HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-08/02/2012 Hearing1
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
X
Southold Town Hall
Southold, New York
August 2, 2012
10:09 A.M.
Board Members Present:
LESLIE KANES WEISMAN -
GERARD GOEHRINGER
JAMES DINIZIO, JR.
KENNETH SCHNEIDER
GEORGE HORNING -
Chairperson/Member
- Member (Left at 1:30 P.M.)
Member
- Member
Member
JENNIFER ANDALORO Assistant Town Attorney
VICKI TOTH - Secretary
Jessica DiLallo
Court Reporter
P.O. Box 984
Holbrook, New York
(631}-338-1409
11741
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
INDEX OF HEARINGS
Hearing:
Alan Fidellow, #6578
Murray Gaylord, %6585
Brewer Yacht Yard, #6568
Francis D'Haene, #6580
Vincent & Eileen Flaherty, #6583
Christopher M. & Patricia F. McCarthy
%6582
Denise Geis, #6579
Colleen McDonough & Helen Hooke,
#6584
Page:
3-43
43-64
64-77
77-83
84-126
126-134
134-169
169-178
August 2, 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 %6578 - ALAN FIDELLOW
MR. ANDERSON: Bruce Anderson,
Suffolk Environmental Consultants for the
applicant, The Fidellow's. As you recall,
we were here last month, and during that
hearing, we put in the four corners of our
zoning case. The concern that arose during
that hearing as to whether or not the
project that is proposed which entailed the
(In Audible) and squaring off the second
floor. The question arose as to whether or
not those activities constitute a
demolition as that term has been recently
described and rendered in the Town Code.
The definition for demolition states that a
demolition is -- an activity that is
considered demolition is when more than 75%
of the structure is removed. As part of
that investigation, we uncovered portion of
the foundation, and we also took out some
vertical sheetrock, so that the vertical
studs could be preserved. I understand
that each of the Board members have been
there. The architect, Don Feiler, who is
here today, walked you through that. I am
August 2, 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
also going to put in the record a statement
from Don that reads as follows. It says
"I have examined the above mentioned
structure as part of my investigation. I
certify that the existing first floor and
foundation is structurally sound and would
be adequate to support the proposed second
floor addition." In addition, on Tuesday
of this week, we met with Mike Verity, who
I understood would be here today. We met
with Mike Verity in the field on Tuesday at
2:30 and Mike also observed the foundation,
and also exposed an interior studs. So we
walked around the building and the
downstairs, etcetera. We have initially
calculated that the amount of structure to
be removed came in at about 28% and Mike
informed us that the calculation should not
include the crawl space. So what we have is
a full basement underneath the -- what
would be the northerly wing of the
building, which is located, 5.7 feet from
the lot line. The westerly structure
underneath it is a crawl space. So it would
be the -- he asked us to recalculate that.
August 2, 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
2O
21
22
23
24
25
We did some preliminary calculations in the
house while we were there. Don revised his
area of demolition subtracting out the
crawl space, but leaving in the foundation.
I am going to give you a calculation of
this also for your record.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: It is now
determined to be 50%?
MR. ANDERSON: That is correct. We
took out the crawl space. There is not
much guidance. We're all sort of going
through this definition of demolition that
was recently adopting. So we're trying to
get a better understanding of how that is
going to work in the Town. That was the
instruction that were given to us. It was
fortunate for us that this is not a
demolition.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Do you have
more than one of these?
MR. ANDERSON: That can be done, and
I can certainly provide that to you.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I am going to
pass
this around.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER:
Can I just make
August 2, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
a statement. I think you were incorrect in
determining, unless I heard it incorrectly
for some strange reason. The actual
foundation that we looked at, okay, was
somewhat in the center of the home on the
westerly side.
MR. ANDERSON: That is correct.
I thought you
MEMBER GOEHRINGER:
said northerly?
MR. ANDERSON: No. No. What I said
was, that the addition that was built to
the house on the northern side is --
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Okay.
MR. ANDERSON: That is a poured
foundation, and that was built pursuant to
the '61 Zoning variance that was granted
the owners. Incidentally, this is a summer
house that was originally constructed in
1950, by Leon Vaneer. Leon passed away and
his son Leon Jr., actually applied for that
addition and constructed that addition,
which became a full poured foundation.
Leon Jr., passed away last year and the
Fidellow's and the owners now have passed
it to the next generation. So this is now
August 2, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
a fourth generation, I assume, living in
this house from its initial construction.
With me today is Nick Vercollone and his
fiance Nicky, and Barbara and Mark
Fidellow. So this is part of the family --
you have the reason for this whole project.
Just to give a reasonable accomodation of
bedrooms for his
this house since
in 1950 or there
family that have owned
its initial construction
about.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: You
that part of the foundation was
foundation?
MR. ANDERSON: Yes. That
underneath --
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
"basement" over here?
MR. ANDERSON: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
mentioned
poured
was
Where it says
That looks
like block?
MR. ANDERSON: I'm sorry, block. I
misspoke. That is the full basement. I
guess the only other thing you might have
noticed if you walked around the house,
it's a block, and it has a stucco finish to
August 2, 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
it. It's all very sound condition, and
that is why I was able to certify this was
adequate to support the activity. Keep in
mind, you already have a second floor. So
this is a one and a half story cottage as
it is. Of course the studs were found to
be sound. Don is here, he can answer any
further questions that you have. That
pretty much completes our case.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay. Maybe
this would be useful to ask Mike to come
forward, so he can possibly answer this
question. Mike, would you come forward,
who is the Building Inspector? Mike would
you come forward so we can ask you a couple
of questions?
MR. VERITY: Michael Verity, Chief
Building Inspector for the Town of
Southold.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Thank you.
When the Building Department makes a
determination for demolition, does that
include the mechanical --
MR. VERITY: Based on the
definition, no. Based on State
Code that
August 2, 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
would be a, yes.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: And then if
State Code is stricter than Local Code, I
would assume State Code prevails, or not?
MR. VERITY: I had a whole game plan
all set up. You caught me off guard with
that one. No, I wouldn't say -- it would
prevail when it comes to constructions
purposes, but not for zoning purposes.
It's two different categories. Two
different discussions.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay. The
architect, based upon discussions with
people in the field, indicates that you
have a 50% removal?
MR. VERITY: That is what I saw,
correct.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: And you
corroborate that that is the case?
MR. VERITY: Correct. I am basing
it on his numbers.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Can you
explain to the Board, please, why this
Notice of Disapproval was determined to be
a demolition, with reconstruction and
August 2, 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
additions?
MR. VERITY: When was the Notice of
Disapproval written?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: This
Disapproval was written on April 26th
the new code was in effect.
MR. VERITY: It's pretty close to
the same time. Is it close to the same
time, that might have been the reason
being. I think it was around the end of
April when that was approved.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: It was
aprproved before
Notice of
code.
sure.
after
MR. VERITY: I can't say that for
I couldn't answer that without
having to check the timeline.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
signed by Pat Conklin, and she
vacation and couldn't be here.
MR. VERITY: That's correct.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Just for the
record, I want the record to reflect a
conversation that I did have with her that
The notice is
is on
then. I believe that this
Disapproval was based on the new
August 2, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 11
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
the Trustee application did not look like a
demolition. It would have appeared to be a
replace and additions in place and in kind.
So I went to ask her why it was written
that way. Her answer was, that virtually
the existing first floor building on the
lower, had new windows going in. That wall
was being sort of gutted on the interior.
That all new mechanical systems were going
in. The cost of construction was
substantial. The removal of the half
story, which we could not find a building
permit for, but that is another story, it
being removed. The entire second story was
being added. It conflicted somewhat. It
conflicted with the LWRP recommendation,
which really was based not on a demo. It
was based on the events as stated, a
consequence of being a replacement on the
existing footprint in kind and with no land
minor
and a
disturbance, because the foundation was
being kept. There is no excavation going
on. So it was therefore considered to be a
action, which would then be exempt,
new septic system is recommended and
August 2, 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
then is consistent with LWRP. So I was
trying to sort out all the facts so that we
can bring them into the public record and
see how all this played out. Any comments
on now having received this?
MR. VERITY: It's hard not to call
it a demo, because it's a demo. Pat's
description is correct. And I think once
something is demoed they tend to agree on
that. I have explained this before. If
you take a roof system off, it's a
demolition. You're demoing the old roof
and then putting one on. You hear that
the time in the building world, the
building code world. So that is why that
all
explained in the past, has some form of
demolition. It's the level of demolition,
and it's different when it comes to the
description is there. Probably will always
be there. To get beyond that conversation,
you then have to use the hard numbers. The
site visit, the percentages from the
architect. We're starting a conversation
by just saying it's a demolition. Every
alteration and every addition, as I
August 2, 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
Town zoning compared to State zoning. So
that's why -- it's really hard to have that
conversation. To stay on track, you slide
one way and the zoning you slide another
way, because of State Code requirements.
So there's really no hard fast track you
can take when you're having a conversation
with us. With you, yes. You're talking
zoning. We're spinning our hats from
zoning to State Code and back and forth.
There could be multiple conversations.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: One thing Pat
did not have the benefit of, was any
foundation plans. We have one. It's very
basic, but we have one. I wish there was a
term that we could use as a partial
demolition. The Board sees the word
"demolition," we're now going on the basis
of code, which is 75% or more. When that
is the case, it lost it's previous existing
nonconformity status, and the Board will
look for greater conformity within the
code. So it would be very helpful to this
Board if the Building Department in writing
these notices did not see this as a total
August 2, 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
demolition. Then the code will state it as
a partial demolition. Because then that is
going to tell us that, yes, things are
being removed, but it's not totally --
MR. VERITY: We can be more specific
and say removal of a roof system and
addition of a roof system. Demolition of a
second floor --
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Yes.
MR. VERITY: If that is what you
would like? I think, again, the time frame
was April and April. So the new definition
and I am pretty much certain about that,
that it was all around that April time. It
was written in April. The approval came in
the end of April. So like Bruce said
before, it's kind of the first one with the
definition, as far as I am concerned. So
we need a little bit of time to adjust to
it, and we can do the best that we can with
that. If you have any recommendations,
feel free to throw them out there and make
it easier for you.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Would you be
prepared to write an amended Notice of
August 2, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 15
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Disapproval?
MR. VERITY: If you have to have it.
I think the facts state otherwise. I mean,
that happens all the time in the Zoning
Board. We may consider one thing, and you
can say well, obviously it's not. And I
agree based on the numbers now and based on
the site visit, it's probably a 50%
renovation. They were told that if they go
beyond and take the first floor walls down,
then they're going to get into that 75%.
So they have to be very careful with that.
We don't mind, beefing up the structure
underneath, but when the walls start to
come down on the first floor, now it's a
whole different ball game. I think that is
Pat's concern, and that has always been our
concern, and the Board as well. We approve
one thing and then it turns into something
else. Termites or water damage, that you
can't see. That's why I wanted to go
further and ask them if they can unearth
the foundation and look at the walls. What
I took a look at, looked like it was in
good shape. Between that and the
August 2, 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
certification, we have to rely on that
statement. The code does not require us to
put in a new foundation. The walls appear
to be fine. The only thing that they have
mentioned that they might have to because
of the type of construction is sheath the
exterior of the first floor. So if someone
sees that, they need not to be alarmed.
It's part of it. I mean, technically, the
walls are still there. It's basically
what's there with sheathing on top, which
is what was there at the time of
construction. Now, it's going to have to
be re-sheathed. So it's going to appear
like the first floor is gone, but I was
told that is not going to be the fact.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: They're going
to have to structure it up because there is
probably not enough depth for a proper
cavity. So I mean that in and of itself is
going to have to happen.
MR. VERITY: The portion that I
looked at seems structurally sound, and
then the architect is basically certifying
that.
August 2, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 17
1
2
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
And the
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
footing is to code?
MR. VERITY: It's not to code, but
if the architect certifies that, again the
State Code does not require them to do
that. It's not the proper depth, but it
met the criteria or the requirement at the
poured
time. Today, it would not meet the
requirements.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: And you
believe that the structure and the bearing
walls of the first floor combined with the
foundation, are structurally sound enough
to support a second story?
MR. VERITY: That is not a
I would make. That is up to the
or engineer to make that call.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay.
do you have any questions?
MEMBER HORNING: I have a
questions for Mike.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER:
past, I have been on this
a number of years. You know,
so many building inspections.
call that
architect
Gerry,
couple of
Mike, in the
Board for a quite
we have done
August 2, 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
MR. VERITY: I know I am your
favorite, Gerry. You don't have to tell
everyone that. Thank you.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Many of which
have never testified before this Board.
You are the kind one that is able to be
present. Where was the interior wall
exposed?
MR. VERITY: The east wall.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Is that the wall
farthest from the bluff?
MR. VERITY: Actually, it was pretty
close to the water. It's probably a large
amount of stone would go through there and
hit that wall. Not to say, I had only
checked one area, and I had explained that
to them. If something else happens, and
it's a deviation from the decision that was
made, then they are going to have to talk
and come back to the Board. They're aware
of that. We have had that discussion. So
without taking off all the sheetrock on the
entire first floor, there is no way to
really tell.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: From the
August 2, 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
standpoint of knowing that things can
change drastically, if they had to do that.
But not at this specific time here, because
they're utilizing the house to do that. So
that we understood exactly where we were
going at that particular point. The
percentages didn't change. Do you know
what I am saying? If they chose that they
were not going to use the house after
September 1st or Labor Day on, I mean, I
would think that would be a way to go. The
reason why I say that, as you know, take
the house on Graffill (phonetic) and New
Suffolk Avenue, specific issues on that
particular house, which was a two-story,
which was being totally rebuilt. The house
looks absolutely gorgeous today. You
started construction on that house and the
builder had to come in and explain to us
how they assisted up the beams and what the
purpose of that was. This is a very
similar situation, this was on the water
and that one was not. This one was
adjacent to the water. This one is on the
water. Number 2, I can not take any
August 2, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 20
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
conversation
credence on that front deck area. As far
as I am concerned, it does not exist.
There are no permits on it. Nothing to
tell me when it was built. When it was
constructed. It is just too close to the
bluff. So that is it for that situation.
MR. VERITY: That is not even a
I would need today.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The particular
situation is, I don't like to particularly
see any further loading in that 5.7 area,
even though there was a variance for that
particular point. I think the loading
should be in the back of the house. Away
from that area. Meaning, on the new
portion of that house. In this particular
area here. That is my particular opinion
on the whole situation. Again, not
withstanding the fact that there was a
variance on it. The last thing is, and
this is somewhat a difficult one. I don't
think that I have ever asked you that
question. If this was your house or this
was your job, you were still a builder
doing this job, wouldn't you suggest that
August 2, 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
we basically, and this is a respectful
question, that we expose those walls so
that we know exactly what has to be done?
MR. VERITY: I am not going to
answer it as a builder. Contractor
whatever you want --
MEMBER GOEHRINGER:
to put you in a situation.
MR. VERITY: You as
request that. I have
that. Like I said, I
them on notice, but I
I am not trying
The amount --
the Board can
no reason to request
don't have to put
did mention to them
that I have seen it happens, where you
think you're going to save walls and you
can't. There is too much damage, water
damage or whatever else. They're
definitely aware of it. They know they
would have to go back to the Zoning Board.
Again, that is a decision that you would
have to make as a Board. If you want to
see it with the walls open up, I am not
going to make that statement as the Chief
Building Inspector or previous contractor
or whatever. That is not for me to say.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: It's so easy at
August 2, 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
this time of year, five weeks to Labor Day.
So you're holding the hearing in abeyance
until such time. This is a learning
experience for me, and possible for some of
my fellow Board members. As you know in
the past, the situations that we have to
have Step Work Orders and so on. That
becomes very, very difficult. I know I was
throwing it at you, and I apologize.
MR. VERITY: That's all right.
MEMBER HORNING: Mike, you were
saying there is sort of an overlap in the
writing of this decision, in effect of an
old law and it was replaced by a new law.
If you wrote this today, you would not be
calling it a demolition? You would be
calling it a renovation or something else?
MR. VERITY: If you wanted me to be
a little more specific, I probably would be
-- basically go through first floor system,
second floor system and break it down that
way. I see that happening in the future.
We will probably break it down a little but
more. 20 years ago, it was a simple one
line for all Notice of Disapproval's. It
August 2, 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
has pretty much evolved. It is another
time in the Town of Southold where the
Disapproval is going to have to evolve
again. It is really going to help out the
applicant, as well as the Zoning Board, to
make the determination. So I would write
it the same way, but it would be probably a
little more specific in reference to a roof
system, a mechanical system, second floor
system, whatever.
MEMBER HORNING: It was not a
demolition as was --
MR. VERITY: As per the information
and based on the architects information,
based on what I was told, I would say, no,
it's not a full demo, based on the new
definition, which is 75% of the gross --
MEMBER HORNING: It might be helpful
to get a new Notice of Disapproval just for
our decision making benefit.
MR. VERITY: That is fine. That is
just for semantics. If that is what the
attorney and the Board would like us to do.
I have no problems. Whatever needs
done to move this forward for the
to be
August 2, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 24
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
applicant.
MEMBER HORNING: How many times has
the Building Inspector during this process
visit the site?
MR. VERITY: How many times?
Probably five to ten.
MEMBER HORNING: Are you
through the visitations, would
MR. VERITY: Well, yeah, but even
when we get an application we try and do
site visit. So I have been there twice.
So that's two of the ten that
about.
halfway
you say?
contractor would give us a call
hey, listen, I think that we're
scope of our
take a look?
The only way that we would
was demoed would be from a
a
I am talking
MEMBER HORNING: I am talking about
when you go back and they start taking down
walls, the Building Department will be on
top of that? You would know fairly soon
that that was going on?
MR. VERITY: We would hope that the
and say,
outside the
work. Can you come down and
We would not schedule that.
find out if it
neighbor or from
August 2, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 25
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
the contractor or concerned citizen. That
give us a call.
phone and looking at a
and taking a look.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
What we don't
want to have happen, which has happened
infrequently, and I am sure that the
applicant's don't want that either, is to
wind up with a Stop Work Order because of
unanticipated things that come up. It can
happen, which is why Member Goehringer was
interested into looking more further into
the walls on the
the applicant is
consequences are
you make representations
first floor. As long as
fully aware the
significant, if in fact
to this Board and
Even if it's over the
plan or coming down
is usually how we get most of our calls.
We wouldn't have that in our radar unless
it was brought to our attention or just for
some routine inspection.
MEMBER HORNING: So there is a
possibility --
MR. VERITY: There is always a
possibility, but most of the contractors,
you know, they do the right thing and they
August 2, 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
at this public hearing on the record, and
then what is represented doesn't happen.
We're now hearing that this is not a total
demo. We're hearing that this is
alterations in place and in kind with a
second story addition and demolition of a
roof and a second story addition with
bearing walls on the first floor that are
structurally sound and could take that
load. I just wanted to make everyone aware
of the fact that, it happens all too often,
unanticipated problems that a good
contractor is going to make, and say,
"look, I didn't realize that this was going
to happen. Financially, where do you want
to go? This is not repairable." What the
contractor does if they do something that
is contrary to what a decision is based on,
and what the public record shows that is
not something that the applicant can blame
the contractor over. You will be back
before this Board with a Stop Work Order.
So we just want to make sure that they're
confident, that you are confident, that the
ability to keep that foundation and those
August 2, 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
interior walls, as described, is in fact
what will happen, so everyone comes out
okay.
Jim, do you have questions?
MEMBER DINIZIO: No.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Ken?
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: No questions.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Then let's
proceed and perhaps, did you want to make
some comments or have Don come forward and
corroborate the structural soundness of the
existing dwelling and foundation?
MR. ANDERSON: I just want to say
that we were asked to undertake the various
investigations and we did so. That is to a
conclusion, that the foundation and
vertical members are sufficient. I think
that burden is too high, but I don't think
that it is appropriate to say that if it
becomes a demolition that you have to come
back to this Board, it's an inappropriate
condition to be placed on a zoning
determination because we're not applying
for a variance to demolish a house and
rebuild it in its footprint. That is not
August 2, 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
on the table. I spoke at length with
Mr. Fidellow about this and explained to
him that there was this new definition of
demolition, and I said there would be great
efforts made to relocate the house further
to the west, from the bulkhead. His
response was, if I -- if the property
entailed a demolition, I wouldn't even
undertake the demolition. In other words,
there will be no building project. They
would simply live with what they have.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Don, do you
wish to come forward and tell us about your
inspection on this?
MR. FEILER: Don Feiler, architect
for the Fidellow's. I was hired, I believe
in March, 2011 and proceeded to meet with
the family members.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Can you just
pull the mic up a little bit?
MR. FEILER: The family members are
spread out. I want to just tell you the
history of it. From day one, I have been
meeting with the Town Board, Zoning Board,
Building Department, everyone, to start out
August 2, 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
as an addition. Mostly improving the first
floor as you saw from the plans. Pretty
much relocating stairs, at this point, is
pretty much a ladder up to the second
floor. Make it a real conforming stair,
and kitchen and bathroom, in the same
location. New windows. New siding. The
first inspection, I was there, I saw that
it was a real foundation. The house is
still standing, gravity keeps it from
blowing away, but this was a real
foundation underneath it, which was really
a big plus. And it was never an intention
of the homeowners to build more than that
on the first floor. The project that
they're undertaking is based on budget. On
a limited budget. They wanted to expand,
which is all up on the second floor. There
was no first floor footprint expansion -- I
guess the major expenditure would be on the
second floor over that -- where the entry
is on the street side. That is a roof
there now. There will be a second floor
over that and that is where the real
basement is. So that is easier to see what
August 2, 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
was under that. The discussions early on
were, it was not necessary, hopefully not
necessary for amy demolition of this first
floor because budget constraints. It
wouldn't be a project if we had to go that
far just because of their trying to
accomplish what it was in their budget.
It's like swearing in church, but I am
going to say knockdown. It's not
knockdown. We're not trying to -- define
on paper, if we're not changing anything
just to accommodate what it is in the code.
It's pretty much following suit from the
beginning.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Any more
questions?
Jim?
MEMBER DINIZIO: No.
MR. FEILER: We do have some of the
family, if they have any questions?
MR. ANDERSON: I do want to say
this, that it is our hope that the
can be closed today and a decision
at the next meeting so that
able to construct, make our
hearing
rendered
we would be
building permit
August 2, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 31
1
2
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
application
the later part of
advised of that.
CHAIRPERSON
MEMBER DINIZIO:
couple of questions.
and construct construction in
September. Please be
WEISMAN:
That survey is dated
assume that is the latest
MR. ANDERSON: No,
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
2012.
MR.
ANDERSON:
Jim, go ahead?
I just have a
One is on the survey.
August 16, 2011. I
survey?
I don't think so.
There is June
That would be the
latest one.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: While we're
here, we should enter into the record some
information on what happened with the deck.
MEMBER DINIZIO: Am I looking at the
right survey now, this says it's been dated
June 6th?
MR. ANDERSON: The survey that you
are acting on is dated June 6, 2012.
MEMBER DINIZIO: It says accessory
building with one and a half bath?
MR. ANDERSON: That is correct.
MEMBER DINIZIO: Now, do you have
a
August 2, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 32
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
tl
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
CO for that?
MR. ANDERSON: Yes.
MEMBER DINIZIO: Can you present
that to us?
MR. ANDERSON: It's in your
application packet.
MEMBER BINIZIO: Is that the one
dated 19937
MR. ANDERSON: As you recall, we
went over this --
MEMBER DINIZIO: I'm sorry. I do
not recall that. That is not your fault.
That is my brain. Not yours.
MR. ANDERSON: What we said in last
months hearing, we spoke about the
accessory structure and what I stated to
the Board then and I will restate it now,
is that we're aware of the Town's accessory
apartment law, which requires that this be
a year round residence in order for the
accessory structure to be a apartment. I
also stated to the Board that of course
they could waive that, but in my opinion,
there would be no compelling reason to
waive the principal residence requirement
August 2, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 33
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
because it would open up all kinds of other
issues that the Board and the Town at large
might not want to do. So we stated for the
record, that this can not be used as an
accessory apartment. So that was the
testimony given last hearing. Now, I did
ask --
MEMBER DINIZIO: Just in reference
to that, can we just state on the survey
that it's a garage?
MR. ANDERSON:
It's not
You can't pull a car into it.
MEMBER DINIZIO:
what you were issued a
saying for the purposes of
decision based on you know,
MR. ANDERSON: It
alterations to a garage.
permit #21189. The deck,
property record card was
a building permit #7437z,
issued in 1974. And that
application package. As I
original house was built,
with the addition built on
a garage.
But in 93, that is
CO for it. I am
us making a
the record.
says construction
That was building
according to the
built pursuant to
deck that was
appears in your
said, the
I think in 1950,
the north side
August 2, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 34
6
7
8
9
l0
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1
2
3
4
5
facing the water in 1961.
of the sequence of that.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER:
Bruce, excuse me for jumping
is brand new on there.
MR. ANDERSON: Well, it may have
been resurfaced but what I am saying is
that the -- there was always a deck there
as far as I know. I don't know that --
seems -- I think we all understand, for
So that was sort
First of all,
in. That Trex
it
always sort of evolving issue. I think
nowadays, if you were to pull off the
planting and put new planting down, you
would need probably to ask the Building
Department as to whether or not you can
that. So I think that is the best
do
years, this Board has seen, and you having
seen for the last couple of years, people
have resurfaced decks routinely without a
building permit. It's an upgrade anyway.
In the old days as I recall, you used to
say, if you can run a lawn mower over a
carpter, it didn't even warrant a building
permit. Then that became if it was within
one foot it doesn't warrant -- it was
August 2, 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
explanation that I can give you.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Well, perhaps
someone from the family can tell us about
when that was done? That had a permit from
1974. It is unlikely that all these years
later when the Trex was put on, it was most
likely replacement of joists as well. I
can't testify 100%. I don't know. Perhaps
on of the family members may have some
sense of what actually happened. I guess
what we're trying to do is clear up any
other odds and ends that are on the
property, so that we can be fairly
competent in addressing all of the
situations that may have arise.
MR. ANDERSON: I can't speak for
that.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Well, maybe
someone in the family knows what happened.
MR. VERCOLLONE: Hi, I'm Nick
Vercollone. My mother is one of the
owners. A1 is --
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Spell your
last name, please?
MR. VERCOLLONE:
August 2, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 36
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
t2
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
V-E-R-C-O-L-L-O-N-E.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Thank you.
MR. VERCOLLONE: That deck -- I grew
up there. Ail of us grew up there. That
deck was there for -- obviously not the
deck in question but that exact footprint,
everything of that deck has been there
since, whenever 1973. There were pressure
treated boards there in a grid pattern,
3x3. And what I remember growing up is
splinters being pulled out of our feet on a
regular basis. We resurfaced the deck.
Some of the joists were replaced. I am a
builder too. It was done properly. We
probably should have went for a permit as
you look at a house. If we need to certify
the deck, we will. Whatever we need to do.
MEMBER DINIZIO: When did you
replace the joists? 19807
MR. VERCOLLONE: No, I was one then.
MEMBER DINIZIO: That's what I
thought.
MR. VERCOLLONE: But I did work on
the original deck -- another deck when I
was five. It was probably ten years ago, I
August 2, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 37
1
2
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
think.
It was in this century.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Nick, let me
just clear this up. The first treated
lumber that existed out here was
approximately 1980. The house that I
constructed in 1970-1978, there was no
treated lumber. So it is between '80 and
'82 that they started using it. The
original deck must have been somehow
re-enhanced.
MR. VERCOLLONE: Yes.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Because the
original lumber would have rotted away,
within a five or ten year period.
MR. VERCOLLONE: Well, that is why I
said I remember when I was five and pulling
a nail out of the original decking. I took
a tumble down the bank. So this is the
second time that deck has been reworked on,
I guess.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: There was
reference made to that deck, that was part
of the Trustees action. Is there a
Trustees' permit on this?
MR. ANDERSON: You have a Trustees
August 2, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 38
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
l0
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
permit that covers the deck.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: That is why I
wanted to make sure that the record
reflects that the Trustees made that
determination. This is a letter from Lisa
Laurence from the Trustees Department
requesting that they think about -- that
Mr. Fidellow think about reconstructing the
existing rear decking because it's in
disrepair. He has been advised of the
project description and it sent to the
office. That was dated December 7, 2011.
So at that point, was that Trex there?
MR. ANDERSON: No.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: It is holding
up a whole lot better than my Trex decking.
MR. ANDERSON: No, we added that
because they had no record of a deck.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: We just have
to make sure everything is picked up on the
tape recorder. In the revised project
description that went to the Trustees,
which is in our packet, the applicant
proposes to renovate the existing single
family dwelling 1,100 square foot footprint
August 2, 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
and construct a second story addition to
same. Additionally the applicant proposes
to reconstruct the existing deck, in kind
and in place measuring 490 square feet.
That was the revised --
MR. ANDERSON: That is correct.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: That was
already accomplished?
MR. ANDERSON: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: We just have
to clear this up.
MEMBER DINIZIO: I personally, and
this is no detriment to your application.
I think the survey should reflect the as
built's, the Pre-CO, which is basically
nonhabitable accessory garage. I mean, if
that wording can be put on the accessory
building with half bath, put in place of
that. It reflects more what exists on that
property. I understand about your
compromising. I was not here for your
application last month. It would more
reflect what actually exists there, because
you know, accessory building with a half
bath for me is something that you know,
August 2, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 40
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
could be used as an apartment, and I
understand it may very well be. But when
you put it on a survey, it changes the
language of the fact it may be habitable.
So if we can have that survey says
nonhabitable accessory building. I would
be happy with that.
MR. ANDERSON: Fine, because that is
what it has to be. That it is a
nonhabitable accessory structure.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I actually had
a question, while going back and forth,
Mike, can I ask you a question about the
record and the deck? You saw it obviously?
MR. VERITY: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Does the code
require
along the bank on that deck?
MR. VERITY: Based on the height of
it, on the deck itself, no.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Would it be
advisable? It would have to be more than
30 inches above grade, and I think the
grade --
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Not on the
that the railing be established on
August 2, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 41
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
sides?
MR. VERITY: Not on the sides but
from what I recall, I didn't want to get
too close to the edge, because I didn't
know if he was going to push me over or
Don. I stayed back at these steps.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I just wanted
to know.
MR. VERITY: I would have to take
another look at it. Months ago, if it
needed a rail, I would probably argue that
it did not based on State Code.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Thank you.
Any other questions that the Board has?
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Just that we're
going to close this hearing pending two
things. That is Number 1, what Jim was
requesting regarding the accessory
structure and a updated Notice of
Disapproval.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Is that
acceptable for everyone?
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Yes.
MEMBER DINIZIO: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I
will make a
August 2, 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
motion to close this hearing subject to
receipt of an amended updated survey
showing the accessory structure as
nonhabitable accessory structure with 1/2
bath and an amended Notice of Disapproval
specifying what kind of demolition is about
to take place. At what levels, the
alteration.
MR. ANDERSON: A partial demolition?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: A partial
demolition would suffice. If that is the
way that you want to word it.
MR. ANDERSON: That is up
Building Department?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: That
the Building Department, however,
to write it but I think the Building
to the
is up to
they want
a second?
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Ail in favor?
MEMBER DINIZIO: Aye.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye.
there
Inspector has heard us and the record, I
think they understand what we're trying to
accomplish. So that is the motion. Is
August 2, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 43
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
t0
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MEMBER HORNING: Aye.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Aye.
(See Minutes for Resolution.)
HEARING #6585 - MURRAY GAYLORD
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The next
application before the Board is for Murray
Gaylord, %6585. Request for variances from
Article XXII Code Section 280-116(B) and
Article XXIII Section 280-124 based on an
application for building permit and the
Building Inspector's June 21, 2012 Notice
of Disapproval for demolition and
reconstruction of single dwelling, at
1) less than the code required bulkhead
setback of 75 feet, 2) less than the code
required minimum side yard setback of 15
less than the code feet, 3) less than the
code required rear yard setback of 50 feet,
located at: 765 Beechwood Road, adjacent
to Great Peconic Bay, in Cutchogue.
MR. ANDERSON: Bruce Anderson,
Suffolk Environmental Consultants for the
applicant, Murray Gaylord. Mr. Gaylord
August 2, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 44
1
2
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
owns a piece of property that is at the end
of Beechwood Road, which is a private road.
That terminates at the end of the marsh in
Cutchogue. They also, for your information
own the vacant lot that is adjacent to the
north of the property, which is wetlands
and will remain undeveloped. The
Gaylord's, the application here, when
asked, I responded, should this be by this
Board for a demolition? We're going to
walk you through exactly what is going to
take place in this house, with the walls,
interior spaces, etcetera. You should know
though that the existing property contains
a single family dwelling, which is a one
and a half story single family dwelling.
It contains an accessory garage, which is
nonconforming in that it is within 4 to 5
feet from the side lot line, and 10 feet of
the front lot line. You should know that
that accessory garage will
removed, thereby enhancing
compliance for the overall
survey before you
removed. It will be
be
zoning
property. The
shows that garage to be
not reconstructed as
demolished or
August 2, 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
2O
21
22
23
24
25
part of this or any subsequent application
that we're contemplating. You should also
know that existing dwelling, is that
individual cesspool, and has been a great
deal of problems, because when the
groundwater is very high, the cesspool
overflows, I think once and that was last
summer, or last fall perhaps. And so we
would be putting in a compliant septic
system. In order to do that, we will be
raising the elevation of the property to
that. That compliant septic system has
already received approval from the Health
Department. This property has already
received approval from the Trustees, the
do
DEC and the Health Department, and so this
is our last stop before commencing
construction. As with our prior hearing,
it is our hope to commence construction
this fall. We have up here on the screen,
which shows you what the house will look
like. James, if you will, will you run
them through that. Right now, we're facing
the front entry court. And we will bring
you around the back of the house. You can
August 2, 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
see how this looks. You see there, that is
going to be the screened porch deck that
extends to the left. And then you see the
decking that sort of surrounds and squares
off the house. The house itself is of
similar size to what exists, and the reason
for the application that we make today is
because the foundation that supports this
house is in good shape. So we wanted to
utilize that. And also, whether it's
considered a demolition or not, doesn't
change the effect because even if we were
to demolish the house including its
foundation, we would wind up essentially in
the same spot that we are today. So I
don't think this is an application that we
have to spend a great deal of time
troubling ourselves over on that issue. We
now enter the inside of the house. Give
you some idea of what the interior house is
going to look like. (In Audible) the houses
all line up. I believe most of the
shoreline is butkheaded. And so what we
seek to rebuild this house, the effect of
it will be to comply and fit in with the
August 2, 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
character of the neighborhood.
Environmentally it will be an upgrade
because the septic system will be upgraded
and will comply and does comply with Health
Department regulations. The Trustees and
the Town will require that all appropriate
drainage be controlled and will be
installed on the site. We fully intend to
comply with the Town stormwater rules.
There is a part of the application, an
increase buffer that will be established
along the wetland boundary, which is
something consistent with both our Trustees
and DEC permits. The overall environment
of the neighborhood and the area will be in
fact improved. We can't -- we need to be
here, because the benefit that we seek,
would be (In Audible) this property in a
suitable condition, a variance due to its
proximity to the wetland boundaries and
this particular lot is relatively small.
As I said, the granting of this variance
will not adversely effect or impact the
environmental and physical conditions of
the neighborhood. The part that is not
August 2, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 48
1
2
3
4
5
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
self created. This is a legally existing
house. It has been expanded several times
over the course of the year by the prior
owner. What I would like to do at this
point is turn the presentation over to Joe
Fischetti. He is our engineer on this
project, and he is going to walk you
through the structural aspects of -- the
design aspects of what we're doing. He is
going to describe the foundation, etcetera.
It is also important to know that part of
what we're doing here, is that we are a
flood plain. And what we're talking about
in the world of FEMA is a substantial
addition and alternations, as that is
defined in that box of regulations. And
that requires us to elevate the house and
comply with the regulations. This
application complies with all the specs to
the applicable flood plain regulations.
MR. FISCHETTI: Good morning Madam
Chairman and Members of the Board. I am
Joseph Fischetti, engineer, I am for the
applicant. I would like to give you a
handout here.
August 2, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 49
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Joe, while you
are doing that, I have a copy of the LWRP
recommendation. I don't know if you have
one? Do you have one, Bruce?
MR. ANDERSON: We had one with our
Trustees permit.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: This is
relative to the zoning at our request. I
will just indicate here that the
recommendation that it is consistent with
the LWRP and that is based upon that sites
of relocation of an existing structure is
not practical, is the basis upon its
consistency, the partial demolition of the
existing structure lot simulation and
environmental activity, relocation of the
existing structure is not practical. The
structure is located with an AE-E16 flood
zone and the applicant proposed to raise
the site and elevate the structure for
potential impact. The Board of Trustees
(In Audible) the natural vegetative and
buffer along the bulkhead, under Permit
#7765, issued March 12, 2012. Maybe you
want to address this or Joe. Let's start
August 2, 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
with due to the environmental sensitivity
of the parcel and water body, it is
recommended that the Board --
MR. ANDERSON: That's fine. I will
tell you that is a matter of (In Audible)
when you were out there you might have
noticed that the lawn area was brown.
reason for that is occasionally floods
the surface of the land. So this is a
property that can't really sustain any
formal land statements.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay.
The
over
not be there. The existing home is a
single family home of three bedrooms on
floor. They used that structure in the
front as their storage. They had crawl
space and they had no attic. I think I
one
MR. FISCHETTI: Okay. The Gaylord's
when they came to me with this project.
The first thing I did was design a
sanitary. To do that, you could not fit it
in the contexts of the land with the
buildings there. That requires a
demolition of the front setback because
we're raising the grade, the structure can
August 2, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 51
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
gave you a little drawing in there, a
little colored drawing. This house has
been added over the years in probably six
stages. As those stages and additions were
added, new roof structures were added on
it. So when you go into the attic, you
find old roof's on top of old roof's. So
there is no attic. There was no attic
spaces up in there. So there only storage
for anything was that structure in the
front. So they were very upset when I told
them that we could not do this new sanitary
system and raise the FEMA requirements
without demolishing that structure in the
front. Now, when you raise this house
this house will be raised 4 1/2 feet.
you would have storage vacant
So
in a crawl
space. That is wet storage. You can't put
clothes. You can't put books in a crawl
space. You need attic space. So when we
redesigned this house, we redesigned the
roof structure so that there would be attic
storage. That is the essence of the thrust
of this design, was to get them storage in
the attic, once we lost the storage in the
August 2, 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
front. Now, when we looked at the -- I
actually said, if they're going to consider
this a demolition and not approve this, I
can actually put a roof structure over this
thing without demolishing the old roof's
but that is not going to give them any
storage. So the real -- even though it
says that we're demolishing this structure,
the truth is, we're going to try and save
as much as we can. We're going to save the
foundation. The first floor framing, which
is great. The walls of the front structure
are fine. We have to -- one other
requirement was that the bedroom in the
back was too small. There was a fireplace
structure between the bedroom and the
living room, for me to now make the bedroom
bigger, I would have to demolish the
fireplace and move that wall five feet into
the living room. Now, once you do that,
the roof structure that is already over
there comes down. So that demolition will
happen. We will demolish the living room
area and the bedroom area, but pretty much
the rest of the structure will stay. There
August 2, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 53
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
is an existing deck that is there now, and
we're expanding the living room into that
deck. So in essence, we're building this
structure in the same footprint that is
there. In essence, we're putting a new
roof structure on. We can look at some of
those elevations picture, you will see what
the red -- the red lines are actually the
existing house, underneath the old one. So
we're pretty much in the context of the old
footprint and building a higher roof
structure for storage.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: How high will
that second story deck be?
MR. FISCHETTI: To code.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: 7 1/2 -- the
ceiling height?
MR. FISCHETTI: There is no second
floor. It's an attic space. It's attic
storage. It's not habitable. I have a
pull down stairs in there. It's only for
storage. This is a single story house.
The bedroom count has not changed. The
footprint hasn't changed. The roof
structure has changed to give them the
August 2, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 54
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
storage space they -- we lost in the garage
in the front. We're -- I evaluated the
existing foundation. The existing
foundation is concrete block, which is not
reinforced. What we're going to do is add
-- we're going to put reinforcing and make
this all solid and raise that grade with
new block on top of what is there now. So
it's basically -- the wall structure is in
good shape.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: You are going to
raise the deck?
MR. FISCHETTI: I am going to raise
the house. As I said -- from your last
application, as I told you, it's just the
opposite. While you guys are trying to
figure out how much we are not going to
take down, we are going to keep up a lot.
We're going to say it's a demolition, but
we're going to keep as much as we can. I
am working the opposite way. I am probably
going to keep the floor structure, probably
the whole front walls structures. I will
keep whatever I can. I don't want to take
down whatever I want to take down. I don't
August 2, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 55
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
want to spend money where I don't have to.
We have to say it's a demolition because I
don't want to go around in circles with you
guys and say, oh, you're taking down more
than we want. We think of it as a
demolition.
if
MEMBER GOEHRINGER:
we go down and watch this
You don't mind
little process
because this is going to be really
interesting?
MR. FISCHETTI: It's going to be
cool. It's going to be really interesting.
We will take down probably part of the
structure in the back. So we can get
underneath there. We will lift this house
up and then we will put it back down on the
foundation, and then we will start to do
the demolition at that point. We will
probably keep as much as we can. We will
change some windows. So we will have to
take down some studs. I don't want people
to come and tell me, you took down four
studs, you were only supposed to take down
three. No, this is a demolition. The
house is in the best place it can be.
August 2, 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
We're taking down a structure and making it
less conforming than we are now. Great, I
would love to have you down there.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Have you
looked at -- given the constraints of the
lot, size and so on, have you looked at how
you might create additional conformity
since it seems to be a demo?
MR. FISCHETTI: I did. We're taking
down the structure in the front. We are
conforming to that.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: And you're
increasing the lot coverage to 2%?
MR. FISCHETTI: I didn't hear that?
MR. ANDERSON: I think the answer to
that is increased coverage relates to a
very small screened porch addition.
MR. FISCHETTI: The screened porch
is actually part of the structure now.
That is there now.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: That is what
was said in the application.
MR. FISCHETTI: The physical house
is -- the footprint of the house has not
changed. There is a side porch that moves
August 2, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 57
1
2
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
to the front.
MEMBER DINIZIO:
dead --
MR. FISCHETTI:
MEMBER DINIZIO:
lot coverage.
MR. FISCHETTI:
would probably square off
would add to lot, similar
on the east.
MEMBER DINIZIO: I
to the front. I came to
The back is mostly
Yeah.
That would add to
That is where we
that deck. We
to the neighbors
didn't go around
the house
yesterday and I saw a lady running around
in the house. She didn't answer, so I
didn't want to go any further. Are you
saying that the porch on the water side is
actually covered now?
MR. FISCHETTI: Yeah. There is a
covered porch. That we are using as part
of the living room. It is a covered porch
that is correct.
MEMBER DINIZIO: Is there a deck
that parades out to that that isn't being
covered?
MR. FISCHETTI: Part of that deck is
August 2, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 58
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
covered. Yes, we put a roof over the back
deck because that is the south facing.
Once we take that off the deck there is no
place that they can sit in the shade. So
we put a small covered porch --
MEMBER DINIZIO: But does that exist
now?
MR. FISCHETTI: No. That actually
is old.
MEMBER DINIZIO: If you look on the
first page on the left, you will see a new
small porch covered --
MR. FISCHETTI: Yes.
MEMBER DINIZIO: And I am assuming
that is enclosed also?
MR. FISCHETTI: Yes, that is a
covered porch.
MEMBER DINIZIO: And then on the
back of the house, on the back of the
drawing, if I follow the red line, goes to
a deck. Is that structure there now?
MR. FISCHETTI: No. That is a roof
structure just going over the deck.
MEMBER DINIZIO: So further out that
does not exist right now?
August 2, 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
MR. FISCHETTI: Yeah.
MEMBER DINIZIO: Then you're
squaring off the house with the deck in the
front?
MR. FISCHETTI: That's correct.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Well, while
we're here, let me mention some concern of
regarding the elevations. Joe, tell us how
you're going to verify that all stormwater
will be verified on site, and that it will
not have an impact on the adjacent
neighbor? That neighbor is very, very
close. The side yard, I'm sorry. I am
looking at information from the LWRP.
MR. FISCHETTI: It's the drywell,
those are on the site plan that was
submitted in the pack. We have contained
the two inch rainfall with all that.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The concern
was, showing the spill and how it will
effect the adjacent neighbor to the
northeast.
MR. FISCHETTI: Actually what is
happening with that, is that the adjacent
property is higher. If you see the sign at
August 2, 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
that top, Mr. Raynor did the same thing.
He was installing his sanitary system and
he had to raise the grade to install his
sanitary system. So he put a retaining
wall along that east wall. So in essence
our grade goes right to his wall. So that
wall comes out and actually levels with
Mr. Raynor's property.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: That's okay.
I just want to hear it all on the record.
Jim, any other questions?
MEMBER DINIZIO: No.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: George?
MEMBER HORNING: To accomplish
raising the house four feet, you're going
to increase the grade?
MR. FISCHETTI: Well, we can't do
that. The only reason why we're raising
the grade in the front is for the sanitary
system. The sanitary system has to come
out of the groundwater. Right now that
sanitary system is in the groundwater. So
the grade of the sanitary around the front
is at grade with around the house. So we
can't grade around the house. The flood
August 2, 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
waters for it come in and go out, south.
The east corner is left natural. That is
where our flood gates are. That is where
the water comes in and goes out. So we
soften the lines around the grade in the
front, so that when you're looking at the
house, you don't see 12 feet of foundation.
MEMBER HORNING: And then
accomplishing the raising of the house to
meet regulations, you are going to put more
concrete block and reinforced everything
and then lower the house down, as you
described?
MR. FISCHETTI: That is correct.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Let me just
confirm, that the proposed reconstruction
has exactly the same setbacks as the Notice
of Disapproval. In other words, that would
be a bulkhead setback of 45 feet, where the
code requires 75. A side yard setback of 3
foot 7 inches from the bulkhead. A side
yard setback of 12 foot 7 inches, where the
code requires 15, and a rear yard of 45
feet, where the core requires 50. That is
what is currently there and that --
August 2, 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
other
house
house
now.
MR. FISCHETTI: That is correct.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: And the only
question, this is still a one-story
or a one and a half story house?
MR. FISCHETTI: It's a one-story
with an attic. That is what is there
That is what will be there.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Does the Board
have any other questions?
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: The only concern
that I had again, with the neighbor to the
east, with respect to the retaining wall,
that the new fill that you would be
bringing in would be meeting the top of the
retaining wall?
MR. FISCHETTI: That is correct.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: The adjoining
property owner, he is the one that
constructed that retaining wall?
MR. FISCHETTI: Yes. He is actually
the one that constructed that.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: That is fine.
That is not my issue. My issue is that
there would be no detriment to that
neighbor as far as grade --
August 2, 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
was
MR. FISCHETTI: Not at all. That
done specifically that way.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Is there
would like
anyone else in the audience that
to address this application?
MR. RAYNOR: Yes. Good morning.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Good morning.
MR. RAYNOR: My name is Henry
Raynor. I am the adjacent resident. Just
to the wast of the Gaylord's, and we have
looked at the plans. We have discussed the
plans with the Gaylord's. My wife and I
are in total agreement of what they're
trying to do. I think they are going to
have a great improvement in the
neighborhood of what they're trying to
achieve. We hope that this Board will look
favorably on this application. If you have
any questions for me, I would be happy to
answer them.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Thank you.
Any other questions?
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Any further
comments from the audience?
August 2, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 64
1
2
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
(No Response.)
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Hearing no
further comments, I will make a motion to
close this hearing and reserve decision to
a later date.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Ail in favor?
MEMBER DINIZIO: Aye.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye.
MEMBER HORNING: Aye.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Aye.
(See Minutes for Resolution.)
HEARING #6581 - BREWER YACHT YARD @
GREENPORT, INC.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Brewer Yacht
Yard, #6581. Request for variance from
Article XXII Code Section 280-116(B) based
on an application for building permit and
the Building Inspector's May 24, 2012
Notice of Disapproval concerning permit to
demolish and construct
office/storage, at; 1)
at less than
a boat storage and
proposed structures
the code required bulkhead
August 2, 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
setback of 75 feet, located at: 1410
Manhasset Avenue, adjacent to Sterling
Creek and Sterling Basin, in Greenport.
MR. ANDERSON: Bruce Anderson,
Suffolk Environmental Consultants for the
applicant, Brewer Yacht.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: As I was
saying the LWRP memorandum indicates
consistency. That they issued a permit for
it. Site Plan Review and pursuant to
Chapter 268, the Board shall consider
recommendations for preparation of written
determination for the proposed actions.
Comments from the Planning Board indicates
that the proposed boat storage building and
office/storage appears to not cause concern
to the proposed area and the marina. The
above referenced proposal will further the
goal to enhance (In Audible) while
maintaining its fundamental character of
the neighborhood. Let me give you a copy
of that for your records. And I will turn
this over to you to tell us what you would
like us to know about.
MR. ANDERSON: I hope that some of
August 2, 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
you, and the owners were able to take a
quick look around. When you visited the
property, you see sort of a hodge-podge
buildings, plastic building that is
connected to a metal building. If you went
inside the metal building, you will see
concrete floor below it, it's actually dom
on two levels, which suggests that that
building was probably expanded at some
point many, many years ago. This is a
building that has been in existence for
many, many years. It's now owned in
Mattituck for a yacht yard. Very run well
marina business. To give you a more of a
comprehensive idea of what is going on
here, we're of course replacing various
floating docks that are adjacent to the
existing bulkhead. That is not before you
but it is part of what is proposed there.
We're also replacing two sections of
bulkhead. One is directly adjacent to the
existing, although deteriorated storage
building. We're going to demolish that
metal building and attach a plastic
building. This here, that is all going to
August 2, 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
be removed on the site, as with the
existing office area. We're going to take
all this and consolidate this into one
building. That building will be 9,000
square feet. That will be a metal building
and will contain an attached for boat
storage. It will attach -- attached to
that will be a 2500 square foot
office/storage with a
the one-story portion
the peak, the
shop room adjacent to
of that building. At
soffit or the gutter area
feet it slopes there and the
road and
The new
Connor design a
will be at 33
gable runs parallel to the
parallel to the bulkhead.
building, we have had John
foundation for it. The new
be supported by piles and have a
Audible) cap. The bulkhead will
independently supported by
building
In
be
tie-rods,
will
that
way we don't have that standard poured
foundation because we have the nearby
bulkhead that is approximately three feet
from the edge of that building. You should
know that the existing metal building is
more like 18 inches from the base of the
August 2, 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
bulkhead. We're trying to push it
we have these metal buildings that
for marinas, they're
storage of what's in
to
bulky
them.
implements this overall
away but
are used
because the
In order for us
project, we need
permits and approval from the US Department
of State of Engineers, Trustees, DEC, this
Board, the Planning Board. The Health
Department and finally the Building
Department. You should know that the
Department of Engineers was granted on
June 7, 2012. An approval from New York
Department of State was granted on
June 11, 2012. We received a DEC permit
for the project on July 10, 2012. You
should be aware that the existing upland
feature. That is the building itself, it
actually outside of their jurisdiction. We
also received a permit from the Trustees on
June 20th, authorizing all of the proposed
activities that are before this Board. So
we're here before the Zoning Board, because
we require a setback variance from the
bulkhead. Although technically we're more
conforming today then we are -- we would be
August 2, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 69
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1
2
3
4
5
more conforming as implemented today. We
meet site plan approval from the Planning
Board. The application has been filed and
it is pending review. And also, approval
from the Health Department. That
application has been filed. The project
has been engineered to fully comply with
the Health Department and also comply with
the Town's stormwater standards, overall
for a matter of record. We submit that
this benefit can not be achieved by any
other method other then the Zoning Board
variance because there is a limited
distance between the bulkhead and the road.
You will notice that it is slummed up
against the bulkhead, as the existing
building, to provide some -- a traveling
around the building. That is between the
building and the road, and that is
reflected in the plans. Of course, there
would be no undesirable change in the
neighborhood because we have the structures
already on the property that provides for
boat storage and office, etcetera. Really
this is an upgrade to the site, and so, to
August 2, 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
the south of us is another marina. To the
north of us is water, and across the street
is a cemetery. And so we're not -- we
believe that our work is not substantial
because we're actually increasing
compliance with respect to your bulkhead,
although by increasing the setback to 18
inches and 3 feet. We do not have -- we
will not cause an adverse effect on the
physical environment of the neighborhood,
because we're bringing the site into
greater conformance with the sanitary
system, and with respect to stormwater
regulations adopted by the Town.
Obviously, our hardship is not self
created. The site is the way it is. The
property boundaries are the way they are.
The bulkheads are the way they are and the
street is where it is. And that concludes
my basic presentation of this application.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Thank you.
Jim, any questions?
MEMBER DINIZIO: I just want to
state for the record that Brewer Yacht is
customer of mine. They send me a check
a
August 2, 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
every month for $25.00. This particular
building is -- we have tried to maintain a
fire alarm system for the past ten years
and unfortunately roof leaks were too much
for me to keep up with it. That would be
welcome addition to have a nice dry place.
I can tell you that the front of that
a
building, I should say the roadside from
that building and that distance, the reason
for the distance is that they use these
travelers to bring the boats in. If anyone
has seen any of those travelers, they're
quite wide. They have quite large boats
that they bring them in on the back side.
Right now the front of that building, you
can't bring them in because it's actually
to -- there is a workshop in the front of
that building. They take boats around and
they put them in through the back of that
building. Again, the redesign, it would
help make the movement of that piece of
property more consistent for the boat yard.
It has always been there. I can't remember
when it was built. I can remember when it
wasn't there. In the past 50 years, there
August 2, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 72
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
was not something there. And then, I know
they added some stuff to it. Back then, it
was just a building. You know to keep the
boats drive. Since they have been a
customer, they have not added onto that
building, I can tell you from my own
experience. I think I have concerned it
all. I just have a little bit of problem
with how you're going to reinforce that
bulkhead, but you know, engineer is an
engineer, and I am sure they're going to do
what they need to do. The bulkhead to me,
I don't see that it
poles
it is good there
is deteriorating,
nOW.
other than the
that building now. I think it's just
cement on grade.
MR. ANDERSON: If you were going to
go and do the kind of work that we're
proposing in that area, even though the
bulkhead clearly still functions, it is a
wise decision to remove it and replace it.
What it is being replaced with, is the
probably. You know, while you're taring
everything that is there. I know it's on a
slab. I believe there is no foundation on
August 2, 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
fiberglass, which is very, very strong
material. And that is a smart thing to do
because if we were to go with the existing
bulkhead and proceeded to construct the
building, we might harm ourselves for the
future, if we were to replace -- the
regulations tend to discourage putting new
bulkheads up against existing bulkheads.
Now, I am not saying that I couldn't get a
permit to do that, but it complicates
things. As a percentage of the overall
work that is being contemplated here, there
is the bulkhead replacement, it is
reasonable additional specs to incur. The
(In Audible) was put in to support this
building. We don't just put in slabs and
build stuff. We have foundations now and
this one sits on pilings and a piling cap,
and it does that for a reason. So that
there is no relationship to the support of
the building and the vertical and lateral
support to the bulkhead.
MEMBER DINIZIO: Certainly the
weight of that building is pushing out.
When you replace that building and put it
August 2, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 74
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
on pilings, the weight of that building
going directly down --
MR. ANDERSON: That's true.
MEMBER DINIZIO: That is a good
thing.
MR. ANDERSON: Yes.
bulkhead is pretty safe.
MEMBER DINIZIO: I
approval to do what
as that bulkhead is
assuming that the
go underneath the
MR. ANDERSON:
MEMBER DINIZIO:
to just by cement in
upset the structural
building one bit.
MR. ANDERSON:
MEMBER DINIZIO:
50 years from now --
MR. ANDERSON:
you, if 50
fiberglass
Even today the
is
agree. You have
you need to do as far
concerned. I am
(In Audible) are going to
piling cap.
Right.
They can be gotten
there and you wouldn't
integrity of that
That's correct.
You know, if 40
To be honest with
or
years from now, this is a
sheathing material. So its even
more stronger and long lasting then what
you see in the bulkheads. Even if I had to
August 2, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 75
1
2
3
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
replace it, I wouldn't jack-hammer through
the floor. I would position it, you know,
in between the pilings that support the
foundation. It wouldn't even be that
difficult.
MEMBER DINIZIO: So we're looking at
a much better environmental situation then
what we have currently?
MR. ANDERSON: Yes.
MEMBER DINIZIO: That's all I have.
The drywell, you're going to do the
drywell?
MR. ANDERSON: Yes.
MEMBER DINIZIO: That's all I have.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Well, we have
all inspected the site. It's preexisting.
It's the only logical place that you can
put that storage/office. You will still
have to go through site plan approval for
other aspects of this application. I don't
have any questions.
Does anyone else on the Board have
any questions or comments?
MEMBER HORNING: Are there restroom
facilities in there for the employees?
August 2, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 76
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. ANDERSON: Yes.
MEMBER HORNING: And that has its
own septic system?
MR. ANDERSON: Yes, we're proposing
it's own septic system. Quite honestly,
the septic system is way oversize for the
use, that is because in the Health
Department world. There is a design flow
that is assigned to the storage components,
the shop components. What in real life,
the storage of boats doesn't generate
sewage. It's just dry storage. There is a
restaurant on the property. It's actually
access the line in the Village, and that is
served by its own septic system.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Ken, any
questions?
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: No questions.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Gerry?
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Anyone in the
like to address this
audience that would
application?
(No Response.)
CHAIRPERSON
WEISMAN: Hearing no
August 2, 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
further comments, I will make a motion to
close this hearing and reserve decision to
a later date.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: All in favor?
MEMBER DINIZIO: Aye.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye.
MEMBER HORNING: Aye.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Aye.
(See Minutes for Resolution.)
HEARING #6580 - FRANCIS D'HAENE
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The next
application before the Board is for Francis
D'Haene, #6580. Request
Article III Code Section
Building Inspector's
Disapproval based on
building permit for an "as
in-ground swimming pool: 1)
in-ground swimming pool is
for variance from
280-15 and the
May 21, 2012 Notice of
an application for
built" accessory
"as built"
located in a
location other than the code required
yard, located at: 8555 Main Bayview,
Southold.
rear
August 2, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 78
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Hello.
MR. LAIRD: James
applicant.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
have some
any more?
missing.
MR.
please?
LAIRD:
last name,
MR. Laird,
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
green
Five
Laird for the
Spell your
L-A-I-R-D.
required
MR. LAIRD: Right.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
you would like us to know?
MR. LAIRD: Francis D'Haene and his
wife bought the property in March 1, 2002.
They then built a swimming pool on the
property directly behind house without a
building permit obviously. He built the
I have two.
Then we
Notice of
will
the "as-built"
actually in the
to be in the rear
Tell us what
side yard and is
yard.
LAIRD:
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
take those two then. The
Disapproval indicates that
accessory swimming pool is
Thank you. We
cards missing. Do you have
is actually what we're
August 2, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 79
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
pool in what he thought was a compliant
matter. There is plenty of space between
the pool and the rear lot line, but in
order for the pool to be parallel to the
back of the house, and therefore, ended up
building the pool partially in the side
yard. Less than 50% of the pool is in the
side yard. He is now seeking to legalize
the pool in order to put the property on
the market.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Ken,
questions?
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Can you describe
the adjoining properties and their location
of their houses?
MR. LAIRD: The lot lines are very
well forced. The property to the east of
the D'Haene's, there is a framed garage and
a food area that is right up next to the
lot line, but the house is approximately 75
to 100 feet away from the lot line to the
east. To the west, I couldn't see a house
from the property itself. I drove past it,
but I couldn't really see it.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: To the rear?
August 2, 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
MR. LAIRD: And to the rear, there
are two properties. Both probably have
about 20 feet of trees in the way, but the
properties are probably 50 feet from the
lot line.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: No further
questions at this time.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: George?
MEMBER HORNING: In this 2002 time
period is when you say the pool was built,
how is it that they did not consider that
they needed a permit to build a pool?
MR. LAIRD: I am not particularly
sure.
MR. ANDERSON: Bruce Anderson,
Suffolk Environmental. Pools are often
built and without a permit, they're usually
are done -- a contractor is hired and the
contractor will advise -- should advise and
should have advised the applicant that a
permit was required. Apparently that
didn't happen. I do not think that we
should expect these property owners to be
experts in zoning. Quite honestly, the
noncompliance that we're talking about
August 2, 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
here, for purposes of zoning, is really an
issue of technical noncompliance, and it's
because there is a deck off the back of the
house. When you draw a line parallel to
the northwest corner of that deck, you will
find a portion of this pool falls within
that area. And that is what makes it a
technical side yard. I have a drawing here
to share with you. Probably, a greater
importance here is the fact that the pool
more than complies with the applicable
setback of the property lines. If you look
at this survey, you will see that that deck
is one step up to the deck. So that is
what causes this (In Audible).
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: It would
appear from this survey, although you just
testified that it's less than 50% in the
side yard. It's not that much -- it looks
as though it's tecnically in a side yard,
what we would call the architectural rear
yard. The dwelling itself is not very wide.
The other way, the pool would probably be
more in the rear yard. Most of the pool is
in the side yard.
August 2, 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
MEMBER HORNING: How do you
determine what angle to put that line?
MR. ANDERSON: It runs parallel to
the property.
MEMBER HORNING: Parallel, okay.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Bruce. When I
was there, I noticed the survey, which
indicates a wire fence where the deck of
the fence is, does that fence exist? Is
the pool fully enclosed?
MR. ANDERSON: Yes.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I could not see.
MR. LAIRD: Yes. There is a
relatively new wrought iron fence that
surrounds the pool.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Is it all
wrought iron now? It says on the survey
that it's wire?
MEMBER HORNING: The wrought iron
runs along the front of the pool facing the
house.
that
MEMBER GOEHRINGER:
you can't see, is it
MR. ANDERSON: Yes.
But the portion
existing?
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Thank you.
August 2, 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
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Just for the
record, I am going to correct what I just
said. I now see how the Building
Department has decided where the rear yard
lot line is from the corner of the house.
So based on that determination, it would be
as you stated about 50%. Does anyone have
any questions?
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Is there
anyone in the audience that wishes to
address this application?
(No Response.)
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Hearing no
further comments, I will make amotion to
close the 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.)
August 2, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 84
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
~5
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
*******************************************
HEARING #6583 - JAMES AND EILEEN
FLAHERTY
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The next
application before the Board is for Vincent
and Eileen Flaherty, %6583. Request for
variances from Article XXII Code Section
280-116 and Article III Code Section 280-15
based on an application for building permit
and the Building Inspector's April 30, 2012
Notice of Disapproval concerning permit to
construct additions and alterations to a
single family dwelling, at 1) proposed
construction at less than the code required
bulkhead setback of 75 feet, 2) upon
construction accessory garage will be
located in other than the code required
rear yard, located at: 470 Inlet Way,
adjacent to Fairhaven Inlet, the Inlet and
Little Peconic Bay, Southold.
MS. MOORE: Good afternoon.
Patricia Moore on behalf of Mr. & Mrs.
Ftaherty. Mrs. Flaherty was hospitalized,
so they couldn't be here. They were
planning on both being here. I have Tom
August 2, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 85
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
tl
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
Samuels who is the architect professional,
and he and I, are both available to answer
questions.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Before you get
started, I just want to make sure you have
a copy of the LWRP?
MS. MOORE: No, I don't.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Let me give
you that.
MS. MOORE: Thank you. Okay. This
is what we can do, we can talk about it and
address --
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Sure. I think
application is six alterations of what
appears to be the permit history, of this
property. Beginning in '78, it most likely
was a preexisting summer cottage, summer
occupancy. One family dwelling, summer
occupancy. I am not sure what that exactly
means, but nonetheless, that is what the
first permit appears. Then in '86, the
in-ground pool and deck add was
constructed. I'm sorry, '83, there were
that would be a good idea.
MS. MOORE: If I may start, their
August 2, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 86
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
two permits. One for alterations and
repairs and another add to a one family
dwelling under two separate permit numbers.
Thereafter -- I'm sorry, in '98, they
enclosed an existed unheated porch and was
screened, and then finally in 2001, an add
and alteration to an existing dwelling. I
believe at that point, the third floor
space, the standard -- may have been added.
The results of those permits is that the
existing house really is a -- I am going to
use a previous applicant's description, a
"conglomeration", I think we used before.
Permits and construction kind of seasonal
-- I don't want to say "seasonal," because
it's heated. Additions to the
architectural design. They're trying to
correct that now. They have Tom Samuels,
who I am sure will do a beautiful job.
They have a design plan that tries to
correct some of the additions and put it
all under a properly designed structure.
The parcel itself is unique in the Cedar
Beach Park subdivision. This is a 1927
map. This property consist of the end of
August 2, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 87
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
the road to the inlet, which is Lot Number
on the subdivision, 92, and then from part
of Lot 93, 94 and 95. So it is the end of
the line of lots that go from midway of
the road to the inlet, midway inlet. The
property has bulkheads along the waterfront
portion, that is inlet portion. Then it
has -- on the Cedar side, it's natural
beach. A natural beach that has developed
along Peconic Bay. Along Fairhaven Inlet,
it is mostly natural. There is a small
wood deck in the Fairhaven Inlet, which is
used by this property owner. That is a
very natural landscaped and very natural
looking. The -- this proposal will not
change the character of the neighborhood.
The neighborhood is an older neighborhood
of renovated homes, newer homes, and some
older homes that have been over the years
converted to year round homes typically
from their summer occupancy to year round
homes. The use of this property and the
feasibility of this project was -- what was
brought to light was the flood zone issues.
That became the problem child of this
August 2, 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
zones.
project. When I got involved, I began by
reviewing the flood regulations. The flood
zone regulations, and what was the --
complication here is the existing house is
in flood zone X, which means it is not in a
flood zone. The elevation flood zone
bisects the existing garage, and the --
when a flood zone -- there are two flood
One higher than the other. Under
the flood regulations, it brings the entire
regulations to the more restrictive flood
zone. So with the not being in a flood
zone,
to the
garage,
garage
is put into an AE-6 flood zone, due
fact that the line is bisecting the
which happens to be a connected
to the existing house. Any project
that deals with zoning issues, let's avoid
going to the Zoning Board. Let's avoid
variances. So I began with contacting the
DEC flood zone guru who is Erick Starr --
take it back. I began by looking at my
Town Code, noticing that under Town Code
145, if you look at their old applications
under 145, when the flood zone was first
adopted in the 80's, and I think
August 2, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 89
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Mr. Goehringer will remember some of the --
I don't know if Mr. Dinizio was part of the
Board at that time, but in the early 80's
when the flood zone ordinance was adopted,
there was a provision in the ordinance for
and it appears that on several
people came in -- particularly
variances,
occasions,
with existing homes that somebody put
themselves -- got themselves into a flood
zone, came into the Zoning Board and sought
variances for it. For the most part given
the fact that we're presented here,
typically, a variance would be granted. So
I approached that possibility first, but
before I advised the client on should we go
to the Zoning Board and ask for a variance
in the flood zone in order to keep the
structure just as it is, but the client
would prefer to keep the garage and the
house connected. That was the -- if they
could raise a magic wand, that was the
preference. My job was to see if there is
any way that they could accomplish that.
Before I start to advise the client, I
contacted the DEC, and that is when I
August 2, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 90
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
contacted Mr. Erik Start, who is the guru
of Flood Zone Regulations, and he and I had
a nice conversation, and he said, yes,
there was a possibility of variances but
the variances would not only be under Town
Code 145, I'd also have to go for State
variances under the State Code, Building
Code, because it's all interrelated. And
while it would be possible to make that
application, he and I had a theoretical
discussion about right now, having a
variance on the Flood Zone, you could
obtain flood insurance, but given the
still
state
of the economy, insurance is becoming more
and more difficult, and budgets are
becoming more and more tight. It is very
likely that flood insurance is going to
start getting tighten, and to the extent
that a home gets flooded with variances, it
would be very likely, and given the
scenario if things remained the way that
they are, that certain homes may be taken
out of the flood insurance program, that
subsidizes flood insurance. Ail of us or
anyone who lives near the water has flood
August 2, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 91
1
2
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
insurance and the flood
subsidized and are very
that was not in place,
would have to be gone
insurance rates
reasonable. If
flood insurance
to the private
and would be extremely expensive, if
available, and even the federal program,
are
market
at all
insurance. It is a really uncertain
scenario. So that option really came off
the table. And I said, you know what, I
know I can do the variances and they would
be significant basis for it. That is
really not an option. That is against my
part as an attorney to advise a client in
result of our conversation was, wow, we
could get a variance but we could really
hurt the client. We could really impact
their ability to finance down the line.
Financing is dependant on getting flood
they're looking at the regulations and
looking at the pricing of flood insurance,
the pricing may change. So that was our
theoretical discussion. Obviously, he does
not have the crystal ball, but given the
scenario and the economy, and the insurance
regulations as they were, I think the end
August 2, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 92
1
2
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
the right direction. So that being said,
and I apologize for the long winded, but it
is really a complicated scenario. That
brought us back to the initial application,
which Tom and the Building Department have
approached, which was to disconnect the
existing
garage, which is in the flood
zone, which the owner does not intend to do
anything with the garage. Carry this
structure as a garage with living space
above. That connection of the roof line
that connects the garage, which is a very
formal significant roof, would have to be
cut off from the existing house. That I
actually approached, again with Erik Starr
to verify and he said, yes. You could --
as long as you disconnect it, they don't
care what the disconnection entails. It
could be a foot. It could be an inch. As
long as its physically, structurally
disconnected, we're all right with the
flood insurance regulations. So what we
have requested at this time is to
disconnect the roof and I think we -- Tom
can talk about the different alternatives
August 2, 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
on that. If you want to have it looked
with the trellis not being physically
connected to the structure but visually,
retaining that look. Nonetheless, because
it's not a physical structure connection,
we feel the garage is in a technical side
yard. As far as the improvements to the
house and the setbacks to the bulkhead, the
house is remaining. It's a renovation, and
I think Tom is to provide you with the
details of the alterations and renovations.
At least from my understanding, the Board
felt comfortable that the work that was
beng done was not a demolition but a
renovation. I think -- I am happy to
address any additional comments with
respect to the granting of an area
variance. I believe we have -- at least
in my writing, I present all the basis for
it. I am sure you have questions, and I
rather address your questions then
elaborate on what is already written. So I
am happy to proceed with questions?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I think we
should begin by simply looking at what is
August 2, 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
the proposed, a 15' 0.8" setback from the
bulkhead where the code requires 75 feet.
The removal between the house and the roof
creates an accessory garage in a side yard,
where the code requires this in a rear
yard. So that is what is in the Notice of
Disapproval. The removal of the
attachment, although the attachment is
pretty flimsy, but back in the day that was
considered an attachment, the roof that is
there. Once that is removed, not only is
the garage in the side yard, but we have to
address the fact that there is habitable
space above it, which comes into a -- I
want to say a two bedroom, full bath and
sitting room on the second floor and a
1/2 bath and laundry space on the first
floor, which was deemed to be acceptable
with a CO when it was attached.
MS. MOORE: Correct.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Now, however,
that preexisting is a question as a
consequential removal of that attachment,
because the code is different. The other
thing that I would like to take a look at
August 2, 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
is the fact that the survey shows the
corner of that accessory garage is
apparently located in some sort of a
right-of-way, and we need to understand
what is going on with that right-of-way.
Who owns it?
work?
MS. MOORE: Okay.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
How does that
MS. MOORE: Okay. Well --
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Let's start
with those two.
MS. MOORE: Okay. Let me start with
the access of the road. The property --
Cedar Beach is an old subdivision. As I
said 1927, subdivision. I have the 1926
map. I think you might I have -- I printed
it and it's in your packet. It's a reduced
version, if not, I can certainly provide
it. Cedar Beach Road is a private road,
and the roads -- it's always been a
question of whether they remained private,
all the homeowners be attached to the
center line of the road, but the roads, if
you go back and search the title history,
August 2, 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
still remained in the original developers,
but the homeowners couldn't get a hold of
that original developer. That developer,
long gone and died and disappeared. I
actually know this for a fact because I did
the research and tried to find the
ownership of the roads of Cedar beach. We
were able to find one, the developers were
two gentlemen. When they passed away, by
way of inheritance, the wives became the
owners of the corporation. I actually
found one of the wives and got a quick
claim deed to the association under one of
the developers wives. For the sake that
the association will own more -- will own a
portion so that there is some ownership
interest in the road. So at that time,
there were private roads in a subdivision
and certainly the homeowners, the roads are
maintained privately. They're maintained
by the association and the association was
created some time after the development
occurred. In the meantime, the homeowners
in their deeds still had ownership at some
point. How -- this was done. This was
August 2, 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
provided a CO.
the property.
thinking which
and the garage.
the 1983 permits
garage. I don't
It was my clients who bought
It has been in place -- I am
CO may have built the house
Certainly, I think it was
that ultimately built the
have the whole packet in
front of me, but I believe that is when the
garage may have been built. So the garage
has been there and it continues to be
there. As I said, the roof connection,
breezeway connection that was built and
what takes this garage and creates a
nonconformity. I don't know what the
Building Department wants us to do. We
the
is
have a building permit
The original structure
alterations being made
to disconnect it.
is not having any
to it. There really
is no building permit associated with any
changes to the garage. It's -- I think
it's one of those very unique situations
where the Zoning Board may have to put some
language in there due to the fact the
garage was built. It's been there and it
hs a C of 0 and that the intended use will
continue as before. There is not much more
August 2, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 98
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
we can do about it, without alternatively
abandoning this project, which means that
the house for the most part, we could be
looking at a completely different project
and that -- they have tried to keep this
project to a relatively reasonable
renovation. If you seen the pool and the
deck and so on, the entire property outside
is beautifully landscaped patio. They
don't want to touch that. They don't want
to create such disturbance around the house
that would disturb the very expensive
landscaping, pool and renovation that was
done in the last few years, I would say.
So aside from each property owner owning to
the half way point, Inlet Way is the
roadway that ends, but that road was
intended for access to Lots 94, 95 and 92.
At this point, it is all owned by the
individual. So the intense of this
same
roadway, it's limited access. Dead-end
access. The community beach is the road,
which shows a 50 foot going to Peconic Bay.
So as a matter of what the laws are with
respect to roads in a subdivision, they
August 2, 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
2O
21
22
23
24
25
give access to the property owner to a
public road, and the only ones who would be
using this end would be this property
owner. There would be no way building a
road on Inlet Way -- either now or in the
last 20 years, due to the environmental
regulations. You just wouldn't be able to
do it. The paper road was a dead-end.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: It's really an
existing driveway.
MS. MOORE: Well, it's the clients
driveway.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: But it's on a
plat. So this would be on a plat as part
of the subdivision. Just because people
don't use it, it still exist. What is also
very interesting about this is that these
roads are not taxed. So therefore if
they're not taxed, there is a particular
reason why the Tax Assessor's have not
MS. MOORE: Actually, yes there is.
The homeowners, when you have a subdivision
home, rather than have the road be taxed
and licensed to be lost if they were
taxed them.
August 2, 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
failure to pay taxes, each homeowner is
assessed their proportionment road lineage
GOEHRINGER: Very
That
Like a co-op.
or 12 years ago.
to not create
create more problems.
WEISMAN: In the field
find --
It's all
MS. MOORE: Right. And in fact,
Fairhaven Inlet, for the most part
encroaches onto what would be Inlet Way.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: My question
is, and if I heard you correctly, your
argument would be that regardless of
whatever details would be about ownership,
the corner of the garage is in that portion
of the right-of-way that would have been
these roads -- to
CHAIRPERSON
you wouldn't be able to
MS. MOORE: Right.
wetlands.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
vegetated.
MEMBER
a condo project.
MS. MOORE: Yes.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER:
all changed about 10
MS. MOORE: So it's
similar to
Very
August 2, 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
2O
21
22
23
24
25
deeded over to private ownership
property owner anyway?
MS. MOORE: Correct.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
-- to the
So even that
portion --
MS. MOORE: Yes, it's in
line portion of the road. And
you point out, it's a paper road without
any possibility of being approved
the environmental constraints.
the center
again, as
MS. MOORE: The driveway portion?
This is maintained by this property owner,
the driveway.
MEMBER HORNING: The whole
MS. MOORE: Yes, it's - if
maintaining
at the survey,
the private
thing?
you look
entrance begins
where -- actually, there is an existing
utility pole probably at the beginning of
the property, and the gravel driveway runs
from Inlet Way, south into the Flaherty
property, then the circular driveway with
the rest of the property of the north,
adjacent to Fairhaven Inlet, flagged
MEMBER HORNING: Who is
it?
due to
August 2, 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
wetlands and natural vegetation.
MEMBER HORNING: That half of the
right-of-way, is that deeded to the Cedar
Beach Association?
MS. MOORE: It was never deeded.
That was the problem. Cedar Beach, I want
to call it, assumed ownership through
membership. They wanted to collect money
for the road improvements and insurance
like that, but they have had problems with
some of the owners in the subdivision not
contributing. There was -- there was no
deed into Cedar Beach. I was able to get
one of the owners of the developer, to give
a deed of Cedar Beach. It only occurred in
the last five years.
MEMBER HORNING: Who is maintaining
the bulkhead to the dock and everything
like that?
MS. MOORE: The owners are
maintaining their own bulkhead and docks.
So Mr. & Mrs. Flaherty maintain their
own water, bulkhead. Their own gravel
driveway. And the only areas-- the roadway
system to the extent that they're not
August 2, 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
absorbed by a
the association dues.
actually came in and
property, are maintained by
The Water Authority
put public water in
and they actually benefitted. The water
was able to repair the roads. The
association does collect dues for the
maintenance of the roads and that kind of
thing.
5O
bay,
that
MEMBER HORNING: Down to this little
foot wide right-of-way going down to the
the Cedar Beach Association maintains
and beyond that is considered --
MS. MOORE: Private.
MEMBER HORNING: Private.
MS. MOORE: That inlet, when you go
up there, you see the little access way on
the right. It's a little retaining wall,
the bulkhead. You step over it to get to
the beach. So even that area is not a road
per se, like the Town road. This is
bulkheaded and then the community beach
there.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Pat, let's
just go back to the habitable space for
moment.
a
August 2, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 104
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MS. MOORE: Yep.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I read in your
application that the applicant is not
interested in applying for an accessory
apartment in an accessory structure. You
know, I understand the family generally
uses it when the family is visiting it.
MS. MOORE: There is lots of
children.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: We need to
explore what consequences of that action
would be, because again, this is
attachment. There is habitable space. You
know, unless we can find some reason for
continuing, other than the fact that the
I do
it would
applicant would
understand what
put an economic
like to have it.
you're saying that
hardship if it remains
attached. I am sure the building will
aesthetically pleasing whether it's
look
attached or detached, either way. This
Board has to look at what that would mean,
and the potential consequences with regard
to precedent. There are probable other
circumstances in the Town (In Audible}
August 2, 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
it's unusual but I know that it is out
there.
MS. MOORE: I am sure.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: So where do we
go with that? Have you discussed with the
applicant about the removal of that space
on the second floor as habitable space?
MR. SAMUELS: Yes. Tom Samuels,
architect for the applicant. Yes, they're
not interested in removing that space, if
they can avoid it in any way. I will
address the idea, although we're removing a
breezeway covering by the code, that is not
considered an attachment. It would need to
be a heated attachment now. I know they
have a CO that predates. We're not
substantially changing that situation, as
far as attachment is concerned. It does
not meet the code today for attachment, and
not in the future. We're just altering
that roof covering. These two structures
are not connected by code.
MS. MOORE: That is a very good
point. If it doesn't meet the code as an
attachment, then we're not changing its
August 2, 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
status. Then it's preexisting and stays
preexisting. I guess in a sense, we're
making it more nonconforming as we're
taking away the appearance of it being an
attachment, but we couldn't build it today
as an attachment. It would have to be
breezeway that is not more than ten feet.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: That's right.
MS. MOORE: Or an enclosure.
MR. SAMUELS: For that reason, I
don't think that we're increasing the
nonconformity. To the same extent, we
would, if we were literally attaching a
house to the two. They are not
fundamentally attached.
MEMBER HORNING: I think the issue
is, when it was built, it was conforming.
MS. MOORE: Exactly.
MEMBER HORNING:
have a CO on it?
MS. MOORE: Yes.
MEMBER HORNING:
you're doing, you're
Didn't you say you
You're detaching the building
no CO for it anymore. So
By doing what
removing the CO.
and you have
you're changing
August 2, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 107
1
2
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
it?
MR. SAMUELS: Correct, but we're
also trying to make a point that in
rational terms, we're not changing the
situation, even though yes --
MS. MOORE: But also keep in mind
there is a balancing act in the standards
and there are compelling reasons under the
flood regulations to support the yes, we're
turning an existing garage into a
nonconforming garage, but the balancing of
the weight of the interest are to make
improvements to a house that definitely
need improvements. Alternatively, we have
to demolish the house, because you would
have to raise the house to the AE-6 Flood
Regulations.
MEMBER HORNING: Even though you say
to yourself, the house is not in the flood
zone?
MS. MOORE: Right.
MEMBER HORNING: But the attached
garage is?
MS. MOORE: Correct. A portion of
it.
August 2, 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
MEMBER HORNING: A portion of it.
Even though you're calling it on a survey
an accessory building already, when
actually it's an attached garage?
MR. SAMUELS: I think by that level
of attachment, FEMA considers it attached.
And alterative, what we have explored was
to raise the house or reconstruct, to meet
the requirements of the flood plain. Just
to raise that house, I think we would be
back here, and I think you would say we're
just trying to avoid the CO and it's not
really attached. We're saying, no, we
don't want to touch this. We want to leave
it the way that it is, but we need to
detach it in order to make it FEMA
regulations. And then you're going to say
you need a variance for that. So we
understand that we probably need a variance
either way. I am just saying -- just
bringing that to your attention from a
logical standpoint. I think that we're
making less of an impact here.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Let me just
ask a question. When you own the rights to
August 2, 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
2O
21
22
23
24
25
the middle of the road in right-of-way in
the community, it's my understanding the
community still has a right to use it.
Now, do you think that you can get a letter
from the Homeowners Association of some
sort indicating that they're okay that the
garage is partially in that right-of-way or
can we get a copy of the deed or title of
the road?
MS. MOORE: With permission of the
association, because I was representing
them at the time, I can contact them. I
have the titles that say who the owners
were. There is a deed. It hasn't been
recorded because we're aren't in agreement
yet. I had both Westlake and Cedar Beach
get it, because they were both out of the
same developers. There is never an
agreement. So you have a deed. The fact
that it's not recorded, is irrelevant.
It's a deed. So yes, I can ask them if
it's all right, if I share that with you.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Because at
least we would have some documentation.
MS. MOORE: Right.
August 2, 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
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Where it sits
at the moment.
MS. MOORE: I will do what
get something. Something
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Let's
look at some of the environmental
MS. MOORE: What I can
give you their title report,
bought it.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
MS. MOORE: I don't
was an exception or not,
it.
thing, the
the road.
I can to
from them.
take a
also do is
because they
That's fine.
know if there
but nobody noticed
Put it that way.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
deed (In Audible)
The only
the middle of
MEMBER GOEHRINGER:
a blanketed (In Audible)
association against the
that we have adverse
MS. ANDALORO:
anymore.
Couldn't you do
action as an
developer? Saying
They're not around
MS. MOORE: He's gone. I was able
to get a deed from Toter, I think is the
name. Toter is the wife of one of the
August 2, 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
developers. So I was able to get a deed
for the association.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER:
do it even though that person
living?
MS. MOORE: Yes.
down,
that
You could still
is no longer
But chasing it
getting children involved. The fact
I spoke to the woman. This developer
in 1927 had done other developments in the
Town. Every once in a while they would get
a telephone call, "hey, do you have a deed
over the road?" And she would say, talk to
my lawyer. I don't want to bother. I was
able to talk to her and Cedar Beach is
familiar with it. We would like to
maintain the road. We want to have more
legal title than just an association
because you know, people don't want to pay
their association dues.
coming up with excuses on
shouldn't pay. "You don't
should I pay you." That
to avoid that issue. I
better than none.
start
Then they
why they
own it. So why
kind of thing.
said one deed is
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Is there any
So
August 2, 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
proposal to change the existing bulkhead?
MR. SAMUELS: No, except for these
two little sections that you have noticed
on the left hand side, which are far away
from the bulkhead as we constructed them.
The only place in where we alter that to an
open porched roof, which is not intending
to be closed in any way facing the bay,
which you see there to some existing deck.
So we're within the existing footprints.
While you're
up there Tom, the drywell, is that in the
flood zone or not?
MR. SAMUELS: They're in the X as
well. They're supposed to be within the X.
Of course there would be a complete slip
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
with anything of this new project.
MS. MOORE: Actually, I would say we
have to move some to the north side. They
appear to be on the line. But do drywell's
matter in the flood zone?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Yes. It is
one of the things that is in the LWRP that
I wanted to clarify. Clarify the location
of the waterline to the proposed drywell
August 2, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 113
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
location and relocating
of the AE-16 flood zone.
MS. MOORE: That is not
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
the drywell's out
a problem.
Ail right.
we need you to do that. Is there a pool
dewatering drywell on the property?
MR. SAMUELS: Not aware of it.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: On the site,
there is none shown.
MS. MOORE: The in-ground pool was
built in '86. Probably not, given that it
was built in '86. We can ask, maybe the
one that is to the north, as providing for
an overflow.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: That is going
to come up anyway.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: One of the big
issues here is that this a gunite pool, I
didn't investigate that. If it's a liner
pool, you're not taking this pool out
because of the hydrostatic pressure of
water coming up. That is one of the
that you have to figure out.
MR. SAMUELS: We can get you an
answer. I am not sure either.
So
the
issues
August 2, 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
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: A
recommendation of the LWRP because the
environmental is sensitive, is prohibition
of applying fertilizer,
herbicide and
pesticide on the lawn area?
MS. MOORE: I don't see that as an
area. The landscaped plan that they have
is amazing and natural. It's very natural.
Mr. Tricano (phonetic) uses it as his
advertisement in the Suffolk Times. I
don't know if you have noticed.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The property
has a 15 foot buffer; however, taking into
consideration that you're proposing, though
there was no recommendation
existing vegetative buffer.
the Board have
to decrease the
Okay. Does
any other questions or
comments at this time?
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: I have a couple
of clarifications. With respect to flood
insurance, because part of the dwelling
exist in an AE-6, that brings the whole
house into the AE-6?
MS. MOORE: Yes. I couldn't believe
it. I even asked Mr. Starr.
August 2, 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
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: So you propose to
sever that part of the dwelling and then
make it as an accessory structure?
MS. MOORE: Yeah.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Now, part of that
proposed accessory structure will be in a
AE-6?
MS. MOORE: I think you still have
to keep flood insurance in place.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: But you would
have to get flood insurance for that
particular piece of the property?
MS. MOORE: Typically, if it
touches. If there is a bank involved, they
make you have flood insurance. I have to
believe that -- I am sure they have it now.
I am sure they would keep it to the extent
that it is available to them for what would
become of an accessory building.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: And then that
proposal,
charge on
you would
for this new accessory structure?
MS. MOORE: Yes. I would assume.
that would reduce the premium
the main dwelling, right? But
still have to get flood insurance
August 2, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 116
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Flood insurance is so subsidized. I have
no -- my property touches the flood zone
and I know my house is out of it. The
flood insurance rates are like $400.00
year. It's really minimal, for me. I
don't know what they would have to pay.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: They would still
have to get flood insurance for that
proposed accessory structure?
MS. MOORE: I would think so.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Separate and
distinct from the dwelling?
MS. MOORE: Yes.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: So the real
difficulty here is the up charge in the
premium by having part of this existing
dwelling in the AE-6?
MS. MOORE: No. It's just the
premium. That's just a little extra money
to pay on the premium. The difficulty is,
you can't make improvements to an -- to the
house. It makes the house an X, which is
out of the flood zone. It treats it as an
AE-6. So now your finished floor elevation
must be elevated above two feet above the
August 2, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 117
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
flood elevation,
house has to be
which essentially your
elevated to AE-8.
MR. SAMUELS: Yes.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Okay. So that
little portion of the dwelling is the
hardship?
MS. MOORE: Yes. The house making
it conform to flood elevations would
trigger a completely degree of
improvements. They would be limited in
what they were planning on doing. It would
be more than the 50%, but less than 100%.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: There is nothing
proposed for the proposed accessory
building, separate from the dwelling, so
therefore it would not be required to meet
the AE-6?
MS. MOORE: Yes.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: The Board's
you have
concern the livable space that
that newly created structure.
MR. SAMUELS: Right.
There is no
kitchen. I will make that point. It is
not a stand alone dwelling.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Two bedrooms,
August 2, 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
sitting room, bathroom and no kitchen?
MR. SAMUELS: Correct.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Is there one
proposed?
MR. SAMUELS: They don't want a
kitchen. That is not what they're looking
to do.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: I just wanted to
be clear. Thank you. I have no more
questions.
MR. SAMUELS: I just wanted to be
clear one thing that had to do with the
tower, it was originally constructed and
intended to have a mezzanine, less than 30%
of the area of the space, and it was after
the fact, with the previous owner, that was
imposed. That was enclosed and this became
an illegal first story. It is now a
proposal to remove that complete. To
remove that nonconformity complete. Not to
open up and just to get rid of it. I just
wanted to make that clear. That has been
used as a bedroom in the past. And so
we're in fact decreasing the number of
bedrooms. So we're in a sense, we're
August 2, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 119
1
2
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
maintaining the legal number of bedrooms.
We're not increasing the number of
bedrooms. I just wanted to make that
point.
Tom.
CHAIRPERSON
WEISMAN: Thank you,
does.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Sounds like he
MEMBER HORNING: In looking through
your area variance reasons, and again it
just mentions eliminating the third room,
which is part of your reasoning in number
one. Eliminating a nonconforming third
floor is beneficial to your application.
You have a comment, the existing structure
has "little curve appeal."
Is there anyone else in the audience
that would like to address this
application?
(No Response.)
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Hearing no
further --
MEMBER HORNING: I do.
MS. MOORE: Do you have another
questions?
August 2, 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
MS. MOORE: It's ugly. Really, the
house is a vinyl siding. It's all gray
vinyl siding. Very little character,
architectural design. That third floor box
on top really has no relation to the rest
of the house. Probably the best looking
part of the house is the garage because you
know, that has a more normal roof line and
attractive.
MEMBER HORNING: And then it says
the proposed renovation is intended to
improve the architectural style of the
existing house and it will be made to
conform to the character of the
neighborhood.
MS. MOORE: Yes.
MEMBER HORNING: So would you
describe the character of the neighborhood?
MS. MOORE: Sure. Yes. Cedar Beach
has -- it's just driving around it, you
probably noticed, because it's a 1920
subdivision, you have some small cottages
that over time have been made into ranch
houses and larger homes. Most houses -- it
mostly was a summer community, but a lot of
August 2, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 121
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
people who bought these as summer homes are
retiring there. I have several people who
have converted it to retirement and year
round houses. So if you drive around,
you're seeing the material, the
architectural design. Really a good
attractive improvement to the community.
Some of the older owners have passed away.
The estates are selling the properties. I
think overall, is an attractive community.
So the plan is to renovate the house so it
has natural shingles. A normal roof line.
Nice detail. Personally, it's a house that
I think is going to be an attractive house.
This is my personal opinion right now, it's
really not that attractive, but I will let
you draw your own conclusion, if you think
it's attractive or not. It's a matter of
opinion.
MEMBER HORNING: Now the house
predates zoning?
MS. MOORE: By far, yes.
MEMBER HORNING: The house was built
in 1983 or before that?
The first CO was issued
was it built
MS. MOORE:
August 2, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 122
1
2
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
in '78, and it says private one family
dwelling.
MEMBER HORNING: Prior to 19577
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: As you drove
into this driveway, in the back, the house
across the across the right-of-way, was
built in the shape of a (In Audible), so
you had a complete view. That house across
the street, okay, existed approximately in
the same time, and that was approximately
between 772 and ~74.
MR. SAMUELS: I have a property card
here and it refers to a date 1965,
alterations and repair damage. In 1960
there was a transfer as well.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Let me read
this into the record.
MS. MOORE: I appreciate it because
I don't have it right in front of me.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: There is a CO
dated June 17, 1978, and what it's
referring to requirements for one family
dwelling and housing cobuilt before
April 23, 1957. Pursuant to
of
a Certificate
Occupancy dated June 17, 1976 was
August 2, 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
issued. So there is a
subject property.
MEMBER HORNING:
getting at, the garage
1983; correct?
MS. MOORE:
my notes, I
construction
Pre-CO on the
Then what I am
add was built around
alterations to garage and living room.
Presumably there in 1980 also.
MEMBER HORNING: And then I am
little confused about this ZBA variance
from Chapter 145 that you mentioned. I
found a Chapter 144. Where do we find
Chapter 1457
MS. MOORE:
code 145.
CHAIRPERSON
been renumbered.
MS. MOORE:
think
Well, it was the old
WEISMAN: It has all
If you look at the --
it's Zoning Actions under Zoning
building permit and my memory, I think it
was in '83.
MR. SAMUELS: I have again on the
property card, 1980 building permit
I believe so. You know
attached the -- I have the
plans that come with the
August 2, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 124
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Board -- on the website, if you go to flood
applications there are probably ten or
twelve that are listed there and that is
where I was reading through the different
applications that were granted, and most of
them were to the finished floor not being
in compliant and people wanting to do more
and renovate the house and it wouldn't
comply with the flood zone.
MEMBER HORNING: Well, how do you
get a variance from a chapter that doesn't
exist?
MS. MOORE: Well, it has been
renumbered. It still exists. I don't know
what it used to be.
MEMBER DINIZIO: We should have a
copy of that. It used to be 100-whatever.
So if you look under 100-142, you would
probably find it. You have to go back.
MEMBER HORNING: I was confused
because I was trying to find the chapter.
MS. MOORE: I'm sorry. That is how
I researched it and found a whole section
of your Zoning Actions in the website that
dealt with this. I have not seen an
August 2, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 125
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
application. I think the last one was in
the 80~s. I wasn't aware that you guys were
granting variances at the time.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Just for the
record --
MS. MOORE: In all the time that I
have been practicing, more than 20 years.
I have never made an application.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Just for the
record, here is what happened. When I was
instituted the supervisor at the time was
Bill (In Audible). He wanted us to deal
with (In Audible) and the only thing (In
Audible) so what we ended up doing, we had
approximately some four to six
applications. Believe it or not, the
majority of those applications were over
20, okay. And then when the federal
government came to inspect them, they said
we think you are granting too many
applications. We would respectfully
request you not to grant any more. So they
kind of self distinguished. That was kind
of the end of it.
MS. MOORE: Right. Okay.
August 2, 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
to
MS. ANDALORO:
do that today.
MEMBER HORNING:
We have no authority
Okay.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay in the
interest of time. There were no comments
from the audience in this application. I
was going to make a motion subject to
receipt of two things. One, an amended
site plan and/or survey showing the drywell
not located in the flood zone and a pool
dewatering drywell. Secondly, title search
or deed, or homeowners association letter
saying that it's okay for the garage to be
on the right-of-way. So there is some
evidence that is an acceptable situation.
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 #6582 - CHRISTOPHER M. &
August 2, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 127
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
PATRICIA F. MCCARTHY
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
hearing before the Board is
The next
for Christopher
M. And Patricia F. McCarthy. Request for
variances from Article IV Code Section
280-18, based on an application for
building permit and the Building
Inspector's May 23, 2012 Notice of
Disapproval concerned proposed construction
of an add to a single family dwelling at,
1) less than the code required front yard
setback of 50 feet on this corner lot,
located at: 1460 Peconic Bay Boulevard,
adjacent to Private ROW, Laurel.
MS. MOORE: Patricia Moore on behalf
of the McCarthy's. They wanted to be here.
They're actually in Denver. You had a
prior application on the second floor
addition over the garage, which is on the
west side of the house. My clients have
moved into this house as their permanent
residence, and Ms. McCarthy realized that
she has no eating area. The kitchen worked
fine when it was their summer home, but now
there is differences with their family now.
August 2, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 128
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1
2
3
4
5
So they're proposing a new dining area,
kitchen modification that is on the east
side of the property and the setback to the
-- the Peconic -- well, the right-of-way,
but it's actually owned by an Association,
which gives access to the beach for the
properties on the opposite side of the
road, south side of the road. This
property as you recall, are three lots that
were merged, therefore all the setbacks
were increased due to the merging of the
properties. We do plan to come back and
ask to un-merge the properties. The back
is an acre, the front house is less than an
acre. The timeline, they have no intention
with doing anything with those properties
at this point. The house is their living
area. So as far as priorities,
Mr. & Mrs. McCarthy want to renovate and
make their house comfortable before they
sometime in the future provide a lot for
their family in the back. We're -- because
of the setbacks of the side property, the
setback from the front is 50 feet, even
though the house is actually at 20.1. It
August 2, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 129
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
brings the addition within the 50 foot
setback. The proposed setback from the
road is 44.9. From the right of way, it's
20.7. I did provide you with a new drawing
because I want to be sure you have Charles
Thomas. If you look at the second page, on
the original proposal there was a bilco
door on the front side of the house. The
bilco door didn't affect setbacks or
anything. The owners wanted to put the
access to the basement on the opposite
side, which steps down from a door to the
proposed dining area. I wanted to be sure
you have the most current plan. I don't
want to have other issues later on. It's
the access point for the basement. The
client did not want to have a bilco door
facing the front. So your drawings now are
dated July 2012, rather than the previous
submission. Other than that, there are no
other submissions.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: There is a
small addition to the kitchen. It's
virtually considered a corner lot, by
virtue of the right-of-way. You have two
August 2, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 130
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1
2
3
4
5
front yards.
MS. MOORE: Yes. Correct.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Does
have any questions?
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I have
questions.
MEMBER
HORNING: I have a
the Board
no
Looking at your area variance reasons,
Reason #2, you're discussing less than
feasible, etcetera, and the fact that
question.
and
are these un-merged lots, Lots 14, 15
16, I guess, they are all merged?
there
and
The property is nonconforming. I
purchase.
MEMBER HORNING:
all merged?
MS. MOORE: Yes.
MEMBER HORNING:
#3, amount of relief
you say, significant
parcels.
So then Statement
not substantial. Then
to the combined
Technically they are merged.
14, 15 and 16 are
MS. MOORE: Yes. Well my client
owns it in two separate names. The back
piece is owned by Mrs. McCarthy. The front
lot is owned by Mr. & Mrs. McCarthy, but
the merger occurred prior to their
August 2, 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
am wondering if that is a correct statement
because the Notice of Disapproval talks
about a conforming parcel. So what is
that?
MS. MOORE: Well, I guess the --
because the Building Department merged the
property before the three independent lots
merged them, they are now more than an acre
in size. So the combined area of the lots
makes them conforming because they are more
than one acre. The individual front lot
when separated from the back lot, is of
nonconforming. It's a preexisting
nonconforming, but again, it's merged. By
area it's conforming because of it's
merging but the house was built here under
the assumption that this was a 103 x 175
foot lot. That is when the house was
developed.
MEMBER HORNING: Again, looking at
reason for Area Variance #3, Statement #2
was covering the fact that they are all
merged. 14, 15 and 16 are all merged.
Statement #3, the amount of relief
requested is not substantial because "while
August 2, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 132
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1
2
3
4
5
the variance is significant due to the
combined parcels of property is
nonconforming," and yes the Notice of
Disapproval says they are conforming. So is
it conforming or nonconforming?
MS. MOORE: My opinion is that it's
nonconforming because of the width of the
lot is 175. The development of the house
is based on the front parcel, but the
Building Department is using the --
claiming the area is conforming by size
because the area exceeds the one acre. So
I guess my point on this argument is, is
this variance substantial? Well, if you're
looking at a 1/2 acre parcel, yes, because
your setbacks are 20 feet from a
right-of-way, however, given the
circumstances of this property and how the
area of the lot has been -- has been
combined, I don't believe it's significant
because -- we would be at a 35 foot setback
dealing with the front lot. Based on the
setbacks of the front lot, you have
setbacks of 35, 35 on the other side and 15
on the opposite side. If you go back and
August 2, 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
look at
granted previously,
argument that came out of your
MEMBER HORNING: I don't get
whether they're conforming or
nonconforming.
MS. MOORE: More or less,
technically they're conforming.
all
the Area Variances that were
I think that was an
decision.
it,
HORNING: Then why do you say
Because I tend to (In
it's conforming or
to you whether
nonconforming.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I understand
your argument. The Building Department
made a determination that it was
conforming.
MEMBER
its nonconforming?
MS. MOORE:
Audible.)
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Is there
anyone in the audience that wishes to
address this application?
(No Response.)
MEMBER HORNING: Thank you. I am
done.
MS. MOORE: I think I will leave it
August 2, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 134
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
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Hearing no
further comments, I am going to make a
motion to close this hearing and reserve
decision to a later date.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second.
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 %6579 DENISE GEIS
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The next
application before the Board is for Denise
Gels, #6579. Request for variance from
Article III Code Section 280-15, based on
an application for building
Building Inspector's May 1,
Disapproval concerning "as
permit and the
2012 Notice of
built"
reconstruction of an accessory shed at;
less than the maximum code required rear
yard setback of 35 feet, located at: 2250
Sigsbee Road, Mattituck.
August 2, 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
1
2
3
4
5
MS. GEIS:
is Denise Gels. I live
Road in Mattituck.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
Good afternoon. My name
at 2250 Sigsbee
Vicki
told me I read into the record at
the minimum code required of 35
should be 3 feet. I don't know
came from.
MS. GEIS: Okay. Should I
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
MS. GEIS: First --
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
your name for the record?
MS. GEIS: Sure. My name is Denise
Gels. I live at 2250 Sigsbee Road, in
Mattituck. First off, I would like to
needed
just
less than
feet. It
where the 5
start?
Please do.
Please state
apologize for not realizing that we
a building permit to do reconstruction on
my shed. The subject property is 2250
Sigsbee Road in Mattituck. It's the fifth
house on Peconic Boulevard on the west side
of the public road. The subdivision is
named Mattituck Park Properties and was
developed in the 20's, prior to zoning in
the Town of Southold. The plot line is 50
August 2, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 136
6
7
8
9
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
feet by 545, give or take. The entire road
is divided into three sections. The base
portion of the street is Section 126. The
top of the subdivision adjacent to Route
35, is zoned 145 and lower portion, is 144.
The (In Audible) but all three sections
follow the tax map properties of all three
sections (In Audible) setbacks, which I
gave everybody. First, I would like to
just reiterate two points of my variance
reasons. Number 2, the benefits sought by
the applicant can not be achieved by some
method feasible for the applicant to pursue
other than an area variance because my
backyard, the sanitary system where the
cesspools, they are right there. And I only
have one tree in the back yard. Both of
which prohibit the movement of that shed, I
didn't have any clue that it was only 1.6
feet off the back line anyway. The only
tree that we have in the back, we had to
trim up to even repair the shed. The
amount of relief requested is not
substantial because the adjoinment ~f the
accessory structures down the street has
August 2, 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
specific nonconforming setbacks. Several
of these structures have been converted to
single family dwellings. Many of which are
approximately one to two feet from the lot
line. Number %4, the variance will not
have any adverse effect on the impact of
the physical environmental conditions,
based on the nonconforming lot and
restricted area and the backyard. The
applicant may have a significant hardship
in leaving the 1956 structure from the lot.
I also have -- everybody has a survey. The
survey is 1977. Nothing has changed on
that survey except a small shed was added
on the roadside. This is not showing on
that survey but everything else is the
same. I also have to hand in, I -- made
form letter. I will just read the first
one who. This is addressing the Board
members, this is from Shawn (In Audible)
lives at 2400 Sigsbee Road in Mattituck,
a
regarding the variance application for
Denise Geis, #6579, I have considered this
application and offer my full support.
Sigsbee Road has been in existence for many
August 2, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 138
1
2
3
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
years. It consist of single lots that are
very small in size and lot in width. Thank
you for your opportunity to comment on this
very important variance application. I
have it signed by a bunch of neighbors that
are the -- (In Audible).
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: These are all
the same letter basically?
MS. GEIS: The form of the letter.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Six letters.
And where would these people be located?
How close to your --
MS. GEIS: They are two or three
houses across from the street. Ail very
local. I could have had more signed.
also have -- the street, it's a lot of
buildings on the street, because it was
built so early before zoning, there is a
I
the
lot of nonconformities. I just picked out
five examples, which you all have here in
your packet. The first one is 1930
Sigsbee, if you look at the survey, you can
see that the garage in the back that is
nonconforming.
line. That is
It's only two feet off the
the first one. The second
August 2, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 139
1
2
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
one is 1530 Sigsbee -- the
garage. I don't know if I
second one actually used to
which they have turned into
one is only 1.5 feet off the back
feet on the other side.
MEMBER DINIZIO:
looking at these?
MS. GEIS: Correct.
MEMBER DINIZIO:
is the house?
MS. GEIS: That
MEMBER DINIZIO:
first one was a
said that. The
be a garage,
a house. That
lot, or 2
Excuse me. We're
You are saying that
is the house.
That is the back
to be a garage.
house. The
line and 2
very
no
property line?
MS. GEIS: It used
That has been converted into a
house is 1.5 feet off the lot
feet off the other lot. So it's
close
MEMBER DINIZIO: There are
structures on that lot now?
MS. GELS: A shed. I just picked
out a couple. There are many examples.
just wanted to pick out five examples on
the block. The next one is 1920 Sigsbee,
I
August 2, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 140
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1
2
3
4
5
and that is a house. It is only (In
Audible) off the side lot, which is
nonconforming. The next one 540 Sigsbee.
That is nonconforming on both the side and
the back of the house. That one I believe
used to be a garage at one point and then
was converted to a house. Then number five
is 2850 Sigsbee, which is, if you look at
the survey, it has a nonconforming garage
and a side yard and front yard setback. I
believe all three. There are -- they are
on Sigsbee Road. There are about 80 lots
and 66 houses, and I counted 52 of them
have some kind of nonconforming aspects.
do have these pictures for you as well.
Audible.) This house right here (In
Audible) fence behind it. This is the
house and this is the --
MEMBER HORNING: Ma'am, you gave
this today?
MS. GELS: Right.
MEMBER HORNING:
reference these?
MS. GEIS: To be
all the ones --
How do we cross
honest, those are
I
(In
US
August 2, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 141
1
2
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MEMBER HORNING: Number one, where
that on this map?
MS. GEIS: I didn't necessarily (In
Audible) they are not necessarily.
MEMBER HORNING: So you didn't cross
reference?
show
MS. GELS: No. I just used this to
how many houses are nonconforming.
MEMBER HORNING: Okay.
MS. GEIS: And those are at least
to be a small project and has become a
bigger project then we anticipated. We
decided to change the roof. I apologize, I
did not realize that I would need a permit
to do that, because the structure itself is
sustained. Those pictures are all marked
five that happen to stand out. Basically,
when I am inspecting my inside of my shed,
over the last couple of years, has been
leaking more and more. This year, when I
went to get out my flower pots and saw
further, it was leaking even more. There
was more water in the flower pots than
there was outside. So we realized we
needed to redo the roof, which started out
August 2, 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
on the back, by the way. So the -- we
decided to change the roof from a flat roof
to a peak roof because I never want to have
to rebuild a shed again. Ever. And the
flat roof was (In Audible) another problem
with rain getting in. We also wanted to
leave the rafters the way it is, but at the
same time for additional storage. Right
now, there is no outside entrance to our
basement. There is no bilco door. There
is no door whatsoever. So we can't put any
of our outside furniture away. That is the
need for the storage. When we started on
the roof, we then realized how rotted the
sides were. So we re-sided it and whatever
studs were rotted, we replaced. And we had
to shore up some of the others. So the
structure is the same. It has been the
same since 1956. Like I said, there is
only one tree back there in which we had to
cut a whole bunch of branches off just to
do that. It has been a much more costly
endeavor thought to repair, but as well as
the whole variance procedure. So that's
about it for me. Do you have any
August 2, 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
questions?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
any heat in this structure?
MS. GEIS: No.
Yes. Is there
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Any plumbing?
MS. GEIS: No.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: What is the
actual height from grade to the peak of the
roof?
MS. GELS: I
MEMBER
height?
MS. GEIS:
flat roof on it.
like 10 feet.
using
think it was 14 feet.
HORNING: Is that the new
Yes. The other one had a
I think the other one was
back,
name,
absolutely
property.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay. This
would be for storage and equipment?
MS. GEIS: Just for storage.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: You are not
it for a car?
MS. GEIS: No. The lady in the
Susan, I don't remember her last
but I spoke with her, and she is
fine with the 6 feet off of her
no problem with that
She has
August 2, 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
whatsoever, as long as it's not encroaching
on her property, and it's not.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay. And
that is the same location it has been in --
MS. GEIS: My grandfather has 3 feet
of cement underneath there. It would be
something that would last forever.
Literally there is 3 feet of cement under
the structure itself.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
repairs --
MS. GEIS:
So you made
We really just
out with the roof, which got
when everything was rotted.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Jim?
started
more involved
MEMBER DINIZIO: Just to
congratulate you on all the work that you
obviously did.
MS. GEIS: I never wanted to be
before this Board and I don't want to do
again.
MEMBER DINIZIO: Well,
had some sleepless nights.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
MEMBER HORNING:
I am sure you
Thank you.
George?
I don't mean to be
it
August 2, 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
sarcastic, but the foundation, I was going
to ask you about. You said it was
concrete, at least you think some of it is
at least 3 feet thick --
MS. GEIS: Yes.
MEMBER HORNING: It's not feasible
to move this structure?
MS. GEIS: It's not feasible at all.
First off, because the way the cesspool;
so, it's not a very big lot. And the one
and only tree on the property, like I said,
has to be trimmed back significantly on one
side just to review the roof. There is
easily 3 feet of cement.
MEMBER HORNING: So if you were to
entertain the idea of moving the shed
even
to make it more conforming with a 3 foot
setback and moving --
MS. GEIS: A foot and a half.
MEMBER HORNING: A foot and a half.
What are the options for this?
MS. GEIS: A tree would have to come
down.
foot
MEMBER HORNING:
or so of --
The septic is in a
August 2, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 146
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MS. GEIS: It's very close in the
backyard. I think it's 64. It's literally
right there. The tree is literally in
front of it. So we would have to cut down
our only tree that we have in the backyard.
Actually, there is two in the front -- but
it's our only tree we have in the backyard.
MEMBER HORNING:
evidence the shed was
that
done
And you produced
built prior to 1957,
is correct?
MS. GEIS: Correct.
MEMBER HORNING: And
maintenance on it?
you just have
MS. GELS: Yes.
MEMBER HORNING: And in terms of
maintenance in the back there where it
abuts against that Ag property, you haven't
had any problems to put a ladder?
MS. GEIS: We had 1.6 feet. There
is a slate patio, and there is just a
couple of ladders, but there is nothing --
we use the part that we have. There is no
reason to use anything else than what our
property is. It's just that -- there is no
reason to encroach on the other persons
August 2, 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
property.
MEMBER
a ladder up?
MS. GEIS:
there
HORNING: If you were to put
I had the roof done and
was no problem. First off, there is
nothing physically there. It is just
woods. There is no problem with putting a
ladder up.
MEMBER HORNING: On the character of
the neighborhood, it's a very densely
populated area. I was kind of curious that
it's actually in the R-80 Zone according to
the documentation. Low density residential
with this big Ag property in the back. Do
you have any comment as to why you think
it's in the R-80 Zone?
MS. GEIS: I would have no idea.
MEMBER HORNING: That is what the
Notice of Disapproval says. And that is
about it, I would say.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Ken?
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: No questions.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Is there
anyone else in the audience that would like
to address this application? Please come
August 2, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 148
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1
2
3
4
5
forward and go to either one of the
microphones. State your name for the
record, please?
MS. MORGAN: Patricia Morgan, 2230
Sigsbee Road.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Thank you.
What would you like us to know?
MS. MORGAN: Oh, I would like to
show you some pictures that I took.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: You know what,
just so we can get you on the record. So
perhaps you can just tell us what these
pictures are and then we can take a look?
MS. MORGAN: The pictures have --
some of them have measuring tapes on them.
First of all, I would like to say that I am
a summer resident. I am not here all the
time. I don't know anything about the
Zoning Board. Initially, when I opened my
house in the spring I saw this very large
structure. So I went to the Town and asked
if there were any regulations about the
size of anything? No one would talk to me.
They said, "who are you? Where do you
live?" And no one would give me a simple
August 2, 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
answer. So this hearing is taking place
because the lady at the Zoning Board or
whatever it is, would not even speak to me
and give
me a piece
can do this. You
tall or that tall.
asked me who I was
gave them all my
went away.
CHAIRPERSON
I just ask you a
MS. MORGAN:
CHAIRPERSON
of paper that says you
can't do that. It's this
So I said, okay. They
and where I lived. I
information, and then I
that you called the office
Board of Appeals?
MS. MORGAN: No.
other building and stood at
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
Building Department.
MS. MORGAN: Okay. I
WEISMAN: Excuse me, can
question, please?
Yes.
WEISMAN: Are you saying
of the Zoning
I walked into the
the counter.
That's the
don't know.
Like I said, I don't do this a lot. So the
shed pictures are from the early 90's, the
original shed. Those pictures I took, I
know from the roll, they're from the early
90's. About a month later, I am here
August 2, 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
basically because I am mildly afraid. Lugs
were taken off the tires of my car, and I
reported that to the police. I have a
police report from May 18th or something of
this year. And it was sort of like, that
-- investigating. I never did another
thing, from talking to someone and asking
to please tell me how big the shed can be.
That was my input. I never said you can't
do this and dah-dah-dah. I found very
disturbing. I never thought about it until
things started happening.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I will take a
look at that, but I am not sure this kind
of information is relevant to our
proceeding.
MS. MORGAN: (In Audible.) If you
look at the fence that was put up, all this
was done with (In Audible) on the house.
It is kind of offensive. It moves all the
time. It sits there because I said to
Denise that I am going to put up a fence
because all the hedges that you see die.
They were infested with bugs. So we had no
divider between our property. You have the
August 2, 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
pictures. I said, Denise, I am going to
get a fence and she said, "why?" The next
thing that thing went up, and around 2004.
I wrote letters -- I thought Helen owned
the house. Gerry Goehringer's mother, who
is the best person in the world, was. I
wrote letters to her that said, do you see
how bad the fence is? Would you please
straighten it out? No one ever answered.
When I was gone, it changed. Then it
changed back. So I am concerned, I wanted
to be heard because things happen to me. I
say something, and I am threatening in a
way. Things go missing when -- I can go on
for two years but it wouldn't do any good.
I don't care what happens -- by the way, I
don't like the way I was treated when I
asked a simple question. I got the notice,
which is funny. I got the notice in the
city that this was taking place. Not where
I would normally get it, but incidentally I
drove into the city and I picked --
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Is that your
legal mailing address? That is why you got
it there.
August 2, 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
MS. MORGAN: But I get mail here.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I am sure you
get mail in both places, but it's where
ever you --
MS. MORGAN: Okay. I got the
notice.
That is your
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
legal residence.
MS. MORGAN: Okay. I assume that --
it's huge. You can see from the pictures.
It's 14 feet high. It has no relation to
the shed that was there before, as you can
see in the pictures. That shed was no more
than 6 1/2, 7 feet high. And you can see
by my structure, the structure in the back
of my yard, that has the tape next to it,
it's like 3 1/2 feet, and
next to the old shed. So
it was not 14 feet high. It
perfectly normal nice little
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
that is right
I certainly
was a
shed.
Thank you
know
your testimony. What is before this Board
now is not the height of the shed. That
was not in the Notice of Disapproval. It's
the property line --
for
August 2, 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
tape,
feet.
MS. MORGAN: Right.
from my property it
I have a measuring
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
than two feet. It says
not. That is why it is
property is on the
side
MS. MORGAN: On the
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
MS. MORGAN: Do you
Look at the
is less than two
tape and --
It is less
3.5 feet, yet it is
before me. Your
side.
I understand.
see 3.5, that is
what is on mine? It is not 3.5 it's less
than 2. Also the property marker, when my
car was (In Audible) the property marker
went missing and in my pictures, I can show
you three property markers and the fourth
one -- they call them monuments. The
fourth one is missing. It's just me there.
Every time I go there, I look around and
make sure everything is fine. I look at
the back. So what I would like to ask
since there is confusion and there is no
property marker there, that you at least
delay your decisions, until I can have my
property surveyed because something is
wrong. If I can -- I can't -- I am a big
August 2, 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
girl, I can not fit between the fence which
is -- it is their fence but it is on the
property line and the shed. It is
certainly not 3.5 feet. I have a picture
that measures it at 2 feet. When Denise
1 1/2 feet in the back, I think it as
1 1/2 inches. Not one 1 1/2 feet. I mean,
it was on the line. I have been there for
30 years. Anyway. It is not a big deal
know what is going on.
WEISMAN: Thank you for
says
except you ought to
CHAIRPERSON
your information.
MEMBER HORNING: Ma'am, are you
getting your property surveyed in the near
future?
MS. MORGAN: I will. This is being
too confusing. (In Audible) she blew it up
for me, and I couldn't believe the numbers.
These are incorrect. The property marker
was there in the spring. There on
April 18th when I opened the house, because
I looked.
MEMBER HORNING: I have a question
on the property marker. You are talking
about the rear yard corner property marker?
August 2, 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. MORGAN: Yes. The other three
that are there are fine. The one picture
that shows the shed has been removed.
MEMBER HORNING: And you are asking
us to wait on the decision until you have
your property surveyed?
MS. MORGAN: Yes.
MEMBER HORNING: We would
you to get your survey done as
possible.
encourage
soon as
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: What we have
go by, from my understanding, is the
to
have
and
sue .
survey of the property owner, because what
we're going by, is that there surveyor
determines what has belonged to them and
the location of the shed, relative to their
property line. The fence that is in your
side yard, that is adjacent to your
property?
MS. GEIS: Pat Morgan -- and we --
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Both of you
to address the Board.
MS. GEIS: -- there would be a hole
we didn't want people to fall in, and
That happens much to often. So we
August 2, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 156
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
i1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
would cover it up.
MEMBER HORNING: How big is the hole
that you are talking about?
MS. GEIS: Probably about six
inches. Multiple times I have covered it
up. I did not call the cops then. There
are other instances, which I did, but don't
really apply to this situation. So what we
did, we talked with some people, and
covered it up with just a little bit of
dirt. You can only find it, if you have
the survey. Because I know, unless I
measure it out. I have trouble finding it.
It's right where it belongs. It has always
been there. When we put up the fence, we
didn't exactly know where the back property
marker is. We couldn't find it until we
had the survey. So I knew that my
grandfather had shrubs that were on our
property, so I just put it to where I knew
it was legally on our property, and so we
didn't have any issues. Pat complained
numerous times that it was on her property.
The couple of things that she complained
was that it was moved over a couple of
August 2, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 157
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1
2
3
4
5
times. Just to be a good neighbor. You
know, I didn't need to have it back and
forth. You know, bickering back and forth.
I put up the fence not because she said she
was going to put up a fence, because like a
lot of summer people, they don't rake their
leaves when they leave. So then every time
we rake our property, the leaves would come
back, which has nothing to do with this
either, but that is why the fence was put
up. It cost me over $500.00. I don't have
$500.00 just to throw away any time that is
necessary. And the fence was -- it was put
up for that purpose. You can see from our
front property marker, that it is on our
fence. It is right on our property.
Literally, I can walk through that fence
and my shed, that space is not 3 feet from
the shed. It is more than 3 feet from the
property marker and the shed. The back is
1.6 feet. Not 1.6 inches. The cement is
more than 1.6 inches that my grandfather
made sure there as cement outside of the
building. So things wouldn't rot. It is
not laying on any ground.
August 2, 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
CHAIRPERSON
exactly in the same
existed in --
MS. GEIS: Yes.
WEISMAN: And it is
footprint where it
cement there. I would be
anybody who wants to come
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
been out there.
MS. GEIS: It's in
footprint. I can't move
There is 3 feet
glad to show
We have all
of
from the front marker. So either it went
back like this or someone moved the marker.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I understand.
The fence is a legal fence. On their
property, it's doesn't matter if it's 8
inches or 80 inches or 8 feet. That is not
interesting things, if you look again at
the fence line, Denise says that she
generously gave me a foot and a half of her
yard when she put up her fence. Now, that
is terrific. If you take a look at the
front marker, it is an eighth of an inch
It's impossible. There is no cement added
on. You can see where it has always been.
MS. MORGAN: She said one of the
exactly the same
3 feet of cement.
August 2, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 159
1
2
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
what
is before us.
MS. MORGAN:
MS. GELS: It's $600.00. I don't --
MEMBER DINIZIO: Ma'am, I understand
that. I quite honestly understand that but
this survey was done in 1978. You have
since added some things. You have
certainly rebuilt a building. Maybe in
place. Maybe in kind. That is fine. It
would need a variance no matter what. Even
you would admit that.
Absolutely not.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: We're not here
to discuss a fence.
MS. MORGAN: Absolutely not. That
was --
MEMBER DINIZIO: That fence is not
on the survey.
MS. GEIS: It's not.
MEMBER DINIZIO: We're arguing about
something that we really can't confirm.
MS. MORGAN: That is why I said,
will you wait for my --
MEMBER DINIZIO: Ma'am. I am not a
surveyor. You know, I am going to ask that
you get an updated survey.
August 2, 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
MS. GEIS: Sure.
MEMBER DINIZIO: We need to verify
those setbacks. I would prefer to have --
I mean, if you had the old building there,
I would probably take this survey, but when
there is a new structure and we have a
fence. A new fence, I need to see that on
the survey. I realize that there is a big
expense but you know, most people in the
Town, when they run into the problem, this
is what happens. I am going --
MS. MORGAN: So my survey doesn't do
it good?
MEMBER DINIZIO: I need a survey of
your property with all of the structures on
it. I'm sorry we need that. If you can
get that to us --
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I just want o
say one thing. Not that I am disagreeing
or anything. Is this a new structure or
was this is a structure roof?
MS. GEIS: The structure has a new
roof and new siding.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay. I just
wanted to be -- if it's refurbished --
August 2, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 161
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MS. MORGAN: -- we don't have -- the
2 feet to the property which is now 2290,
which is my parents. And mine is 2250, as
four corners markers, it does not divide
the property in half, but there is a corner
marker. It's 2290 and it -- it's 100 feet.
We have measured it. My husband and I
literally took a tape measure out. So the
(2) 50 foot lots, it's 100 feet. I can
show you where the markings are. 50 and 50
is 100 feet. No matter which way you add
it. I don't know what else to say.
MEMBER HORNING: I believe I heard
the neighbor more or less allege that
perhaps this marker was moved.
MS. GEIS: Yes.
MEMBER HORNING: How do you respond
to that?
MS. GEIS: The marker has been there
since it was surveyed in 1977. I don't
know, because my grandparents -- all I can
say is the property marker has been the
property marker shown on the survey ever
since it was put in.
MEMBER HORNING: So when she digs
August 2, 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
2O
21
22
23
24
25
out
is?
6 inches around it, she knows where it
MS. GEIS: She doesn't know where it
is. What happened is, she knew where it
was in respect to -- she was digging in the
wrong location. It was not moved. She was
digging the wrong location. She kept on
making a hole that was like 6 inches deep
and the size of this podium, and my concern
was because there is kids in the back of
the woods all the time, and so the point
is, and why the marker is covered now, so
we wouldn't continue with this cat and
mouse game. Digging it up and burying it.
Digging it up and burying it. Digging it
up and burying it. I have a lot more
important things to do then come to a home
numerous times and do what Pat will do --
whatever she has to do with the property,
it will be done. And then she will go back
to the city for two or three days, so she
doesn't have to deal with any of the
situations that have to occur. Then my
husband and I will cover up the hole or
whatever it is. She put cat litter right
August 2, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 163
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
by our door on the other side of the fence,
which it doesn't have to do with any of
this. She is very devious, which I was
reported and I have a police report for
that. The point is, the fence not --
being
MEMBER HORNING: The hole that is
dug, is in your rear yard?
MS. GEIS: Yes.
MS. MORGAN: No.
MEMBER HORNING: These holes are not
uncovering the lot marker?
MS. GEIS: No, she has digged
different holes to look for the lot marker,
because
she was
the point was -- I
trying to move it,
honest opinion. That has
with this situations
MEMBER HORNING:
what would it take
MS. GEIS:
never dug up.
can't tell you
personally think
if you want my
nothing to do
it is, but --
In your estimation
to move it?
I have no idea. I have
I can't tell you that. I
what. I don't knew.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Let me find
out from the rest of the Board how they
feel about an updated survey?
August 2, 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 HORNING: I think it is
necessary.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Ken?
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: I'm afraid so.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay. The
consensus of the Board is a more current
survey would end all of this once and for
all problematic relationship. It would
show exactly where your fence is on the
property. Exactly where your footprint is
on your existing shed and what the setbacks
of the side yards are. The height is not
an issue that the Zoning is addressing.
We're addressing setback. You can add the
shed in there. This doesn't show the
little shed that was added either?
MS. GEIS: No, it does not. It was
not on the survey.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: If the Board's
consensus is that an updated survey would
be useful, then for us to be confident in
the decision that we're making that it
reflects the --
MS. GEIS: Right.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: This is not
August 2, 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
2O
21
22
23
24
25
uncommon. We do wind up getting old
surveys but if there is a survey that
reflects exactly what is there, that is one
thing. When other things have been added,
like a fence and a shed, it is not uncommon
for this Board to request an updated
survey. I understand that it is an added
expense, but it would certainly be added
value for you to add it.
So is there anyone else in the
audience that would like to address this
application?
MS. MORGAN: Excuse me, would it
still be practical for me to get -- we
bought the house in the 80's, would it be
practical in case there was a discrepancy
in the survey?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I --
MS. MORGAN: I couldn't believe it.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: If they hire a
licensed surveyor, to survey their
property, then we can rest assured because
that is what their license is, that it will
be properly identified. Your property is
not before us. This would be for your own
August 2, 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
comfort and it works then --
MS. MORGAN: Yes, yes. I understand
that.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: You can do
that at any time. This Board is looking at
this property and we have to accept the
word of a licensed surveyor.
MS. MORGAN: Will I be notified?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: No. You can
come in and get a copy of that survey.
MS. MORGAN: Okay.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Under the
Freedom of Information Act, once we have
it, you can obtain a copy of it by
requesting it as part of a public document.
MS. MORGAN: Sure.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: And you need
to come into the Zoning Board of Appeals to
request that. Other then that, there will
be no notice sent out.
MS. MORGAN: Got ya.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I don't think
any additional testimony would be
necessary, unless any Board member thinks
that is the case?
August 2, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 167
1
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: Depends on what the
survey shows. If it verified what we have,
we don't need any testimony.
MEMBER DINIZIO: We should keep it
open.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I tell you
what, I am sure you can contact the
surveyor before you leave vacation and they
can do what needs to be done. If we carry
this till September, that will give the
surveyor at least a month to get it done.
If it's not done, then we can carry this
over again, till October just to resolve
it. The other option is, we can close the
hearing subject to receipt of the survey.
The only problem is, if the Board has any
questions about the survey, then we can't.
MS. GEIS: Sure.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: So I think the
safest way for us to proceed is to carry
this over till September subject to receipt
of a survey, and then if it's not available
then, then we will carry this over to
October.
MS. ANDALORO: They are putting this
August 2, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 168
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1
2
3
4
5
on for another meeting, Ma'am. They are
going to give you the date so you know when
the hearing is, okay?
can use
because
MS.
You have
MS. MORGAN: Okay. Thank you. You
my 2260 Sigsbee Road address
ANDALORO: There is no notice.
to write this down and come.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: September 6th.
MS. ANDALORO: You can call the
Zoning Board office to see what time to
come.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
to make a motion to adjourn
September 6th at 10:00 A.M.,
So I am going
this hearing to
and we would
respectfully request, if you can expedite
this. If you can get the surveyor to get
this information to --
MS. GEIS: So as soon as I get this,
I can bring it to you?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Absolutely.
We would like to get this expedited, and I
am sure you do too?
MS. GEIS: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: You can
August 2, 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
surveyor you
contact whatever licensed
choose to do this.
MS. GEIS: Okay.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: It is entirely
up to you. As long as it's a licensed
okay with that.
Okay. Thank you.
surveyor, we're
MS. GEIS:
MEMBER DINIZIO: I just had one done
and I think I paid $750.00.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The Board
can't obviously make a recommendation.
MS. GEIS: I understand.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: So I made that
motion. Is there a second?
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Second.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Ail I favor?
MEMBER DINIZIO: Aye.
MEMBER HORNING: Aye.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Aye.
{See Minutes for Resolution.)
HEARING #6584 - COLLEEN MCDONOUGH &
HELEN HOOKE.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Our last
August 2, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 170
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
application before the Board is for Colleen
McDonough and Helen Hooke, #6584. Request
for variance from Article III Code Section
280-15 based on an application for building
permit and the Building Inspector's
May 15, 2012 Notice of Disapproval
concerning permit to construct accessory
garage at: 1) accessory garage will be
located in other than the code required
rear yard; located at: 27752 Main Road,
Robin Road, Orient.
Hi. State your name for the record,
please?
MS. ROMANELLI: Leeann Romanelli.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: It looks as
though this is a proposal to locate an
accessory garage in a parcel side yard
parcel rear yard; is that correct?
MS. ROMANELLI: Well, partial front
yard and partial side yard.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay. I'm
sorry, parcel front yard and parcel side
yard,
and
yes. Do you have any green cards?
MS. ROMANELLI: Yes, I do.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay. So tell
August 2, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 171
1
2
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
us why the applicant wants to put this in a
nonconforming location?
MS. ROMANELLI: Well, they would
like to put it in the front. Do you have a
copy of the old survey?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: We have this.
What is the date on this?
MS. ROMANELLI: Joe Ingegno.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
January 5, 2003.
Yes. It shows a
a rear yard garage,
is right behind their
MS. ROMANELLI:
proposed location of
which as you can see
existing septic.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: No, I don~t
think so.
MS. ROMANELLI: It's penciled in.
It is showing the location of where they do
not want to have the garage. If they did
put it in the back yard, they would have to
go over the septic line with the driveway.
They would be right next to the leaching
pool and the corner of the garage, and then
we're getting too close to the wetlands in
the back. They really do not want to have
August 2, 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
to touch the septic or get into any kind of
a wetland issue, permit issue. What's in
the setback of a front yard and a side yard
with the proposed 22 x 26 garage, they're
proposing to put a pergola in between the
garage and the house to have and make it
look natural with the planting.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Very natural
looking.
MS. ROMANELLI: Very natural
looking. Along the right side has very
extensive gardens. They wouldn't have the
side yard setback to have the garage put
over there. If they went into the back,
they -- I believe at least 60 feet from the
house, which would make it very difficult
to keep the driveway clear and farthest
from the house to get to the garage.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: When I went
where, I saw that there were solar panels
on the house?
MS. ROMANELLI: Yes. They're (In
Audible) between each property on the side.
They're on a private road. So you can't
see the house from the main road. You
August 2, 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
can't even see the other houses from their
house. You know you have hedges and trees.
So it's pretty well hidden in there. To
the left of there, there is a big open
field and I think it's a residence closer
to the main road, but it is not visile from
their house.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: And the reason
they can't attach it to their house?
MS. ROMANELLI: Where on the side?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Yes.
MS. ROMANELLI: If they attach
the side, then it would be on the other
side of the house and I don't think they
would have the required side yard. They
don't really want to have to tare up the
existing gardens that are there. So they
have less of a side yard setback on that
side. That would be the only side.
Otherwise, they would be attaching it to
the front and closer to the other side.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I am also
it to
looking at orientation, it seems, I am just
putting on my architectural hat. It looks
as though it was attached, although from
August 2, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 174
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
the layout of the existing house, it
probably doesn't make much sense on the
side that youTre proposing it on.
MS. ROMANELLI: I think if it were
attached, I think it would have something
to do with the solar -- the angle of the
house, the way the sun hits the house for
the panels.
MEMBER HORNING: In your argument of
reasons, you state Reason C, a garage
attached to the house would be a hardship
because it would put the garden that is now
behind the house completely in the shade.
So I was going to ask about that in regard
to the pergola, because wouldn't the
pergola do the same thing?
MS. ROMANELLI: It would be opened
on the sides.
MEMBER DINIZIO: There are four
reasons.
MEMBER HORNING: Yes. That was one
of them.
MEMBER DINIZIO: They are all pretty
much reasonable reasons. If I could just
ask a question, on the east side of that
August 2, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 175
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
house, there is a bilco door that I see.
What is in there?
MS. ROMANELLI: I actually don't
know the answer to that. I know there is a
mud room, and then you go to the kitchen.
I think it is just a living room.
MEMBER DINIZIO: So the living room
is on the right hand side of the house?
MS. ROMANELLI: I am not positive.
MEMBER DINIZIO: I didn't see a
floor layout.
MS. ROMANELLI: I actually don't
have the whole layout. I don't know for
sure.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Is there
anyone else in the audience who wants to
address this application? Please come
forward and state your name?
MR. GIBBONS: My name is William,
Gibbons. I am the property that is
adjacent --
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Spell your
last name, sir?
MR. GIBBONS: Gibbons.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Thank you.
August 2, 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
MR. GIBBONS: I have no objection as
to where the garage is built. My only
question is, property line? If it's being
built
the --
MS.
to close to my property line? I have
the west side side yard.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: It shows that
the proposed garage is 40 feet away from
their property line.
MR. GIBBONS: Thank you. That was
my question. I didn't know where the
property line was.
the ground a while
MEMBER DINIZIO:
the survey. Not a stake in the ground.
MR. GIBBONS: There seems to be that
there should be a property marker in the
ground.
MS. ROMANELLI: The closest corner
to the proposed garage is 40 feet.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The code
requires a minimum of 25 feet, and they're
proposing it at 40 feet.
MEMBER HORNING: And your house is
They did put a post in
back, but --
We're basing it on
ROMANELLI: They are 40 feet off
August 2, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 177
1
2
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
on Main Road, sir?
MR. GIBBONS: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: What we're
looking at, they're proposing it at 40
from the property line, and your house
quite far away from that property line.
MR. GIBBONS: As long as it is
correct. I have no problem with it.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay. Good.
if a
MR. GIBBONS: Down the road,
question came up, I just wanted to make
sire I was doing the right thing.
feet
is
other
Hearing
significant shrub.
Does the Board have any
questions?
(No Response.)
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
no
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Sure.
MS. ROMANELLI: Just to go back to
your question, as to why they don't want it
on the back. It's very wooded in the back.
They would have to do a lot more clearing.
They don't want to deal with clearing.
It's too much clearing.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: There is
August 2, 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
further questions
a motion to close
decision to a later date.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER:
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
MEMBER DINIZIO: Aye.
MEMBER HORNING: Aye.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye.
or comments, I will make
the hearing and reserve
Second.
Ail in
favor?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Aye.
(See Minutes for Resolution.)
*******************************************
(Whereupon, the public hearings for
August 2, 2012 concluded.
August 2, 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
CERTIFICATION
I, Jessica DiLallo, certify that the
foregoing transcript of tape recorded Public
Hearings was prepared using required
electronic transcription equipment and is a
true and accurate record of the Hearings.
Signature~ D~iLa~~:
Jessica DiLallo
Court Reporter
PO Box 984
Holbrook, New York 11741
Date: August 24, 2012