MEMBER DINIZIO: Well, I looked at your
plans here, and I did just see that you had
one bedroom as personal use. I was just
wondering how you and the kids --
MR. SANNINO: If you look at -- their
bedrooms are quite large. They're like 15X15.
So we're just going to bunk up two kids and we
will take one bedroom.
MS. SANNINO: No, he is saying if we
use all of it. The children are still living
with us, if you mean?
MEMBER DINIZIO: Yes. It's supposed to
be unoccupied. I don't know how you are going
to live in the house, if you got five bedrooms
designated for Bed & Breakfast.
MR. SANNINO: The intent really now is
to operate with one additional room, not all
five. We don't want to go through the process
again in four or five years when they start
going off to college. It's costly, procedure
and time consuming. So we figured -- and it
was recommended to us for the first time.
Just get them all done at once. So we figured
we would go for all five, but the intent
June 7, 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
really is to add one room currently, and all
joking aside, if we did decide to send our
kids to Italy next year, it would be okay for
us to rent. We would be home, and have the
additional rooms.
MEMBER DINIZIO: I don't know how
practical this is, quite honestly. You have
children. I understand that you can bunk them
up, but you only have one bedroom for
yourself. That's it. I don't see any
"Children's Bedroom's." I see "Guest Rooms,"
is that correct? I mean, you have six
bedrooms in the house.
MR. SANNINO: Right.
MEMBER DINIZIO: Five are guest
MS. SANNINO: Okay.
rooms.
MS. SANNINO: No. This is for the
future. Right now, we're just converting the
Master Suite, which is on the plans, the first
floor. And that would be for guests, and the
rest of the main house, that would be for
family. But looking for the future, that we
would have the option to do that. When our
MEMBER DINIZIO: Are you going to live
practically in one Master Bedroom, all of you?
June 7, 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
children are grown, out of the house, or
whatever. We could do that.
MEMBER DINIZIO: I guess what I am
trying to get at, we can give you permission
today, and you can have a Bed & Breakfast
there tomorrow, and how do we know you're not
living in the house? How do we know? You
have to be practical. You have to think that
I can't think that you have these children and
that they're going to live with you in the
Master
Bedroom, while you have five people.
MR. SANNINO: Our guests are looking
for a private stay.
MEMBER DINIZIO: Correct,
with you. We're supposed to make
and I agree
sure that
You're the owner, and
Four.
DINIZIO: And you're trying
it's owner/occupied.
how many children?
MS. SANNINO:
MEMBER
make me believe that you are going to have
guests in there, and you can have them in
there two weeks from now, after we give you
approval.
to
MS. SANNINO: No, that's not the plan.
MEMBER DINIZIO: You can have your
June 7, 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
times on Peconic, and have
can have ten guests.
MS. SANNINO:
MEMBER
trying to figure
that I would not
practical.
MR. SANNINO:
live in the community.
their wine. You
No. No.
DINIZIO: You know, I am just
out how practically you think
think that is probably not
Jim, just to clarify. We
Our children go to
school here.
Most of them began school here
a
MS. SANNINO: Right.
MEMBER DINIZIO: While you're operating
five bedroom Bed & Breakfast. How do I --
in the community.
MS. SANNINO: I volunteer in the
community. Girl Scout's, Boy Scout's, PTA,
you name it. So there is no intention of
having us and our children cram into one room
and have parties at our house. That is not
our intention.
MEMBER DINIZIO: I just don't
understand how you can meet that criteria,
which is to be owner/occupied, which means
that you and your family are going to live
there.
June 7, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 58
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
MS.
They have five
MEMBER
retired.
SANNINO: How do other B&B's do it?
rooms and are owner/occupied?
DINIZIO: Usually they're
MS. SANNINO: Right, and that is what
we're hoping for the future, that that is
going to happen, but to do the
application --
MEMBER DINIZIO: It would be practical
for you to apply for that then?
MS. SANNINO: But it's also a $1,000.00
between the $750.00 fee, the photocopies, the
certified mail, the time. We're
self-employed. We're taking the days off of
work,
the
not
and for all of that, it's costly.
MEMBER DINIZlO: But you can do that
from now. You don't have to do
five years
that now.
MS. SANNINO:
do that again.
MR. SANNINO:
first time around,
to take advantage
the paperwork, that's
happy then, but we're
Right. We would have to
It was recommended to us
and we would be foolish
If it stood in
Then we would be
going through it
of it.
fine.
just
June 7, 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
2O
21
22
23
24
25
again.
MEMBER DINIZIO: I am only one member
of the Board. I am just trying to tactfully
think that in my head, how I can justify that,
as a family of six, that it's designated
owner/occupied, that they would be in one
room.
trying
you of
MR. SANNINO: We're not summerer's
to rent our house --
MEMBER DINIZIO: Sir, I am not accusing
anything.
MR. SANNINO: I know. I am just trying
clear.
you are
to clarify that. Our business motto would
never exist. We could not do that anyway.
Not having kids in that type of community and
this set-up.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Let me ask a
question, because it was confusing when I went
to your house. You submitted your original
plan. You built your house this way. I guess
to have a long term --
MS. SANNINO: Right.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: That's pretty
At this point, it appears that what
proposing is to use the four bedrooms
June 7, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 60
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
and two
you
have
bathrooms upstairs --
MR. SANNINO: For the family.
WEISMAN: With a central
CHAIRPERSON
family room?
MS. SANNINO: Right.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
and your kids?
MS. SANNINO: Right.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
the one B&B?
MS. SANNINO: Right.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
For the two of
Now, you already
And
Bedroom suite that you currently
first floor, you're proposing to
MS. SANTORA: Right.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
the Master
occupy on the
rent out?
operating two rooms?
MS. SANTORA:
CHAIRPERSON
kids, all upstairs?
MS. SANTORA:
CHAIRPERSON
Yes .
WEISMAN: And you and the
make that clear. Now, the other concern that
certainly this Board is going to have to look
at is the B&B part.
I just wanted to
So you would be
Right.
WEISMAN:
June 7, 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. SANNINO: Right.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Let's look at the
maximum build out. Let's say that it is a
five B&B, you would need two for the principle
dwelling and you would need one for each room.
So that's going to be seven spaces. Now, you
just submitted something here for us to help
us understand how you are going to get to
seven spaces. I see, five, six. Where is the
MS. SANNINO: On the other side of the
electrical box.
MR. SANNINO: By the electrical box,
there is extra use there and that is actually
going to be No. 7.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay. So six is
what? There is the electrical box, I gotcha.
MR. SANNINO: That is also not
considering the north side of their driveway
that we had discussed. It's actually 45 feet
and you can actually make a turn around there,
without making a three-point turn. So if we
need additional parking along the north side,
it's 35 feet wide. You know, we could clearly
make a full turn around without the
June 7, 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
three-point turn.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Are you proposing
to remove the dumpster?
MR. SANNINO: The existing dumpster is
right outside that space. So I didn't even
remove it out of that drawing because it
really doesn't effect anything. I mean,
a possibility, if needed.
clear,
it's
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Let's just be
you're suggesting that even though you
are not going to be operating five bedrooms
now, you did it now because it was cost
effective to do that?
MS. SANNINO: Right.
MR. SANNINO: Right.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Or into harm's
way regarding fire safety code and so on.
Having said that, should the Board say fine
with five bedrooms, leaving one for the two of
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Member Dinizio's
point is well taken though. There are a lot
of safety issues for the number of occupants
per square foot. And you and your family, I
am sure you don't want to put yourselves into
hardship?
June 7, 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
you, you still would have the issue of
potentially, not suggesting that you would,
that you could potentially have a lot of
people there. If you and all
crammed in and rented it out,
that? I doubt it. But, it is
your kids
would you do
important to
because there
the record
have this noted for the record,
are implications. So we just want
to look at both points of view.
MR. SANNINO: Sure.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
questions, comments?
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: It's very hard to
visualize this home without actually being
there. For the point of anyone who has not
been in it, and this is not a sarcastic
statement in any way, we did not see the
existing bedroom that we granted because it
was occupied at the time, and of course, it is
an extremely beautiful and large bedroom, from
what I recollect. However, we were shown
the Master Bedroom and it is of equal size
and also pretty magnificent, I have to tell
you. For anyone walking up the stairs, at the
top of the stairs, from what I would refer to
Gerry, any
June 7, 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
as a "meeting area" or "an open guest area,"
of which the children utilize and then
standing at that point, to the left are these
two bedrooms, and to the right are two more
bedrooms. So you have this upper plateau
area, which basically overlooks the front
foyer, and it's very, very nicely done. And I
just wanted to point that out so everyone knew
the situation and that was my recollection of
it.
MS. SANNINO: Thank you.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: So that's that. I
think the total issue of the five is going to
go down to a deliberation and we will see what
that ends up to be at the meeting. So that's
the way I see it at this particular point.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Just for the
record, how old are your kids?
MR. SANNINO: 15, 14, 11 and 8.
MS. SANNINO: So yeah, we're looking
years from now. Not right now.
MEMBER HORNING: You mentioned earlier
today that you're planning for the future and
that the reasons that you are requesting a
five bedroom B&B capacity, not for the present
June 7, 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
but for some undetermined time in the future,
and I think that's difficult for us to
persuade us when that would be. And one of
the reasons that you mentioned is because of
the cost of the application. What was your
cost to file the application?
MS. SANNINO: $750.00 and then
photocopies, eight photocopies of everything.
There was numerous pages. So that was another
$100.00 worth of making photocopies. And then
maybe about $50.00, certified mail, the green
cards that go out to all the surrounding
properties.
MEMBER HORNING: So we're up to about
$800.00?
MS. SANNINO: No, probably about
$900.00-$950.00, because it was $750.00 for
the application.
MR. SANNINO: This is our second visit
here and it would require us a third visit a
few years down the line. In actuality, if it
was a five bedroom room, and we really did
send our kids to Italy, which is really a
thought, we are owner/occupied, and if there
was no one in the house but us, we would have
June 7, 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
the liberty of doing that. If we had a year
like last year where we lost 80-90 percent of
our crop due to the vineyard, we can offset
that with two months of B&B use, if the kids
were in Italy. So there is that potential
that we could do that. But to operate with
everyone in the house, that's not our business
motto.
MS. SANNINO: No, and it's our quality
of life too.
MR. SANNINO: If you guys were to look
at our trip advisor reviews, they're all
quality people. There is a couple of dozen
reviews.
MS. SANNINO: There is some video's of
the suite.
MR. SANNINO: Our guests are completely
from our children. They don't
the playing or the noise. That's
The bedrooms are set up that way.
SANNINO: Yeah, that is not what
separate
experience
separate.
MS.
we're doing.
MEMBER HORNING: You would use your
kids bedrooms then for the B&B?
MS. SANNINO: Well, if the children
June 7, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 67
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
were not there.
MEMBER HORNING: What about their
possessions?
MS. SANNINO: The furnishings are
there.
MR. SANNINO: It would be a designated
time in the summer. That's it. It's a
seasonal thing.
MEMBER HORNING: Like for two or three
months, you mean?
MR. SANNINO: Or a month even.
MEMBER HORNING: A month. Curious, was
the weather responsible for your crops?
MR. SANNINO: Yes. We had a lot of
rain. It was an incredible crop. The year
prior to that, we had so much energy in the
plant, and then we got to harvest time and
things started going a part.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: One of the pitfalls
of being a farmer?
MR. SANNINO: Right.
MS. SANNINO: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Ken?
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: I don't have any
questions.
June 7, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 68
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Jim, again?
MEMBER DINIZIO: Nope.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I would like to
ask if there is anyone in the audience, please
step over to the mic.
State your name for the record, sir?
MR. SOMMERSTAD: My name is Alf
Sommerstad. I live at 7405 --
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Would you please
spell your last name, sir?
MR. SOMMERSTAD: S-O-M-M-E-R-S-T-A-D.
What
would
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Thank you.
you like to tell us, sir?
MR. SOMMERSTAD: Well, my western
and
northern boundary abound his property.
Specially, his access road -- the first thing
that I want to ask you, have you people been
to this property and seen --
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Yes.
MR. SOMMERSTAD: Okay. So you know
it's a flag lot?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Yes.
MR. SOMMERSTAD: And this access road
parallel to my boundary 50 feet from my back
door and my deck. So if I am sitting out
June 7, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 69
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
there trying to get a good day, there is
vehicle traffic. He has a lot of family,
workers, delivery trucks, sanitation trucks,
and now he wants to add to this traffic. I
think it's just a little too much. I think
you should come to this, the end of the
summer, when the weather is very hot and dry,
and every vehicle that goes down that road,
creates a lot of dust cloud, that goes right
over the whole property. Effecting my trees,
my fruit trees. I can't even hang laundry on
the line or sit out and enjoy my property,
because I get dusted over. It's a classic
overuse of a property. This property consist
of a house, a vineyard. He's got his Lion's
Club. He's got a
He has a one bedroom B&B and
add to that B&B? Too much.
construction business there.
now he's going to
Also, according
to the original deed when Mr. Watt's owned the
vineyard and planted the grape, there is a
covenant in there, that says this property is
supposed to be for agricultural use only. And
I don't see conducting an Inn or a B&B as
agricultural business. Mr. Sannino before he
engaged in all these properties, he should
June 7, 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
have built a house on the road that has a
direct access. Not on a flag lot, which
adversely effects my privacy and my ongoing
life. Also, according to the original
agreement, two years ago, he was allowed to
have one event per year, and I don't think
that is the case, because every weekend he
has all kinds of cars showing up there. Back
and forth, late in the day. I don't know
what's going on. The other day I was sitting
around and I must have counted a dozen cars
going back and forth within an hour. Just a
couple of stretch limos and even a mini bus.
They can't turn around back there. There is
not enough room. So all you hear is beep,
beep, beep, beep, beep, all around the place.
So I don't think he has lived up to his
agreement to have his original one bedroom
B&B. In fact, you should take it away from
him. Okay. So he's going to have more people
back there and it's going to add to the
traffic. So more septic. More groundwater.
Does he have to increase his septic or is he
using his existing septic? And then on top of
that, the greenhouse has changed hands and
June 7, 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
expanded and that adds to the chaos back
there. And what about the emergency vehicles?
It's a very narrow road. God forbid you had a
fire back there or even an ambulance try and
fit through.
MEMBER HORNING: Sir, while you are
submitting testimony, can I ask you to come
up here and please locate your property on
here. Right on the corner, okay.
MR. SOMMERSTAD: It's approximately 400
foot right-of-way.
MEMBER GOEBRINGER: Can I ask a
question, Mr. Sommerstad?
MR. SOMMERSTAD: Sure.
MEMBER GOEBRINGER: You testified when
the original hearing occurred and you were
referring to the dust and so forth and so on.
Since,
I have noticed that
down on the driveway. Has
MR. SOMMERSTAD:
bad, but still in August
really dried out bad, you
The gravel has helped it,
alleviated the problem.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER:
they put gravel
that assisted --
I admit it's not as
when things are
still get a dust.
but it hasn't
Thank you.
June 7, 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
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I am going to ask
the Sannino's -- not to cut you off, but I
want them to make any comments in reference to
anything that you had to say.
MR. SOMMERSTAD: Sure. Ask away.
MR. SANNINO: I have them in order
here. Just recently, our 8-year-old had her
communion on a weekend. Just after that, my
14-year-old had her confirmation. It could
have been a weekend --
MS. SANNINO: It definitely was a
weekend, and family parties.
MR. SANNINO: Yes, just to be certain.
As far as limos coming down the driveway, it's
very common. Our guests, in fact today were
picked up by a private car, and taken out for
tours. We use Vintage Tours frequently. So
greenhouses
you know, giving local business to locals. We
have Mr. Keil here. If we have an issue with
emergency vehicles, Mr. Keil has offered to
allow an opening in our pass-through where our
property is. If vehicles ever had to get
through for an emergency.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Mr. Keil owns the
to your right?
June 7, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 73
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. SANNINO:
MEMBER GOEHRINGER:
That's correct.
Anthony,
can I ask
you a question?
MR. SANNINO: Sure.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I have been a
member of the fire department of the hat that
I am wearing for over 44 years. We have had
several functions, off-site over the past
couple of years, including functions that the
Cutchogue Fire Department in concert with
Sacred Hearty Church. We have spent a lot of
time, and as in the case with the Strawberry
Festival of wettening of gravel driveways. As
we wet down the Strawberry Festival
property -- Is there a way that you can
possibly do that in the summer?
MR. SANNINO: We can do that, sure. We
do have irrigation real close to their
property that we use for the vineyards. We
can put an irrigation down iow and we can just
spray the driveway.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That would
certainly help the situation.
MR. SOMMERSTAD: It would last about
ten minutes in the heat. What they need to do
June 7, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 74
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
is oil the road, like they do upstate.
another story and another mess.
That's
MR. SANNINO: The least expensive way
would be to do water. I did consider oil, but
I opted for the easier version and put down
the stone, but the oil portion of it bumps up
the price pretty significantly.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: You have a drainage
issue
then.
MR. SANNINO:
Right.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I have to tell you
that when we do it at the Strawberry Festival,
it lasts for the entire day. So it may help.
It's only a suggestion.
MR. SOMMERSTAD: It doesn't help
traffic going up and down everyday. It
doesn't help the noise.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I am just
addressing the dust issue.
the
MR. SOMMERSTAD: Well, hey, this should
be for only Ag, and it's not a wholly Ag
issue. You know, it's a shame that these
vineyards can't stand on the wine and grapes
like they do in other countries. Around here,
they have to resort to all sorts of gimmickry,
June 7, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 75
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
and I think they have worn our their welcome
in Southold. You know, the local people, they
get tired of all the big buildings. It's time
to put the hammer down on these people.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: You wanted to
make a comment?
MS. SANNINO: Yes, about the driving up
and down. Between the four kids and all the
volunteering that I do, I am up and down my
driveway, not joking, about 15 times a day,
easy. Driving to school, back and forth to
activities. You can ask any family with four
children how many times they drive in and out
of their driveway. I didn't know there was a
limit to that.
MR. SOMMERSTAD: Not just once. There
are cars that go in and out, in and out.
You're talking about four or five passives per
vehicle and you're talking times four. That
runs into like 24 more passives. I guess I am
supposed to sit in my house all day. I guess,
I can't sit in my backyard and enjoy it.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Can you visually
see the Sannino property from your backyard?
MR. SOMMERSTAD: When the leaves are
June 7, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 76
1
2
3
4
5
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
down, yeah.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay. When
there, I observed an incredible amount of
dense foliage --
MR. SOMMERSTAD: Yeah, and that's
another issue.
too. He's not
my trees. He over sprays
I have had the DEC over there a
times. Now he is talking about
more of my trees. Why
your grapes and make the road wider?
MR. SANNINO: Just to clarify, the
trees that he is talking about, were planted
I was
He's been cutting my foliage
a good neighbor to me. He cuts
me with pesticides.
couple of
cutting some
don't you take away all
on the property line. So 50% of them --
MS. SANNINO: Run onto our property.
MR. SANNINO: So we're nice enough to
leave some of the foliage there. So if we
needed more space, we can easily hedge them.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay.
MR. SOMMERSTAD: Those trees
there for forty years.
CHAIRPERSON
suggested that you
construction company
have been
WEISMAN: Your neighbor
are operating a
from your home; is that
June 7, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 77
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
something
on?
MR.
truck.
we're
that you would like to comment
there.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: There was
reference made to the use of the property,
covenants and restrictions. You have not sold
the development rights, have you?
when he read it
Audible) around
envelope, which
original subdivision,
to the west. Further
property. That is
MR. SANNINO: No. The property was
purchased -- I believe the property was
previously subdivided with a building
envelope, and the covenants were maybe changed
envelope (In
to be a building
it. It's 130X130 building
we -- was approved on the
but we moved it further
away from the neighbor's
where we constructed the
SANNINO: I do have a pick-up
That's pretty much it.
MR. SOMMERSTAD: You have a big box
truck back there, full of tools.
MR. SANNINO: Right, and the box truck
is getting licensed with farm plates because
going to use it for the farm.
MR. SOMMERSTAD: Too much going on
June 7, 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
2O
21
22
23
24
25
house, the maximum distance away from Alvahs
Lane or the neighbor's.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay. So you
maintain that fundamentally the traffic that
is going in and out of there -- how many farm
workers do you have?
MR. SANNINO: One.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: So you have one
helping you?
MR. SANNINO: Yes. He
everyday, maybe three or four days
is not there
a week.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay. Thank
MR. SANNINO: The farm worker is
actually one of my construction workers.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
questions?
MEMBER GOEHRINGER:
to be aware that this will
to deliberations.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
Any other
I just wanted him
probably go down
obviously consider everyone's
statements carefully.
MEMBER DINIZIO: There
that I am not clear on. You
Audible) on your driveway?
yOU .
Yes, well we will
comments and
is something
said you laid (In
June 7, 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
20
21
22
23
24
25
original
about?
were
MS. SANNINO: Gravel.
MEMBER DINIZIO: When did you do that?
MR. SANNINO: A year ago.
MEMBER DINIZIO: Did that follow the
application or how did that come
made to keep
approval --
MEMBER DINIZIO: But did the Town
contact you and ask you?
MR. SANNINO: No, there was no
requirement. We did that on our own.
MEMBER DINIZIO: It wasn't that you
required?
MS.
MR. SANNINO: No, there was a request
the dust down. After we got
pocket.
SANNINO: No. We did it on our own
MEMBER DINIZIO: You're talking about
it being 35 feet wide, but it's really not 35
feet wide, all the way down?
MR. SANNINO: From our property line to
the grape vine is 35 feet. You will see on
the survey --
MEMBER DINIZIO: No, but I am talking
about from Alvahs Lane to your property,
June 7, 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
that's not 35 feet?
MR. SANNINO: From Alvahs Lane, the
first entrance, the flagpole or the flag lot,
from the trees, not from the property line
now, from the hedge trees to the vineyard is
22 feet, which is the width of Alvahs Lane.
So two cars can clearly go down.
MEMBER DINIZIO: I just recall you
saying that you can use that for overflow
parking or --
MR. SANNINO: What I am saying is, the
other portion that is 35 feet wide, if we
were to park cars along the property line
between the greenhouse company and us, there
is plenty of room there. That would be the
north side of the property. So aside from
what we are showing you of paved ground, we
have another 180 feet that is 35 feet wide.
MEMBER DINIZIO: And what would you
need that for?
MS. SANNINO: Making the parking more
turn
adequate.
MR. SANNINO: Making the parking more
adequately for our guests. To show enough
around space. If they turned on that
June 7, 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
north side, they can just make a full u-turn
and turn right out.
MEMBER DINIZIO: And you mentioned
something about your neighbor's --
MS. SANNINO: For emergency vehicles,
they can turn right out. It would be an open
spot from our driveway into the greenhouse
driveway.
MEMBER DINIZIO: I went down the
driveway a couple of weeks ago and turned
around. That seems adequate for emergency
vehicles to get in, as long as you are not
using like a parking along the side. I
understand you got to trim those trees once in
a while, because it's pretty large and that
could be a problem. I just think that relying
on your neighbor for fire department access is
not something that the Town No. 1, would
accept. Each lot has to stand on its own.
You have the 35 foot right-of-way, you have
to maintain it for people to get in and out of
there.
MR. SANNINO: Our first house was on
our flagpole.
MEMBER DINIZIO: Do you own any other
June 7, 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
houses in Southold Town?
MS. SANNINO: No, his --
MR. SANNINO:
MS. SANNINO: His mom is in Cutchogue.
MEMBER DINIZIO: You own a house in
Cutchogue?
MS. SANNINO: Eventually. No, no. His
mom owns it.
MEMBER DINIZIO: I just wanted to know.
Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Is there anyone
else in the audience that would like to
address this application?
Could you please spell and state your
name for the record?
MS. SLEZAK: My name is Frances Slezak,
S-L-E-Z-A-K, and I live at 7405 Alvahs Lane
with Mr. Sommerstad. You know, it's very hard
to sit here and listen to some of the things.
I have prepared an outline that I would like
to speak and discuss, but I am very
emotionally upset and hurt already. Just to
let you know. I would like to give you this,
and speak about. You know, there are ways
that you can really introduce yourself to your
June 7, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 83
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
I picked up a
neighbor and care about the environment
take your time to think about nature,
preserving the land, and all I keep on
hearing is that this is going to cost
much money to reapply. Life happens.
happen. People get sick. You have
for your parents. You can't always
what is going to happen. So when I
now, I just know I don't know what really
will happen. In thinking about coming today,
pamphlet and read about what a
and
too
Things
to care
anticipate
hear that
Bed & Breakfast is, and it says, "for loading
and serving breakfast." Says that "the
providing of such renting of such rooms to
such purposes clearly incidental and
subordinate to principal use of the dwelling."
Well, the application that was put in for this
dwelling was for a resident. What happened,
they quickly turned it into a winery. They
were making wine in their garage. Then they
opened a B&B. Let me tell you, cars were
coming all the time. Ail the time. I don't
think that they care. They didn't care what
the Town needs were. There are setbacks.
There are guidelines. Suffolk County was
June 7, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 84
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
concerned about their property. It was
supposed to be preserved. Now the wildlife
has changed. I used to have all birds in the
trees. They are not there anymore, because
his access road is the spraying road. So
when those cars go back and forth, those cars
-- Ms. Sannino says she goes here and there.
Multiply that and double that. He says there
is one worker. Well, there is more than one
worker. I have seen them. I know them. I
know who they are. They cut the lawn on the
other side of the property. I just really
don't know where to begin, but I will begin.
First of all, it's a flag lot. It's very
concentrated. Their house is directly behind
my house. Their property may stretch in the
direction, but their property -- their parking
is all behind my house. So we get the
concentrated traffic on the north side of 468
feet, minus the 35 feet. And the entire
background is also an entire spraying ground.
So we not only get traffic. We get spray,
which damages and threatens my trees. They
have been cited by the DEC on two occasions,
above and beyond warnings. One time, I mean
June 7, 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
it's just -- just very hard to live near
neighbor's who don't seem to show concern.
It's over developed. It's excessive. It's a
residence. It's a vineyard, and they have --
they don't only have members come. They have
members that are invited to bring other
guests, and their children. They have
amplified music with live entertainment music
there. Not by the parking lot. Behind my
house. In the front -- in the area between my
property and their property. Very
concentrated. People, cars, parking. Their
business is too close to my residence with
ongoing problems. We enjoy our property and
like to be outside. We enjoy our property in
the winter time. We cross country ski on our
own property. I don't believe what they're
doing is not in the character of Southold
Town. We are looking to preserve open space.
They are looking to put more cars there.
What's next to the cars? The greenhouse. The
greenhouse is right on their property line.
What is this? Is this Wal-Mart parking lot?
They have a responsibility to not abuse other
peoples rights. Let it be known that Southold
June 7, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 86
1
2
4
5
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Town's denied the previous owners of this
property, Mr. Watts (In Audible) to establish
a winery on this site. This flag lot is
not suitable for bringing tourists on this
site. These people are respectable and
wonderful people that come?
rude to me. They will
doing over there?"
side.
Leave me
They have been
say, "Hey, what are you
When they are walking up
and down the I don't want to be talked
to like that. alone. This flag lot
has a 50 foot parcel of land sharing an access
road, which was discussed and aligning grapes.
This abuts my entire northern boundary. I
mention that the
pesticide spraying road.
nice. He came over --
several
people to
have them
there
don't
times and they
come right out.
come when they
same access road is a
One DEC man was so
I called the DEC
don't always have the
It's very hard to
are there. You know,
is nothing that they can do if they
post a 24-hour pesticide sign or
something. Those folks aren't going to do it,
and any folks going up and down that road, pay
-- there is something going there within 24
hours. The man came from Middle Island. He
June 7, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 87
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
was spraying at four o'clock in the afternoon.
I called, and they said, I can't get there in
enough time. There is nothing that I can do
about it. I said, "please come. Just talk to
him. I would appreciate that because I can't
always get through on the phone." The marine
guy who is out on the water, he can't always
get there. He came to my house at 6:10. And
what would you know, Mr. Sannino came back and
did that spray twice and he was caught right
in the action. The police -- the guy was
sitting right there watching him, and he tried
to talk his way out of it. This is what has
been happening. We cannot sit outside and
enjoy our property and our privacy in our own
backyard. We tend to ourselves. We take out
our garbage. We don't have workers. We do
it. Our activities are interrupted by workers
that are 15 feet from our boundary, spraying
pesticide solution, which endangers our trees
and our health. We believe that the business
activities lessen the wildlife that we used to
have. The Bed & Breakfast brings multiple
noisy and disturbing cars, which we have
already discussed. Any one car, just one car
June 7, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 88
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
directly effects what's going on. When you
see the dust cloud following the car, it just
goes. It's a windy location there. What's
nice, is that in the summer there is always a
little breeze. The thing is, we get the
dust. We get the pesticides. It's not good
for our health. The stress is not good.
There is already necessary travel for the
truck
can't go
the way,
mean
family going to and from work. Of course,
that's expected. Shopping, vineyard workers,
but guess what? The Mattituck sanitation
comes at 6:30 in the morning and it
head on. It drives backwards. Ail
468 feet.
MEMBER HORNING: When you say that, do
it's going, beep, beep, beep?
MS. SLEZAK: Right, beep, beep, beep,
and it interrupts my sleep. Trucks have
parked on Alvahs Lane. Mr. Sannino would get
in his car and drive down Alvahs Lane, go to
the truck, put the stuff on his truck and go
back to his house. Why? Maybe because trucks
can't turn around. Cars can't turn around.
Why?
the
Extra bedrooms bring extra services to
public. As of now, they even have
June 7, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 89
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
available a masseuse. On the last page, I
took it out of the Wine Press. They offer
bicycles, Honeymoon Suite, weddings. What's
going to happen? There is going to be
weddings there now? Are we going to find
groups of people? Are they going to have
little themes? Before they were allowed to be
a B&B, they had three buses from Adelphi come.
I don't know what kind
offering, but they were
house and my backyard.
of program they were
sitting between their
Three buses of Adelphi
people. This is the kind of activities.
Private parties. They also have
accommodations for 16-year-olds. What does
that mean? Are they going to maybe have
volleyball tournaments? What are they going
to do with them? You know, they have a
business mind. They're very into the money.
A couple of times, it's going to cost this
much. It's going to cost that much. Well,
that's what businesses are. What are they
concerned about? They are not concerned about
protecting the environment. The Town of
Southold is to preserve the land. What kind
of natural resources are going to be developed
June 7, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 90
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
here. You know the road -- what's the word?
They had to reground the road and bring in
heavy machinery and put dirt down. I don't
mean gravel. I mean, dirt. The road got
holey and pitted. Do you know what happens
when it snows? A couple of years ago when the
snow was this high. They couldn't get
through. Of course it's understandable, they
had to get heavy machinery. Do you know how
long that took? Ail day. Maybe all day it
took to move the snow. Where does the snow
go? It's piled up into access roads. The
drainage would go onto our property. As there
seemed to be an increase in number of cars
coming and going to Sannino's Vineyard. I
noticed some dates that seem to be most
indicative of activities with cars, stretch
limos and mini buses. A limo parking in front
of my house for hours. Waiting to pick-up
those brought
to hear the stretch
with a beeping loud
to the vineyard. It's annoying
limo driving backwards
noise. I have noted the
following dates. Now, January 1, 2012. Now
they mentioned communions. I don't think
that's January 1st.
June 7, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 91
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
wanted
from
there.
MS. SANNINO: It's New Year's.
to put that out there.
MS. SLEZAK: The day after New
2:00 to 5:00?
MR. SANNINO: My whole family was
I just
Year's
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: You have to wait.
Everyone will have a chance to be heard.
MS. SLEZAK: Sunday, January 29th --
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Both of you have
aware that when you give testimony,
to address the Board, and not each
SLEZAK: Okay. Sunday,
There was ten plus cars from
Saturday, February 4th, there
to be
you have
other.
MS.
January 29th.
1:30 to 3:30.
was approximately 15 cars. Started early in
the day and went to after dark. Sunday,
March 18, 2012, I don't know what was going
on, but they were there all day. Back and
forth. Back and forth. Sunday, April 8th,
back and forth. Back and forth,
all day.
Saturday, May 12th.
were parked in front
for two hours.
That's when the
of my property.
Excuse me, 12:00
limos
Ail
to 4:00.
day
June 7, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 92
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Friday, May 18th. That was a Friday morning.
I don't know why Friday morning. Usually they
have their other tours on the other
property.
MR. SANNINO: That was Easter Sunday.
MS. SLEZAK: May 18th? They have their
tours on the other property. So I -- maybe
on other days that I haven't noticed, they're
sending them over to the vineyard in Cutchogue
to look at. I don't know what's happening.
don't know why these people are coming every
weekend. I just noted the ones that are
excessive. Even the 15 cars. Now, I have
always been concerned of the Sannino's
participation in the North
(In Audible) did I give
bulletins?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
MS. SLEZAK: You have
Fork B&B Holiday
you those two
I was always concerned when I
participating in the Holiday House Tour
Progressive Tasting on the North Fork on
December 4, 2010, from 1:00 to 5:00. I was
wondering if it's in accordance with the ZBA
#6194 condition? And I recently called,
We have them.
them there, okay.
saw them
June 7, 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
2O
21
22
23
24
25
because of all this other things going on,
are they in violation or what? I didn't think
that they would be, but I called the ZBA and
they told me that they had no special
approval to participate in this activity. The
Special Exception for the accessory B&B was
subject to a 3B condition, that I believe was
violated as the condition states. "There
shall be no commercial or retail use on the
subject property relating to the manufacturing
of wine included but not limited to, of wine
tasting, educational programs, wine
production, sales without an application of
approval from the ZBA for an Area Variance."
I submitted to you the pamphlet. It says on
Page 3, "each B&B on the tour will be hosting
a prominent and local winery and guests will
be treated to a progressive food and wine
tasting with the tour of the five B&B's." It
says a lot more. I am just quoting something
from there that you have. Each of the B&B's
on the tour will have refreshments and music
to their visitors. This will travel from one
B&B to the next, and will be treated to a fine
pairing of wines and foods from the North Fork
June 7, 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
restaurants. Page 4, list
Vineyard B&B tour paired with
Restaurant and the Bella Vita
the Sannino
Legends
Vineyard.
Tickets were limited to 350 people, costing
$75.00 per person. Cars attending this, bring
noise and dust pollution. Cars would line up
in front of Alvahs waiting to the access the
lane, causing congestion. Cars would speed.
If they saw a little space, they would speed
to get to the parking space. You know, people
don't even go straight. They have to bend.
This could possibly cause vehicle and
pedestrian accidents. I had concern knowing
wine was available on the five locations.
That the drivers were close to my home and I
was witnessing erratic driving. What if there
had been a fire and needed
would they have the open space to
perform? I have serious concerns
safety of our groundwater. There
increase contamination of our
emergency vehicles,
advocately
for the
is an
groundwater due
to the increasing
proposed bedrooms.
increased people.
activities
of
Increased bedrooms
Possibly including
with the business mind of
septic waste from the
brings
land use
focusing
June 7, 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
on self profit. The Town is interested in
preserving land, and there is land in this
meeting area. We must protect our
groundwater, and I think the foresight, we
should not allow the increase in bedrooms to
this property. It's stressful for one to know
the need that they need to do to fight for
their property. Their home should bring
comfort, and not worry from outside activity.
The Sannino's were bold to operate a B&B and a
winery without Town approval as cited by
Southold Town Zoning enforced by Mr. Damon
Rallis, and should not be allowed to increase
the requested bedrooms. I believe the codes
of 241.82 and 281.43 are not being met. I have
made a summary here but I have the codes and I
have everything -- I have it all listed down.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Let me point out
something.
MS. SLEZAK:
CHAIRPERSON
very thorough
and handing it
going to read it word,
you are kind of doing
Yes.
WEISMAN: You have done a
job of documenting your concerns
to the Board, and all of us are
for word. I think what
is summarizing a lot of
June 7, 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
the
it.
things that are in there.
MS. SLEZAK: I am not going to read
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: In the interest
of -- the fact that we do have another hearing
coming up, and I don't want to cut anyone
short, but I do want to try and not focus on
too many things. I do want to ask you a
question. I am looking at this Google Earth
map, would you come forward, one of you or
both of you, I just want to confirm if this is
-- let's see the Alvahs is here. Is that your
Yes .
house here?
MS. SLEZAK:
CHAIRPERSON
on your backyard?
structures?
WEISMAN: And what is this
Is that accessory
MS. SLEZAK: No. No. It's grass.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: It's hard to
So your property line starts here. Do you
have a rough idea of the distance of your
house to here?
MS. SLEZAK: Yes, this is 468 feet.
The house is 80 feet from the front yard. I
even have the survey.
see .
June 7, 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
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: And this is about
50 feet from here?
MS. SLEZAK: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I just wanted to
understand of what is where. Let's just ask
the Sannino's if you would like to make some
comments on your neighbor's concern?
MR. SANNINO: Yes. There is a few
the first
when
spraying
They'll grow."
far as the spraying goes,
the DEC, but I was warned.
procedures, I now spray three rows from the
driveway before they wake in the morning. So
that is how I alleviated that problem. So we
of these
don't have issues.
dates represents --
CHAIRPERSON
unless you are at
MR.
I think every one
WEISMAN:
the podium.
You can't speak
SANNINO: I think every one of the
things. As far as being neighbor's,
time we met, in fact, the (In Audible
they bought the property. So I guess
was already taken place.
met, we introduced ourselves
four kids. Her comment was,
So that was
The first time we
and said we have
"don't worry.
neighborly. As
I was never cited by
So in taking
June 7, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 98
1
2
3
4
5
7
8
9
10
1t
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
dates
in
we
here, represents something significant
our family. New Years Eve, New Years Day
had the family over.
MS. SANNINO:
had family over. His
winter. So that must
dates.
one of these
family over.
Your dad was sick and we
dad had passed away this
have been one of these
I don't have my calendar with me, but
dates are Easter Sunday. We had
We both have a large family.
comment
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: You can definitely
in writing.
MS. SANNINO: I don't even know. I
my calendar to see what I
'have to go back to
was doing.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: We will give you
ample time to read this over, because we are
going to have to do it as well. We want to do
it, and we will give you time to provide any
written comments about the
that you would like us to consider.
to me like a lot of the current
fact you have a large family,
lot of people coming and
additional
documents
It sounds
traffic is the
and you have a
going.
MEMBER
DINIZIO: Well, can I just say
June 7, 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
something about that?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
MEMBER DINIZIO:
stop with the addition
bedrooms. Well, four
up and down using the
Yes.
That's not going to
of five additional
additional cars coming
driveway. I have to ask
another question. There was a lot of talk
about the driveway and you know, cars, and
disturbing the neighbor. Those grapes that
you have planted along there, are they in your
right-of-way?
MR. SANNINO: They're on our flag lot.
The flagpole.
MEMBER DINIZIO: They're in the
right-of-way to the lot?
MR. SANNINO: What do you mean by
right-of-way?
MEMBER DINIZIO: A certain amount of
space aside. You know, to make it a flag lot.
I believe that 50 feet is what it is, and if
that's the right-of-way, that you get to over
that piece of property because you have the
piece of land, you own it. And you should
maintain it, and it sounds like you are
maintaining it. But I am wondering if
June 7, 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
planting
structure
knew
that
grapes on there, building
MS. SANNINO: They were there.
MEMBER DINIZIO: I understand that.
how it was, very well. I have been on
property a few times, but I was just
wondering if maybe you could move those
grapes?
MR. SANNINO: If we had a place for
them, we would move them. But if we were to
move those grapes then three years from now,
we would be required to move the two rows of
grapes --
MS. SANNINO: Right behind the
property.
MEMBER DINIZIO: Well, I am not so
sure, you can have grapes on there. I am not
sure that you can farm that flag. I am not
sure if that is something that is permitted.
I think I would like to find that out. Maybe
you can find out from the Planning Board?
They are the ones that made it. You know, if
you are supposed to use that part of your
property as a right to farm.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I don't know
I
June 7, 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
either,
width.
but we do know that there is a minimum
understand.
that that land
know?
MEMBER DINIZIO: Yes, that I
Have that set aside. I am saying
shouldn't be used for farm, you
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: That is
something that the Planning Board would know.
We can ask. I do want to mention -- I do want
to ask you, you started to say that
move those two rows, you would have
if you
to move
another two rows, why would that be?
MR. SANNINO: If we were to appease our
neighbor's and move those grapes, shortly
after that, I am sure they would put a
complaint in that the ones behind their
property would have to be removed.
MEMBER DINIZIO: I am not concerned of
appeasing anybody.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: It's not their
complaint about that. We're inquiring about
the width of the parking, turn around, the
ingress and egress.
MR. SANNINO:
they're grapevines.
Let's keep in mind,
They're not trees.
June 7, 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
They're vines. Emergency vehicles can drive
right over them.
MEMBER DINIZIO: I would say that.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: And I doubt that
they would do that. If they had no choice,
they would go over anything. We do recognize
that as a vineyard, you are not large enough
to be a winery, you need 10 acres, and I know
the code has changed to 7. However Ag and
Market does protect the right to farm. It
incudes recognition that farming involve
equipment. It involves spraying and it
involves dust. And it is a fact of life that
residential properties, which there are many,
many in this town, that are adjacent to farms,
are in fact infested by that farm activity.
Sometimes not in a positive way, but that
the nature of this Town and State's
recognition of wanting to preserve rural
landscapes and farming activities, and
is
wineries are considered farms. It's a farming
activity. Having said that, I want to hear
what the neighbor's have to say. Let's let
you make a comment --
MS. SLEZAK: I just want to make one
June 7, 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
comment.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Just stand by the
mic because it's being recorded.
MS. SLEZAK: We moved to our residence
when the grapes were already planted in the
back. So we're not saying that the rows have
to go or anything. They're just jumping the
gun. We moved there because we enjoyed the
ruralness of it. The grapes were in the back.
We never said "boo" about that. The grapes on
the side are 50 feet from our home. That is
a totally different issue. And he says, well,
I spray in the morning. So that's no issue?
There is a 24 hour pesticide period saying
that you should not go in that area. I can't
walk by the side of my property because for
supposedly 24 hours. He thinks because he's
done spraying before I wake-up it matters? It
doesn't matter. It's still in the air.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Thank you.
MS. SLEZAK: Oh, one other thing. On
his property record card, it shows how the
original owner bought and sold that 50 foot
parcel.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The flag you are
June 7, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 104
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
referring to?
MS. SLEZAK: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I'm sorry, the
pole and the flag?
MS. SLEZAK: Yes. That's the issue of
50 feet wide, and it was sold. It went back
and forth between Roseland Hall and
Mr. Watt's, and I understand what Mr. Dinizio
was saying is accurate, that there shouldn't
be grapes there. I will let you people find
that out. I was told by someone. So that is
why I brought this.
MR. SOMMERSTAD: With regard to the
flag lot as Mr. Dinizio pointed out, there
wasn't always grapes there. That was just a
wide open space. It was access to the lots
behind him. Mr. Watt's put them in at a later
time in order to increase his acreage. So he
could try and get approval as a vineyard. So
they're not original to the property. The
spraying, this guy don't care about the
weather. You shouldn't be spraying in high
winds. That's the problem. I understand you
have to spray, but when the wind is blowing
from the northwest at 35-40 mph, it doesn't
June 7, 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
stop him. It blows all over. That's my
concern about the spraying. He has no regard
for the spraying. He is just spraying.
MS. SLEZAK: I would just like to add
to that. The kind of spraying that he does,
does not help the grapes. You know how some
of them go like this? That's not the kind
that he has. He has the kind that goes way up
in the air. So when your trees are right next
to my property line, guess where it goes?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The Board will
look into this. I am not sure if we have
jurisdiction over farm practices, spraying.
We are just here for increasing the number of
bedrooms for a Bed & Breakfast that already
exist. Ail of this has environmental impact,
which is part of a standard that we have to
look at. I don't know if we have jurisdiction
over spraying; however, I do appreciate your
concern and the Board certainly listens to all
interested parties. I want to see who else in
the audience would like to --
MEMBER DINIZIO: Can I just say
something? What I was trying to get at in
accommodations, if you were to eliminate 200
June 7, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 106
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
feet of those. I know it's 468. If you
eliminated half way down, then you are not
spraying near these people's homes. I mean,
you know, you got kids that are 16. You
know, you're buying a car and now there is
another car. So now we're adding. Now we
have eight cars. Then we have nine, ten,
because you all are going to be sleeping in
the same room evidently, if the kids go to
college. You know, it's just not practical
for me to think that you could just have seven
cars on that piece of property with the amount
of people you are going to have on it. So I
thought of maybe the problems that you could
eliminate to help in the neighborhood. You
know, that might be something that might go
along way towards, you know, addressing some
concerns.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Let me ask, when
you have people on the property for your
harvest, you know, one or two days, where do
they park?
MR. SANNINO: On Mr. Keil's property
right next door. So they drive in once, and
park in the back lot, and then they drive out
June 7, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 107
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
the other way because there is --
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: That's okay. I
am just curious, because I know that has to
have a lot of cars.
MEMBER HORNING: I would like them to
comment on something that the neighbor said?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Then why don't
you do that.
MEMBER HORNING: Their documentation, I
don't know if you have a copy. They're
showing a listing of B&B's. You're telling us
that maybe you would rent out the kids room
when they're away for a month and yet on here,
you're listed as open all year. Now, are you
running a year round business?
MR. SANNINO: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: One room, we
granted that.
MEMBER HORNING: And is the five
bedroom operation going to be year round
MS. SANNINO: In the future.
MEMBER HORNING: I am with Jim all
way. I don't understand --
MEMBER DINIZIO: I thought that
testimony was maybe two months maybe.
also?
the
there
You
June 7, 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
know --
MEMBER HORNING: But they're
advertising --
MEMBER DINIZIO: Yes, I saw that too.
MS. SANNINO: That is for the one room.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I think what
we're really asking, and the Board has raised
some relevant issues to think about, and I
think you have some relevant issues to think
about, is the flexibility that you would like
to have as to when and how you're able to
operate the number of bedrooms you would like.
Whether when the kids are not there, you would
like to be able to rent them out. When the
kids are there, you want to have your family
privacy. That's unusual. I don't recall
having an application before us for a B&B, in
which the bedrooms are currently occupied by
family members. It's a little unusual in the
history of Bed & Breakfast's, but it's clear
on what you're asking, and why you're asking
it. That's the first thing I want to make
sure we understand, is why you're trying to do
what you want to do. Ken?
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Mr. Sannino, have
June 7, 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
you ever
vines along
and perhaps
property?
MR.
what we
passing.
goes from
Alvahs
feet.
What's
considered possibly removing the
that right-of-way or pole section
making a two-lane access to your
SANNINO: Just
have right now, can
It's the width of
the trees to the vines.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Okay.
MR. SANNINO: So it's the
Lane. Two cars can go by.
to make it clear,
fit two cars
Alvahs Lane that
same width as
It's 22
to back down the driveway, because he can't
turn around?
MR. SANNINO: I don't know.
MS. SANNINO: We can call him and ask
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Okay.
MR. SANNINO: They're unique grapes
that become part of a blend that we make.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: What's your
varietal?
MS. SANNINO: It's the only Cabernet
Franc that we have on the property.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Next question.
the necessity for the trash collector
June 7, 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
him not to do that, if that's the case.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Apparently back-up
buzzers is an issue here.
MR. SANNINO: Absolutely.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I will say that
having driven on the site, and depending upon
the number of vehicles that you have up near
your house and the garage, it's not always
easy to turn in and turn out. So that is why
parking is to be really safe and have
appropriate parking for the number of vehicles
including when the family members come and so
on is important. And it's probably -- it's
possible to look on how you could do that,
when you propose something that is more
specific than what you had before, but you
have to sacrifice a little of your backyard
or whatever or put in a circular turnaround
and someway to make it safe and accessible.
MR. SANNINO: If we were to take eight
fields of grapevines and park to the left --
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: This is a
subdivision. You haven't gone through Site
Plan approval, have you or haven't you?
MS. SANTORA: Regarding?
June 7, 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
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Anything.
MR. SANNINO: Probably. We had the
building envelope moved.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: See they created
the subdivision and your scenic easement.
MR. SANNINO: Then we had to change it
together with the Planning Board to move the
building envelope further to the west.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay, but they
would not have reviewed your property for
anything other than a residence at the time,
because you're under acreage for a winery. So
I think the only thing or part they would have
considered with regard to parking, would have
been residential property, and you have a
three-car attached garage.
MR. SANNINO: Just to make note, we're
members of the NFBBA. We visited at least 25
B&B's. Ail of which are on significantly less
property. If any of them are on more than an
acre, I would be surprised. If their parking
considerations were considered and we have
more than a few acres --
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
land that is Ag property.
You can't park on
You are certainly
June 7, 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
not going
production
MS.
MR.
get what we want,
have to.
CHAIRPERSON
getting at.
that are under
to take out wines
for parking.
SANNINO: Well, maybe.
SANNINO: If it would be for us to
then we would do what we
considerable issues that we have to deal with.
This is a Special Exception permit. It does
not require Site Plan approval and go to the
Planning Board. It doesn't even have to go
to the Building Department. It goes right to
Zoning Board, but there have been issues
raised about emergency access, and I know that
you're aware of them. I think the Board has a
lot to think about and will do its due
diligence to find out what, if anything, is
missing.
comments from the Planning Board. The
Planning Board does Site Plan approval.
They're the one's that really looks at
parking, egress and ingress. Usually wineries
required Site Plan approval, but you're under
acreage. I guess there are still some
WEISMAN: That's what I am
I think we need to get some
June 7, 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
I want to
audience --
MS. SLEZAK: I have
Heather Lanza.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
MS. SLEZAK:
Windsor.
says "the
about the
this property
this property
see if there is anyone in the
a paper from
raises the question
can have reasonable
Right. Okay.
It's a message to Kristie
It's July 8, 2008 at 3:42 P.M. It
Planning Board would like to know
agricultural use. The small size of
of whether
use and meet
the description of a farm or agricultural
use." This is from her.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: We know that.
They're -- that has to do with the fact that
at that time a (In Audible) property had to be
ten acres or more. And they're not ten acres
or more. That is all that refers to. They
have a right to have a B&B as a residential
use. It has nothing to do with growing
grapes. It has to do with a distinction of
size.
MS. SLEZAK: They have four vehicles.
She has a SUV. He has a pick-up truck. They
have a hi-top van, and they have a box truck.
June 7, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 114
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
That has been parked there on a -- the
boundary line for over a year. On our western
boundary. And when the children get cars how
many -- okay. It's pretty clear that you have
a lot of vehicles on your property. You do
welcome the guest now. You're asking for more
cars, and it's definitely clear that as the
kids get older, they're going to want cars
too. So I think it's pretty clear to you
we raised this issue. It's a fact.
MS. SANNINO: What about abandoned
vehicles on property. Is that zoning issue
issue.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: It's a code
MS. SANNINO: Okay.
should get in touch with.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
someone else from the audience,
waiting very patiently. Please
name and spell it.
MR. KEIL:
spelled K-E-I-L. I
and I am a co-owner of
next to the Sannino's.
why
That is who we
Let's hear from
who has been
state your
Eric Keil. The last name is
am a resident of Mattituck
the adjacent property
I just wanted to go on
June 7, 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
record saying that I don't have any opposition
to them expending their B&B activities.
Listening to the neighbor's complaints, I
couldn't help feel that some of that driveway
dust might be coming from my operations
because as the Sannino's have stated, they
have put down gravel to control that. I still
have a dirt farm road that is right on the
other side of the Sannino's grapes. So some
of those dust issues could be coming from mine
as well. And all my trucks have back-up
alarms on them. So some of that "beep, beep,
beep" that they're hearing, could be coming
from my truck, which from naturally turning
around from the nursery operation and could be
generating some of that noise. I tried very
hard to be a good neighbor. That's some times
challenging to do. Agricultural uses and
residential uses, actually come into conflict
with each other. You have heard from the
Sannino's neighbor's some of the feelings that
they have on the subject. You know, when you
have all this discussion about the driveway
width and the neighbor's planting property
line trees to screen the Sannino's operations,
June 7, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 116
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
t4
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
they should screen the greenhouse because
either thing was there before I was even
there. The greenhouse operations has been
there since the 1970's. I would say that we
worked hard to create buffers with our
neighbor's. I am sure the neighbor's are
happy they have those trees there. Taking out
the grapes vines to make the driveway bigger?
It's also true that the Sannino's could cut
their neighbor's vegetation rights all the way
back to the property line, and then use the
full 50 foot width that they have. They have
chosen not to do that because they want to
preserve that barrier of nature between
themselves. You know, it sort of a two-edge
sword. Also the grapevines actually act as a
barrier between my operations and the
neighbor's. So if those grapevines are
removed, they will actually see more of my
business
operations taking
place. So when the
grapevines are leafed out during the whole
growing season, they actually act as an
additional visual barrier. My business is
intense use of the property when you were
there. So that's all I wanted to say.
an
June 7, 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
coming.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
Thank you for
on Gerry's comments, I
motion to adjourn this
Meeting in two weeks,
am going to make a
hearing to the Special
at which time we will
close the hearing. Which means that you will
have two more weeks to think about everything.
Review everything, and submit in writing only
anything that you want the Board to consider.
Of course he should have an opportunity to
respond to anything that the neighbor's have
submitted and respond to anything that they
heard you say. So we will leave this open for
two weeks and then we will close it at the
MR. KEIL: Thanks.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Does any of the
Board members have any questions or comments
that they want to make?
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: We know of course
that the Sannino's just got this draft from
the neighbor's that they comment to whatever
they want regarding any of it, and at the same
time, let the neighbor's comment to anything
that they forgot. That's it.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Well, then based
June 7, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 118
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
Special Meeting, and then we will have 62 days
from that date to make a decision.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: We are closing
verbal testimony now. My motion is to close
verbal testimony now, and to adjourn this
hearing to the Special Meeting of June 21st
and to accept written testimony or
documentation up to that time, at which time
we will close. We won't be deliberating. We
will be closing. So we won't be talking about
it. We're just going to close it for
additional information. We have a meeting
every two weeks. So we will start to
deliberate. The very next meeting will be
July 5th, which isn't terrible likely that we
will have a draft by then. It just depends on
the other drafts that we have to do. We try
and do it as quickly as we can. We try and do
it very carefully. We will probably ask the
Planning Board for any comments.
If you want to ask any questions, you
will have to come to the podium.
MS. SLEZAK: I was just wondering,
are the results mailed to the home, or do we
June 7, 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
call
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Yes. Once
make a decision, you will see on the
agenda. You can always call the office. Once
the decision gets made, it has to be signed
by me. I have to do that in five business
days, and then it is mailed to the property,
but it is available by FOIL. You can have a
copy of it.
MS.
So
SLEZAK:
CHAIRPERSON
my motion was to close
we
Thank you everybody.
WEISMAN: You're welcome.
the verbal testimony
today and adjourn to receive additional
written testimony on June 21st.
Is there a second?
MEMBER GOEHRINGER:
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
MEMBER DINIZIO: Aye.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye.
MEMBER HORNING: Aye.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye.
Second.
Ail in favor?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Aye.
(See Minutes for Resolution.)
HEARING #6556 - RICHARD MEYERHOLZ
June 7, 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
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I am going to
make a motion to open the hearing on Richard
Meyerholz, %6556. This is a hearing from
May 3rd. There is no one here to address it.
We have a request in writing to adjourn to
the July Public Hearing Meeting. A survey
was submitted to the Board by Mr. Meyerholz,
which was addressing some of our concerns,
particularly the location of the deck, and
the hot tub in the side yard.
So hearing no comments from anyone, I
am going to make a motion to adjourn to
July 5th at 10:00 A.M.
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 #6571 - ANTHONY AND DANIELE CACIOPPO
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The next
application before the Board is for Anthony
June 7, 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
and Daniele Cacioppo, #6571. Request for
variance from Article III Code Section 280-15
and the Building Inspector's April 23, 2012
Notice of Disapproval based on an application
for Building Permit for an accessory shed;
1) front yard setback at less than the code
required 40 foot setback, 2) location other
than the code permitted front yard or rear
yard on waterfront property, located at: 1455
Inlet Way. Corner of Cedar Point Drive East.
Adjacent to Fairhaven Inlet, in Southold.
State your name for the record,
please.
MR. WEBER: Hi. My name is Fred Weber.
I am the architect representing the Cacioppo's
for their shed, with an attached pergola at
their site, 1455 Inlet Way. To start off, the
lot is a nonconforming lot. It's a little
over 20,000 square feet in a 40,000 R-40 Zone.
It is also on a corner. Having two front
yards, and it's a triangular shape, you know,
gives some kind of conversion setbacks at the
point. So based on all those situations, it
was difficult to locate a small shed. They
would like to build on the property for
June 7, 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
storage of bicycles and some miscellaneous,
tool equipment or whatever. It's a
13.8 X 8 foot shed, with one-story. Fairly
iow in height. They're also reconfiguring a
pergola, which they use to -- it has some kind
of a panel around it, that they use as sort of
a changing area for the pool. There is one
there already, which has an overhead aspect to
it, as well as a wood plantar. In doing this,
they're requesting a variance for a setback in
the front yard about 28.2 feet, instead of the
required 40. Something also came to light, as
to the lot coverage. Originally, they had
applied for a variance, I guess that had been
given approval, to build a two-story -- fairly
large two-story garage. It's basically in an
overlapping location. This is the nature of
what we're proposing. This is it from the
pool. This is what was proposed. Now, they
got a variance for lot coverage, that I wasn't
aware, that they would need -- originally I
was not aware that they would need a variance
for lot coverage. But I guess in 2009, the
definition of lot area changed, and it now
does require a lot coverage variance as well.
June 7, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 123
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
We now have to
wetlands,
proposal.
back-out the area of the
which wasn't part of the original
So we would also be asking for that
lot coverage variance, 20.9.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Fred, lot
coverage is not in the Notice of Disapproval,
and based on your submission of the survey, it
would appear that they're over the 19.5
percent that they originally were because
the
change of code. Right now, it's 22 percent.
You're proposing to increase the existing lot
coverage by 0.2
MR. WEBER:
CHAIRPERSON
percent?
Correct.
WEISMAN:
It certainly
would be considered de minimis by anyone's
standard, however, the question before the
Board is, does the Board want him to go back
with this amended
amended Notice of
know that we can
coverage without
determines that
0.2 percent, in
information and get an
Disapproval, because I
grant the 22 percent lot
that, unless the Board
the increase is only
which case, it's de minimis.
don't
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: As long as the lot
coverage was less than one, it was considered
June 7, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 124
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
de minimis, by a letter from the architect or
engineer, indicating that is what the increase
is, I think we can make it.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: This is square
footage and this is proposed square footage
with the shed, and then lot coverage based on
the entire site, prior to the code change, and
now the new code. The new code has it at
22.9.
MR. WEBER: Correct.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: So if you look at
the proposed square footage, the increase in
the lot coverage from what is there now, is
0.2 percent.
MR. WEBER: Correct.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Depending whether
we define it under the old code or the new
code. So it's kind of caught in the middle.
MEMBER DINIZIO: It's de minimis.
Based on the old law, it's that, and based on
the new law, it's that.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I assume, we got
a letter that the shed was denied.
MS. ANDALORO: (In Audible).
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Right.
June 7, 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
idea?
MEMBER HORNING: What happened to that
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The DEC wasn't to
kind with it.
MEMBER HORNING:
to you?
MR. WEBER:
in 2006, I wasn't
that point.
had lapse.
Is that what happened
I think so. That was back
involved in the project at
I think that is what they -- time
They had somebody else working on
it. The project just came to a halt. When
they were ready with everything, they just
came to me, and I was
them. At this point,
and Trustee approval
Now, I think that is in the
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
MEMBER HORNING:
other variances?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
at this point. We might make
decision to the previous
law did change and is no
moving that forward for
we do have DEC approval
for what we're proposing.
file?
It is.
What happened to those
I think it's moot
reference in the
variances, that the
longer an active --
What do they have to do,
a
MS. ANDALORO:
front yard variance?
June 7, 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
shed.
is,
the
to
if
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: And lot coverage.
MS. ANDALORO: (In Audible).
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: We don't
MR. WEBER: They would like to
They're not planning to build a
CHAIRPERSON
you were to
WEISMAN: The bottom
get a Building Permit
know.
build a
garage.
line
for
garage, they would tell you to come back
us anyway.
MR. WEBER: For lot coverage?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Lot coverage.
MR. WEBER: Right.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: So, the garage is
not before us. Let's look at the proposed
shed. Certainly unobtrusive. It's very much
in keeping with the style of the architecture.
You know, there is really no impact on
adjacent properties.
MR. WEBER: And not from the road.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: And also not
visible from the road.
MR. WEBER: It's a dead-end. When you
get to them, it's only two or three houses
down where they're, then it's a dead-end.
MEMBER HORNING: I thought it was all
June 7, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 127
1
2
4
5
6
7
8
9
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
greens in there. I couldn't see the water.
MR. WEBER: There is water in there.
MEMBER HORNING: I couldn't see the
water, because there was foliage. But a boat
could drive-up?
MR. WEBER: Yeah, it's navigable, but I
think it varies with the tide. At iow tide,
it's probably difficult to get a boat in and
out of there. At high tide, it could be
better.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
Does anybody have
any questions on this?
MEMBER DINIZIO: No.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Gerry?
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Yes. My question
is this, with the new decking, which is above
ground. The lot coverage is 22.9 percent,
with the proposed additions?
MR. WEBER: Yes.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: And so, the pergola
and shed -- it's really only 22.7, with them
it's
off,
22.9; is that correct?
MR. WEBER: We're taking
away -- first
it's being built over the same area.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Right.
June 7, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 128
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
i8
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. WEBER: And we're also removing a
deck that is in front yard, like an entry
deck.
that.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I was unaware of
So it's an
increase to certainly what is on the site, but
the lot coverage is not nonconforming, because
of the change in the code.
MR. WEBER: Right. Right.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: George or Ken?
MEMBER HORNING: I don't have any.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: I don't have any
questions.
Is there anyone
would like to address
WEISMAN: Hearing no
am going to make a motion
reserve decision to
Second.
All in favor?
Aye.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
in the audience that
this application?
(No Response.)
CHAIRPERSON
further comments, I
to close this hearing and
a later date.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER:
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
MEMBER DINIZIO:
June 7, 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
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye.
MEMBER HORNING: Aye.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Aye.
(See Minutes for Resolution.)
HEARING #6550 - KIMOGENOR POINT, INC.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: We're going to
open up this hearing. I am going to read the
Notice of Disapproval, because it's an amended
Notice of Disapproval. This is an application
for Kimogenor Point, Inc., (Bingham) #6550.
Adjourned from April 5, 2012. Request for
variances from Article XXIII Code Section
280-123 and Article XXII Section 280-116 and
the Building Inspector's June 19, 2012,
revised May 3, 2012 Notice of Disapproval
based on an application for Building Permit
for 1st and 2nd story enlargements and
alterations to a seasonal dwelling at; 1) a
nonconforming building containing a
nonconforming use shall not be enlarged,
reconstructed, structurally altered or moved,
unless such building is changed to a
conforming use, and 2) less than the code
June 7, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 130
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
required bulkhead setback of 75 feet, located
at: 50 Jackson Street in New Suffolk, New
York.
Pat?
MS. MOORE: Yes. Thank you. Good
afternoon. Patricia Moore on behalf of the
Bingham Family and also here for Kimogenor
Point. Tom Samuels is the design
professional. He and I are working together
on this application. Mr. & Mrs. Bingham are
here. So are some of the Kimogenor Point
owners in support of this application. I put
in front of you several items. So want
to refer to them. The first one is 26th
I just
a May
letter from William Archer, who is President
of Kimogenor Point Company. This reflects a
revised plan, based on the new Notice of
Disapproval for less than demolition to the
existing residence. So I have that for your
file. Also, I have given to you a packet, in
that packet, that is before you, I have the
first and second -- are the sales that have
occurred at Kimogenor Point. Many of the
people here are original owners. In fact, two
families that are here today are from the
June 7, 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
original owners, that are from their
grandparents when they first planned out their
community. And that provides you with just a
cost estimate. This was relative in the Use
Variance application, but I thought the
information would be valuable to the Board,
with respect to those property values of this
community.
reflect the
second page
The degree of improvements also
sale value of the property. The
I have, I used the same numbering
system that was already in your file, and it
is a Google map, Numbered 1 through 12 of the
individual homes. And then, what I did is,
after that, are the photographs. So that when
we're presenting the application to you all, I
will have Tom go through the architectural
style and the improvements that have been done
over the years. Just so that it establishes a
record. I thought for character of the
community, the photographs could speak
volumes. I could describe the community to
you, but it is so unique and magnificent, the
homes are really unlike any others in the
Town. So by photographing it, I thought it
would be better description of the homes that
June 7, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 132
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
are in this community. And then finally at
the end of the packet is my outline that you
can share for transcribing the record. What I
will be doing is going through the Area
Variance criteria. Some of the points, which
I know that Tom has already in his application
packet, had completed many of the same
arguments. The Area Variance criteria, as
well as the Use Variance application, but
we're now focusing on the Area Variance
criteria. So I am just going through and
making sure that I have captured all of my
points that I think that are relevant, but the
whole record, we will rely on the entire
record in support of our application. So I am
going to begin with the standard, and then I
will defer to Tom to go through the
photographs and character of the community.
So the first standard is, there will be no
undesirable change to the character of the
community or detriment to nearby properties,
if this variance was granted. As you know,
there are 12 homes in total, in this
community, best known as Kimogenor Point
Incorporation. It's a co-op cooperate
June 7, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 133
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
structure that dates back to 1915.
sits on 5.9 acres, and with 5 homes
5.9 acres. The remaining homes sit
This house
on the
on
entire property
which also
center. The
contiguous properties and the
is considered Kimogenor Point,
includes the clubhouse in the
addition on the east side of the house would
complete the footprint, and in keeping with
the architectural design of the other homes in
the community. We will have Tom discuss that.
Very importantly, we will see photographs. As
we go over the individual photographs, you can
see standing by the porch, you can see through
the porch at the alignment of the porches, and
the -- the importance of the alignment of the
porches. So this plan maintains that
alignment. Incorporates additional porches
and puts the -- places the architectural style
renovation in keeping with the homes that are
there. The better design homes that are there
today. The owner has modified their plans,
and they will retain 25 percent of the
existing dwelling in order to meet the
renovation/alteration, rather than a
demolition. The existing walls to be
June 7, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 134
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
t9
20
21
22
23
24
25
maintained, will require excessive
renovations to meet the required State
Building Code. Tom has provided to you, at
your request, a plan that shows the colored
rendering of the wall that needs to be taken
down. Those are to be modified and upgraded,
I guess, but in effort to maintain the
existing structure. As you know, from all of
these applications, dealing with old
construction, the improvements that you would
see -- the percentage under the State Building
Code and FEMA regulations, you would have to
bring the entire house into conformity, and
these -- the conformity under the State
Building Code, will require energy code
compliance. Upgrade to the windows. They
will be double paned windows, and hurricane
standards windows and the strapping
throughout. Would you prefer that we walk you
through the character of the community with
the photographs now, and I will continue with
the remaining standards? Will that -- so you
hear from someone else other than just me. So
is that all right?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: That's fine.
June 7, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 135
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MS. MOORE: Tom, maybe this is a good
time for you to walk them through.
MR. SAMUELS: Hi. My name is Tom
Samuels, architect on behalf of Kimogenor
Point and Bingham's. I am looking at Page 1
that comes directly after their aerial view,
and this shows the house labeled as No. 1,
which is the first house when you come off the
street. And this house was effectively
rebuilt about twenty years ago pretty much
from the ground up but in keeping with the
style of the neighborhood. The point is, it
was rebuilt. The next page, House No. 2,
house was largely modified. It is probably
the original structure, but was considerably
modified over a period of time. I am not sure
of the time, but you can see in the style of
the neighborhood, which was these big porches,
generally wrapping around or at least on two
or three sides. Third house in, No. 3, with
the green shutters. Original house. Pretty
much in original condition. They may have
filled-in a porch here or there but basically
that's an original house. Changed the dormer
on the back of the roof too. The fourth house
June 7, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 136
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
in with the yellow shutters, hip roof, largely
original, but you can see to the left on the
upper photograph there is an addition -- a
significant addition that was done to the one
side, at some point in the past, but might be
30 or 40 years ago. The fifth house in,
Keane, probably the largest footprint of all
these houses. It is just a simple gable but
has a porch on two sides, and a fairly
significant addition on the other side as
well. Sixth house in with the light blue
shutters, effectively rebuilt in the
footprint. As a full two-story. It's the
only two-story house in the community, but
largely rebuilt. There may have been some
original stuff. It was pretty much completely
redone. And the No. 7, is our house. The
house that we're talking about, which is
pretty much original. If you go to the second
page of this one, you will see that there is
no porch on the -- that side of the house.
The left side of the house, looking at the
house. The east side. My sense, there may
have been a porch there because it's the only
house that it does not have a porch wrapping
June 7, 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
on those sides. So this is one two-story
section (In Audible) sticking out on that left
hand side of the bathroom. It seems to me
that that was probably part of an open porch
and at some point was enclosed, because the
front porch goes all the way to that point and
otherwise would have stuck out and ended, and
that doesn't happen. So there very likely may
have been a porch on that side. I am not so
sure of the front, unless you guys know if
there was? So that's Bingham, the house in
question. The next house, No. 8, dark blue
shutters, was expanded over time. The porch
you can see in that top picture, there is
a
one-story that was infilled. Like when I talk
about these houses that have or had porches,
most of them -- many of them have been
enclosed for interior space. Many of these
homes when you look inside, have these little
interior rooms, but that was the
case before No. 8. No. 9, was a project
of mine that this Board gave approval to
about seven years ago. That was a renovation,
a heroic renovation I would say. The house
was lifted and largely reconstructed. We
June 7, 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
saved parts of it, but in order to put a
second floor on it -- in this case a second
floor was added to the house. The footprint
reflects these porches that were infilled,
which is that typical section of a high
section in the middle and lower hipping sheds
on the
rebuilt,
central
infilled
modified
almost
outside. So that house was relatively
and fairly original in terms of the
core, but in terms of porches, likely
within the inside, and certainly
or improved over the years, as were
the houses with this -- with the one
exception that we're working on now. And
finally No. 11, the last house, which is
the one that you see when you come around on
New Suffolk Avenue, which is a big shed
addition on the back. Clearly was not added
not to long ago. I'm sorry, there is one
more. Pollio, recently renovated and was
added to, and I believe it was before your
Board to get some relief from -- an Area
Variance standpoint. So that house was
then
largely reconstructed also. Probably a
newer that some of the others, but was
largely reconstructed also. I don't know the
little
June 7, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 139
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
percentage of these houses that are seasonal
versus non-seasonal, but many of them do have
heat. I am not sure how many of them do, but
I would say at least have of them have heat.
None of them are occupied full-time though
year round. They're only occupied seasonally,
but
heat and cooling conditioned
picture, is a picture of the
property is shared. So although
many of them have been upgraded to include
space. The final
beach. The
you have a
lifelong leasehold on your house, all of the
property is shared and maintained jointly. So
the beach is shared. The property around the
houses, the space between the two houses,
which is used as a community. Access to the
beach, and that is the nature of the whole
community. There is no picture of the
clubhouse, but that is a small house. There
is a picture of the island that sits in the
jist of the creek on the north side, and
finally the last page, shows a beach view
with our project in the middle and the light
blue shutters behind it. The purpose here is
to get a sense of this alignment of front
porches. They were very consciously built to
June 7, 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
align the front porches to the bay, so people
sitting on their front porches have a sense of
community. With the neighbor's you can just
look up and down the porch and see who is
sitting out. We have respected that of
course, because that is probably one of the
defining characteristics of all these houses,
which have been -- which are different and
have changed over time, but this is one
feature that has been maintained over all
these years. And I think that is pretty much
it.
MS. MOORE: Thank you. I am sure you
will have questions as we go along, but I will
just continue on the standard with respect to
(In Audible) can not be achieved from a method
feasible, for the applicant to pursue other
than the Area Variances. The house right now
has a second floor and the second floor
additional space is over the existing
structure. To maintain the character of
Kimogenor Point, as Tom pointed out, wrap
around porches, the particular shape of the
house is key to the maintenance of the
character
of this really unique and very
June 7, 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
unidentifiable community. The footprint of
the house can't be kept in place. The typical
in-kind and in-place. There are structural
reasons for that. We went through the
individual State code requirements. The
square footage is required for several aspects
of it, and the first one is the rooms. Some
of the rooms are inadequate with respect to
the State Building Code. Room sizes have to
be a minimum of 66 square feet.
minimum of 80 square feet.
floor has rooms that are 66
MEMBER DINIZIO: No,
application says, 70.
MS. MOORE: Oh, I'm sorry.
Pardon me,
The existing first
square feet.
hold on. Your
I had
thank
about
70,
you. Is it 80 or 70? I think we talked
it being a minimum of 70?
MR. SAMUELS: 70, is the minimum.
MS. MOORE: Okay. So we have minimum
requirements of occupied space for the
bedrooms and we have cited for you the
section of the residential code. The stairs
are being made conforming. So that too does
involve some additional square footage in the
area of additional occupied space. The
June 7, 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
windows have to be converted to egress
windows. They're not egress windows now,
they also have to be energy code and
hurricane standards compliance. Finally,
with respect to the seasonal nature of
house, we checked, and under the State
if a house is occupied in September t5th
May 15th, which the season does extend
beyond that period of time, the Building
this
Code,
and
and
Department cannot issue a permit that is for a
seasonal home. It has to be with heat. It
has to be heated space. So those are the code
requirements that we found would be
applicable to the renovation. The amount of
relief requested is not substantial. Again,
we're maintaining as what we have as the
The variance setback from
I would remind the Board,
from the photographs, and
the
and you
when
setbacks.
bulkhead.
can see it
you go there,
you have the
you have the
you have the bulkhead and then
interior driveways, and then
homes and in this particular
house.
case, the house. So you do have a disturbed
area that occurs from the bulkhead to the
So while we do not meet the 75 foot
June 7, 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
setback, you do have -- it is not a pristine
undisturbed area. You have the driveway that
that space. The more important space
do want to maintain in order to make
to the house, if you have to pop
to adjust the square footage, we
the luxury of being able to move it
the more environmentally sensitive
dissects
that we
alterations
things out
don't have
towards
area, towards the beach.
you see the very natural
for purposes of
In the photographs,
more
environmental
alignment of the homes, and the
line up evenly there. So we're
pristine area
issues, but for
porches all
somewhat
restricted in the space and the allocation of
space, and they have asked for the minimum
necessary to achieve their space goal and
achieve the architectural goals of this
renovation. As far as impacting any physical
environmental conditions, as I pointed out,
we're maintaining
So that we do not
adverse impact.
have Trustee and
the setback, the porch side.
have environmental impact,
This project does actually
DEC approval. So those
impacts were considered and because (In
Audible) and he felt that this project was
June 7, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 144
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
approvable. The difficulty has not been self
created. As you can see from Tom's
presentation, there have been variance
applications made to this Board in recent
years. Archer was mine, and Pollio was mine.
So I am very familiar with them. These other
projects that were done may or may not have
required -- well, we know that they didn't
require any variances, in part because of the
building interpretations that the Building
Department had during the process of these
renovations. Whether they got building
permit's, I believe that most of these did
get building permit's. I am not clear of the
history here
property
building
when you look at the
because
card, less identified to which
permit's belong to where,
all one piece of property. I have
that everybody was compliant with the
Building Department regulations. It just
since it's
to believe
did not --
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No, we did have
variances on a few.
MS. MOORE: You did, okay. I couldn't
find it under the Tax Map Number, but --
June 7, 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
MEMBER GOEHRINGER:
One in particular,
go back to the map.
the first one, let me just
Definitely No. 1 and No. 3, I am not sure
about No. 4, but Tom is correct about 20
years, he had the one on No. 1. That was a
pretty significant reconstruction, and I mean,
we certainly could locate those.
MS. MOORE: That would be great. If
you could identify that into the file. For
some reason when I looked it up by the Tax
Map, it didn't pop up. It could be human
error or it could be computer error.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: In the 80's it was
very shaky on the tax map numbers.
MS. MOORE: Yes. It always changes.
It could be on the contiguous parcels.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: You have to go back
to the alpha names.
MS. MOORE: I didn't have the names of
the owners.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: If the names have
changed since, that makes things a little more
difficult.
MS. MOORE: Well, you can only add to
the record as the justification varies. So I
June 7, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 146
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
would be happy to have you
MEMBER GOEHRINGER:
insert
anything
okay, but if the
possibility.
MS. MOORE:
MEMBER HORNING:
represented a couple
variances --
MS.
insert --
Well, I can't
if the Alpha is not the same,
situation is the same, it's
Good, that hasn't changed.
You said you have
of clients with
MOORE: Pollio and Archer, those
are
the two applications.
MEMBER HORNING: And what was
nature
of the application?
MS. MOORE: Actually,
the
to
Tom, you were
Pollio was a
addition that
like a kitchen
conform to the
My question would be,
a
Variances, and Pollio too.
as Area Variances for setbacks.
MEMBER HORNING: Bulkhead?
MS. MOORE: No, I think
Side Yard Variance, because the
he wanted was that little --
foyer entrance, and it didn't
side yard.
MEMBER HORNING:
They were treated
involved with Archer, so he would be able
speak more. They were treated as Area
June 7, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 147
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
how many of these residences, numbers one
through twelve have conforming setbacks?
MR. SAMUELS: Well, I can tell you
which one's don't. This was doesn't. The
next one over --
the
view.
the
get on
MS.
record,
MR.
MS.
It's 2
house next to
MEMBER HORNING:
to?
MS.
MOORE: Tom, why don't you
so that it would be --
SAMUELS: And it does show --
MOORE: It is showing the overall
No. on the site plan. So it's
What are you referring
MOORE: No. 1.
MR. SAMUELS: I think it is by your
record, No. 11. I am going left to right. So
No. 11 does not. 36.11 minimum setback. The
next one No. 10.
MS. MOORE: Member Horning, do you have
the right drawing in front of you?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: We have the right
drawing, but it doesn't denote what the
setbacks are.
MS. MOORE: Yes, it doesn't.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: It just shows the
June 7, 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
positions of the sites.
MS. MOORE: Well, actually it does.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Yes, thank you.
MR. SAMUELS: The next one is No. 10,
67.10. The next one to that is 70.2. That
one is Archer that we worked on. That was
part of their issue. We filled in a little
tiny corner there. The next one beyond that
would be No. 8, and that was -- has a 54.6
setback and then comes Bingham. Beyond that,
No. 7, and that has 62.1.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: 62.17
MS. MOORE: 62.1, yeah.
MR. SAMUELS: And you can see on these
drawings where the 75 foot setback is. It
goes right through these houses. Ail of these
houses are nonconforming from the bulkhead.
Some of these are closer and some of these are
further. And then also, the clubhouse
structure is also nonconforming at 35 feet.
MS. MOORE: You're seeing the dash
line?
sure.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Yes.
MS. MOORE: Okay. I was just
making
June 7, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 149
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MEMBER HORNING: Well, how about one
through four?
MS. MOORE: They're -- I want to say
that they're not the waterfront properties.
They face the bulkhead. They're all
conforming. It looks like the 75 foot setback
is put on the map and the road is actually
landward of the 75 feet.
MR. SAMUELS: The first house may not
be.
MS. MOORE: Right. Yeah, No. 1.
MR. SAMUELS: But they're all on
another parcel. Another piece of property.
MS. MOORE: So let's clarify this.
parcel that we're a member of, is the bay
front pieces. Those are all for the most
part, we have just gone through, are
nonconforming. Then you have the contiguous
northerly -- it's easterly parcel that starts
when you come into the road system. And we
have identified House No. 1 through No. 4.
Those are on a separate parcel. Those look
like for the most of it, side angles of the
entrance way, that the bulkhead kind of cuts
back and seems to touch the entrance of
The
June 7, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 150
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Kimogenor Point. That might be a short
distance, but the most part, the homes are
lined up and are landward of the 75 feet.
behind
home.
MEMBER HORNING: What is the building
Building No. 1 and No. 2?
MS. MOORE: That is an adjacent
MR. SAMUELS: That's part of a shed.
MS. MOORE: I apologize.
MR. SAMUELS: They were sheds and
garages, and a little tiny house in the back
that they used as a rental, seasonal rental,
but it's owned by the corporation. It's
shared amongst. It's a guest cottage.
MEMBER HORNING: Okay.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I want to ask
some quick questions. The new plans that
were submitted was color coding. I believe
the elevations are the same as the original
sets submitted?
MR. SAMUELS: No, they're different.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay, well we
don't have them. We have this, and then the
color coded one looks like the only change at
all between this one and this one, is simply
June 7, 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
the color coding, a twisting of the bathtub.
The orientation of the bathtub on the second
floor, otherwise it is identical.
MR. SAMUELS: Well, we were originally
proposing to reconstruct the house mostly
in-kind. Now, we are proposing to keep those
walls and the foundation. So it hasn't
changed much from the original submission,
just that the walls aren't going to be
reconstructed, and we're probably going to
stick with those 2X4's. The elevations are
slightly different. They have gotten a little
bit lower actually. It did modify slowly.
I am sorry that you didn't get those.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I compared them
and they're identical with exception of
the re-orientation of the second floor
bathroom.
MS. MOORE: So we can resubmit and
have you guys reprint some of the revised
elevations.
MR. SAMUELS: I can give you one now.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: That is not so
much the issue.
MS. MOORE: We don't want that to
June 7, 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
come up later that somehow we have the wrong
plan.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: If we're going to
stamp a set of drawings, we should stamp a set
of drawings.
MS. MOORE: Let's do
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
of more questions. Can you
survey that you submitted shows
of the existing footprint.
exactly the
proposed?
MR. SAMUELS: Correct.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
same as it
that.
I have a couple
tell me, the first
an expansion
Is the expansion
is now, as it was
MR. SAMUELS: No.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: So we're going
to need to see that as well, modifications on
the survey.
MR. SAMUELS: Okay. Yes, it was the
-- the additions were scaled back in order to
not encroach to the bulkhead as the existing
house. So I think by your way, we're still
increasing the nonconformity, but we're not
dimensionally decreasing the nonconformity.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The bulkhead
June 7, 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
setback as proposed now is 57.4?
MR. SAMUELS: No, it's 64.6.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: So we have
this up to
MS.
sheets
the colored
floor.
MR.
to get
date.
MOORE: So you got the colored
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Ail we got was
sheets of the first and second
SAMUELS:
asked me for.
CHAIRPERSON
Which is what Vicki had
WEISMAN: The Notice of
Disapproval
survey indicating
from the bulkhead.
May 3rd. So let's
distance anyway.
MR. SAMUELS:
MS. MOORE:
staircase up, yes.
that is amended now refers to the
a proposed setback of 57.4
This is the one dated
get our numbers right,
the
62.6.
Well, 62.6 is that
Why don't we do a clean --
MR. SAMUELS: Yeah, that's fine.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The question is,
I don't know what you submitted to the
Building Department for the Notice of
Disapproval. They're citing the same as
June 7, 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
old notice.
MS.
didn't
is proposing to maintain the
setback?
MR. SAMUELS: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
MOORE: It could also be that
realize to change that number.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: What you're
existing
Rather than
they
doing
bulkhead
side?
MR. SAMUELS:
the bulkhead side.
attached areas.
CHAIRPERSON
expansion is that?
The landward side. On
I mean, it's those two
footprint are you proposing,
The landward
WEISMAN: What percentage
Your argument was not that
it was code compliant
to expand the size of
the State Code?
room sizes, so you need
the dwelling based on
existing building
they're going off to the sides?
decreasing it?
MR. SAMUELS: That is correct.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Well, that
doesn't say that, and we don't have the survey
to show it. Another question that we might as
well get figured out, what expansion of the
June 7, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 155
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MS. MOORE: Right.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: So what
percentage are we dealing with?
MS. MOORE: Why don't you just go back
and double check before we --
MR. SAMUELS: Well, the footprint
increased to 17.2 percent. That is the
definite increase.
MS. MOORE: So first floor we have a
square footage of 1,411 square feet. The
second floor we have 1,059 square feet, for a
total house, but it's not footprint.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: What I am
trying to find out is what the existing
footprint is and what the percentage of
expansion beyond --
MR. SAMUELS: The existing footprint
is 1,796 square feet and then the new
footprint is 2,105 square feet.
MS. MOORE: No, that is not right.
Oh, sorry.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Can you give
that to me again?
MR. SAMUELS: The existing footprint,
which is first floor, plus stairs and covered
June 7, 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
porch is 1,796 square feet.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay.
MR. SAMUELS: The proposed first
total footprint, porches and stairs, 2,105
square feet.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: 2,105 square
feet?
feet.
MR. SAMUELS: Correct.
MEMBER HORNING: Not, 2,220 square
footprint first floor
1,796; right?
MR. SAMUELS:
footprint,
MR.
floor
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Existing
and porches and stairs,
Yes, that's correct.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay. Proposed
first floor, porches and stairs --
SAMUELS: 2,105.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
need to see what percentage
expansion.
MR. SAMUELS: 17.2.
Ail right. So
that is of the
17.2 percent
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
increase in footprint?
MR. SAMUELS: Correct.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
we
But maintaining
June 7, 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
the existing bulkhead setback?
MR. SAMUELS: Correct.
MS. MOORE: Yes.
MEMBER HORNING: Of 57.5 feet?
MS. MOORE: No.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: No.
MR. SAMUELS: 62.6.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: 62.6.
MR. SAMUELS: 62.5.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay. So we
need to get the Notice of Disapproval
straightened out to reflect what you're
proposing. I have a feeling that they just
didn't look at the new or you didn't submit
the new --
MR. SAMUELS: No, we definitely
submitted the new one.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: We don't have
it. Question about remaining walls. Just so
we're not blind sided here, you have honestly
stated that it meets State Code and (In
Audible) to existing walls. How did you
determine which walls to leave?
MR. SAMUELS: If a wall is an existing
wall, then it's in the position to be -- if
June 7, 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
the wall doesn't have to move, then it's an
existing wall that we maintain. So the plan
of the house is largely -- I mean all of the
exterior walls for example, and some of the
interior walls, just based on the
modifications that we were planning to make,
that we colored coded pink, those --
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: There wasn't a
structure analysis of what is sound and what
is not sound. It's more of a matter of this
is the floor plan that we want?
MR. SAMUELS: Correct.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: These are the
walls that we can leave
footprint?
MR. SAMUELS:
given the new
Correct.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay. So when
you actually start to take this structure
apart, you're going to wind-up rebuilding
those exterior walls -- the walls in pink
largely have to be rebuilt?
MR. SAMUELS: Or supplemented.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: You can
supplement some of those?
MR. SAMUELS: Absolutely. If you
will
June 7, 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
rebuilding, taking down and
then reconstructing, no, we should not have to
do that.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay.
MR. SAMUELS: If the frame of the
house is basically sound and -- I mean, it's
sagging in places, we're going to be lifting
it, we're going to flatten it out anyway.
We put it back down onto a raised foundation
are talking about
to meet FEMA, then there will be quite a bit
of structural work that will have to happen,
of course.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: What increase
height do you have to meet FEMA?
MR. SAMUELS: It's about 18 inches.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: 18 inches, okay.
see who else has something to say
me for a change.
MEMBER HORNING: I want to ask
the seasonal use a little
Let's
besides
something about
bit?
going to submit
elevation?
MR.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay. You're
another survey and the
SAMUELS: Absolutely.
June 7, 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
that
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: And take care
incorrect Notice of Disapproval.
MR. SAMUELS: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The reference
to a nonconforming building and a
nonconforming use is standard and that
remain the same because you're dealing
multiple dwellings.
MEMBER HORNING: Is there heat in the
existing dwelling? There is not?
MR. SAMUELS: There is not.
MEMBER HORNING: Are you putting in
heat?
will
with
of
MR. SAMUELS: If in fact that is true,
but you can imagine that these people who have
this beautiful houses on the bay are going
to want to come out and use it more than the
season than just between June 15th or May 15th
and September 15th. You come out for
Thanksgiving or whatever, it's nice to have
MR. SAMUELS: Yes, we are.
MEMBER HORNING: And are you adding the
heat because of this requirement that you say
if it's occupied after September 15th, it has
to be heated?
June 7, 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
some heat. If you're going to leave the water
on, you have to have heat.
MEMBER HORNING: If this proposal is
approved and after you finish, you're no
longer seasonal?
MR. SAMUELS: That's correct.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: According to the
State Code. Even if they don't use it year
round, by virtue of its size, and it will
have heat.
mechanical
I presume it will only be
systems?
MR. SAMUELS: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: And electric?
MR. SAMUELS: Yes. Yes. Yes, to meet
code.
MS. MOORE: The walls itselves have to
meet energy code. I don't know --
MR. SAMUELS: Well, it will be foam
insulation. I mean, to fill in these
cavities, there is going to be a lot of
cavities. It's not going to be sufficient
to use that. I would like to use 2X4
framing as well, in order to get a little
extra space every where. We don't need to use
2X4's.
June 7, 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
in.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay.
MEMBER HORNING: By use of foam?
MR. SAMUELS: Foam insulation.
MEMBER HORNING: Right.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: It's just
blown
MEMBER HORNING: As long as it doesn't
blow the walls open.
MR. SAMUELS: As of now, there really
is no interior finishes. It's just the open
frame work.
sister-up
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: How do you
and old 2X47
MR. SAMUELS: Just put another one
right next to it.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: It's called nailed.
MR. SAMUELS: Oh, because of the eighth
of an inch difference? Yeah. I guess you
would have to do that. You probably -- you
know, as long as you have a nailing surface
on the inside, it doesn't matter. It will
fill those cavities, which is the beauty of
foam.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I'd thought the
thought that the sistering was taking
actual
a
June 7, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 163
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
2X6 and cutting it down vertically.
MR. SAMUELS: Yeah. That may be a
better way. I mean, I don't know the exact
dimensions. You know, we might end up doing
that on the exterior walls.
MEMBER DINIZIO: Why would you have to
do that? Who cares if it's an eighth of an
inch?
MR. SAMUELS: Right. I would assume
that we use standard framing lumbar.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Well, structurally,
you have the old lumbar.
MR. SAMUELS: Sure. We have new
headers coming in. It's modifications.
The
windows we were replacing. You know, shifting
a little bit in some cases as well.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Ken, do you have
some questions?
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: No.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Jim?
MEMBER DINIZIO: No, I have no
questions.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Well, let's see
if there is anyone else in the audience who
wants to address this application?
June 7, 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
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: You didn't ask me.
So we're going to get all this new information
from you so that we have it all, which is
based upon the most updated?
MR. SAMUELS: Yes. Tomorrow morning.
MS. MOORE: Do you -- I guess, it will
go to you. Seven or five copies?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Well, the office
have one, so six.
MS. MOORE: Okay.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
has to
For the Board
one, but I am sure they got it.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: We're probably
going to need a new Notice of Disapproval
that reflects accurately, you know talk to
Mike or Pat or something.
MR. SAMUELS: I am sure they do.
MS. MOORE: You know what, when you
walk it into Vicki, you can have them pull
their file because it may have just gotten --
MR. SAMUELS: I can give them another
members and the office.
MS. MOORE: Okay. And we want to give
one to the Building Department so that they
have the correct version.
June 7, 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
new
MR. SAMUELS: Sure.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Show them your
setbacks, whatever it is --
MR. SAMUELS: 62.5.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: 62.5, rather
than the 67 whatever.
MR. SAMUELS: Okay.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Tom, I just want
to ask you a hypothetical. When are you going
to actually start construction on this?
MR. SAMUELS: When we get all of our
permits. So if we could, we would start in
the Fall.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Okay.
MR. SAMUELS: We're very close to the
but we need this approval
So we just need --
You have Trustee
And DEC.
And DEC.
So it's really
Health Department,
before we get that.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
approval?
MR. SAMUELS:
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
MEMBER GOEHRINGER:
Health Department?
us
MR. SAMUELS: Yeah, and they won't give
approval until we have Zoning. Yes, they
June 7, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 166
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
want everything. It's a tricky system. We're
close to shallow water. We have to a little
fill there, to bring it up in height. It's
not easy to put a sanitary system in there.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Are you putting a
new septic in there?
MR. SAMUELS: That is what it was when
it was required for a demolition. What is
there now, for seasonal residence --
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: It's probably not
adequate.
MR. SAMUELS: And the Bingham's I am
sure, they don't want to have back-up's?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Probably not.
MR. SAMUELS: It would be better to
conform.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Yes.
MR. SAMUELS: And that is what the
Trustees and the DEC's permit says.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay.
MR. SAMUELS: In fact, the DEC's and
Trustees permit both offer reconstruction. I
don't think that would be a problem for them
if we renovate instead. I think I would go
back to them for an amendment.
June 7, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 167
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I think it's
going to be interesting to see this
renovation. You know, for future situations.
MR. SAMUELS: Yeah.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I just want to say,
it was really touch and go in the Park's
District in Mattituck, I don't know what the
difference in elevation is, because -- I
was the Commissioner, they had put something
like nine new cesspools in, making that west
wing basically a play room, so to speak.
That was it. It took a long time to get that
done.
MR. SAMUELS: I think this isn't going
to be so bad for the Health Department. I was
surprised that it took the DEC a long time,
which is actually more restrictive than the
Health Department is for dimensions below
septic systems and sanitary tanks.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The history is
there.
MR. SAMUELS:
Right.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: It's a
different, I think.
MEMBER DINIZIO:
little
I just have a
June 7, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 168
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
question. Gerry, because I wasn't here at the
last one. This is not a demo because you're
leaving up 25 percent of the building?
MR. SAMUELS: We're actually leaving
up more than that. We're certainly leaving at
least 25, yes.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: That was
actually a question that I was going to ask
you. Do you know what percentage you will
actually be leaving in place?
MR. SAMUELS: I don't, as a percentage.
I would say 50 percent, and just because if
you look at the pink here and compare it to
the green.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: So that is your
guesstimate?
MR. SAMUELS: Even the roof structure
we can technically leave.
MEMBER DINIZIO: That decision, is
function because you apply for the
that a
I mean, after
MS. MOORE:
between making this
Variance application versus
application.
the new water?
It was the difference
a straightforward Area
a Use Variance
June 7, 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
a
WEISMAN: The previous was
CHAIRPERSON
complete demo?
MR. SAMUELS: Right.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
You know, then
it lost its preexisting nonconformity. Then
it presented all those problems. So we
suggested a Use Variance would be the only
way to establish that nonconformity. And the
code did change, and we reconsidered and got a
new Notice of Disapproval.
MEMBER DINIZIO: So you reconsidered
and reapplied?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Yes.
MR. SAMUELS: It was because of this
meeting, the previous hearing that we made
that decision. It wasn't because of the
demo code.
of you guys.
I mean, initially. It was because
MEMBER DINIZIO:
from that?
MR.
SAMUELS:
You certainly
Yes, definitely.
benefit
MEMBER DINIZIO: And the reason you got
a new Notice of Disapproval?
MR. SAMUELS: Right. I had to go to
that and therefore we were subject to that
June 7, 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
2O
21
22
23
24
25
change in the law.
MEMBER DINIZIO: Yes. That is what
I wanted to hear. Thank you very much.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Let's just
explain for the record that, that despite the
setback of the bulkhead, it is not accurate
on the new Notice of Disapproval. It's not
referring it to a demo and reconstruction, but
rather to a first and second story enlargement
and alterations to a seasonal dwelling. While
you're there talking to them about this
bulkhead setback, discuss with them the terms
of the seasonal dwelling, just so we're clear
in how we have to word things, because
according to State Code it won't be a seasonal
dwelling, as soon as you install the required
heating and cooling system. It might be that
alterations to a seasonal dwelling to become a
dwelling, or whatever way the Building
Department says to word it, but lets make
sure that we don't get hung up on some
misrepresentation of what is expected here.
MR. SAMUELS: Okay. The State
Building code is heavily favored towards
conditioned space. Nobody builds seasonal
June 7, 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
residences anymore.
CHAIRPERSON
an odd situation.
MR. SAMUELS:
CHAIRPERSON
sure this thing
WEISMAN: But this is such
It is.
WEISMAN:
reflects what
and act appropriately and get
properly.
MR. SAMUELS: Gotcha.
MEMBER DINIZIO: The fact is, we're
making some of these decisions based on the
fact that this is a seasonal community.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: It
MEMBER DINIZIO: But our
made and based on that. I mean,
I want to make
you intend to do
it in a decision
it, we are looking at it being out there all
year round. You know, they got updated septic
system. You know, they're not really using it
all year round.
MR. SAMUELS: No.
MEMBER DINIZIO: They're not going to
be contributing to the School District. They
are not --
MS. MOORE: But I think you are
using the seasonal definition as kind of
was.
decisions are
think about
June 7, 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
being applied two different ways.
this is a -- this community tends to be
homeowners that are using the houses as
say through the summer, sporadically
Seasonally,
second
you
MR. SAMUELS: No.
MS. MOORE: No.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
just want to do it correctly.
MS. MOORE: Yes. Yes.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
it was seasonal. There were
other properties in this town
and were also seasonal.
seasonal. In this case,
seasonally but
dwellings.
MS. MOORE:
CHAIRPERSON
Some
they
the language is
Correct.
WEISMAN:
Seriously, we
And traditionally
a couple of
that were unique
of them remain
may be used
that they're
They're heated.
all their kids. It has not been traditionally
a community that -- I think you might be able
to tell me better. Is there anybody living
there all year round?
throughout the winter months, holidays and
things like that versus, as you said, a year
round dwelling and somebody living there with
June 7, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 173
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
They're air conditioned. They're
Whether you use them year round or not.
just have to get the language correct in
a dwelling.
So we
the
MEMBER DINIZIO: And again, a lot of
the reason why this particular place is
allowed to exist with so many residences on
single piece of property, is based in part of
the fact that it's a seasonal use. It's
certainly something to be said about. You
know, that in our decision. So you know I
think we ought to think long and hard about
creating year round residences in what we
consider to be seasonal residences. You know,
a condominium complex or whatever.
MS. MOORE: But I think that ship has
decision and in the Notice of Disapproval.
MS. MOORE: Yep.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: We can write in
additional information that the proposal is
relevant out of the public hearing transcript.
Whether it's with what Jim just pointed out
and not necessarily occupied all year round,
but once you're given this permission to have
a heated/air conditioned dwelling, it's a
dwelling. It's not seasonal, by definition.
June 7, 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
sailed many, many, many, many years ago,
because every single one of these houses,
don't know of any that are not air
conditioned, heated space.
MEMBER HORNING: Leslie, could we get
a listing of variances granted in the
immediate neighborhood?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Sure. Well, we
have Archer submitted here. You can make a
distinction between that determination. I
did a little homework on this actually. There
are some similarities. It's not referred to
as a seasonal dwelling at all in this. We
will have to look up the Notice of
Disapproval. To the best that we can figure
out, we being, Vicki and I, is that this
decision, which is 2005 was to renovate within
an existing footprint, and reconstruction of
an existing dwelling in that same footprint.
However, and that's what's referred to in the
Trustees and the ZBA's decision. And in
Health Department and DEC, it's
reconstruction, new sanitary
second-story addition. What
Permit permit
says was
of one-story,
the Building
to demo and construct
June 7, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 175
1
2
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
new dwelling. That is
said demo and new constriction.
else on here says reconstruction
the only thing that
Everything
of first
floor and second-story addition and new
sanitary. That is DEC, Trustees and ZBA. So
it's kind of all over the place on Kimogenor
Point. If you start looking at all of them,
each one depending on what Board wrote that
decision and what Building Inspector wrote-up
the Notice of Disapproval, you can see the
inconsistencies. I have the Notice of
Disapproval, September 29, 2004, for
reconstruction of an
That's what Archer
MS. MOORE:
defined as demolition.
existing dwelling.
was referred to.
And reconstruction was
not
Yes. So at
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: this
point, what I would like -- I got part of the
transcript of it, because you submitted it.
So I wanted to find out what it really meant
and, No. 3 is this transcript says the house
will be renovated within the existing
footprint except a small corner of the house
will be squared off. That was the first
floor.
June 7, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 176
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MEMBER DINIZIO: When was this?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: That was 2004.
The decision was written in 2005. So various
things happen. Sometimes it's referred to as
seasonal, and some referred to as dwellings,
but the bottom line is, there have been over
many years changes to most of the dwellings.
From my part, I am prepared to close the
hearing subject to receipt of the information
that we requested so that we clarify the
correct bulkhead setback in the notice. We
have the survey showing the expanding
footprint and we have the elevations with
floor plans that preserve some of the walls.
Does the Board have any comments or
questions?
(No Response.)
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Is there anyone
in the audience that would like to address
this application?
MR. FISKER: Hello, my name is Fred
Fisker and I am a Kimogenor Point neighbor.
I am a member of the Kimogenor Point Board
of Directors. I am also a member of a third
generation of Kimogenor Point. My grandfather
June 7, 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
was one of the original incorporators, and he
and my father have lived there their whole
lives, as seasonal residents, as do I. I just
want to let you know how much work the
Bingham's did within the Kimogenor Point
community to get to this point where they're
at with you, because they have been talking
about redoing, upgrading their house for
several years, and they have talked to all the
eleven other shareholders. They have gotten
feedback and input from many of us. We're all
concerned about maintaining community
character. It is a very unique community. It
is a very pretty community. We care about
that too, because when I walk out my front
door, I see their house everyday, and so
whatever they do, I wanted it in harmony with
the character of the community. And they
took all of our feedback, not just mine, and
the other ten shareholders as well, into
consideration when they did their plans.
And when they hired Tom Samuels, who has done
other architectural work on the community, you
will see various houses that have been
upgraded. It is still very pretty, and the
June 7, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 178
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
houses aren't
of our community,
the Bingham's are
identical. So we're very proud
and we're very proud that
our neighbor's. And we
support them 100 percent. Our Board
requested that every shareholder approve their
plans before we would deliver the Board
letters you have received. So I just wanted
to let you know that they have 100 percent
support from within our community to go
forward.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay. Thank
you very much.
Anything else from anybody? Yes,
sir.
MR. FOX: I am Bob Fox. My wife and I
occupy Cottage No. 10 that you were referring
to earlier at Kimogenor Point. We two are
in full support. I echo everything that Fred
Fisker just brought to your attention. The
character of the Point is really -- have been
preserved and everything that has been
presented. The Bingham's have done a very
good job for our community, and approaching
the renovation of this house in the way that
they have. So it's got our full support as
June 7, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 179
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
well.
Anyone
the
Thank you.
Anything from
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
else?
(No Response.)
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
Board?
(No Response.)
going make
subject to receipt
have described.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: All in
MEMBER DINIZIO: Aye.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye.
MEMBER HORNING: Aye.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Aye.
(See Minutes for Resolution.)
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Ail right. I am
to a motion to close this hearing
of the information that we
favor?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I am going to
ma ke a
motion to close the meeting.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Ail in
favor?
MEMBER DINIZIO: Aye.
June 7, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 180
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye.
MEMBER HORNING: Aye.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Aye.
(Whereupon, the public hearings for
June 7, 2012 concluded.
June 7, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 181
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
C E R T I F I C A T I O N
I, Jessica DiLallo, certify that the
foregoing transcript of tape recorded Public
Hearings was prepared using required
electronic transcription equipment and is a
true and accurate record of the Hearings.
Signature:
Je~
Jessica DiLallo
Court Reporter
PO Box 984
Holbrook, New York
11741
Date: July 25, 2012