HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-09/06/2012 Hearing 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
L~CEIVED
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS ~r[ ~
COUNTY OF SUFFOLK STATE OF NEW YORK 3 OF.~PPEALS
................. :_ .......................
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
Southold Town Hall
Southold, New York
September 6, 2012
10:04 A.M.
Board
LESLIE
GERARD
JAMES DINIZIO, JR. - Member
KENNETH SCHNEIDER - Member
GEORGE HORNING - Member (Left
Members Present:
KANES WEISMAN Chairperson/Member
GOEHRINGER - Member
at 2:13 P.M.)
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:
Denise Gels, %6579
Margaret M. Gannon, %6587
Deborah Penney, %6484
Peconic Landing at Southold, Inc,
Gloria R. Geslak, %6592
Mary R. Frausto, %6590
David Schultz, %6588
Mill Creek Partners, LLC, #6589
Constance Zahra, #6586
%6591
Page:
3-9
9-18
18-29
29-57
57-69
69-93
93-108
108-118
118-127
September 6, 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
MS. GEIS:
Geis. I live at
Mattituck.
CHAIRPERSON
before the Board because
height, the code requires
#6579 DENISE GEIS
Again, my name is Denise
2250 Sigsbee Road,
WEISMAN: Okay. You
your existing
that it needs
be 3 feet from a rear property line,
wanted to confirm that was the case.
Notice of Disapproval indicated that
6 feet, and this survey was received
are
shed
to
and we
The
it was
in our
have
in the Notice of
setback, as written
Disapproval.
MS. GEIS: Correct.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Jim, did you
any questions?
MEMBER DINIZIO: No. I just wanted
to make sure that we had something in
writing on that.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay. I
believe the other shed was not on the old
office August 23rd of this year, and it
shows the existing shed at a 3 foot
conforming -- 3.3 feet conforming side yard
setback and 1.6 foot nonconforming rear yard
September 6, 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
survey either,
current one.
MS. GEIS:
correct.
and that is now on the
Everything is on it,
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: It was done by
John C. Ehlers. We took some critical
testimony previously. I don't have an
additional questions. I just wanted to
confirm what we have on the survey.
MS. GEIS: Sure.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: George, do you
have any questions?
MEMBER HORNING: No. Other than the
one, seemed like we were in a bit of
suspense at the last meeting, there was
alleged possibility that the marker was
moved. Can you comment on that?
MS. GEIS: Well, the surveys are
exactly the same from '77, as it was from
August. So it's the
both surveys.
MEMBER HORNING:
same place it was on
The lot marker, in
is that
your mind, has never been moved,
what you say?
MS. GEIS: Oh, yes. The
lot marker
September 6, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
has been the same since -- yes, the lot
marker has been the same.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Ken?
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: No questions.
MS. GEIS: Jim?
MEMBER DINIZIO: This confirms that.
This survey confirms that the marker is the
same, the building is where you said it was?
MS. GEIS: Right.
MEMBER DINIZIO: And nothing has
changed?
MS.
GEIS: Nothing has changed.
MEMBER DINIZIO: Since nineteen --
whatever.
MS. GEIS: '77.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The marker
might have been there before then because
the property was there since the 20's. So
regardless of whether it is moved or not, we
know exactly where that building is on that
piece of property. Whether or not that
marker is in the same area, doesn't make a
difference, the survey confirms it.
MS. GEIS: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Moreover,
we
September 6, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 6
1
2
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
wanted to make sure that the Notice of
Disapproval was accurate, and this survey
confirms that it is, and we can proceed.
Is there anyone else in the audience
that
application?
would like to address this
Please state your name?
MS. MORGAN: My name is Patricia
Morgan, and I live next door. I was the one
that was here the last time. The -- I never
saw the markers that is being measured.
have mine too that agrees with Denise.
However, I have the letter that I wrote
May 2004, when Denise put up the fence
saying that -- well, I wrote to Helen.
Helen is Denise's friend, and I said
although the fence is (In Audible)
property line is clearly blows out
middle and sits on
the fence moved to
Ms.
but the
in the
my property. Please have
your side.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Excuse me.
Morgan, not only does this survey now
show the fence legally on their property,
the bottom line is, the fence is not before
this Board.
MS. MORGAN: There was a marker
September 6, 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
there. That is what I am saying. At the
end of the fence that you are looking at,
the edge of the fence that I am looking at,
there was a marker.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: There is a
marker. There is a marker --
MS. MORGAN: Not at the end of the
fence but at a different place.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: It is
irrelevant to this Board.
MS. MORGAN: Irrelevant that there
was a property marker that has to be moved.
There was a property marker that was a foot
and a half a part.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Ma'am?
MS. MORGAN: Okay.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: We visited the
site. We got what we asked for, and we
really need to stick to discussions
pertaining to what is before this Board.
MS. MORGAN: Okay. My only problem
is, when my property was measured -- it's
only 48 point something rather than 50 feet,
using that marker, and I have mine.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Well, that is
September 6, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 8
2
3
4
5
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
fine, but that is what the property line is.
MS. MORGAN: It used to be 50. I
would just like to submit my survey too
because I --
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: This is really
not germane to this application. So I don't
believe the Board can accept it.
MS. MORGAN: Ail right. That's good.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: What is germane
is what is before us here, which is their
property.
MS.
MORGAN: Fine.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
the audience?
(No Response.)
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
further questions or
motion to close this
decision to a
MEMBER
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
Anyone else in
Hearing no
comments, I will make a
hearing and reserve
later date.
DINIZIO: Second.
Seconded by
Jim.
All in favor?
MEMBER DINIZIO: Aye.
MEMBER HORNING: Aye.
September 6, 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
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Aye.
(See Minutes for Resolution.)
HEARING %6587 - MARGARET M. GANNON
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay. This is
Margaret M. Gannon, #6587. Request for
variances from Article III Section 280-15{F}
and Article XXIII Section 280-124, and the
Building Inspector's July 10, 2012 Notice of
Disapproval based on an application for
building permit to construct garage addition
with two bedrooms above and "as built"
accessory shed at: 1) in the case of
waterfront properties accessory buildings
may be located in the front yard, provided
that such accessory meets the front yard
principal setback requirements as set forth
by this code. Proposed location is other
than the code required front or rear yard,
2) lot coverage of more than the code
permitted 20%, located at: 350 MacDonalds
Crossing, adjacent to Peconic Bay, Laurel.
Is there someone here to represent
this application?
September 6, 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
name
aids
come
do
MR. FITZGERALD: Good morning. My
is James Fitzgerald, and my hearing
are in the shop for a tune-up.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Do you want
forward?
MR. FITZGERALD: I
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Why
that. Come on up.
Jim, we have a letter
would like to.
don't you
of local
to
determination from Suffolk County, which you
can have a copy of. The garage addition is
to be two bedrooms above existing family
dwelling toward the landward side. The "as
built" shed is in a side yard, and the code
permits it in the front yard. Okay. The
lot coverage as proposed is 24.3%; correct?
MR. FITZGERALD: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: And the "as
built" accessory shed is in the side yard,
where it is permitted to be in the front
yard or in the rear yard.
MR. FITZGERALD: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: It looks like
the existing accessory garage is to be
demolished?
September 6, 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
2O
21
22
23
24
25
MR. FITZGERALD: Correct.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay. What
would you like to tell us?
MR. FITZGERALD: The main project was
the demolition of the existing detached
garage and in effect moving that facility to
an extension of the house, which as you see,
it increased the front yard setback to
twenty some odd feet. And Ms. Gannon and
the architect and I, think it looks a lot
better from the road side that way, in
addition to it being able to provide
additional living space. That is really
what this is all about. As a second floor,
and the addition, which has two bedrooms.
And I think it's so Ms. Gannon is able to
support this kind of change, because this is
the only way she could have gotten the
additional living space. With regard to the
accessory shed, it's really from the
standpoint of the mutualization of the
property, is in our Town or collective
opinion, it's the only logical place for it.
The provision in the code for being able to
use a front yard is a situation such as
September 6, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 12
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, is nice, but it really doesn't help
because I don't think anybody wants to have
an accessory shed, what will now be a better
looking and presented, as presented in
yours.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay. Do you
know what the existing lot coverage is on
the property?
MR. FITZGERALD: It's more than 20.
I believe it's 22 or 21, something.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: 22%, and you
will be increased it by 2.3%. That is after
removing the existing garage?
MR. FITZGERALD: That is correct. As
the project will be completed.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Ken, any
questions?
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: No questions.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: George?
MEMBER HORNING: Drywell, are they on
the survey? The proposed drywell?
MR. FITZGERALD: No, they are not
shown. One of the things, you will see that
there is an existing cesspool next to --
east of the demolition site, and we are
September 6, 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
going to look into of abandoning that, use
it for the roof drainage, or for one side of
the roof drainage.
MEMBER HORNING: You mentioned the
possibility of moving the shed but the
applicant is not in favor of moving the shed
in an area that would be more obstructive to
their front yard?
MR. FITZGERALD: Yeah. I think those
of us on this side of the bench, would agree
that it would not look good in either the
front yard or the rear yard. Particularly,
the front yard doesn't seem like a good
place for an accessory shed and
particularly, Ms. Gannon was so thrilled
with the result of the improvement and
appearance of the property, with this
proposed expansion.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Let me ask you
a question. There is a proposed attached
shed on the side of the garage, the new
garage.
MR. FITZGERALD: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Why not just
make that a little bit bigger and get rid
of
September 6, 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
the small shed in the side yard?
MR. FITZGERALD: Good question, I
don't know.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I have to tell
you looking at it, it's not terribly
obtrusive. It's very small. And you still
have about a ten foot side yard, which isn't
bad. I just wanted to see if you had an
answer to that.
MR. FITZGERALD: It never came up.
Actually, when we originally submitted this
to the Building Department, it was
to me that the accessory shed was
unknown
undocumented. So that this never came up at
the planning stage, and if it's important --
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Well, because
it's the side, it doesn't need a building
permit, but it does -- it is not in a
conforming location. That
obviously
the --
Yes.
WEISMAN: This
if it's in a
location, the side
out when you went into
MR. FITZGERALD:
CHAIRPERSON
to have a variance
nonconforming
they
came
does need
obviously picked up on.
yard, which
I was just
September 6, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 15
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
asking why they couldn't just make it
bigger. If they did that, they would not
gain that much or rather reduce your lot
coverage, particularly. If you take one
away and add to
the other, you would
probably come out the same, I would imagine.
Gerry, do you have questions?
the
SO.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Jim?
MEMBER DINIZIO: Can you do without
shed?
MR. FITZGERALD: She doesn't think
MEMBER DINIZIO: There is nothing
there that can't go in the garage?
MR. FITZGERALD: I don't really know
what's in it, if anything.
MEMBER DINIZIO: Simply because it's
a shed, and I don't know why it wouldn't be
considered, why the side yard hasn't been
denied, because technically it looks like
is part of the house. You have 10 foot
setback there. I am pretty sure you need
15. I don't know what size it is.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: It's 11,747
it
September 6, 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
2O
21
22
23
24
25
square feet.
MEMBER DINIZIO: The other side yard
is 16. So it should have been denied.
Let's just see, if maybe we can eliminate
that.
MR. FITZGERALD: I think it's because
it is there, and it is apparently has been
for quite some time. You know, the old
story, it doesn't make it legal, it just
makes it practically speaking. Again, if we
are going to have the shed at all, then we
think that is where it belongs. The idea of
simply eliminating it or eliminating the
shed and adding to the attachment of the
garage, neither of those were ever
considered, because essentially this came up
after the fact. And Ms. Gannon and I were
in, a let's fix it and get going mode, and
so we end up now with two variances, two
kinds of variances needed, and here we are.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Well, I suppose
you can talk to them and say that the Board
was interested in exploring the possibility
of eliminating the shed altogether or
locating it in what is likely to be the
September 6, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 17
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
front yard some place. See how that goes,
or we can just make a determination, I
guess.
say
MEMBER GOEHRINGER:
for the record,
situation occur on
decision, it said that
moved to a
it.
conforming
I just wanted to
we had a very similar
West Road and in the
the shed had to be
location, or eliminate
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The bottom line
is, because the garage is now going to be
attached, it is going to have to go up here
some place and, you know, in between the
drywell and the cesspool, if they want to
keep it, because it's still contributed to
excess lot coverage. It would be so
minimal.
MEMBER DINIZIO:
below 24, which is at
we have granted.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
You would end up
the high end of what
Yes .
know, Jim, the Board is required
grant the minimum variances that
reasonably can.
MR. FITZGERALD: Yes.
As you
by law to
we
September 6, 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
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: So that is what
this line of questioning was about, to see
what we can do to make this as conforming as
possible. I don't have any questions. Does
anyone else have any questions?
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: There is no one
in the audience.
MR. FITZGERALD: This usually happens
at the end of the day.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay. So
hearing no further comments or questions, I
will make a motion to close this hearing and
reserve decision to a later date.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Ail in favor?
MEMBER DINIZIO: Aye.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye.
MEMBER HORNING: Aye.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Aye.
(See Minutes for Resolution.)
HEARING #6484 DEBORAH PENNEY
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The next
September 6, 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
application before the Board is for
Penney, #6484. Request for variance
from the condition imposed in the Zoning
Board decision application #6484 dated
Deborah
relief
MR. BRESSLER: Yes, on behalf of the
applicant, Eric Bressler, of Wickham,
Bressler, Gordon & Geisa, PO BOX 1424,
Mattituck, New York. I would like to start
by having Ms. Penney step up and address the
Board in her application. We think it's a
reasonable application, and we hope that you
will be, after listening to Ms. Penney.
MS. PENNEY: Good morning. I am
Deborah Penney. I reside at 160 Sailors
Needle Road, the property that we are
discussing today. I am sure you have seen
the letters of support from my neighbors
that are really supportive in keeping the
neighborhood the way it has been for many
September 15, 2011. Reduction in width of
the non-turf buffer. Located at: 160
Sailors Needle Road, adjacent to James Creek
in Mattituck.
Is someone here to represent this
application?
September 6, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 20
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
years, since the 40's actually. What I did,
I Google Earth, just so you can see what it
looks like, the way it is now.
MR. BRESSLER: Let the record reflect
that Ms. Penney is handing up six packets of
the Google Earth photograph showing the
subject property and the properties in
proximity thereto.
MS. PENNEY: So as you can see from
that map, there is several bulkheading
around the basin area where my home is,
actually single bulkheading on one side. So
a 20 foot buffer would just be out of place
completely with the character of the
neighborhood. We also have a placement of
two huge drywell's on that side of the
property, from our building, for any runoff
that would come off of the gutters in or
near around the house to protect the
environment. We feel that since we already
have that five foot buffer with sand
underneath, that a five foot buffer would be
enough to keep the environment safe, the
water safe. What we would intend to do is
plant in the line there to hold whatever is
September 6, 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
2O
21
22
23
24
25
there. Is there any other information that
you need from me?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Well, I think
you have submitted as much material previous
to this hearing, as you possibly can. One
thing that I am aware of, at the time, as
you may recall, the reason for the non-turf
buffer was a recommendation from the LWRP
coordinator. I believe at that time, there
was not an awareness on his part, that the
dock or the boardwalk really, that you have
in place, was on sand, and the (In Audible)
device for any runoff into the creek. On
that basis, because that can be considered
technically a part of the buffer, the board
on sand, I believe the Board was willing to
reconsider the size of the buffer. I will
say that, although I completely understand
your argument about character of the
neighborhood, when it comes to the LWRP and
sound environmental best managing practices,
the character of the neighborhood does not
fall under the same kind of considerations
as it is in an area variance. I just wanted
the record to reflect that because these
September 6, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 22
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
laws have been upgraded, the sole purpose
protecting the health of the creek, and
signs say, the biggest single factor in
of
way to prevent runoff, no. We know that,
and I know you know that, because we have
had ample reason to understand that you are
very sensitive to environmental
conservation. So I just wanted to state
that. We will see if any other Board
members have questions, or if Mr.
wants to make comments, that's
Does the Board have any
about what was submitted to us?
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: I don't.
MEMBER DINIZIO: No.
MEMBER HORNING: No.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay.
Bressler
fine.
questions
Would
preventing runoff are non-turf buffers.
Granted, we have been out to the site since
you made your request, and all of us have
reviewed it again. We have seen the house
under construction. So I believe that we do
understand that most of the other properties
really just have grass. Is that the best
September 6, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 23
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
you like to make some comments?
MR. BRESSLER: I think the Board is
correct with their concern. You know, the
issues are here, and I think by way of
mitigation, the existing substantial
construction of the bulkhead and the sand
buffer goes a long way towards preventing
the runoff. I think that the manner of the
construction of this new residence with the
large drywell's, also mitigate any potential
environmental harm and the third item, of
course, is what you mentioned, Madam
Chairperson, which is the nature of
Ms. Penney's use of fertilizer, pesticides,
things that people normally use, she's
extremely sensitive at, and minimizes the
use of any substances. Now, we recognize
the character of the neighborhood does not
deserve the same level of consideration.
Nonetheless, it is a factor that the Board
can take into account. It's a long
standing, well regulated nicely maintained
community. We think when you take
everything unbalanced, the applicant's
request is a reasonable one, and strikes
a
September 6, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 24
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
fair balance between the necessity
environmental protection, and granting to
the applicant in which she desires, and we
urge to the Board to approve her
application.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay. Any
other comments or questions?
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I would just like
to ask Ms. Penney a question on just to
reiterate some of the things she has said in
her original memo dated May 29, 2012.
During the hearing, with the construction on
the house, I did elude to that I have grown
up on a subdivision on Plymouth Bay. I have
spent my better part of my life enjoying
coming out of that creek and visualizing all
those houses, which has nothing to do with
my question, but when we went over there on
the most easterly portion or northeasterly
portion of the hay bales, we measured
approximately nine feet from those hay
bales, and I am not asking you to
particularly agree with me, but I am just
mentioning to the walkway. So you are
looking for a reduction of the buffer from
September 6, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 25
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
20 feet landward of the hay bales, to 5
feet. So thereby having a 5 foot buffer and
then the 5 foot buffer of the walkway; is
that correct?
MS. PENNEY: Yes, sir. It's a total
of 10, which I see from my neighbor's who
have had new construction, that was required
by them. They were required to have a 10
foot buffer. I have some pictures of
various houses, who have had new
construction and bulkhead put in, single
bulkhead, and they were required a 10 foot
buffer.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: So there is no
controversy that the walkway will continue
as a buffer for as long as you own the
property?
MS. PENNEY: Yes. There is not going
to be
I do
Salt
minutes,
in Salt
runoff.
myself.
any change at all. Just
not use any chemicals. As
Lake Village, you can see
to reiterate,
president of
from my
lives
we recommend to any one that
Lake Village, to minimize the
I feel very strongly about that
September 6, 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
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: At one point, you
have informed your neighbor's in any new
construction, they will also be required to
go to the LWRP and they may have a similar
process?
MS. PENNEY: Yes, I have made them
aware.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: George?
MEMBER HORNING: So we have the LWRP
recommending a 20 foot buffer. We have the
Board of Trustees submitting a letter
stating that they are not in favor of
reducing the 20 foot buffer. Can you
comment on that?
MS. PENNEY: My only comment to that
was when I originally placed my application
to the Zoning Board, they were not able to
get me into the meeting, before I filed my
amendment with the Trustees for the change.
And so the Trustees would not change
anything without your approval first, and
that is why they stuck with the original
decision. My plan after this meeting, and
whatever your decision is, to reapply for
September 6, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 27
1
2
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
the amendment of the Trustees
that they take what you have to
seriously, and they will look at
That was the only reason why they
and I know
say very
that again.
said that
at the last close meeting, it was asked
about this decision, and the Trustees
decision was continuing as the same because
to have this meeting
very clear at the
I hadn't been able
you yet. That was
meeting.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
thing in my mind that
that the very minimum,
Certainly one
and sand of 5 feet,
part of the buffer.
MR. BRESSLER:
is fairly clear, is
the existing board
should be considered
We agree.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The minimum of
5 feet at a consequence of the existing
board and the sand, which is a buffer. So
that is the minimum.
MR. BRESSLER: I would also like to
comment on what Ms. Penney said about the
Trustees, the holding was around what the
Zoning Board did. That was their actual
holding. And we are going, depending upon
with
September 6, 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
what this Board does, we would go back and
make a further application, if we get some
sort of relief, we will go back and talk to
them about the substance, rather than simply
the procedure, whereby, they believed that
their hands were tied.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay. Anything
from anyone else?
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Is there anyone
in the audience who wishes to make any
comments or chime in on this?
(No Response.)
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Hearing no
further questions or comments from the
Board, I am going to make a motion to close
this hearing and reserve decision to a later
date.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Seconded by
Gerry.
Ail in favor?
MEMBER DINIZIO: Aye.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye.
MEMBER HORNING: Aye.
September 6, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 29
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
I5
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Aye.
(See Minutes for Resolution. )
HEARING %6591
SOUTHOLD, INC.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
next application before the
Peconic Landing At Southold,
- PECONIC LANDING AT
Ail right, the
Board is for
Inc. This
application is #6591. Request for variance
from Article V Code Section 280-23( Bulk
Schedule) and the Building Inspector's July
9, 2012 Notice of Disapproval based on an
application for building permit for
construction of a three story apartment
building addition, at; more than the maximum
number of 2 1/2 stories, located at: 1500
Brecknock Road, adjacent to Long Island
Sound in Greenport.
Good morning.
MR.
Charles Cuddy,
Riverhead,
Landing.
Bennett
CUDDY: Good morning. I
455 Griffing Avenue,
am
New York. I represent Peconic
And with me today is Randolph
who is the architect from Perkins
September 6, 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
Eastman, who built this building and other
buildings at the site, and also Daryl
Volinski, who is director of environmental
services at Peconic Landing, and is also a
past fire chief for Village of Greenport and
is also a EMT, and well
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
ask you quickly, do you have
Planning Board's comments?
MR. CUDDY: Yes, I do.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
need them.
MR. CUDDY: Just
on Peconic Landing.
preexisting units.
recognized.
I just want to
a copy of the
So you don't
a little background
What we have is two
We have 250 existing
units. There is 139 apartments and 11t
cottages. We have approximately 350 people
at Peconic Landing, and what we are looking
to do is add 40 more units, for about 50 or
60 people. I want to tell you what type of
person comes to Peconic Landing because it's
important for the application. Most of the
people, and I do the closings, so I know the
type of person that comes. Most of the
people that come to Peconic Landing, come at
September 6, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 31
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
the age of Mid 70's, 73, 74, 75.
them come in their early 80's,
there are a number there that
90's. It is important to note
one of the things, for us at
Landing, that is significant
people close to the services,
having a two-story building,
three-story building, because
the people at Peconic Landing
Some of
82, 83, and
are in their
that because
Peconic
is to have the
and instead of
as opposed to a
that allows
to get to
anybody who is in need of assistance, and
each one of them has a bracelet that they
can press if they need assistance. So
having a unit that is closer, not extended
out is important to us. It is also
important for the people that are there,
because as they age, other things become
more difficult. Elevators, and they can go
up and down very easily. They can also get
to the part that they need -- if you look at
your maps, you will see the center is
adjacent to the existing apartment and this
apartment. We have made the apartment right
into the community center, so the people
could get to -- that is the residents can
September 6, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 32
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
get to it quickly. So it's a lot easier for
the service people to get to them, and to
get to the heart of the building. I will
point out to you, since I am talking about
existing apartment building, that it is
three-stories. That it is more than 30
units on the third floor. That they all
have CO's. They were approved by the Town
by the Building Inspector. Each of those
units on the third floor has had a resident
in it for ten years or more. And there have
been no incidents as a result of having a
third floor. I also note that the Board has
on different occasions, approved the use of
the third floors. One of them is judge in
Cutchogue where I recognize they use the
area on the third floor as a study. I know
also that Sea-Tow had added to it. So I
know that it is not unusual for the Board to
at least consider adding a third-story. In
this case, as I said, we have had a
third-story for at least 10 years, and it
operates completely without any problem.
And I would also point out to you that the
height of this building is really not much
September 6, 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
different than the height of a one and half
story building. The place were the trussers
are, the bearing, is only 29 feet high. The
height of the building in the midline of the
roof is 35 feet, because it's a little over
40 feet at the peak. So we are really not a
great deal different than a normal building
would be. As I have said to you, I think
there is really very little impact in the
community. Certainly the interior of this
building is really 144 acres, it's not going
to hurt anybody in the surrounding
neighborhood. There is also no
environmental impact. We have stayed away
from the wetlands, which are at our site.
So I don't know that there can be any
environmental consequence to this at all. I
would point out to you again, that the
alternative to the two-story building, which
extends out -- which would extend virtually
out into the back of some of the cottages,
and we are trying to avoid that, in keeping
at least 40 feet back from those cottages,
but they still are close. But we are trying
to not go into the cottages. So it becomes
September 6, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 34
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
important to us to keep the building just
the way it is at a three-story level. I am
aware too of the yield question that was
posed to the Planning Board. I have looked
at the yield. I have looked at it with an
engineer. I can absolutely tell this Board
that I have done the calculations, that
there is no question that we have a proper
yield. We are going to add 40 apartment
units. We are going to add 16 dementia or
memory care units. We are going to add 17
skilled nursing homes. That will fit -- all
of that will fit in the yield. There is no
question that it does. If necessary, I can
get the Board the calculations, but we will
-- the yield map as requested by the
Planning Board.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: They needed it
anyway.
MR. CUDDY: They needed it for the
site plan. Again, Rudolph Bennett is here.
He can answer any question about the
architecture. I would ask Daryl just to
assure you, besides the sprinklers that we
have to have in the third floor, that there
September 6, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 35
1
2
$
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
wonft be
a problem with any fire or
emergency incidents happening at the site.
MR. VOLINSKI: Daryl Volinski, 35
Washington Avenue, in Greenport. I work
Peconic Landing and represent Peconic
Landing, but also a past fire chief of
Greenport Fire Department. I was on the
original construction of Peconic Landing at
the time. I wasn't working for them at the
time, but back in that area of time, we
talked about having specific roads that can
hold the equipment. So me being involved
with this project, is making sure that we
for
and hallways and access, I have been running
through the problems and making sure that
this is not a problem for the building, and
making sure that safety comes first at
can get the fire trucks into the locations
that we need. To have the access roads that
we need to have for the building to take
care of the emergency situations. Also, in
the past, noting being an EMT at being at
Peconic Landing, noticed some of the
situations that we had with the original
building, such as the size of the elevators
September 6, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 36
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
Peconic Landing. So I just wanted to
sure that you all are aware that I am
working through these plans with the
architects and changing things and making
sure it is safe and secure for our
residences to be easy access and getting
them out, okay. Thank you.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER:
generation system if the
MR. VOLINSKI: For
Is there a
lights fail?
this unit here?
make
backup
looking at the
Diesel.
I think we
gas situation
We were
were also
also. At this
going to be emergency only.
lights. It's not going to
generated
emergency
MEMBER GOEHRINGER:
runs on --
MR. VOLINSKI:
looking at diesel.
like the other side
lighting at this
Basic hallway
be fully
is, just
time.
Your generator
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Is there one for
this unit and is there one planned for
Peconic Landing?
MR. VOLINSKI: There is one for the
secondary units, which is assisted Living
and Skilled Nursing. The other one is just
September 6, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 37
1
2
3
4
5
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
time, it's just going to be diesel.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: How does this
building, apart from what you just eluded
to, change from the original one, which
the most easterly building,
story building, is that
half story's?
MR. VOLINSKI:
this for you.
MR. CUDDY: That
essentially the
The same height
stories.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER:
half story's as written
really --
MR. CUDDY: Three story
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The
has an underground garage in it?
MR. CUDDY: Yes, and so will this
one. It will essentially be the same
building.
MEMBER
the
the two and
actually two and
Charles can answer
building is
same side of this building.
and the same number of
So that two and
on the site plan
building.
second one
GOEHRINGER: Thank you.
MEMBER HORNING: Mr. Cuddy, when
two and half story building put up?
half
is
was
September 6, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 38
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. CUDDY: The buildings were
constructed in 2000-2001 and they were
opened in April 2002.
lived in since April
MEMBER HORNING:
And they have been
2002.
I am curious why you
need a variance for a three-story?
MR. CUDDY: I think when the Building
Department saw the plans, they believed that
it currently was a two and a half story
building. It has always been the same.
There is no difference in the plans, and I
think'that they test it, they approved it.
It was built, and I think after it was
built, they believed it could become a
concern as a three-story building, but they
approved the plans and they gave CO's for
each one of those units. There was never a
change. It didn't come in any different
than when it was built. And it was -- there
was probably some instances on both sides,
and probably, but the architect who was not
Perkins Eastman, that time and by the
Building Department too. They looked at it.
They thought it was appropriate and at some
time and they decided that it was built and
September 6, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 39
1
2
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
it was built
CO's for it.
properly, and they gave the
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: At that time,
Mr. Cuddy, what occurred was, the difference
between commercial and residential. And so
the determination was made -- this is just
on my part, I think I was Chairperson of the
Zoning Board at the time, that commercial
was completely different than residential.
And based upon all of the issues that were
really taken care by the presentation
all
and
perspectives, the Building Inspector
felt it was within his purview. I think it
was Mr. Forrester at the time, who is no
longer with the Town.
MR. CUDDY: I think the CO's will
show, Mr. Verity signed most of the CO's.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That was some
was a
do you
time later. Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Ken,
have any comments or questions?
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: No.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Jim?
MEMBER DINIZIO: I always knew that
pretty historic building. How it got
September 6, 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
there, it's beyond me. There are
considerations, from what Daryl touched on,
he didn't go with the Rescue Department side
and it looks like you are going to add
another 83 people, is that right? You have
40 and then you have 17 --
MR. CUDDY: There are three different
buildings really being constructed.
is the apartment building and then
There
there is
the joint building, but is two different
functions. One of them is the skilled
nursing and one of the memory care. Those
are not three-story buildings.
about
about
have
that,
MEMBER DINIZIO: I am not worried
three-story building. I am worried
the amount of people you are going to
there.
MR. CUDDY: I think Daryl can address
and you are right, he didn't. It has
not been a problem as far as
concerned. Initially it was.
worked out different
people get notified
Daryl, can tell
well right now?
we are
We have
situations to see
in a different manner.
you that worked out quite
September 6, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 41
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 DINIZIO: Do you have an
agreement with the Greenport Fire
Department?
MR. CUDDY: Yes. He can address
that.
MEMBER DINIZIO: I would like to hear
a big thing.
Daryl Volinski. Yeah,
we have been in contact with the Chief's and
the fire department and Rescue Squad. We
worked out some of the locations where we
that because that is
MR. VOLINSKI:
are going to be picking up patients or
wherever coming out of the buildings, you
know locations and other. I know you are
concerned with how many people we are
adding. You know, in the overall theme, I
have talked to the Chief's about it. We are
working with out our pur system to be
better. The put system is our notification
system. To get the residents -- one is to
cut down on our false alarms throughout the
building, such as just for transports, and
other situations, which are what mostly
small of the calls that happen. We worked
out an agreement with a local rescue -- not
September 6, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 42
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
a rescue but a transport ambulance to take
these residents on -- you know, just for
their check-up to the hospital, instead of
the rescue. So we have worked out some of
the glitches in the beginning. We were
getting a lot of calls that weren't
emergencies. We have worked out that
situations with the Chief's. We discussed a
secondary ambulance that we hire, that comes
and just picks up our residents and brings
them to the hospital or for check-up's and
not feeling well, and not just calling
ambulance to stretch them out. We work that
out very well with Pete Manwaring, on the
back and forth communications. We have been
working out with the chief's during
emergency situations. We bring people from
the outside into our area and help the
outside community. We have opened up our
communications, because the communications
back then when the first Peconic Landing was
opened and I was involved in it, there was
no communication. We didn't know how many
people were going to hit our emergency
situation. Right now, I think we have cut
September 6, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 43
1
2
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
back on our calls that we have had at
Peconic Landing. They are more of emergency
situations. We have educated our nurses on
the floor, not to call the ambulance for a
transport. Unfortunately we are just going
to get some of them. We get them in the
community, you know, the people are at the
door and ready with their baggage. The
bottom line is, we are cutting back. We are
trying to be more forward in getting our
residents to the hospital on a non-emergency
basis and using our own transport, our vans.
We have wheelchairs and things like that.
We are not totally on the 911 system. We
really strive forward to try and bring about
a good communication with fire departments.
One is, I communicate directly with the
Chief's now, if I am on the property, of
course I am not there 24 hours. It feels
like I am, but I am not. What we do, we
communicate with them. We tell them what we
have and we tell them what we need. If I am
there, which reduces the stress, I am EMT
during the day, I am one more EMT on the
property, that they can role without getting
September 6, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 44
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
the amount of people that they need, because
I can work that out with them. I can go on
the ambulance with them. So we have worked
out a good communication. We have worked
out a good plan. We are partners with the
Chief's and the Board of Wardens and we have
been in contact with them.
MEMBER DINIZIO: Is any of this in
writing?
MR. VOLINSKI: No, we don't have it
in writing. Not at all at this time. It's
an ongoing communication. What would you
like in writing, an agreement with them?
MEMBER DINIZIO: You have set up some
policies and you know, most of the Board
members will tell you, I like things in
writing. You know, if we know how that
works out -- you know, you might not be
there tomorrow. You can be somewhere else.
Then they are no longer with that EMT on
that property and we are back to, you know,
not being able to roll the truck until three
guys are there, and where are we after that?
So I know that it has been a learning curve.
It has been ten years and it should be now a
September 6, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 45
1
2
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
policy that is written down, that you know,
you are going to commit to this and the
Greenport Fire Department commits to
something also.
MR. VOLINSKI: Okay.
MEMBER DINIZIO: I think you just
need to sit down and write what you just
described --
MR. VOLINSKI: We have sat down, but
we did not put anything in writing. We can
sit down --
MEMBER DINIZIO: I am not talking
about a legal agreement. I am talking about
a policy. You know, later on, we can say we
have been following this policy for twenty
years and now it is changing. What is the
problem?
MR. VOLINSKI: Right. Understood. I
think that is a good idea and I take that as
a good thing. We will go back and I will
discuss with the three chief's that are
there and the captain of the Rescue Squad
and sit down and discuss and come up with an
SOP of some sort, a procedure that we can
put in writing, which is a good thing. Like
September 6, 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
you said --
MEMBER DINIZIO: Have you anticipate
just how many more calls are going to be
there,
now that you are having more people
on the property? You know, how many did you
have last year?
MR. VOLINSKI: When I was Chief -- I
could be guessing, I don't have the
documents in front of me. I think it was
100-150. Most of them are rescue calls.
Some of them are ambulance situations. When
I know, I am jumping around here, when I
took on Peconic Landing as the director of
environmental services, we were getting
calls for false alarms, and what the
situation was, the bulbs (sic) were
causing
the false alarms inside the system. So we
clean in twice a year now and we cut that in
half. I know that for fact. We have cut
the calls for the fire department being
there, in half at least. Ambulance calls,
we are trying to cut those down due to using
outside sources, such as the private
ambulances and that is working out very
well. We are cutting back on some of those
September 6, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 47
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
calls. I don't have those numbers in front
of me because I am not the Chief any more.
I don't know the count, but as I think last
year, they break it down, we are about 160
and 74 over there.
What
So you were at 160.
now?
I couldn't give you
the top of my head. I would
calculations. I would hope
or so -- rise
I don't know. I
number right off the
MEMBER DINIZIO:
do you anticipate
MR. VOLINSKI:
that number off
have to do some
that it would stay more
slightly but not much.
couldn't give you that
top of my head.
MEMBER DINIZIO:
Peconic Landing over there
I see the van there.
I see a lot of
at the hospital.
see if
MR. VOLINSKI: They transport.
MEMBER DINIZIO: I would just like to
you can have something now just to
kind of ancipitate what -- part
record, here is what it is. Here
are going to add. You know, it's
be this much more.
MR. VOLINSKI: I think that
of the
is what we
going to
can be
September 6, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 48
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
done with a warden. Maybe set up a meeting,
you know with myself and Bob, and we will
sit down and discuss with the wardens and
the Chief's, and you know, maybe we will
come up with something we think is going to
happen. We go from year to year, and some
type of graph and see what we have been
doing. I do see -- I can't give you the
numbers, but we do see stress going there,
like it was in the past, and rehab. Like I
said, I think we have cut down at least 50%
of the calls down to the
We can come up with some
sit down with them.
MEMBER DINIZIO:
you can pretty much
fire department.
calculations and
You know, I think
justify or get the
paperwork, at least consider this is not
going to be a big addition to it.
MR. VOLINSKI: That's not a problem.
Like I said, I am in communications with the
Chief's all the time.
MEMBER DINIZIO: I might be correct
about the yield, only 40 additional
apartment units and 16 dementia units. Are
they people that are going to stay they, or
September 6, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 49
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
are they people that have been --
MR. CUDDY: Those people are
ultimately from the complex itself.
Initially you can have some outsiders.
This
is being built for people that are there. I
just want to address, it's not going to
change whether we have a three-story
building or a two-story building. Those
people are still going to be. We are really
just trying to talk about the three-story
because we think it's significant that they
can get services quicker and have them
serviced quicker. The State of New York,
the life care counsel, consist of the
insurance department, which is now a new
term, and the Health Department and the
Attorney General's office. Every
application that is made to expand, and just
as our original was, has to go through and
it is now going through that process. They
have to be satisfied that we can supply
services to those people. It's a really
rigorous long term thing. It's going to
take months and months to finish that. So
the
Health Department look over exactly what
September 6, 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
we are doing and they have to be satisfied
that we can service these people properly
with a hospital with in-house facilities
that we have. I will point this out to you,
and you may be aware of this, the skilled
nursing facility at Peconic Landing is one
of the top 15 in the entire country. It has
no deficiencies. It's an unusual event.
This is something very special and I am
proud of it. In Newsweek article, it list
all of the homes. We are in the top 15 out
of 4,000. So they do a good job, and I
think they will continue to do a good job
and the Health Department is going to make
sure that we can take care of your concerns,
and we will too.
MEMBER DINIZIO: Again, I agree with
all of that. I understand all of that. I
am glad that you are successful. Success
means more use, okay. It means more on,
this particular case, more calls no matter
how you look at it. The Health Department
can say all they want that the fire
department can handle it, but when you got
fire department members at 60 years old, and
September 6, 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
receives four calls a day, that is going to
be a problem later on down the road. Now,
know.
the
where do we
want to
future.
of the
That's
you are and
good thing.
go from there? I don't
one
know what you are planning for
You are, no doubt in my mind,
best facilities on Long Island.
all I keep hearing is how successful
success breeds use. That is a
I have no problem with that.
If we are going to stand up and say this is
what we do now, I just want to see it.
MR. CUDDY: That's fine.
MEMBER DINIZIO: Later on. Now, I
still have not gotten an answer to this,
hopefully I can get an answer. If 40 units
in the three-story building that is before
us, are there are 16 additional beds in
that?
MR. CUDDY: Yes.
MEMBER DINIZIO:
cottage story 39 and
where you can't live
they go to the dementia
MR. CUDDY: It's
MEMBER DINIZIO:
So you can live
you get to the point
in cottage story 39,
room.
different.
Now a new person
I
in a
September 6, 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
goes into 39.
MR. CUDDY: That's correct.
MEMBER DINIZIO: So that's an
additional 16 people. And the 17, is the
same thing?
MR. CUDDY: That's right.
MEMBER DINIZIO: They are coming from
wherever and they are going into the skilled
nursing?
MR. CUDDY: Yes.
back?
MEMBER DINIZIO: Now, they may go
MR. CUDDY: It's possible.
MEMBER DINIZIO: With dementia,
could probably
going
to be living
tell
you
do 20 years, and you are
there. So actually it's
MR. CUDDY: 73 is the number. Let me
you how that works. Peconic Landing is
144 acres. 50 of those acres are set aside.
12 of them are in what is called the R-80
District, as opposed to the Hamlet Density.
The Hamlet Density gives you an 1/4 of an
acre. 38 of the acres are scene easement
acres, that have been prescribed for the
September 6, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 53
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
site. It is up front towards the ocean
towards the sound, excuse me. Some of it is
back where the old (In Audible) used to be.
It is sort of a small pond. If you subtract
the 50, which I just talked about, you get
90 acres. If you take that times four, you
get 396. We have 250 existing apartments
and cottages, we have 26 assisted care and
44 skilled nursing homes. If you take all
of those and adding these, and I will give
you a little caveat in a second. If you add
them altogether, you will still come under
396, but when the Town set up the nursing
facility, they said 5 of an acre, not a 1/4
of an acre. And when you take the acres,
each acre is only 40,000. We have 43, 5.
We have at least 10 or 15 acres right now
that are unused, even with this new yield,
and we have gone through that half a dozen
times. So it works. That is what I will
show you if you are interested in the yield
plan. There is no question that it works.
We have done it. I can sort of recite it
from memory at this point.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: This
September 6, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 54
1
2
3
4
5
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
application has to have approval from the
Site Plan --
MR. CUDDY: Yes. And they are very
much --
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I am pleased at
what you are proposing. I think Peconic
Landing is a necessity out here. It is for
many of the community at large here.
Perkins Eastman, I know very well. I have
worked with them as a graduate student.
Having said that, I think Jim is right, that
the density that you are proposing is well
into the third-story, whether you consider
the possibility of emergency services. I
think it is thoroughly addressed and I think
if we can have some description of that
policy, the density will be changed, even if
it a third-story.
MR. CUDDY: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I think that if
we can get that information, I would like
even though it's really not our
jurisdiction, to have the yield
calculations. And since there is a
possibility of submitting some Peconic
September 6, 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
Landing policy, which goes
infrastructure in place and the
accommodate the impact on local
to the
ability to
emergency
services,
we need it in order
determination.
MR. CUDDY: Okay.
MEMBER HORNING:
are talking about is
of units or acreage;
per an
then we should have that. I think
to make an informed
MR. CUDDY: Yes.
acre.
MEMBER HORNING:
The yield that you
based upon the number
is that right?
You get four units
And Jim was
mentioning rescue trucks and things.
have 250 existing units --
MR. CUDDY: That's right.
occupy
MEMBER HORNING:
each unit?
How many people
You
MR. CUDDY: The total population is
around 360-375. It's like 1 and 1/2 if you
were doing it on mathematically. There are
some units with one person and some have
two. More one's than two's. It just works
out that way. There are people that come in
sometimes as couples. One dies and the
September 6, 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
other stays for the rest of their life.
MEMBER HORNING: A person can come in
as a couple and one in a dementia ward and
the other --
MR. CUDDY:
That's correct.
MEMBER HORNING:
someone else in the other unit --
You are not putting
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Sure.
MEMBER DINIZIO: My concern is that
if you just give us a hard number, I don't
need the calculations. Just so that when
the written decision is issued, we know that
we are not exceeding.
MR. CUDDY: Fine.
MEMBER DINIZIO: And the other one is
to have that procedure down and have that
part of the record.
MR. CUDDY: If I were to give you a
statement from Young & Young to show you the
MR. CUDDY: That's right.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Is there anyone
in audience that would like to address this
application?
MEMBER DINIZIO: Can I just add
something?
September 6, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 57
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
yield, would that be satisfactory?
MEMBER DINIZIO: Yes. Just a number.
MR. CUDDY: What they did was that
every skilled nursing facility is 8,000
square feet. That is what they said.
MEMBER DINIZIO: Okay.
MR. CUDDY: Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
comments or questions?
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
am going to make a motion to
Any other
Hearing none,
close this
hearing, subject to receipt of, one, an
emergency management policy from Peconic
Landing and two, is a yield calculation.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Seconded by
Gerry.
Ail in favor?
MEMBER DINIZIO: Aye.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye.
MEMBER HORNING: Aye.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Aye.
(See Minutes for Resolution.)
I
September 6, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 58
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
HEARING #6592 - GLORIA R. GESLAK
CHAIRPERSON
application before
R. Geslak, #6592.
Waiver of
WEISMAN: The next
the Board is for Gloria
This is a request for a
Merger under Article II, Section
280-10A, to unmerge land identified as
SCTM#1000-98-5-11, based on the Building
Inspector's July 11, 2012 Notice of
Disapproval, which states a nonconforming
lot shall merge with an adjacent conforming
or nonconforming lot which has been held in
common ownership until the total lot size
conforms to the current bulk schedule,
minimum 40,000 square feet in this R-40
Residential Zone District, this lot is
merged with lot 1000-98-5-12, located at:
215 & 125 Robinson Lane, corner Indian
Lane in Peconic.
Pat, do you have any more green
cards, we have 3 out of the 6?
MS. MOORE: No. We haven't gotten
Neck
any. Today's mail comes around two. So if
I get any more, I will give them to you.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Please proceed.
September 6, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 59
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MS. MOORE:
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
MS. MOORE: Patricia
of the owner Ms. Gloria Geslak, and the
purchasers, Mr. & Mrs. Smith. It just
happens that they just walked in. Gloria
to the right, and then the owners of the
property. Linda is one of the contract
Good morning.
Good morning.
Moore on behalf
vendee with her husband. Going with respect
-- you have the written application. What I
did was, I also put together my outline,
which I will submit to the Board, just so
you can have it for the record. What I did
was, I attached the map, because I was
driving down that street, I thought that
there was a vacant lot on the opposite
corner, and when I checked with the
Assessor's, it appears that every property
is developed on Robinson Lane. Just as a
point of fact. The properties are shown on
what is on a map of Peconic Bay Oak, which
was filed with the Suffolk County Clerk in
October 18, 1961 as file number #3434.
These two lots were separate and distinct
lots, and because it appears on the Peconic
September 6, 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
Bay Oak subdivision, it is one of the exempt
properties that is grandfathered in since
1997. So up until 1997, these parcels could
have been developed without any issues or
merger. Gloria Geslak, the owner, received
the property from Rosemarie Gigglio Living
Trust. That was her mother's trust. They
were the original owners of the property,
John and Rosemary Gigglio who purchased the
property from the Smith, Henry Smith who
developed the subdivision. The deed from
the beginning when Mr. Smith transferred the
property to Mr. & Mrs. Gigglio, described
the parcels as Lot's %14 & #15 on the filed
subdivision map. At the community, as I
said, all the homes
developed and it is
consistent neighborhood.
basic lot on the corner,
treated and maintained
on Robinson's Lane are
a very straightforward
This particular
has always been
as a separate
When we go through the
Waiver of Merger, we have
set forth, but as I go
residential lot.
standards of the
all of the standards
through, I just pointing out the valiant
points, with respect to this application.
September 6, 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
All the lots are Robinson's Lane are very
similarly in size. This particular vacant
lot on the corner is slightly larger,
because it's a corner lot. And it can be
developed. We did provide you with a survey
and they showed the building envelope with
the front yard setbacks that are applicable
from Indian Neck Road and Robinson Lane. It
provides for a very comfortable building
envelope and certainly adequate for the
Smith's plan. You will also see that the
Geslak home is very modest. It's a 30x30x36
building envelope, and it's pretty close to
the southerly property line. So the
property visually, it looks very big,
because of the separation between the
property. The Geslak's when she put the
property on the market, it was at that
point, apparent, that a merger occurs.
Until that time, she was not aware of it and
certainly her family was not aware of it.
And it was put on the market with the
brokers, until my client came along and put
the application or we did the single and
separate search and realized that that
September 6, 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
merger had occurred. Ms. Geslak is here.
She is a young woman. The property is very
modern. She just did not have all the wear
with all to make this application and the
expenses of this application, so the Smith's
as part of this negotiation said that they
would pay for this application, Waiver of
Merger, which the contract is subject to
getting a building permit. From this point,
we will then get Health Department approval,
which will then be a simple process. This
is a grandfathered parcel as far as the
Health Department is concerned. We just
have to show them the proposed location of
the sanitary system, which would be a normal
standard, four bedroom house sanitary
system, and there is public water both on
Indian Neck Road and Robinson Lane. So it
is a very straightforward from this point
forward, shall we hope that you will approve
this waiver. The waiver will maintain, for
the most part, the character of the
neighborhood. That is not in your Waiver of
Merger application, but it is something that
is always in mind. It is interesting that,
September 6, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals
63
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
if this lot were merged,
to be unmerged, you have
which becomes
that has been
Waiver of Merger actually
and not permitted
the Geslak's home,
nonconforming. So the house
constructed and in place, the
creates the
creation of a nonconformity on the improved
parcel. So that is something to keep in
mind.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: In which way, the
side yard?
MS. MOORE: Front. The side yard is
27. The front yard is a 50 foot setback
based on one acre side parcel, and it is
37.5, with the existing house. The entire
community has developed with the standard
setback applicable a 1/2 acre parcel. That
is pretty much it. The Waiver of Merger,
this one is relatively straightforward. The
lot is
like a
everybody
through this
MEMBER
Ms. Gestak is the
still wooded. It really does look
separate buildable lot. It took
by surprise that we have to go
process.
SCHNEIDER:
Do you need
daughter of Rosemary Gigglio?
MS. MOORE: Yes, she is.
September 6, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 64
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
that on the record?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: You
just because we don't have any
know what,
documentation.
MS. MOORE: That's fine.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: We can swear
you in under oath, and then you can testify,
that you are in deed the daughter.
Can you just state your name for me?
MS. GESLAK: Gloria Geslak.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Would you
your right hand and repeat
please raise
after me?
MS.
I, Gloria Geslak.
GESLAK: I, Gloria Geslak.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Am the daughter
MS. GESLAK: Am the daughter of --
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Rosemary
Gigglio.
MS. GESLAK: Rosemary Gigglio.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: And inherited
the dwelling as a consequence of that
relationship.
MS. GESLAK: And inherited the
dwelling as a consequence of that
September 6, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 65
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
relationship.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay. Is there
anything else that you would like to tell
us?
why
the
MS. GESLAK: No.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
you have an attorney.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER:
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
names are different in
I guess that is
Thank you.
Sometimes when
the family and we
don't
relationship,
that --
MS.
the
have the affidavit affirming that
we just like to make sure
understand.
MOORE: I
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
relationship.
Ken, any other
MEMBER SCHNEIDER:
The nature of
questions?
No
further
questions.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
MEMBER HORNING: No.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Gerry?
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No questions.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Jim?
MEMBER DINIZIO: We have established
George?
September 6, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 66
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
that the property hasn't changed hands out
of the family, why are they before us?
MS. MOORE: Because it was two
properties in the same name, and that is the
only reason. The Waiver of Merger gives
them the right to keep it in the family, but
it should be in two separate names.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Was this merger
upon death?
MS. MOORE: No. In the beginning, it
was acquired as I said, Lot %13 and #14 on
the subdivision map, and it was in the wife
and the husbands name. Then when the
husband passed away, it went into the trust,
and the trust was Rosemary. Rosemary was
the ultimate --
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
MS. MOORE: Recipient.
MEMBER DINIZIO: I am
Recipient?
not following
that.
MS. MOORE: I have to pull out the
Waiver of Merger Law, but it's interpreted
from at least the Building Department, when
you have those properties that have -- they
have been put in the same name, you have to
September 6, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 67
6
7
8
9
10
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
go through the process of Waiver of
even though it has been transferred
family. That's the interpretation.
want to come up with an alternative
that would be great. The only ones
to come here for a Waiver of Merger,
it is a situation like this, where many,
many generations, acquisitions of the
Merger
from the
If you
theory,
that had
where
property, typically from the original
developer, and it was put in the same name
because nobody thought any differently. It
was the grandfathers subdivision.
MEMBER DINIZIO: I thought that would
take care of all of that, when showing that
the lot never changed hands. Both lots have
really never changed hands out of the
family?
MS. MOORE: Right.
MEMBER DINIZIO: It is that case?
MS. MOORE: It is that case, yes.
MEMBER DINIZIO: So why is it before
us again?
MS. MOORE: Because you taken an
application in the past where the property
-- because the property was placed in the
September 6, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 68
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
same name, you have accepted the
application. The Building Department sent
the application saying you need a Waiver of
Merger. You can't just do it by way of a
deed. That is just the way it was written.
Maybe it was not intended that way.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: It would have
been merged because it's husband and wife,
both lots, whether living or deceased, it
would have merged when the merger law took
effect, because it was the same name.
MS. MOORE: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: According to
these facts, they were purchased, John and
Rosemary purchased this in 19637
MS. MOORE: Correct.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: So the Waiver
of Merger was in effect -- not in effect.
MS. MOORE: Not in effect, correct.
It was grandfathered in '97.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: And after '97,
living or deceased, it would have been
merged. This is deeded over by a trust to
the surviving daughter.
MS. MOORE: Yes.
September 6, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 69
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MEMBER HORNING:
when John
think
died?
MS. MOORE:
CHAIRPERSON
we have it. Any
(No Response.)
CHAIRPERSON
In 1997, is that
No, he died later.
WEISMAN: Ail right.
other questions?
WEISMAN: Is there anyone
would like to address
in the audience that
this application?
(No Response.)
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
further comments, I will make
close the hearing and reserve
later date.
MEMBER DINIZIO: Second.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Ail in
MEMBER DINIZIO: Aye.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye.
MEMBER HORNING: Aye.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye.
Hearing no
a motion to
decision to a
favor?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Aye.
(See Minutes for Resolution.)
HEARING #6590 - MARY R. FRAUSTO
Applicant requests a Special
September 6, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 70
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
Exception under Article III, Section
280-13B(13) . The Applicant is the owner
requesting authorization to establish an
Accessory Apartment in an accessory
structure, requests variance from Section
280-13B(13) (a) total square footage of more
than the maximum livable floor area of 750
square feet, at: 1425 Bay Avenue, adjacent
to Marion Lake.
Please state your name?
Heard.
MR. HEARD: Peter
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
Thank you. Let
me just clarify one thing, first off, the
original Notice of Disapproval, indicated
nonconforming square footage, however, I
know you have a copy of the Building
Department's calculations of livable floor
area, which is determined to be 712 square
feet, which would make it conforming.
MR. HEARD: Yes, I am aware of that.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: So that is
really not going to be heard, even though
the original notice has that stated. Ail
right, tell us what you would like us to
know about the application.
September 6, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 71
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
MR. HEARD: This property was owned
by Dr. Jeffrey Williams from Southold. The
existing certificate of occupancy refers to
the structures here, a single family
dwelling with a seasonal cottage. I think
the Board is aware, if not, I think you
would be by that letter, that both of the
structures on the property have been rented
for many years, as owned by Dr. Williams.
In 2006, as of the divorce settlement,
former Ms. Williams, now Ms. Frausto became
the owner of this property. From the time
she became owner, her intention was always
to make the primary residence structure
closer to the lake, the rear structure. As
the last five years have gone by, she does
not have the means to renovate and make the
place livable for her. So her son, also
Dr. Jeffrey Williams, who is agreeing to
finance her endeavors here. Aside from a
good feeling and helping out his mother, I
am sure he would want to recover some of his
money, therefore the idea is that we would
request permission from this Board, to make
this front structure to a legal rental
September 6, 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
accessory building. And then the rear
structure would be her primary residence.
I
I
neighbor here or if
would have concerns
There is a lot of
is making these renovations result in a
conforming property as much as possible. So
now do you want me to detail those
intentions, as well, or just answer
questions that you have? What would you
like?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Let me point
out, right now the cottage has a Pre-CO as a
seasonal cottage. Just so the record is
clear, and that you understand, should you
go ahead with this request and should the
Board grant this request for an accessory
know that if I was a
was on the Board, I
about this property.
things to be nonconforming according to the
survey. The intent is to make this property
conform as much as possible. This is really
the first step in getting permission to use
this structure as not just as seasonal
cottage, but as a rental accessory building.
The next step, would be to submit plans for
renovations of the structures. The purpose
September 6, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 73
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
apartment in an accessory
would be habitable year round
either a member of the family
structure, which
and rented to
or someone
eligible through affordable housing
registry, while the principal dwelling is
occupied by either Ms. Frausto or the
accessory apartment, either way, it doesn't
matter which unit, you will be losing your
Pre-CO as a seasonal cottage. That is going
to happen. Are you aware of that?
MR. HEARD: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Now, at site
inspection, it became pretty clear that the
existing principal building is going to be a
demolition and a new house that will be more
conforming and up to code?
MR. HEARD: That's right. Right now,
that structure -- this predated Mr. Williams
owning it. You know, it was a typical
cottage with additions, and additions over
years, and you can see just from the
footprint, it's a funny little thing. It
has a partial foundation, partially on post.
It doesn't conform to any setbacks. The
intention would be to completely remove that
September 6, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 74
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1
2
3
4
5
and rebuild it in a conforming way.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: And also the
accessory building which is dilapidated in
between --
MR. HEARD: On the survey, it shows
the front structure, which is referred to a
one-story frame house, behind it is a garage
and then a principal dwelling closer to the
lake and a metal shed on the property shed.
Currently the metal shed is gone, it doesn't
exist. And the garage between the two
structures, we would be intending to
completely remove that as well.
Interestingly, since the visit of the Board
to the property, I did have Mr. Metzer
calculate the lot coverage and amazingly
even with the structures, it's under
allowable coverage. So we would bring it
well under allowable lot coverage, if
granted, what they intend to do.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: As you are
aware and your client is aware, this Special
Exception Permit is not transferable to
another owner.
MR. HEARD: I am not aware of that,
September 6, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 75
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
but I will make them aware of that. In
other words, if he were to sell it, they
would have to go through the same process?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Correct.
MR. HEARD: I understand.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Now, it's
fairly unusual for the Board to grant an
accessory apartment where there is no
principal dwelling. So the way in which
that is possible, is that you would need to
-- because you propose this first, rather
than knocking down and building a principal
dwelling first, having the applicant reside
there and then propose for a Special
Exception, and then for the accessory
apartment. Since you are doing it in the
opposite way, we would have to condition,
should we grant an accessory apartment, that
approval based upon the existence of a
principal dwelling and the occupancy of it
by the landlord.
MR. HEARD: Understood. That either
one would be the primary residence?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Either one, but
need both of them there, so in order to
we
September 6, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 76
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
grant it, in this particular order,
would have to be a condition.
MR. HEARD: Understand.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: The
not be a primary residence?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: It could. It
doesn't matter. The law allows the -- since
it's the owner, to live in either unit.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Right.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The
that
cottage could
principal
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I just want you
to know, Mr. Heard, that this is a
significant condition. This is not a
temporary. You either are, or you are not.
there is a letter from Mary Frausto, a
signed letter, indicating her intention to
make it her primary residence.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: After I thought
about it further, I realized that everything
would be null and void if she didn't live
there.
dwelling is still the dwelling.
MR. HEARD: If I may, in the
application although it is not a sworn
affidavit, which you have pointed out to me,
September 6, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 77
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
And if
Exception becomes
gone.
MR. HEARD:
living there
understand.
words,
you are not, it doesn't exist.
MR. HEARD: Yes. I understand.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The Special
null and void. It's
just
If the owner is not
as a primary residence, I
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: So in other
if you go ahead and do this, this is
granted and you
occur, it would
owner/occupied,
go ahead and the
have to remain
until the principal
is rebuilt and occupied. You can't
renting it out.
MR. HEARD: I understand.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: We just
renovations
dwelling
start
want to
flush out all the issues
little unorthodox.
because this is a
MEMBER HORNING: Leslie, is any one
living in the principal dwelling?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: No, it's not
habitable really. The other question to
you, just want you to enter into the record
your opinion as a builder, on what you can
September 6, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 78
6
7
8
9
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
save and what is the extent of the
renovations and the repairs of in-place and
in-kind that need to be made on the existing
seasonal cottage to turn it into a code
compliant accessory apartment?
MR. HEARD: Yes. It looks pretty bad
from the outside. Structurally, it's
surprisingly sound. The framing, the roof
framing, even the support structure is
pretty sound. So a lot of it is cosmetic.
It's ratty. It's non insulated or totally
insulated. The wiring is not up to date.
would like to put a real true crawl space.
I would like to lift the house and put a
crawl space foundation under it. Right now,
like the rear structure, it has a partial
foundation and posts. It's open to animals
to get under the floor structure. So it's
pretty sound structurally but needs a lot of
cosmetic
new siding,
insulation,
CHAIRPERSON
MR. HEARD:
windows,
work. So the intention would be
new wiring, new wall boards, new
and new roofing.
WEISMAN: New windows?
Yes, I would push for new
energy efficient windows. The
September 6, 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
1
2
4
5
windows are not broken. A couple of them
were taken out and boarded over. The ones
that exist are not broken, they are just
ugly.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: And a heating
system?
MR. HEARD: Yes. There is a -- it's
probably not functional. While it has been
called a "Seasonal Cottage," am I correct in
understanding that seasonal cottage means
that you don't have heat? Is that what
seasonal cottage means?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: It means its
occupancy is seasonal. In other words, itTs
not a year round rental.
MR. HEARD: Well, it
heating system in it
round residents.
letter
and it
has had a
does have year
long as she has been there, which has been
for a very long, that seasonal cottage had
been renting out primarily to transient
males. You have a copy of it.
MR. HEARD: Yes. She sent one to me.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: We have a
from the neighbor indicating that as
September 6, 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
I have had no conversation with her, but she
sent me a copy.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: She has no
objection to it remaining as a rental. As
long as it's a one family.
MR. HEARD: Surely. I would too.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Clearly, that
is what will happen with an accessory
apartment.
MR. HEARD: Those terms would be
regulated by all the restrictions in place
for a legal
rented accessory
it.
MR. HEARD: Maybe since you all don't
have a copy, I can just read it. "I am the
neighbor at 1405 Bay Avenue. And I would
like the zoning to be changed so that the
property will be maintained. I don't object
to the rental of the property. I speak for
Jean Ruggiero and myself, Edwin J. Braun.
Thank you." So again, they don't object to
structure. The
same with the other letter there they gave
you. He says the same thing. He has no
objections for the use.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: We don't have
September 6, 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
the renting of it. They just want it done
right, which I am with 100%.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Now, one of the
things that is required under the Special
Exception Permit, is sufficient parking
onsite. There is going to be two for the
dwelling and one for the apartment?
MR. HEARD: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: And I don't know
that we have -- we have it on the survey.
MR. HEARD: I might mention that the
removal of that garage is going to make it
even easier.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Yes, of course.
So that's in place. We have basic support
from both neighbor's. Approval is an
upgrade. I think we have flushed out the
issues. So let's see if the Board has any
questions.
Jim?
MEMBER
DINIZIO: No.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Gerry?
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Other than
fact that you relay that information
the doctor and his mother, that the
the
to both
September 6, 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
information that we have told you about the
occupancy, I don't have any particular
issues, other than you understand that your
client is trading a seasonal CO or a year
round accessory apartment -
MR. HEARD: Yes. And so that I am
here, let's say, I don't know how they are
going to work out there situation.
Mother-son, who gets money. He gets the
rent, how it will go. Let's say he wants to
buy it from her or how would they legally
work it out through you that it would equal
out as a purchase. He would have to -- as
the new owner, he would then have to request
the same Special Exception as we are
requesting for Mary Frausto at this time, as
the new owner?
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: And he would have
to live in the house.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: That's right.
It would have to be a primary residence. It
can't be a seasonal principal dwelling. The
idea was that the Town Board approve this
code change, was to promote affordable
rental units to existing structures with
September 6, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 83
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1
2
3
4
5
conditions.
market rate,
money for
to age in
So that they were not open
just increasing density and
the owner, but allowing families
place. Allowing someone on the
affordable registry to afford a rental.
Just because we don't have very, very many
in the town, so there are restrictions.
MR. HEARD: Sure.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: We now have, to
help the public and the property owners,
placed in all of our decisions with a
Special Exception type of permit that it is
not transferable. It helps for the people
to see it in the decision. Just so long
your client understands. For the record,
why did you decide to go ahead with the
apartment first, rather than the dwelling
first?
MR. HEARD: I would like to submit a
building permit for the entire project. So
I would like to make a survey showing the
whole thing. Do it at one time. My -- when
you look at this property, you say nothing
here conforms. You know, I would imagine
that any one in the Building Department
September 6, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 84
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
would look at this, and say, rejection right
away, because nothing conforms. And, I am
-- we are asking for a complete demolition
of the rear house. Not just the renovation.
So you knock something down, you lose it.
You can't just rebuild it. We want -- I
guess, they are asking for the most that
they can get out of this property, and it
seems to me that it makes sense to get its
usage first, then renovate. If we don't
give them this, they are going to have to
think, will they make it just one structure
on the property. We will let it sit there
as it has.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I just want to go
back on one thing first, just so you are
aware of it. We have seen situations, where
people still reside and have an apartment in
New York City, but their permanent residence
is out here. You understand what I am
saying? And they come out all the time.
They spend six months out here and then they
spend four months in the city. So those are
the situations that are okay. As long as
they spending six months out of the year, if
September 6, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 85
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
there was a transfer and you were referring
to that.
MR. HEARD: Is that what the line is,
six months?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Primarily. I
am not sure.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I am not sure.
What I am saying, is that we have seen these
situations before.
MEMBER HORNING: Or where you are
registered to vote?
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Where you are
your license is,
registered to vote, where
and so on and so forth.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: A lot of people
live here all the time that they go to
Florida for a short time --
MR. HEARD: Sure. Sure.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Some people
have a second dwelling.
MR. HEARD: But it's primary?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: This is the
primary. It's a legal residence and one
that is occupied. You know, not rented out
or vacant for most of the time.
September 6, 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
MR. HEARD: I got ya.
MEMBER HORNING: Leslie,
a couple of details?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
MEMBER HORNING: It's
Suffolk County Water Authority?
can I cover
Sure.
serviced by
MR. HEARD: It sure is.
MEMBER HORNING: And the septic, I
noticed there is nothing on --
MR. HEARD: Yes. I in the midst of
that right now. I have been in touch with
Dr. Williams, the previous owner, and he has
shown me records of hiring Peconic Cesspool.
They have always maintained the septic
system there, and that they put in a new
system for both structures in '91 and one in
'94. I have been in contact with Peconic
Cesspool and they do not have those records.
So I am working on having someone come from
Peconic Bay and have to dig it up and
document what is there. So that we can put
it on the survey or building permit
application. This is also a concern of the
DEC, understandably, and in fact, I am
meeting with one of their field biologists
September 6, 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
there tomorrow afternoon, and they are going
to flag the wetlands and see what we can see
about the septic, but I do know, and I have
no reason to think he is lying. He keeps
meticulous records on his property of all
his expenses, there is a separate system for
each of these houses, dwellings, structures,
whatever you want to call them. The one by
the street is behind it. It's in the area
of the garage or the driveway area. And the
other one for the main dwelling is behind
it, closer to the bluff. So we are going to
see how that -- you know, if it was done in
'94, that is not decades and decades ago.
So it would have to be approved. We would
have to document it and that is what I am
working on now.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Well, all of
this is going to have to conform to Chapter
236 anyway. The upgrade to drainage code
and stormwater.
MR. HEARD: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: We will leave
that to the Building Department to sort that
out. Is it your intention to build a
September 6, 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
conforming dwelling? The idea that you
would not be coming back to this Board for
additional variances?
MR. HEARD: No, I don't want -- not
don't like you. No. We want to take
rebuild it to a way that it
side yards, conforms to lot
that I
this done, and
conforms. The
coverage.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The side yard
setbacks --
MR. HEARD: Yes. The DEC is very
aware of this property. They know this
property well, and in my conversations with
Mr. Lewis there, he feels that, as far as
construction, because it's so high and so
step above the wetlands. They are not too
much worried. The only think they are
concerned about is the septic. The
construction, they are not worried.
And he
every way. Get rid of the garage and so --
I would think in the end, if everything that
is approved, the only thing that would not
conform is this little front cottage, as it
said it would be pretty easy, pending
septic. Yes, we would make it conform in
September 6, 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
sits, which we would renovate in place.
That is too close to the property. It would
not conform, and it already exist there.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Any other
questions before the Board?
MEMBER DINIZIO: Just so we can make
a decision, if you can maybe upgrade that
survey and renovate that metal building and
there?
the garage, and take it off of
MR. HEARD: Sure.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
What Jim is
requesting, and is a good idea, is to update
the survey with the proposed conforming
building envelope, lets say, for the
seasonal dwelling. To show what it would
look like, and to get rid of whatever you
propose to get rid of, and label it as
seasonal dwelling and proposed accessory
apartment in accessory structure.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Have you spoken to
the Building Department and what you plan to
do with the proposed accessory apartment to
renovate it and raise it and all of that?
MR. HEARD: No.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: I suggest you
September 6, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 90
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
l0
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
perhaps
know what
with that,
difficult.
allowed up
without --
MR.
what about
to the Building
discuss that with them. I don't
degree of demolition is involved
percentage wise, which may be
Right now, I believe you are
to about 75% demolition
HEARD: I am trying to understand
the demolition?
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: The Building
Department's demolition, I would suggest
that you speak to them about what you want
to do.
MR. HEARD: Okay.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
Department
I have talked
about this,
because I wanted to see what options existed
with the Pre-CO versus a seasonal cottage,
and they did not seem concerned about the
proposed renovations. That is kind of why I
asked you what you thought you could retain
and to make sure that it really wasn't going
to be a demolition, that you can do framing
that you can keep in place.
MR. HEARD: I would like to -- you
know, try and keep the floor, floor framing.
September 6, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 91
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Ail of the structure -- like I said, I don't
know legally when you say renovation, and
rebuild, so I don't know exactly what they
mean, so I am hesitant to use them, but I
can see it more as cosmetic and efficient
as
a renovation than a structure itself.
Replace the windows, I don't see us -- I
don't know. I don't imagine them saying
let's open walls because that is the rental.
So I don't imagine them saying let's spend a
lot of money on it. Other than making it
habitable.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Well, the worst
that can happen, and I don't have any reason
that it would, the worst that can happen is
a Stop Work Order, because you exceeded the
scope of what you are allowed to do, and
that would be a Building Department call and
there would have to be inspections and --
MR. HEARD: I understand, just to
educate on what is the renovation and what
is the line.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Yes, I think
that is a good idea.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: I would suggest
September 6, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 92
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
that you talk to the Building Department and
so you don't have to come back for another
variance.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Exactly.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: When you say you
planned to put a crawl space underneath it,
that might effect the degree of
rehabilitation or whatever the Building
Department and how they determine that, and
which I think is a great idea to do that,
but -- I would just be frank with them in
what you want to do with that cottage.
MR. HEARD: Sure. I understand.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay. Anything
else from the Board?
(No Response.)
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay. Hearing
no further comments or questions, I am going
to make a motion to close this subject to
receipt of a survey showing the proposed
project, labeled appropriately with whatever
you are going to demolish, and what will be
gone from there, and if you can, will you
state how many drywetl's or septics and its
location. Primarily, we want to see a
September 6, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 93
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
conforming building envelope and have a
better sense of the proposed titled project
on the property.
MR. HEARD: I understand.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: And as soon as
we get that information, we will have 62
days in which to render a decision,
approximately starting from when we get.
MR. HEARD: That's fine.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The sooner you
can get it to us, the sooner we can start.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Seconded by
Gerry.
Ail in favor?
MEMBER DINIZIO: Aye.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye.
MEMBER HORNING: Aye.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Aye.
(See Minutes for Resolution.)
********************************************
HEARING %6588 - DAVID P. SCHULTZ
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The next
application is for David P. Schultz, #6588.
September 6, 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
Request for variances from Article XXIII
Section 280-124 and the Building Inspector's
May 30, 2012 Notice of Disapproval based on
an application for building permit to
construct additions and alterations to
existing single family dwelling at 1) less
than the minimum side yard setback of 10
feet, 2) less than the combined side yard
setbacks of 25 feet, 3) lot coverage more
than the code permitted 20%, located at:
2745 Wickham Avenue, corner of Grand Avenue,
adjacent to Long Creek, Mattituck.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Good afternoon.
MR. HERMANN: Good afternoon. Rob
Hermann from En Consultants. I am here on
behalf of the applicant of David Schultz.
David is also here in the audience. He is
the audience, and Mark Schwartz is the
architect of the project, who is also here.
The applicants are proposing to raise,
renovate, alter and expand an existing one
story dwelling on the site, with a footprint
of a little more than 1100 square feet, and
attach deck. Really for the purpose of
enlarging the kitchen and adding a laundry
September 6, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 95
1
2
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
room and a study and enabling the two
bedrooms, which will be relocated upstairs.
These goals can not be achieved without some
expansion of the existing dwelling, and due
to the existing nonconforming location of
the existing dwelling, any expansion here,
upward or outward, would require a variance.
That is why we are before the Board today.
Specifically, the Schultz's propose to raise
their existing one-story dwelling 16 inches
to conform to the required flood elevation
of FEMA, and (In Audible) required by New
York State Residential Code, ultimately
achieving an elevation for a first floor of
10 1/2 feet, where a minimum of 10 would
effectively be required. They are to add a
second story addition over the existing
first story and also construct a two-story
addition in the location that is currently
occupied an unenclosed and attached deck.
As I mentioned, Mark Schwartz is here and he
can speak in more detail, if the Board has
any questions on construction methodology,
but generally the house is to be lifted.
Two sources of block will be added to the
September 6, 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
existing foundation. A new foundation will
be -- go beneath the proposed two-story
addition, which again is going in place of
the existing deck. The house will then be
brought back down to a basement filled and
capped with a concrete slab, new block and
flood vents added, and then the existing
roof is to be ripped off and the new
addition constructed. At the end of the
project, is a preexisting nonconforming
coverage of 1,680 square feet or 23 1/2% of
the lot area. The wetlands, 23x20 square
feet, the 1700 square feet or 23.8%.
Basically increasing lot coverage by a few
tenths of a percent. Because the existing
dwelling footprint sits just 2 1/2 feet from
the side property line nearest, Wickham
Avenue, where 10 feet is required, and
because the existing total side yard will
decrease by 4.2 feet, from 20.9 to 16.7
feet, where 25 feet is required, as the
Board read in the opening. It is worth
pointing out, that the presence will
increase by 20 square feet, even though the
footprint of the proposed two-story addition
September 6, 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
is actually smaller, slightly smaller than
the footprint of the existing deck at about
20 square feet. The proposed 6x10 porch,
will extend outside the existing footprint
of the existing dwelling, as does the
existing stoop and steps, but of course, the
porch constitutes as lot coverage, whereas
the existing stoop and step, do not. So
with respect to the decrease total side
yard, the proposed porch is actually located
likely farther from the side property line
then the existing stoop, but the porch
establishes the principal setback, whereas,
again, the existing stoop and steps do not.
The point is, while as the proposed finished
dwelling will of course stand taller and
larger, as a two-story dwelling, compared to
the existing dwelling, it will not create
any notable expansion to the overall
structural of the footprint property of the
proposed, perhaps the most significant
alteration that we offer in support of our
application and our position is to request
the relief granted without adverse impact on
the adjoining properties or character of the
September 6, 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
neighborhood, is that the neighboring
factors potentially effected by the addition
of a second-story, consist of an undeveloped
vegetative right-of-way that
or Grand Avenue. The public
northeast. It should have been
adjoins Wickham
is to the
demonstrated
in the photos stated with the application
and also, if any and all of you have visited
the site, the dwelling is barely visible
from the roadway, which is a fascinating
roadway as opposed to a (In Audible) street,
for pedestrian traffic and passerby. There
is also no dwelling or potential for any
dwelling in the near or adjacent to where
the existing and proposed dwelling are
located. Therefore, we would argue that
none of the usual potential impacts to the
neighboring property owners or community
that might potentially be created by adding
a second story to a dwelling already located
so close to the property, for a roadway
would exist here, which makes it arguably
unique in that regard. With respect to the
environmental impacts of the project,
although we will result in a net 20% square
September 6, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 99
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
foot increase of lot coverage as defined by
Chapter 280, the proposed dwelling expansion
will occur entirely within the
the existing structural areas.
increase in ground coverage by
surfaces, and wetland setbacks.
the proposed structure will have
additional impact
wetlands or water
to the existing.
increase both groundwater and surface
quality as a result of the increase
separation distance between the sanitary
system and Long Creek and will improve
treatment of onsite septic as a result of
the sanitary system relocation and upgrade
that there is proposed. The volume of roof
runoff will arguable be decreased as a
result of the installation of the drainage
and installation of gutters, leaders any
footprint and
Thus neither
impervious
Therefore,
no
on the adjacent tidal
with the Town, as compared
The project will however
water
established a naturally 10 foot wide of 450
square foot non-turf buffer adjacent to the
tidal wetlands. That will decrease the
drywell's that is currently lacking at the
property. And there is also to be
September 6, 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
volume of potential water runoff to Long
Creek and improve the quality of runoff by
replacing potential fertilizers to lawn
areas with native vegetation. As noted,
earlier in my presentation, it will also
result in the same structure achieving FEMA
compliance with respect to the required
flood elevations as a result of the first
floor being raised 16 inches. The
environmental impact of the project, we
argue therefore be an improvement of the
site with respect to the protection and
enhancement of the tidal wetland and
improvement of flood protection. We also
argue in our application that the difficulty
we are proposing to the expansion of the
existing dwelling here without getting the
variance relief is not self created due to
the preexisting nonconforming location of
the existing dwelling. I should note that
we have in hand a town DEC wetlands permit
from the Trustees, who most recently amended
their approval to reflect the proposed
raising of the house 16 inches. That that
was not included in the original design
September 6, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 101
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
project, and at one time, it was
contemplated whether we would seek relief
from the New York State DEC Board, but
Mr. Schultz and Mr. Schwartz and I, all
thought it was prudent to actually raise the
structure than seeking the relief. We also
have a New York State tidal wetlands permit
from the DEC and approval of the upward and
relocation of the sanitary system from the
Suffolk County Department of Health.
Therefore, we are here seeking your approval
of the project and the relief that is
requested so that Mr. Schultz can then
hopefully and finally move on to seek a
building permit for the projet, if you see
fit. Again, Mr. Schultz and Mr. Schwartz
are here if you have any questions, an I can
take any questions that the Board may have.
Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: There is one
thing that I would like you to address, and
Mr. Schultz to address, the impact on the
adjacent one-story frame house that is on
the property that is very, very close to the
property line?
September 6, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 102
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
l0
I1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. HERMANN: Yeah, there is the
house that is on the other side -- which
actually according to our survey contacts
our property line or either overshoots it by
a tenth of a foot. Basically, if you are on
that property depending on how you would
define your impact, basically to the
northeast would be towards that right-of-way
into the roadway, where as to the other
direction would be to the Long Creek. So
with respect to the potential for any view
shed to change as a result of the addition
of the second floor, we would argue that
there would be none because Mr. Schultz is
on the -- what I would call the right side
of the creek. Again, the structure will
actually move ever so slightly farther from
that house with the removal of the stoop and
steps, but with the addition of the porch,
it's a modest porch. It is proposed at 6
square feet by 10. We have discussed the
possibility of making it smaller, but six
feet wide is about as small as we could go.
Six feet deep, I would say. There should
really not be any adverse impact to that
September 6, 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
other dwelling. I don't know -- I know they
were noticed, I don't know if the Board
received any input from that neighbor. We
have in contact.
WEISMAN:
residence
MR.
any --
not been
CHAIRPERSON
HERMANN:
That's the only
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I'm sorry, you
will have to come up and state your name for
the record.
MR. SCHULTZ: Hello. My name is
David Schultz. I am the property owner. I
have lived at this location for 34 years.
It went by very quickly. And I bought
property at about the same time as my
neighbor, Dr. Arabi (phonetic) and his
bought that property. And we
neighbors all this time
well. I have talked to
project. I have talked
about it.
about it.
the property actually for building.
rebuild the lawn next
my
wife
have been
and have lived quite
them about this
to them at length
I have talked about the plans
They are going to let us cross
We will
to his house when its
David, do you have
September 6, 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
done. Quite frankly, I have offered to buy
that house for many, many years and their
circumstances because it was tied to the old
marina, they didn't want to do that. So I
am sort of stuck with this. They would be
very supportive of this project. Thank
you.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Mr. Schultz, who
has the right of way over that right-of-way?
MR. SCHULTZ: It's basically, I think
it was set up when they built the
subdivision across the street. My attorney
tried to figure out who owns it, and it's
very vague. Apparently in talking with
other residents who have been around for
quite awhile including my Dick Brandy, my
plumber. The only person he knows who used
to go down there is a fellow who lives in
He would come back and go
the city.
swimming every day. Most people don't know
it's there. I don't know of any traffic
that has happened. I think most people use
the Grand Avenue bridge to get to the creek.
In other words, there are several people and
we tried to contact as many people as we
September 6, 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
have,
checking about
one came back?
and none
MEMBER GOEHRINGER:
MR. SCHULTZ: Sure.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
green cards.
of them know.
Thank you.
I am just
I think all
MR. HERMANN: Yeah, I am not sure
which. I don't know if we received it back
from the Assessor's Office --
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: We have.
MR. HERMANN: Okay. We had one to
Christine Smith --
MR. SCHULTZ: She just recently
purchased a home across the street.
MR. HERMANN: That is the one that
looks like --
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay, well if
it comes in --
MR. HERMANN: We always after the
hearing, one way or another forward it.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Let's see if
the Board has questions. Ken, do you?
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: No, I don't have
any questions at this time.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: George?
but
September 6, 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
have a
there?
MR.
my deed.
width?
get
MEMBER HORNING: Does the applicant
right to the right-of-way that is
SCHULTZ: It does not appear on
MEMBER HORNING: And what is the
MR. SCHULTZ: 8 feet. It's tough to
around.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Gerry?
MEMBER GOEBRINGER: No.
CHAIRPERSON
any questions.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Jim?
MEMBER DINIZIO: No.
WEISMAN: I don't
MEMBER
have
be a
GOEHRINGER:
I have one more.
You said that the Schultz's were going to
live in the house during construction?
MR. HERMANN: I did? No, that
not be right.
MR. SCHULTZ: No, we do not
stay there.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Is this
winter project?
MR. SCHULTZ: I am working more
would
plan to
going to
September 6, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 107
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
towards early spring. I do not --
considering there is an existing building
that I am going to put some element into,
don't want it exposed to the weather
element. In effort to preserve that, we
will start in the spring time as early as
can.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER:
MR. SCHULTZ: It will
impact on the environment as
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
Thank you.
have less
well.
Is there
to address
in the audience that wishes
application?
(No Response.)
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
the Board?
(No Response.)
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
no further questions
Any more from
Okay.
or comments, I
make a motion to close this hearing
reserve decision to a later date.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Ail in
MEMBER DINIZIO: Aye.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye.
we
anyone
this
Hearing
will
and
favor?
September 6, 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: Aye.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Aye.
(See Minutes for Resolution.)
HEARING #6589 - MILL CREEK PARTNERS, LLC
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The next
application before the Board is for Mill
Creek Partners, LLC. Request for Special
Exception per Article XIII Section 280-55(B)
1 to operate a restaurant in a Marine II
(MII) District. Located at: 64300 Route
25, adjacent to Southold Bay, in Greenport.
Before we get started, Nancy, do you have a
copy of the Planning Board's comments?
MS. STEELMAN: I don't directly. I
was at their work session.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Let me give you
a copy so you have one and also Suffolk
County local determination. Would you like
to proceed?
MS. STEELMAN: Yes. Nancy Steelman,
from Samuels & Steelman Architects. I am
here to answer any questions that the Board
might have. This is as much as we know,
September 6, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 109
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
unofficially. This building has been used
as a restaurant anywhere from 30 to 50
years. We have CO's based on 1982 and we
have a card of information that stated it
was a restaurant back to 1980, but in
talking to a lot of the local folks around
here, people heard it being there for years.
We currently have a building permit right
now for construction of a restaurant. That
was renewed at the time the new owners
purchased the property. Construction is
proceeding for that. We are also into our
site plan approval. We have seen the
Trustees, DOT and a variety of other
agencies for a restaurant.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I'm sorry, I am
just asking, we have an internal policy now
in our office, where Special Exception
permits would be forwarded to (In Audible)
not just the Planning Board or site plan,
but to also the fire marshal's. We have
determined that occasionally with Special
Exception Permits, the use or change of use
in occupancy may require a change in the
classification of occupancy, which has to be
September 6, 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
looked at. So we tend to be forwarding
these things prior to a public hearing.
This one didn't go over. It's the same
occupancy and use that has been in existence
without the Special Exception Permit. I
doubt there would be any issues.
MS. STEELMAN: I think that has
probably already happened. The Planning
Board already has sent out our drawings to a
fire
series of agencies, and I know that the
marshal's was one of them. So they have
already looked at it.
should
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Ail right.
MS. STEELMAN: On that point, you
also know that as per New York State
Building Code,
Zone, anything
certificate.
one
the
of the
it's a
any occupancy with an A2
over 100 occupants requires a
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Yes. There is
interesting thing here, we all know from
previous application about the leasing
adjacent property for parking, that
20 year lease. I would like to --
you know, Special Exception Permits include
appropriate parking. I don't know if the
September 6, 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
Board has really addressed the situation,
the parking is approved for the Special
if
Exception Permit, but not in propitiatory
because it's not on the subject property.
Can you address that for us? What I am
wondering is, you do realize that a Special
Exception Permit is not transferable to
another owner, however, beyond that, what do
you do at the end of 20 years? The lease
that you submitted indicated that the owner
would be requesting that all improvements be
abandoned and that all be returned back. So
what happens 20 years from now? It is just
something that we need to
permit.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER:
statement on that?
MS. STEELMAN: Yes.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER:
Exception that we actually
the nightclub in Mattituck.
address on this
Can I make a
The only Special
ever reversed was
During the
period of that lease, during the Special
Exception, gratuitously, Mr. Granshaw who
owned the property next door allowed the
nightclub to park there. He then
September 6, 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
2O
21
22
23
24
25
subsequently -- it was either a yearly lease
or every six months, and he then
subsequently just said that's it. You did
too much damage to my property. I am not in
any way eluding to that being the case here.
That was one of the grounds that we used for
terminating the Special Exception. So I
mean, you can probably put a term on the
Special Exception and renew it every five
years.
MS. STEELMAN: Right.
MR. BURGER: Eugene Burger, I am one
of the owners of the property. So I think
that -- going though something like this,
you grant the Special Exception for the life
of the lease and if we take title to the
property prior to that, the Special
Exception lives, because that is our
intention. We are already in the process.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Yes. I think
what you need to do is come back and request
a condition be removed from the Special
Exception Permit. In other words, if the
condition is based upon the 20 year duration
of your current lease and you have acquired
September 6, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 113
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
the
the property prior to that, you have the
right to come back and request that the
Board remove the condition.
MS. ANDALORO: Nancy, I have not seen
lease specifically. Normally when you
enter into a lease agreement, there are
instances where the lease would not last
years, if
default.
wanted to
so you may want
lease, 20 years
2O
one of the parties were to
If the adjacent property owner
sell the property to someone else,
to say for the length of the
or sooner.
MR. BURGER: That stuff is already
written into the lease. This is for 20
years with the property. It is already
written in the lease.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Let me see if I
have it with this application. It's
probably with the old application.
MS. ANDALORO: I don't think it says
anything about it. Talk to your attorney,
if you violate your lease agreement, or
somebody wants to terminate it, all they
have to do is give you notice. So I don't
know if you have executed the lease. You
September 6, 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
may want to talk to your lawyer about it.
MR. BURGER: It was already asked.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: We have a copy
of it from the other variance application.
The point is, the Board has to figure out a
way, a legal way to proceed with granting
this but subject to the appropriate parking,
and should that change, the life of the
lease or the termination of the lease.
MEMBER DINIZIO: My thought on that,
we write the decision, we write it based on
a certain amount of parking. And should
that parking no longer be
Special Exception is --
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
available, the
Either way you
word it --
MEMBER DINIZIO: You know, making
sure you have 120 whatever, which was going
to be my question. That I need to have that
number. What number do you have for
parking?
lease?
MR. BURGER: For the marina?
MS. STEELMAN: We have 124.
MEMBER DINIZIO: That's with the
September 6, 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
MS.
property.
Nancy.
MS. STEELMAN: With the lease.
MEMBER DINIZIO: What is it without?
STEELMAN: About 50 on the
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: It shows 111,
MS. STEELMAN: Right, 111.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: So it's 111
parking spaces with the lease; correct?
MR. BURGER: Correct.
MEMBER DINIZIO: What is the total?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: 111.
MEMBER DINIZIO: So we can all agree
on that now?
MS. STEELMAN: I just wanted to say
that we have added a little bit of
additional parking. Now we are at 124. We
relocated the boat yard, as you recall that.
The Planning Board requested that we change
that slightly and we have additional parking
spaces. That is why there is a difference
in the numbers.
MEMBER DINIZIO: Let me ask you this
What is the minimum amount of parking
need for those uses on that property.
way.
you
September 6, 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
22
23
24
25
MS. STEELMAN: 110.
MEMBER DINIZIO: il0. So that's what
we have to do. If you decrease that number,
you no longer have a Special Exception.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: So it's 110
parking spaces for marina and restaurant?
MS. STEELMAN: That's correct.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay.
MEMBER DINIZIO: And it's 50 for the
marina and 60 for the restaurant?
MS. STEELMAN: And that should be on
the site plan that you have in front of you.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Yes, it is.
That was my only real question. It just had
to do with the technicality of the parking
on the premises, which you have addressed in
the variance application. Okay.
Jim, any further questions?
MEMBER DINIZIO: Yes. There is two
actually. One, can you get me a copy of the
green marina initiative?
MS. STEELMAN: Yes.
MEMBER DINIZIO: Certainly, you
mentioned that in your application. So I
want to see that. And there was a variance
September 6, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 117
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
issued in
variance been met
met?
MS. STEELMAN:
regarding the deck and
westerly property line.
MEMBER DINIZIO:
that?
MS. STEELMAN: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
the site plan.
MS. STEELMAN:
site plan.
2009, have the conditions of that
or are they going to be
That primarily was
some trees on the
So you addressed
That is part of
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I don't have
any questions either. There is no one else
in the audience. Hearing no further
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: No.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: You?
MS. STEELMAN: No.
I have.
MEMBER DINIZIO: That is all
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Gerry?
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: George?
MEMBER HORNING: No.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Ken?
That is part of the
September 6, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 118
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
comments
to
to
green
or questions, I will make a motion
close this hearing and reserve decision
a later date, subject to receipt of the
marina initiative documentation.
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 #6586 - CONSTANCE ZAHRA
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The next
application is for Constance Zahra, #6586.
Request for variances from Article XXIII
Section 280-124 and the Building Inspector's
June 14, 2012 Notice of Disapproval based on
an application
demolition of
reconstruction of
family dwelling:
required minimum
feet, 2)
for building permit for
"as built" deck addition and
same to existing single
1) less than the code
rear yard setback of 35
lot coverage at more than the code
September 6, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 119
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
required 20%; located at: 2085 Bray Avenue
in Laurel. Is there anyone here to address
this application? Please state your name
for the record.
MR. MILNER: My name is Fred Milner,
contractor. Hopefully I will be doing the
job.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay.
MR. MILNER: Basically that deck has
been there for 30 years and unfortunately
there was no building permit for it. It's
in total disrepair. It needs to be taken
down. It needs footings, brackets. The
whole nine yards to bring it up to New York
State Building Code, and like I said, it's
not a very big deck. It's only 16x20. We
are looking to just take it down and rebuild
it as it is.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: So the existing
lot coverage with the as built deck is 25%
and you are not proposing to change --
MR. MILNER: We would like to keep it
in the same footprint. You know, once the
furniture goes back on that deck, it's going
to get awfully small. It's really not that
September 6, 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
big of a deck. It's just too small of a
building lot.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: So we are
looking at a rear side yard of 22.8 feet,
and the code requires 35 feet. And lot
coverage is 25% and the maximum is 20%.
Pardon?
be no
here
out there
member
MR. MILNER: Basically, there would
deck, if I take it back like 8 feet.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay. Well,
is one of the issues. We have all been
to see it, by the way.
MR. MILNER: You have?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Each Board
individually goes out to inspect
every site of every application before us.
So we have seen where it is located, from
the neighbor's and all of that. However,
your existing survey is quite old. It does
not show the deck or the setbacks.
MR. MILNER: We do have a
I believe shows the deck.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The site plan,
this one?
MR. MILNER: That came from the
survey that
September 6, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 121
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
designer, I think. The homeowner does have
a survey that shows the deck and there is
also a shed on the back corner of the
property. I thought that the Town had a
copy of that?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: What we have is
this.
Hand.
This survey is dated 1979.
MR. MILNER: That was done
by Michael
engineer or surveyor to corroborate the
setbacks.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: We do have a copy
of a survey from 1979. This does not show
the deck. This does not show the shed. So
this Board will require either a new survey
or a new site plan stamped by a
professional.
MR. MILNER:
CHAIRPERSON
Professional surveyor?
WEISMAN: Yes.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Professional
surveyor or an engineer that would verify
the calculations.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Yes, that is
what we have. It is not stamped, because
only an architect who has a license or an
September 6, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 122
1
2
4
5
6
7
8
9
t0
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. MILNER:
here is stamped by
CHAIRPERSON
stamp on ours.
MR. MILNER:
CHAIRPERSON
is stamped by James (In
MEMBER SCHNEIDER:
This site plan right
a professional engineer.
WEISMAN: We don't have a
same one that we have in
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: I
copy. I am fine that this
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
care of that issue. Gerry, do
questions about it?
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Yes.
to ask questions
bought
Hill?
Can I bring it up?
WEISMAN: Sure. This one
Audible).
And that is the
our copy?
Yes.
don't need a
is stamped.
So that took
you have any
of you and Ms.
Ms. Zahra, you and your
this house in 19797
MS. ZAHRA: That's
MEMBER GOEHRINGER:
are
I just want
Zahra.
husband
correct.
From Mr. & Mrs.
MS. ZAHRA: That's correct.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Mr. & Mrs. Hill
both friends of mine. Mr. Hill has
September 6, 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
passed
makes it
she is.
they lived
away, but Mrs. Hill
MS. ZAHRA: Okay.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER:
your concern.
I hadn't
there.
large ranch house
okay. So your lot
without the things,
storage building.
is still living.
Not that that
I am very happy that
been on the property since
I realized that this is a
on a relatively small lot,
coverage is over even
meaning the deck and the
You know, I understand
the nature of your need for a new deck,
I was unaware of the fact that your lot
coverage exceeded the 20%, even without
and
are requesting. I am just
those things. The house is very deep. You
don't realize how deep it is, until you
actually walk into it. The depth of the
house, I am just making that as a statement.
The lot is small. It can further create a
problem, the back property line skews, you
know, from one side to the other. So the
one side is 122.23 and the south side is
105.01, which creates a further
nonconformity for the proposed deck. The
existing deck and the proposed deck that you
reading that into
September 6, 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
the record.
MR. MILNER: So is that considered a
nonconforming building lot?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Not the
building lot, if there no deck, there would
be a conforming rear yard, because the
closest point is 22.8, that 15 foot deep.
So 15 feet from that, you would have a
conforming lot. So no, the issue is not --
is certainly not -- the question is, the
Board is required by law to grant the
minimum variance reasonably possible, okay.
So we have 25% lot coverage and 22.8 rear
yard setback. Can the deck be slightly
reduced to decrease the lot coverage and to
increase the rear yard setback to make it a
little bit more conforming. That is
something that the Board would entertain.
MR. MILNER: Increase it to 15 feet
deep and --
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Well, a 12x15
is
the
deck is not tiny by any means. That
going to give you a few more feet to
rear yard setback, 25.8, almost 26 feet.
don't know if it will reduce the lot
September 6, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 125
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
coverage to be honest with you. It will
bring it down a little bit. What does the
Board think?
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I personally
don't have a problem with it as it exist in
that particular situation and where the
property skews, which is a real hardship to
be honest with you. Based upon creating a
greater nonconformity of the deck, than you
are absolutely correct on the basis of the
square footage. It's not going to reduce it
insignificantly.
MR. MILNER: When you put a table
with an umbrella and chairs that seat six
and some lawn chairs, it becomes tight.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Well, it is
something that we have to explore. We can't
just let that go. The deck is not visible
at all from the street, and it's pretty well
enclosed. It is a wider and shallower lot
in the back. Member Goehringer is right,
it's not listed here but you can see at the
farthest point, what that setback is to the
property line. The closest is 22.8 but when
you get to the opposite corner, it increases
September 6, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 126
1
2
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
somewhat. So that makes it lesser.
Jim, do you have comments or
questions?
MEMBER DINIZIO: Well, if
the lot was
squarer, I think nothing can be built on the
lot behind it. I shouldn't say that. I
don't have any trouble with it the way that
it is.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Ail right.
Ken?
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: I don't have
problem with it. If it were squarer,
might have the benefit of another 800
odd square feet of lot.
MR. MILNER: It has been there
years.
30 years and
thing. A lot
true.
any
they
some
for 30
You can't see the
MEMBER SCHNEIDER:
neighbor's.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Well, the
record has to explore the option fully.
MR. MILNER: They have been there for
they just want to do the right
of people wouldn't do it.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Well, it's
It's much better to have it legalized
September 6, 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
and have a CO on it.
Any other comments or questions from
the Board?
(No Response.)
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I don't think
there is anyone else in the audience.
Hearing no further questions or
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 SCHNEIDER: Aye.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Aye.
(See Minutes for Resolution.)
(Whereupon, the public hearings for
September 6, 2012 concluded.)
September 6, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals 128
1
2
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
C E R T I F I C A T I O N
I, Jessica DiLallo, certify that the
foregoing transcript of tape recorded Public
Hearings was prepared using required
electronic transcription equipment and is a
true and accurate record of the Hearings.
S i g n a t u r e ~' [~'~ _!~J/~_~~~_~_ _
Jessica DiLallo
Jessica DiLallo
Court Reporter
PO Box 984
Holbrook, New York 11741
Date: September 17, 2012