HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-10/04/2012 Hearing 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
COUNTY OF SUFFOLK: STATE OF NEW YORK
X
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
Southold Town Hall
Southold, New York
October 4, 2012
9:35 A.M.
~ECE~.¥ED
8OARD OF APP£ALS
Board Members Present:
LESLIE KANES WEISMAN Chairperson/Member
GERARD GOEHRINGER - Member
JAMES DINIZIO, JR. - Member
KENNETH SCHNEIDER - Member
GEORGE HORNING - Member
VICKI TOTH - Secretary
JENNIFER ANDALORO - Assistant Town Attorney (Excused)
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:
Solution East LLC, %6595
Daniel McGovern, #6599
Alan Fidellow, #6578
John Pitman, #6594
Renee Poncet-Fitzpatrick %6596
Richard Downing, #6593
Patricia Walker, #6597
Paul A. & Elizabeth L.
Reinckens, #6598
Page:
3-21
22-29
29-51
51-58
58-60
60-69
69-76
76-82
October 4, 2012 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 #6595 - SOLUTION EAST LLC
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The first public
hearing before the Board is for Solution
East LLC, that is application %6595.
Request for variances from Article XXIII
Code Section 280-124, based on an
application for building permit and the
Building Inspector's August 9, 2012, amended
August 30, 2012 Notice of Disapproval
concerning proposed addition and alteration
to a single family dwelling, at; 1) less
than the code required front yard setback of
35 feet for both front yards on this corner
lot, 2) more than the code permitted lot
coverage of 20% maximum; located at: 1060
Second Street, corner of King Street, New
Suffolk.
Good morning.
MS. GIGLIO: Good morning, Madam
Chairperson and Members of the Board. My
name is Jody Giglio of Bennett Enterprises,
with offices at 61 Baiting Drive in
Calverton, New York, here on behalf of the
applicant's Solution East. We are here --
MS. TOTH: Do you have any more green
October 4, 2012 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
cards?
MS. GIGLIO: No, they have not come in
yet. The Post Office said that they were
sent back to me on September 24th. I have
not received them as of yet.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Please proceed.
MS. GIGLIO: Okay. The subject
premises is located at 1060 Second Street in
New Suffolk. It's on the northeast corner
of Second Street and King Street. It has
65.51 feet of frontage on Second Street, and
101.22 feet on King Street, and a lot area
of 6,642 square feet. The applicant is
requesting permission to repair the existing
porch and extend it -- actually replace the
porch and extend it to a wrap-around porch.
The front yard setback on Second Street,
which is the existing nonconforming, will be
maintained at a distance of 15.1 feet from
the road. The front yard on King Street
will be reduced from 23.7 to 16.7 feet, to
allow for the proposed wrap-around porch.
The reestablishment of the porch in its
current location and addition on King
Street, we believe will be an improvement to
October 4, 2012 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
the lot. Additionally, the applicant is
requesting permission to install an outdoor
shower on the north side of the dwelling,
thereby reducing the side yard setback from
11.2 feet to 8.2 feet. The neighboring home
to the north is situated 3.9 feet from the
property line. The shower will be at a
greater setback, used during seasonal months
and we believe will not be a detriment to
the surrounding property owners. The
applicant is also proposing a second-story
rear addition of a deck that will not have
stairs. Due to the preexisting
nonconforming status of the lot, the
improvements proposed would require the
approval of this Board, in accordance with
Chapter 280-9 and 280-10 of the Southold
Town Code, as stated in the Notice of
Disapproval by the Building Inspector dated
August 9, 2012. We believe that the
granting of these variances will not create
an undesirable change in the neighborhood
and will not be a detriment to the
surrounding properties. There is an
existing porch on Second Street, and the
October 4, 2012 6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
proposed addition on King Street does not
abut any properties or dwelling. The repair
and addition will add value to the home,
thereby creating a positive effect on the
community and property value. Additionally,
it will meet all site distance required for
a corner lot. The benefits sought can not
be achieved by any other means than an
approval from this Board, as per Section
280-9 and 10. The lot is preexisting
nonconforming with existing homes on the
north and east, and roadways to the west and
south. Additional property can not be
acquired to achieve conformity. The request
can not have a detrimental impact on the
environment. The lot is currently improved
with single family dwelling. The variances,
if granted, would not pose a detriment to
the health, safety and welfare of the
neighborhood or community. The use will
continue as a single family dwelling. The
approval from the Board will allow for much
needed repair and improvements to this
structure. The hardship is not self
created. The improvements that are
October 4, 2012 7
1
2
3
4
5
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
proposed, we believe will make a nice
addition to the neighborhood and the
surrounding community. We respectfully
request the Board consider this testimony
and grant favorably to allow for the
improvements to this preexisting
nonconforming lot. If the Board has any
questions?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Do you know
the current lot coverage is?
what
MS. GIGLIO: You know, I am looking at
that, that was not on my current denial that
I got from the Building Department. So I
can get that information and report back to
the Board.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay. Because
the proposed is 21%, according to the Notice
of Disapproval.
plan.
with
area,
MS. GIGLIO: Right.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: We have a site
This is a site plan by the architect
setback information. There is a lot
but it doesn't say lot coverage.
MS. GIGLIO: I have a survey, but it
show the lot coverage. I have one
doesn't
of
October 4, 2012 8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
the owners from the agency here. Maybe he
can answer some questions.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: This isn't
showing lot coverage either.
MS. GIGLIO: We can get that
information for you.
We did receive
regards
MS. TOTH:
from Liz Thompson in
something
to the lot
coverage.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Let's see if we
have anything in there. The amended Notice
of Disapproval, and it says on the 4th,
address the lot coverage issue.
MS. GIGLIO: It's a 1% increase. We
feel that it's minimal in character.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I just wanted to
get a sense of the increase coverage and
what it might be. It may well be
existing is 21% for all we know.
why I am trying to find out that
information. So if you could get
us, I am sure you can calculate
survey.
MS. GIGLIO: Sure.
MEMBER HORNING: The
that the
So that
that for
it from
proposed open
is
the
October 4, 2012 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
deck in the back is adding quite a bit.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: So --
MEMBER HORNING: I would venture to
say that it's under 20%.
MS. GIGLIO: I agree.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay. Since we
have this as a site plan stamped by the
architect and its identical to the survey, I
don't know that we really need to have the
survey. It's exactly the same.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: We can take a
copy.
MS. GIGLIO: The existing would be the
survey and the site plan would be everything
that is proposed. It just doesn't give us a
number of the lot coverage on the survey.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Well, the survey
is showing concrete steps.
MS. GIGLIO: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: And also an open
deck in the front. We probably should have a
copy of this although it's pretty clear of
what is being proposed on the site plan.
This will give us the as-built and make it a
little bit clearer, if that is all right
October 4, 2012 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
with you? Did you want to keep this copy?
Do you have another copy for yourself?
MR. KITZ: (In Audible).
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Why don't we do
that. Gerry, you had a question.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: We had some
interesting situations occur particularly in
this wonderful area of New Suffolk, mainly
because of the size of the properties, with
showers. This is not a freestanding shower.
I don't understand why the shower can't be
incorporated within that deck area.
MS. GIGLIO: Yeah. You know, I had
mentioned that
to the applicant prior to
appearing before you and asked if the shower
could be in the nook in the front yard,
which would be right here.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I see
MS. GIGLIO: It would be
southwest corner on the front
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
best.
moving
here.
MS. GIGLIO:
the shower
where it is.
on the
of the house.
That would seem
They have no objection to
location to this location
October 4, 2012 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
Disapproval
request for
MS. GIGLIO:
the setbacks that
property. The
would have no
shower.
MEMBER HORNING: The Notice of
doesn't even mention this other
a variance.
Okay. We can put it into
currently exist on the
applicant is stating that he
objection to moving the
MEMBER GOEHRINGER:
And that
coverage.
of them area.
MS. GIGLIO:
eliminate the lot
That is where most
would also
Thank
need
Notice of
MS.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Maybe. Some of it.
you.
MEMBER HORNING: Otherwise, you will
another amended Building Department
Disapproval for the shower itself.
GIGLIO: Right.
MEMBER HORNING: The shower is 187
MS. GIGLIO: 3x6.
us an
MEMBER HORNING: So you will get us
updated lot coverage figures?
MS. GIGLIO: Absolutely.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: They will give
idea.
October 4, 2012 12
1
2
3
4
5
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
MEMBER HORNING:
applying
shower?
MEMBER GOEHRINGER:
And you know there
for another variance for the
The Building
is
Department looks as these, and we learned
this is Nassau Point with some of these deck
additions that included fixed areas, such as
barbecue's and so forth. They don't
necessarily deny it on that basis, okay. If
this is strictly a lot coverage issue, you
might not see an updated Notice of
Disapproval. Now that it's incorporated
into the deck, there is no need for it.
MEMBER HORNING: We are not
considering the shower?
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: No.
MEMBER HORNING: Okay.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: We were
considering the lot coverage. Now we are
not, because it's incorporated into the
deck.
MEMBER HORNING: Right.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Ken, do you have
questions?
October 4, 2012 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
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Yes. Who
calculated the 21%?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Building
Department.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: The Building
Department did that.
MS. TOTH: It's in your file. There
a signed sheet.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Oh there is. I'm
sorry, I missed that. She says 21%. Okay.
So then that's done.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: But we want to
know existing.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Okay.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I actually have
a question that has to do with how much of
the house will be salvaged? To what extent
is
does demolition have to take place? New
siding? New decking? How is the foundation?
If you please come to the mic and state your
name for the record.
MR. KITZ: Charles M. Kitz.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Can you please
spell the last name?
MR. KITZ: K-I-T-Z. Yes, it would be
October 4, 2012 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
new siding, new windows. Interior, removing
all the interior walls. Reinstallation of
all interior walls. Sheetrock. New doors.
There is the proposal of two gables, front
and back. And then that
the back on the
all remaining.
MS. GIGLIO:
all the elevations,
in your packet.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
small porch area out
second-story. The floors are
You should have a copy of
of all sides of the home
We do.
just wanted to
MS. GIGLIO: Okay. I
make sure.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: We do.
MEMBER HORNING: Has it been vacant
for a long time?
MR. KITZ: It has. I don't know to
what extent but I think over a year and a
half. It's a mess.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: What work do you
have to do on the foundation?
MR. KITZ: The actual foundation is in
good shape. I do have to sister some floor
joists inside. Three or four floor joists
that are starting to rot. And then I wanted
October 4, 2012 15
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
to propose to pour a scratch concrete floor
on one section there, it's
of crawl space where there
We wanted to seal that off,
block foundation is in good
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
MEMBER HORNING:
sort of laying on top
back area there. You are
move that?
MR.
taking it
about three feet
is dirt in there.
but the existing
shape.
Okay.
So the fuel tank is
of the ground in the
going to have to
KITZ: We are removing that and
out totally because there is gas
in the basement now. Natural gas is coming
in, and proposing there is going to be a gas
hot air furnace. So that would be taken out
completely and removed.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
from the Board? Questions?
(No Response.)
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
in the audience who would
this application?
MS. BONDACHUCK: I
the north, Cheryl Bondachuck,
My house is very close to the
Anything else
Is there anyone
like to address
am the neighbor to
how do you do?
line, three
October 4, 2012 16
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
feet
as was mentioned previously. My only
concern is with the grading, both during and
post construction. I have two basement
window well's that are there that are
counter-sunk. Very flat. Very close to my
foundation. I am worried about run-off. I
think that is the side the shower is on,
which I really don't care if you move that.
I am just worried about where the water is
going to go? I guess when you are working
with the foundation and whatever you got to
do, I have some valuable items stored in my
basement. I am worried about water and dirt
coming in.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I can say this,
that the Building Inspector will require
that the applicant meet all of the drainage
codes that are in place in the Town Code.
The MS-4 and onsite drainage enforce.
MS. BONDACHUCK:
something.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
I thought I read
applicant, no matter what
they have to comply with making
drainage is retained on site.
So the
they are doing,
sure all
October 4, 2012 17
1
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. BONDACHUCK: My other question is
regarding the siding that is just going to
be removed.
MEMBER HORNING:
MS. BONDACHUCK:
MS. GIGLIO: The
Asbestos?
Correct.
applicant would
no objection to installing a silk fence
during construction to retain the water
the soot, so that
the basement.
CHAIRPERSON
MS. GIGLIO:
property line.
nothing should run into
WEISMAN: Okay.
Along that side of
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
And what was the question about
removal of asbestos siding?
MS. BONDACHUCK: Yes. How is
the
That is good.
have
and
siding, the
to be handled? I
other than it can
disturbed.
MS. GIGLIO:
expertise.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay.
will ask the Building Department.
MS. BONDACHUCK: Thank you.
that going
don't know much about it
be dangerous when it's
That is not my area of
Then we
October 4, 2012 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
have our full
beautiful.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: You're welcome.
MS. BONDACHUCK: Other than that, they
approval. It's going to look
the
preparation
precautions?
MR. KITZ:
law, as far as
property,
asbestos
don't
contractor
not remove
abatement,
Law read,
that I am
properly.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Let's address
removal of asbestos siding. Any specific
required? Any kind of hazardous
I thought the way I read the
being the owner of the
that I am allowed to remove the
siding. Is that the law?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Actually, I
know. Does anybody on the Board know?
MR. KITZ: If I am not the owner, a
doing a job for someone, I can
it without some kind of
but I thought the way the Town
if I am the owner of the property,
allowed to, and then discard it
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Remove it at your
own risk?
MR. KITZ: That's the way I thought
the law read.
October 4, 2012 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
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Jim?
MEMBER DINIZIO: Can you give us a
copy of that law?
MR. KITZ: I will find out from the
Building Department.
MEMBER DINIZIO: We would like
something in writing.
MR. KITZ: Yes. There is wood siding
underneath the asbestos siding. So right
now, you know, it's out. For me to go over
that again, you know, to put the nail
through asbestos siding, it's impossible.
They crack. They fall apart. It's more
damaging that way in trying to remove it
than get rid of it.
MEMBER DINIZIO: Well, whatever it
says, this lady would like to --
MR. KITZ: Yes.
MEMBER DINIZIO: That you are doing it
by the code.
MR. KITZ: Yes.
MS. GIGLIO: We will get clarification
on that. I am sure that the Building
Inspector prior to issuing any building
permit's will make sure that the proper law
October 4, 2012 20
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
is applied, because the application states
that they are going to remove and replace
siding.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Can I make one
suggestion?
MS. GIGLIO: Absolutely.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Particularly for
the neighborhood, and I suspect that you
wouldn't do this anyway, the old method of
replacing asbestos shingles was smash it in
the center, and let the shingles fall to the
ground. That I think is one of the issues
that the neighbor is possibly eluding to,
and I wouldn't suggest that in this
environment and 2012 or 2013. I would
suggest the normal practice of jimmying the
shingle away from the building, and then
just putting it in a containment area. So
that is my suggestion.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay. Is there
any other comments or suggestions?
(No Response.)
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay. Hearing no
further comments or questions from the
Board, I am going to make a motion to close
October 4, 2012 21
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
this hearing subject to receipt of the
following, the existing lot coverage, some
letter pertaining to the removal of asbestos
siding, and a new survey showing new
location of the shower or site plan.
MS. GIGLIO: Very good.
MR. KITZ: From the architect?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: If it was a site
plan, it would be from the architect and a
survey would be a surveyor, but that would
be taken into consideration in calculating
the proposed lot coverage.
MR. KITZ: Okay.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Is there a
second?
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Ail in favor?
MEMBER DINIZIO: Aye.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye.
MEMBER HORNING: Aye.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Aye.
(See Minutes for Resolution.)
HEARING %6599 DANIEL MCGOVERN
October 4, 2012 22
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The next
application before the Board is for Daniel
McGovern, #6599. Request for variances from
Article XXII Code Section 280-116(B) and
Article XXIII Section 280-124 based on an
application for building permit and the
Building InspectorTs May 9, 2012, amended
September 6, 2012 Notice of Disapproval for
deck addition to single family dwelling at;
1) less than the code required bulkhead
setback of 75 feet, 2); less than the
minimum side yard setback of 10 feet,
located at: 830 Oak Avenue, adjacent to
unnamed Street & Goose Creek, Southold.
Please state your name for the Board.
MR. MCGOVERN: Good morning everyone.
My name is Daniel McGovern. I am the owner
of the property at 830 Oak Avenue in
Southold.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Mr. McGovern,
before you get started, I would like to
provide you with a copy that the Board has
received, of the LWRP. Recommendations,
which shows the proposed action is
consistent with the LWRP, and a notice from
October 4, 2012 23
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Suffolk County for local determination. The
Board of Trustees Administrative permit.
That is for your records. This came into our
office, we want to -- pardon?
MR. MCGOVERN: This is --
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Your architect
submitted that. Okay.
MR. MCGOVERN: Basically I am looking
to put in two side-by-side ground level
decks. I want to make them the -- close to
the ground as possible. One would be 8x12
coming from an existing 8x8 deck. It comes
out the sliding doors of the rear. And the
one next to it would be approximately 12x26.
We are really just putting these in -- just
a table and chairs so we can put out in the
back and enjoy the property. Actually, it's
my in-law's, they are quite elderly now and
they can't even walk on the grass anymore.
My wife asked if we could put in some
decking so that they could have better
footing. It is not obstructing any views or
access by any other homes on either side of
us or across the street. The deck size and
shape is minimum. Very basic. Like I said
October 4, 2012 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
sufficient for tables and chairs. And we
evidently are proposing to be too close to
the water, so that is why we needed one of
the variances. And the other one is the deck
is too close to the neighbor on my right
side. The materials would be pressure
treated lumbar. And they would not even be
attached to the house. That is basically the
variance that we are looking for.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Did you say the
deck is not to be attached to the house?
MR. MCGOVERN: No. There will be
footings in the ground and attach it to the
footings.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: However, it will
be abutted against the house?
MR. MCGOVERN: It will be about
inch from the house.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay.
much
MR. MCGOVERN: So there will be
space between it.
an
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay. That is
still going to be considered --
MR. MCGOVERN: There will be a header
on the house itself.
that
October 4, 2012 25
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
I don't have
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Ail right. Let's
see if the Board has any questions. Jim, did
you want to start?
MEMBER DINIZIO:
questions.
that
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The 8 feet, is
to the bottom of the stairway or the
side,
side rather than go all the way around to
6.7 on the property side.
MR. MCGOVERN: That stairway -- coming
off that way, was the deck was. That was
just it. If I came off the front or directly
from the south, we would require more space.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Right, but you
have 8 feet at the bottom of the stairs.
Can't that be reduced to 4 feet or to a
conforming distance of 10 feet?
MR. MCGOVERN: Then you would have to
step off onto grass and than onto the other
deck part.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Gerry?
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Is there any
reason why that stairway can't be turned
around, if I am looking at it from the right
and you can't enter the deck from that
October 4, 2012 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
bottom of the house?
MR. MCGOVERN: You see the stairs. If
you are walking down the stairs starting on
the right side of the stairs, there would
simply be a 12 foot piece coming parallel to
that. That would bring it out 4 feet
further from the stairs towards the water.
And then starting at the back of the house,
I would put 12 foot footers going straight
back towards the water. It would be a 4
foot section where they could walk and
remain on wood and get to the larger part of
the deck. There wouldn't even be railings
on this deck.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: When you have 18
inches above the ground, you don't need
them.
MR. MCGOVERN: This won't be anything
near that.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I still think you
can shrink that deck, but that is my
opinion. From the bottom of the stairs, but
that is just my opinion. I mean, to create
a greater side yard that is all I am saying.
This is just my suggestion.
October 4, 2012 27
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
MEMBER HORNING:
at grade, correct,
as 18 inches?
MR. MCGOVERN:
but
George?
This is not exactly
it may not be as high
No, it's not going to
be 18 inches of anything.
MEMBER HORNING: What can
about the unnamed street?
you tell us
MR. MCGOVERN:
That is -- nobody can
There certainly is no
were there this
always has been
on maps it says
in neighborhood
I was going to ask you.
really explain that.
street there. You
morning, that's water. It
water but for some reason,
unnamed street. Nobody
has a clue.
the same
old
the
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: They have
thing down at Nassau Point.
MR. MCGOVERN: It has always been
water.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: It's a strange
anomaly.
MR. MCGOVERN: That it is.
MEMBER HORNING: Is there any way you
would consider, as Gerry was mentioning,
giving us greater distance on the side yard,
October 4, 2012 28
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
greater than 6.7 feet?
MR. MCGOVERN: If I have to.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Really, you
a generous side yard on the other side,
the Board is obliged to look at the least
have
but
it. It would be the other deck that has the
tables and chairs. I don't believe in any
way would bother Jim, our neighbor. He is
actually looking forward to it.
MEMBER HORNING: He would be invited
over for the barbecue.
MR. MCGOVERN: He would be invited
over for the barbecue, exactly.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Ken, questions?
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: No questions.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Is there anyone
else in this audience that would like to
address this application?
(No Response.)
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Hearing no
further comments or questions, I will make a
nonconformance --
MR. MCGOVERN: Oh, I have trees
between my neighbor and myself. That area
there will have a barbecue and that's about
October 4, 2012 29
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
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 %6578 - ALAN FIDELLOW
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The next
application before the Board is for Alan
Fidellow, #6578. Request for variances from
Article XXII Code Section 280-116(B) and
Article IV Section 280-18 based on an
application for building permit and the
Building Inspector's February 17, 2012
amended August 16, 2012 Notice of
Disapproval for partial demolition,
reconstruction and addition to single family
dwelling, at: 1) less than the code require
bulkhead setback of 75 feet, 2) less than
the minimum side yard setback of 15 feet,
October 4, 2012 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
3) less than the combined total side yards
of 35 feet, located at: 4030 Great Peconic
Bay Boulevard, adjacent to Great Peconic Bay
in Laurel.
Good morning.
MS. MOORE: Good morning. I was
brought in, Patricia Moore, on behalf of the
Fidellow family. I am working with Bruce.
Bruce is still the agent. I am assisting and
being brought in to review the file. What I
did is, I reviewed all the transcripts.
Procedurally, we opened this hearing. So I
would ask that all the prior transcripts,
all the prior testimony and information be
certainly incorporated and provide the
complete file. When I reviewed the
transcript from the file, I thought it would
be helpful to identify the issues that I saw
that had popped up during the hearing. I
don't want to rehash the entire hearing.
Certainly, we are here to answer any
questions, but the one thing I did do, I
prepared an affidavit for Barbara to sign. I
brought it over yesterday. So I don't know
if all of you had a chance to review it. I
October 4, 2012 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
just want to go through it all and read it
on the record, and discuss it as we go. The
affidavit is Barbara Berkelone. We start off
with paragraph one. I will just read
through. She is 64-years-old. She has spent
the summer and the holidays for the past 64
years with her family on the property. She
is co-owner in with Ellen and her sisters,
Judith Fidellow and Beth
the owners of 4030
What I did is, Exhibit
provided a copy of the
know everyone that
of these documents,
been in your file.
and just trying to
Historically, what
Fidellow. They are
Peconic Bay Boulevard.
A, as attached,
deed so you would
is the owner here. Most
I believe, have already
I was just organizing it
put it into a packet.
I did see was some
confusion, the historic ownership of this
property. So I am just trying to clarify
this record. In April 1947, the grandfather
and grandmother Leon and Ida Munier,
purchased the property at 4030 Peconic Bay
Boulevard. They had rented several years
prior to this purchase this property itself.
The house was constructed prior to zoning,
October 4, 2012 32
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
and they believe based on their knowledge of
the house, it was built around the t920's.
Nevertheless, there is a pre-CO. I have
attached that as Exhibit B. That was
provided to the family in 1993 or to Leon,
actually, her brother. On October 20, 1950
their grandfather, Leon -- two names are
very similar. So that is why I identify as
the grandfather. He obtained a variance to
build an addition, which 4 feet 6 inches
from the property line. That is in the (In
Audible) 15, you certainly were aware of
and I have attached it as Exhibit C. That
variance was granted for that pop-out. It
was added to the house, and in the
transcript of that hearing,
of that year, the Board at
and the variance
that time
although closer than the 10 feet the code
required at that time. Ida and Leon Munier
had three children. That is Leon L. Munier
Jr., and Nell Munier and Barbara's mother,
Elise Munier. Their grandparents passed away
it,
conceded that granting the variance would
not change the character of the area. And
that many homes in the neighborhood,
October 4, 2012 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
in '66 and '67, and upon their death, the
property went to their uncle Leon. Uncle
Leon did not have any children, and was not
married. So it gives you an idea. In '74,
there is a building permit for a deck. That
is the same dimension, that is the same deck
that is presently there today. From her
memory, she knows that that deck -- there
was a deck on the property prior to that
date. The pre-CO refers to a beach shack and
deck, but of course when you are dealing
with old documents you -- we just have to
look at the documents from their words and
conclude that the Building Inspector saw
that there was a deck there. We don't have
any dimensions prior to the '74 permit
application. In '93, that same deck was
rebuilt in place, and in 2007, Uncle Leon
was using a walker. He was at that point
elderly and the family was taking care of
him. He had retained -- the house ultimately
went to the family and retained the life
estate. He enjoyed living in that house
until his death. So we have the deck that
was there prior to '74, according to the
October 4, 2012 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
family. It was rebuilt in '74 with a
building permit. Rebuilt again in '93, and
then again in -- rebuilt again as you see it
today in 2007. Again from observations, the
house is fully protected from erosion. The
deck is landward of marine bulkhead. The
bulkhead has handrails with wood walkway.
There is a second bulkhead retaining wall,
which is between the marine bulkhead and the
non-turf buffer. That non-turf buffer was
added by the Trustees. In fact, it is
existing. It is approximately 25 feet of
width of vegetation, and again, that's
between the upper, we call it the bulkhead
-- the retaining wall and the seaward
bulkhead. The Trustees issued permits for
all the structures for this project and
because the project was there prior to their
jurisdiction, they included the deck into
the permits to make sure everything had
permits at that time. What I did see in the
transcript of the hearing was that
Mr. Goehringer asked a question about
loading, and I wasn't satisfied that when I
read the transcript that it was answered. It
October 4, 2012 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
was raised and then kind of dropped. So what
I did is, Exhibit E, is Mr. Fischetti, who
is the structural engineer. I asked
Mr. Fischetti to please review the file, and
review the conditions of the deck and the
bank, and he supplied a professional opinion
with respect to loading, that there is no
issue of loading here. The deck is not
creating any stress on either the upper
retaining wall or the bulkhead. Certainly,
there is no stress on the upper retainer
wall, there is certainly no stress on the
bulkhead. So I thought that that was really
some of the few issues that I saw. I wanted
it to be thoroughly analyzed and I wanted to
be sure that you had this on the record. We
also talk about the waterfront deck. Again,
it was described and rebuilt. Then we go to
the issue of the garage and studio. That
structure predates the code, but there was a
permit in 1993 to get a permit -- a
retroactive as-built permit for work that
was done between 1970 and ~977. The permit
itself, Leon Munier states this is a permit
for work that has already been done. That
October 4, 2012 36
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
structure was identified as a studio and
storage building. It provided, you know,
extra living space. It was habitable space
just not a dwelling. That documentation, I
guess, has been corrected or confirmed by
way of the survey notations, and it's legal
at this point.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Are you saying
there is a pre-CO for a habitable accessory
structure?
MS. MOORE: No, there is a CO for a
habitable -- habitable means that it is
usable. A studio is usable space.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Well, habitable
is usually sleeping quarters.
MS. MOORE: What is the term -- I
apologize.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: It is allowed to
have a 1/2 bath as of right.
MS. MOORE: Occupied. I'm sorry, I
misspoke. It's occupied space versus
habitable space. Pardon me. Thank you for
correcting me. Bottom line is, that studio
has a CO. So that structure is legal and the
alterations are legal as well. Again, the
October 4, 2012 37
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
is here.
Some of the family members are here as well.
Really, the house is very important to them.
It's not only third or fourth generation
that is enjoying this house. The
renovations as you thoroughly analyzed in
final
conclusions are,
the family
prior hearings is a renovation, and just
merely trying to fix the existing house,
get everything legal, and permitted to
and
continue for more generations to come.
Do you have any particular questions?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Gerry?
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Several of the
questions that came up at the last hearing,
I think were okay done in the affidavit,
and I appreciate that. I just want the
owners of the property to be aware of the
fact that, I was neighbor's of yours across
the street. I lived there from 1971 to 1978,
and I did have the privilege of having the
right-of-way to the beach, adjacent to your
property. Not contiguous, but one lot away.
And I did mention that one of the greater
concerns that we had was the 1983, both upon
the inspection, and during this period of
October 4, 2012 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
time. I appreciate the engineers's report
from Mr. Fischetti, as we are all aware of
the fact that he has testified before this
Board, many, many times.
MS. MOORE: And he is a structural
engineer too.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: At this particular
point, in my opinion and I am speaking for
myself and not the chairperson, when we are
in receipt of a new Notice of Disapproval we
only have one choice, in my particular
opinion, opening the hearing up to accept
that new Notice of Disapproval and to deal
with this new setback aspect. I will tell
you this, it is my recollection in the past
four to five years, the minimum setback
granted by this Board, on this piece of
property was in this magnificent area of
Peconic Bay Boulevard from the Laurel line
to the Bay Avenue, was 57.5, okay. And that
is basically what I have seen, and I am not
challenging anything that is going on here.
I am just mentioning, so that we could see
the waterfront setbacks throughout the town,
but I am very, very well aware of what they
October 4, 2012 39
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
have been and what this Board has granted in
the past, and I am not speaking for the
Board. It is just my opinion. The most
recent one was the Stork application,
which is 800 feet from here, maybe, and it
was an entire replacement of a house, with a
new house. That is my opinion. So unless you
had a postage stamp piece of property in
1983 when I am talking about something
60x100, which was on a private road and was
done by the only road that intersects, I
think it's Birch, where we lost houses, I
mentioned that in 1983, were the setbacks
are extremely tight on very small cottages,
that is the only one that we might have seen
with a smaller setback.
MS. MOORE: Okay. Thank you. Bruce was
kind enough to provide for us aerials of the
area, and I was waiting to here what your
commentary was to submit it, and I think
it's appropriate at this point. Let me
provide you with these at this point, and
then we can talk about it.
Just from hearing your comments, I
think we do have a distinguishing
October 4, 2012 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
circumstance from what you have described as
other variances and setbacks and bulkheads.
We have an existing preexisting
nonconforming structure, which has been
maintained. Has been -- the only issue
really being the replacement of the deck,
but with within -- it still had the same
footings. They added footings. So it was
repair/reconstruction. And again, remember,
this was all done prior to the code's
definition of demolition and reconstruction,
when it's a permitted use, the code was
clear that you can reconstruct. I think the
code is much clear now, as far as the degree
of reconstruction. Nonetheless, if you look
at -- the photographs are easier to look at.
They are pretty much the same thing. It's
the larger version. Bruce provided a 75 foot
setback by that yellow line, and you can see
that every single house -- well, there may
be one, #5, is conforming. Obviously
conforming from this aerial. Ail these other
homes are within the 75 feet. The subject
property, you can also see that the way that
the land is configured, all the houses face
October 4, 2012 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
sideways towards the views because of the
angles of the properties. You can see that
the houses, I am assuming to the west or the
left, houses one through six, their
properties have a lot more frontage by
virtue of the way the bulkhead has been cut
out, and extended out, creating larger
setbacks. You can also see that the pool on
Lot #4, that is quite close to the bulkhead.
What we are talking about, the house as it
sits today, this is being renovating. So
obviously, we are not dealing with a
situation where the house is being
demolished and they need to rebuild the
house exactly in the same footprint. Then I
would say, knowing this Board, I would
persuade people to move the house back a
little bit, if it's possible. In this case,
it's a renovation. They are maintaining a
significant portion of this house, and from
the testimony of Mr. Filer (phonetic}, it's
anywhere from 25 to 50 percent demolition
and the code allows up to 75 percent. So
it's clear that this house is remaining.
With respect to the deck, the deck has been
October 4, 2012 42
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
2~
22
23
24
25
part of this house since the 70's. There is
no impact of this deck. It has a permit.
It got a permit in '74. It was built
structurally sound. It lasted a long time,
and now, it will last for another hundred
years the way it is. Really it makes no
sense -- it makes
variance and keep the
grant the
exactly where it
homeowners in
decks on the sunset
sense to
deck
is in the same place. Most
front of the water, put
side of the house. That
use to any home. Again,
other homes -- you look
is common accessory
you look at all the
at all the other
with the affidavit that it is not creating
any stress on the bulkhead. So there is no
real reason to force the deck to come down.
In fact, to cut back the deck or remove the
deck, would be more disturbance to the land
than just leaving it alone, because the
footings are there, and really it would
an irrational act to remove structures
well constructed. So I appreciate your
be
so
homes around Peconic Bay Boulevard and the
homes themselves are within 75 feet. Here we
are talking about a deck, and I provided you
October 4, 2012 43
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
right-of-way and knowing the waterfront
here, but despite your longevity on this
Board and your age, this house is older than
you are.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Let's see if we
have any questions. Are you done Pat?
MS. MOORE: Yes. I didn't want to
belabor it. I think there is a lot of
testimony on the record already.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: We have a
substantial amount of testimony on record
about this house. It should be noted that
your amended Notice of Disapproval in
addition to including the setback of the
bulkhead to the deck, is included in
recognition that this is a partial
demolition, not a demolition, which is
important for the consideration.
MEMBER HORNING: I have a question
about the Notice of Disapproval. Why does it
say that it is approximately 30 feet? And
the survey, I am a little confused with the
survey and the "approximately" is. Is that
fairly accurate, Pat? How much is the
approximate?
October 4, 2012 44
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MS. MOORE: It
see the survey, are
survey?
MEMBER HORNING: Yes.
MS. MOORE: The survey
bulkhead that runs the wider
survey. Than the
eastern wood jetty.
property line into
looks like -- if you
you looking at the
has the
part of the
bulkhead cuts back on the
It cuts back beyond the
the adjacent property
line. Ail the homes here, as
facing on an angle.
MEMBER HORNING:
MS. MOORE:
to the bulkhead
taken from the adjacent
house, and then that
I said, are
That's the 37?
The 47 -- the house is 47
at its width. Then it's
bulkhead 37 to the
is approximately, the
approximately 7 feet.
deck on that side is
So that is how they came to the 37.
MEMBER HORNING: It kind of looks like
on that corner from the wood jetty, to the
distance to the house, it looks like it was
30.9 feet.
MS.
retaining
jetty,
MOORE: No, remember, you have the
wall that is behind, but the wood
that is the seaward jetty, your
October 4, 2012 45
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
setbacks come from the waterfront jetty.
There are a lot of lines here and I can see
how it can be confusing, but at least on my
survey, the print is 37 to th corner of the
house. And that corner is well protected.
You can see the upper retaining wall has
curves around it, and cuts back -- remember
we are looking at a two dimensional. And a
three dimensional, you see more slopes --
elevations differences here.
MEMBER HORNING: If everything else
was measured accurately, why do we have an
approximate measurements?
MS. MOORE: I can't answer that. That
was before me. The surveyor -- rather than
in the field, he did it based on paper and
he is relying on his drawings to provide
that measurement. If you want to go out and
just do a measurement of the width of the
deck there, we can provide that after the
fact. We can take a tape measurer and see
what the depth is.
MEMBER HORNING: Well, that would be
accurate, because then you have a 47 --
MS. MOORE: 37.
October 4, 2012 46
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
MEMBER HORNING:
47 foot mark, and --
MS. MOORE:
answer. That is a
MR. ANDERSON:
You pointed out the
I'm sorry, Bruce
pre-me answer.
Bruce Anderson,
has that
Suffolk
Environmental for the applicant. When we
were here on the prior hearing before the
Board decided that they wanted to see an
amended Notice of Disapproval, Mr. Dinizio
asked that the survey reflect non-habitable
accessory structure, which was done. The
issue of the deck came up, and so there was
a question on how close the deck was to the
bulkhead. So on that same survey, you will
see a distance of 30.9 feet to the bulkhead,
the nearest bulkhead. That happens to be on
the next door neighbor's property. So I
think you are looking at the survey that was
submitted prior to that.
MS. MOORE: August 30th, we gave at
the top -- if you look at the revisions that
we gave you, August 30th.
MEMBER HORNING: Let's
you said the deck had a
1974 when it was built?
review then,
building permit in
October 4, 2012 47
1
2
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MS. MOORE: Yes.
MEMBER HORNING: The deck was totally
rebuilt in 2007?
MS. MOORE: Well, in 2007, the deck is
on grade. So moisture gets to the wood
product and anything that had deteriorated
or rotted had been replaced. So at that
time, they added additional footings. The
footings, you have the construction
drawings, the as-built ones that show the
number of footings. So they added footings
to stabilize the deck, and also converted it
to a non-wood material, which is now a Trex
material. At that time, Leon was still
alive. As I pointed out in the affidavit,
they were taking care of him. He was elderly
and was using a walker at that time. So it
was necessary for him to have a safe surface
that was his home, and so at that time, it
was rebuilt, repaired.
MEMBER HORNING: It did not require a
building permit?
MS. MOORE: You know, that is
something for the Building Inspector. At
this point, we want to make sure that is all
October 4, 2012 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
included. Whether or not it needed a
building permit at that time, I have no
answer to that.
MEMBER HORNING: And one other thing,
the deck, in the context of the law that
requires the 75 foot setback, do you know
when that law was put into effect? We can
look it up.
MS. MOORE: Yeah, you would have to
look it up.
MEMBER HORNING: '91.
MS. MOORE: It was in the 90's as I
recall, yeah.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Ken, questions?
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: No questions.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Jim?
MEMBER DINIZIO: I don't have any
questions.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I think in
recognition of the substantial testimony
that we have had on this, this hearing has
clarified some of the issues that arose at
the previous hearing, and I can't think of
any additional information.
Is there anyone else in the audience
October 4, 2012 49
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
that wishes
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I have
thing and
there was
to address this application?
one more
I wanted to be clear. I think
a discussion with the Building
Inspector that he is going to review the
construction of the first story, or the
reconstruction of the first story. So
upon --
MS. MOORE: I believe he already has.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No, it's going to
be during construction.
MS. MOORE: Monitor it?
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: He is going to
monitor it, and he had mentioned on the
record, and I am not speaking for him. I am
only reiterating what I think he said, and
that is that he said that the entire first
story needs to be re-sheathed. And so the
decision, I suspect is going to mirror that
testimony on the fact, that for any reason
he finds any replacement necessity of the
first story, then whatever the decision of
the Board, could be modified based on those
inceptions. Is that properly presented?
MS. MOORE: I am not sure if I
October 4, 2012 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
understand.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: At the previous
public hearing, and there was no objection
from the applicant and the family, the
Building Inspector indicated that during the
construction, it would ensure that the
partial demolition as proposed, that he
would be going out once the second floor was
removed and the structure was exposed, he
would be going out to do an inspection.
That's all.
MS. MOORE: Okay.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: It's strictly
procedural method of ensuring that all the
information that the architect supplied and
Mr. Anderson supplied is adhered to. So it's
not atypical for an inspection.
MS. MOORE: Their budget doesn't
account for much more than that.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: It was just a
procedural --
MS. MOORE: Okay.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: So is there
anyone else in the audience who would like
to address this application?
October 4, 2012 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
(No Response.)
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Hearing no
further comments or questions from the
Board, I will make a motion to close this
hearing and reserve decision to a later
date.
MEMBER DINIZIO:
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
Ail in favor?
MEMBER DINIZIO: Aye.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye.
MEMBER HORNING: Aye.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Aye.
Second.
Seconded by Jim.
HEARING #6594 JOHN PITMAN
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The next
application before the Board is for John
Pitman, #6594. Request for variance from
Article XXIII Section 280-124 and the
Building Inspector's August 7, 2012 Notice
of Disapproval based on an application for
building permit for demolition and
construction of a new single family dwelling
(See Minutes for Resolution.)
October 4, 2012 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
at: 1) less than the
code required combined
feet, located at:
to Hashamomuck Pond
an application brought by the Pitman's who
propose to demolish an existing dwelling,
and build a new dwelling. The property is
located at 1100 Ruch Lane. Ruch Lane, as you
know, is a private road. And this as well as
several lots are kind of dual lots. In some
cases, up and down Ruch Lane, you will have
a principal dwelling, which will be on one
side of Ruch Lane and the waterfront side,
and on the opposite side, not uncommon a
driveway. So it's kind of an unusual area in
the town in that respect. It is an R-40
Zone, but it is a preexisting nonconforming
lot. And from what we gathered, the Town
views it as an overall one lot, but in fact,
with both the waterfront part of the lot,
the south of Ruch Lane contains 9,078 square
side yard setbacks of 25
1100 Ruch Lane, adjacent
in Greenport.
MR. ANDERSON: Good morning. Bruce
Anderson, Suffolk Environmental for the
applicant. I guess the first thing I will do
is handout some aerial photographs. This is
October 4, 2012 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
side of the
feet. So this
lot. Existing
feet. The lot on the other
garage contains 7500 square
a preexisting nonconforming
dwelling is constructed in the early 1900's
and is supported by locust posts, that has
served this family well. I believe this has
been in the family for many decades. The
Pitman's are here today, if you have any
questions of the historical use of this
house. They came to me about a year, year
and a half ago with a modular plan to
is
unusual feature, the house was served by an
existing cesspool, as you can see on your
survey, on a common lot line, between the
Pitman property and the property adjacent to
west of it. That cesspool actually serviced
both homes. In this application, we would be
disconnecting from that existing cesspool.
The westerly home would continue to use it.
We would be constructing a new septic system
up by the road, as shown on the survey. Both
replace the house. So the house would be
removed. There would be a foundation that
was dug. There would be a poured foundation
of concrete. The home would sit. One
October 4, 2012 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
homes are served by public water. And so
this is something that this permit process
of what we are doing, creates conformity
where we have some non-conformities. The new
dwelling is 1145 square feet, which occupies
the same footprint. It would be for four
bedrooms and be served by the new septic
system. We have already been approved by the
Trustees and the DEC. And the individual
side yards which exist today are 11,11. They
will be maintained. The reason for the
variance is that we require a total side
yard of 25 feet. So we are 3 feet short of
the total side yard, which in, our opinion,
is de minimus. The aerial photographs that I
passed up, depicts all the houses up and
down. They line up with respect to the
water. They are all sufficiently set back.
Some are closer to the street than the
Pitman's house. There has been a
considerable amount of redevelopment that
occurred in the neighborhood. So there are
other two-story houses, and also depicts
some of the accessory houses on the side of
Ruch Lane. In some cases, you have opposite
October 4, 2012 55
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
principal dwellings. So we submit that we
comply with the zoning standards and that
due to the way that this area has been
developing, that it would be consistent with
that development. Therefore, it will not
produce an undesirable change in the
neighborhood. The benefit that we seek can
not be achieved by any other method than a
variance because we have a house that has
two 11 foot side yards and we are asking for
is not substantial, a 3 foot total side
yard. The variance will not have an adverse
effect on the physical environmental of the
neighborhood that it is located in, and it
is actually an upgrade, from the standpoint
of an upgraded septic system, and creating
conformance with the Town's stormwater
regulations. So ultimately, the balancing
act between the applicant if the variance is
granted, should waive in favor of the
applicant. The benefit for the applicant is
that the Pitman Family will enjoy their
house considerable to their needs. And
really there is no detriment to the
neighborhood, as the setbacks remain the
October 4, 2012 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
same, and the two-story houses are common
the neighborhood. And that concludes my
presentation.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
I would presume
Thank you,
Bruce. that since this is
modular house, this is a standard size?
MR. ANDERSON: That's correct.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: You can't
much --
MR. ANDERSON: That is correct.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: That's to me,
reflection of the maintenance of the
existing side yard's. That it is not
available. I really don't have any
questions on this. It's pretty thorough
in
I agree with you,
to
because we can't put the septic
a
do too
a
and
straightforward application, but let's see
what the other Board members have to say.
Jim?
MEMBER DINIZIO:
Leslie.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Gerry?
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I guess the trees
have to come down?
MR. ANDERSON: The two trees have
come down,
October 4, 2012 57
t
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
system in with those trees.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Okay.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
MEMBER HORNING: Tell the
foundation?
MR. ANDERSON: The foundation is a
standard poured foundation.
MEMBER HORNING: What is it
MR. ANDERSON: (In Audible).
George?
us about
right now?
MEMBER HORNING: And it's going to be
a full --
MR. ANDERSON: Full basement, yes.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Ken?
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: No questions.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Is there anyone
else in the audience who would like to
address this application?
(No Response.)
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Hearing no
further comments from the Board, I will make
a motion to close this hearing and reserve
this decision to a later date.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Seconded
Gerry.
by
October 4, 2012 58
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Ail in favor?
MEMBER DINIZIO: Aye.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye.
MEMBER HORNING: Aye.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Aye.
(See Minutes for Resolution.)
HEARING #6596 RENEE PONCET-FITZPATRICK
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The next
application before the Board is for Renee
Poncet-Fitzpatrick, %6596. Request for
variance from Article III Section 280-15 and
the Building Inspector's August 27, 2012
Notice of Disapproval based on an
application for building permit for addition
to a single family dwelling at: 1) upon
construction of the addition to the dwelling
the legally existing in-ground swimming pool
will be located in a location other than the
code required rear yard, side yard, located
at: 415 Wiggins Lane, corner of Wiggins
lane, Greenport.
Did you get any green cards in?
MR. SAMUELS: Yes, I handed them in
October 4, 2012 59
1
2
3
4
5
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
already. My name is Tom Samuels. I am the
architect for the applicant. Basically, in
this instance, an addition was proposed and
doesn't meet all the conforming side of the
setbacks. It technically violates the
existing pool, which is in the rear yard
corner lot. Basically, a violation of a side
yard. That's really just it. I can answer
any questions.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay. Everyone
has been to the site. It was hard to even
see the swimming pool. It was so beautifully
landscaped. Really completely invisible from
adjacent properties, which are undeveloped
properties anyway. I think this is more of a
technical thing. I don't have any questions.
Jim, do you have any?
MEMBER DINIZIO: No.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Gerry?
MEMBER GOENRINGER: No.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: George?
MEMBER HORNING: No.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Ken?
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: No questions.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Is there anyone
October 4, 2012 60
1
2
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
in the audience who wishes to address this
application?
(No Response.)
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Hearing no
further comments or suggestions from the
Board, I will make a motion to close this
hearing and reserve decision to a later
date.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Ail in
MEMBER DINIZIO: Aye.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye.
MEMBER HORNING: Aye.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Aye.
favor?
application before the Board
Downing, #6593. Request for
Article XXIII Section 280-124
Building Inspector's
Disapproval based on
building permit for
is for Richard
variances from
and the
June 26, 2012 Notice of
an application for
demolition and
(See Minutes for Resolution.)
HEARING #6593 - RICHARD DOWNING
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The next
October 4, 2012 61
t
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
reconstruction of a new single family
dwelling at: 1) less than the code required
minimum side yard setback of 15 feet; 2)
less than the code required combined side
yard setbacks of 35 feet, located at: 1280
Bayberry Road, adjacent to a lagoon,
Cutchogue.
MR. SCHWARTZ: Mark Schwartz,
architect for the project.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Do you have the
LWRP letter?
MR. SCHWARTZ: No.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Let me give you
a copy of it. It indicates that it is
consistent.
MR. SCHWARTZ: When we started this
project, the main reason why we designed it
the way it was, is actually we wanted to
leave the ridges on both sides of the house
the same height, because you have a -- on
both sides, there is -- the existing house
slightly goes over the setback lines. On
the north side there is about a 63 square
foot area that goes over the setback line.
On the south side, there is about a 15 foot
October 4, 2012 62
1
2
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
area that goes over the setback line. The
plan was to do additions and alterations to
the foundation. As the Building Department
reviewed the application, they reviewed it
as a demolition. So that is why the notice
was issued as a demolition, but part of the
foundation, first floor will remain.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: What part of the
foundation are you going to be able to
salvage?
MR. SCHWARTZ: About two-third~s of
it, and I can provide a foundation plan.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: And what part of
the existing dwelling is going to be
salvageable?
MR. SCHWARTZ: The first floor and
sub-floor.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: About
two-third's of the existing foundation and
first floor deck. Are those the same as the
existing side yard's?
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yes. There is no
encroachment with the proposed additions,
you know, beyond what is already there.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay. You are
October 4, 2012 63
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
proposing minimum
requires 15. And that
anywhere. The existing side
-- all right, thank you.
MR. SCHWARTZ: If you
of 9.5 feet. The code
is what I didn't see
yard's are 9.5
MR.
situated,
water view.
didn't want
of the view
look
on A-i,
that are
you
you
saying that you need a variance because
were unwilling to sacrifice the current
orientation on the site, which establishes
water views?
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yes.
that is there now.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: So you are
can see the existing elevations
proposed.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay. The
existing lot coverage is 17.3 and you are
proposing 19 percent, which is conforming.
You indicated in your application, in Town
Law II, that the benefit can't be achieved
without it because of use of occupancy. I
am not sure what you mean by that.
SCHWARTZ: The way the house is
to take best advantage of the
That is the reason why. They
to demolish completely because
October 4, 2012 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
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I just wanted to
be clear, because I didn't understand what
you meant because of use of occupancy.
Let's see what the Board has. Jim?
MEMBER DINIZIO: I had that same
question. I couldn't quite figure out that
same sentence. You are saying that the
orientation now is to take the best
advantage of the sight that you have?
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yes.
MEMBER DINIZIO: It existed there for
how long? Do you know?
MR. SCHWARTZ: Since the 60's.
MEMBER DINIZIO: And it looks like, if
you straighten that house out, you probably
would be conforming.
MR. SCHWARTZ: We actually started
that way, but that didn't get to what they
quite wanted to.
MEMBER DINIZIO: The pool is going to
stay and pretty much the rest is the same?
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yes.
MEMBER DINIZIO: It says the amount of
relief requested is not substantial because
the proposed addition is not beyond the
October 4, 2012 65
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
existing structure outside the building
envelope. Can you just explain that?
MR. SCHWARTZ: If you look on A-i,
which shows the existing elevation and
proposed. So the intent was not to knock
down those sides. The Building Department,
since they decided that since this was a
demolition, and we won't save them, we will
just rebuild them.
MEMBER DINIZIO: It looks like you
have to raise the roof --
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yes. That is
conforming.
MEMBER DINIZIO: The ceiling height
now, is it nonconforming?
MR. SCHWARTZ:
sufficient headroom.
bring
have.
quickly.
Trustees
The second floor has
MEMBER DINIZIO: So you are going to
it up to today's standards?
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yes.
MEMBER DINIZIO: I think that is all
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
We just got this
I
and I want to
Mark, just
letter from the
see how you addressed
October 4, 2012 66
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
it with them, if you have. One is that, the
points that the neighbor makes is that you
currently have to walk on their property to
access their boathouse. Have you managed or
has your client done anything to access that
boathouse without going onto the neighbor's
property?
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yes. They don't have
to access the neighbor's property to get to
the boathouse. There is stairs that go down
right to the lower level there. They
mentioned something about cutting the lawn.
They have to get around to cut that lawn
area. They have been going
There is a big Evergreen on
of the Downing property that
lawnmower from going down to
that area.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
is something --
MR. SCHWARTZ: And I
on her property.
the south side
stops the
the fence of
Ail right. This
did speak to that
woman. She did call me prior to the
Trustees. We did discuss it.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: And concerns
about construction debris on her property,
October 4, 2012 67
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
which I am sure you are going to take care
of in one way or another. And doesn't mind
the generator that you are proposing, but
where is it going to go? Do we have it on
this site plan?
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yes. It's going to be
in the garage.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I see. That
shouldn't really be a problem. There is a
and the
familiar,
discrepancy
neighbor's survey,
a setback? I mean,
between her survey
that sounds
they could be different
of
we got this
address it.
Gerry,
MEMBER
particularly.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
setbacks. The property is angled.
MR. SCHWARTZ: It's on the north
The high water to the point, almost to
corner of the pool, is different on her
survey by a half a foot or something. I
assume it is different high water marks.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Ail right. Since
letter, I thought we should
do you have any questions?
GOEHRINGER: No, not
George?
side.
the
October 4, 2012 68
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MEMBER HORNING: I want to ask about
the new foundation. Is there anything that
is going to be remaining of the old
foundation?
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yes. I can provide you
with a foundation plan. There is a partial
basement in the middle that is going to
remain, and there are some areas of the
foundation where the new areas are going to
go.
MEMBER HORNING: So you are saying
approximately two-thirds of the existing
foundation will remain with some structural
reinforcements?
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yes.
MEMBER HORNING: Okay. Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Ken?
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: No questions. My
questions were answered previously.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay. George, is
Mark's testimony adequate about the
two-third's of the remaining foundation, or
would the Board like to close subject to
receipt of a foundation plan?
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No, he is going to
October 4, 2012 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
give
it.
it to us. So let's close it
subject to
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Fine. Just
there anyone else
wishes to address this
(No Response.)
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
asking.
Is
who
further comments, I will make
close this hearing subject to
foundation plan.
in the audience
application?
Hearing no
a motion to
receipt of a
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 %6597 - PATRICIA WALKER.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The next hearing
before the Board is for Patricia Walker,
October 4, 2012 70
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
#6597. Request for variance from Article
XXIII Section 280-124 and the Building
Inspector's August 21, 2012 Notice of
Disapproval based on an application for
building permit for addition and alteration
to a single family dwelling at: 1) less
than the code required total combined side
yard setbacks of 25 feet, located at: 1020
Ruch Lane, adjacent to Hashamomuck Pond,
Greenport.
Please state your name for the record?
MS. WALKER: Hi. I am Patricia Walker,
the new owner and the one proposing to do
all this work. As you can see, there is -- I
think a 2.5 foot difference off of the 25
feet setback on both sides. As there is
right now, there is a deck that you come out
on the sides, that you come out, which I
will be moving, which will make the setback
better. That will be moving into the inside.
So I am not really sure what you want me to
say. It will be smaller, the setbacks to the
property line. I am not changing any of the
existing structures other than removing that
part of the deck, which will give more
October 4, 2012 71
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
obviously to that. The reason for the
construction is, I have a handicap child in
a wheelchair, and there is no way for me to
get him into this home, as of right now. So
I will be doing this work, and moving this
over, so that I can make access to the home
for him and myself. Any questions? I am not
sure if you need more explanation than
that.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The code
requires a combined side yard setback of 25
feet, and your proposed side yard setbacks
are combined at 22.2 feet. I just want that
to be in the record.
MS. WALKER: That is -- Apparently,
there was no property. It was sold. The
neighbor's said their setbacks would be
okay. They did not take into consideration
that that messed up this one. That was
interesting but that was before me. I will
not be changing any of the structures.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: It would appear
from the application that you will be
creating a new one story garden room
connecting the existing accessory garage,
October 4, 2012 72
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
right?
MS. WALKER: Correct.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Partial
conversion of living space to be used as an
art studio with alterations to deck. Old
deck to be removed, and master bedroom deck,
adding a wheelchair ramp to an elevated
deck. Did I summarize the proposal?
MS. WALKER: Yes. I don't think that
the deck that is there now is structurally
sound. My son is quadriptegic. So he is in a
-- the wheelchair weighs about 400 pounds.
So I am concerned about that structure being
sound. So we will make sure that the
footings are sound enough to hold that
weight. Also what it is now, it is two feet
lower than the floor. So the reason that I
am doing it now, is to raise it level and
come up. Right now, there is stairs that is
going down to the deck.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay. Let's see
has to inquire about.
what
the Board
Jim?
garage to
MEMBER DINIZIO:
the house;
You are adjoining the
right?
October 4, 2012 73
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
That piece of
of the house, is that going to
MS. WALKER: Yes.
MEMBER DINIZIO:
construction
be heated?
MS. WALKER: I would imagine it would
be heated. I am not sure if that would be a
floor heat or -- I haven't --
It will be part of
will be part of the
MEMBER DINIZIO:
the house?
MS. WALKER: It
house.
MEMBER
in between?
MS. WALKER:
DINIZIO: Will there be doors
Yes.
door to the bedroom.
just double --
MEMBER DINIZIO:
There would be a
A door to -- let me
I have the plan.
MS. WALKER: A door to the garage and
that would just flow into the house, where
there is -- so it will all be level. I am
trying to make this all level so that a
wheelchair can go through it. So there will
be a door to the bedroom and there will be
an open door -- not a closed, an open
hallway into the other part of the main
October 4, 2012 74
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
house,
the
that
front
and that will be eliminating one of
the bedrooms. And then the downstairs, there
is no access to the cellar right now, except
for outside. So there will be a staircase
put into the cellar.
MEMBER DINIZIO: And you are removing
other stairway on the other side, so
makes it a little bit better?
MS. WALKER: Yes.
MEMBER DINIZIO: The deck is to the
of the house?
MS. WALKER:
That would be the front
to the water side, yes. The backyard if you
are going to the road side.
MEMBER DINIZIO: How does that
actually get into the house?
MS. WALKER: Right in the front
is a garden room there. That will be
there
the
access there, and that would be able to take
him into the bedroom and also into the main
part of the room. As you can see, if you go
straight into the door from the part of the
road, you go straight out, that will take
him to the deck, and also have access to --
there will be a sliding door, that would be
October 4, 2012 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
wide enough. I just wanted to make sure that
I had two exits.
MEMBER DINIZIO: I see all these
stairs and --
MS. WALKER: It looks like stairs but
it's not. Because there is a slow grade,
that will be built up to the level.
Basically, it is to make everything level to
the first floor. Right now, it's
eh-er-eh-er.
MEMBER DINIZIO: Okay. That's all.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Thank you, Jim.
Gerry?
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No, I think Jim
answered all the questions. Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay. George?
MEMBER HORNING: I don't have any
questions.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Ken?
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: No questions.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I have no
further questions.
Is there anyone else in the audience
who wishes to address this application?
(No Response.)
October 4, 2012 76
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Hearing no
further comments or questions from the
Board, I will make a motion to close this
hearing and reserve decision to a later
date.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER:
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
MEMBER DINIZIO: Aye.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye.
MEMBER HORNING: Aye.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye.
Second.
Ail in favor?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Aye.
(See Minutes for Resolution.)
********************************************
HEARING #6598 PAUL A. AND ELIZABETH
L. REINCKENS
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The next
application before the Board is for Paul
Elizabeth Reinckens, #6598. Request for
variances under Article IV Section 280-18
and the Building Inspector's August
Notice of Disapproval based on an
and
the
27, 2012
application for building permit for a
subdivision, at Proposed Lot 1; 1) less than
code required minimum lot size of 40,000
October 4, 2012 77
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
square feet, 2) less than the code required
lot width of 150 linear feet and Proposed
Lot 2; 1) less than the code required
minimum lot size of 40,000 square feet, 2)
less than the code required lot width of 150
linear feet; located at: 955 & 1065 Hummel
Avenue, Southold.
Is there someone here that would like
to address this application?
MS. REINCKENS: Hello. My name is
Elizabeth Reinckens. I am one of the owners
of the property.
CHAIRPERSON
say
WEISMAN: Hello, again.
MS. REINCKENS: Hello. t would like to
that when Paul and I bought the property
in 1997, we actually didn't think that we
had two lots. The reason why of course was
because of the two tax bills. Paul and I
always respected the integrity of this
property. During the years, we could have
put up a shed or a pool, but we didn't and
the reason was because the plan was
basically money in the bank for any family
at any point. And that it was we thought. I
can say that this is a mixed neighborhood.
October 4, 2012 78
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
The north side of Hummel Avenue, has mostly
small and single residential lots. The south
side is commercial. And the northerly side,
behind the homes is preserved property with
the vineyard. Our application really is
nothing, but all we are asking for is to
allow is to build a home. Only one more
house will be in this neighborhood. There
are no other available lots. Therefore,
there is no undesirable changes and will not
effect the neighboring properties. In fact,
we have spoken to our neighbor's, the
Hodgebots (phonetic), they did supply us
with a letter.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Vicki will make
copies for all of us.
MS. REINCKENS: Thank you. As you all
know, the lots were merged, and the only way
that we can build a home is for you guys to
grant us a variance. Our request is not
substantial because the request is zoned
R-40. None of the lots on the north side of
Hummel Avenue are 40,000 square feet. My
house, tax lot 46, which is average size.
It's a 10,000 square foot. The lot in which
October 4, 2012 79
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
we
wanted to build a home for ourselves is
12,000 square feet. Like all the other lots
in the neighborhood, there is sufficient
front and side yard's.
long. We can't build a
other variances.
change nothing.
Each lot is 200 feet
house without any
One more house, will not
So it will not have no
detrimental effect on the environmental
conditions. Unfortunately, our problem was
self created because we didn't take care of
i.t in 1997. So you know, we thank you, and
you taking the time and letting us share
this with you.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Thank you,
Ms. Reinckens. Just so the public hearing
transcript reflects exactly what the
variances are that
you are requesting, once
subdivision is accomplished, you will be
creating two nonconforming lots. Lot #1 will
be at 12,000 square feet. Lot #2 will be at
10,000 square feet, where the code requires
40,000 in the R-40 Zone, and lot width of
both of those lots will be nonconforming.
In R-40, the lot width is supposed to be 150
linear feet. And the proposed Lot #1 will be
October 4, 2012 80
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
~6
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
60 feet wide and Lot #2 will be 50 feet
wide. Just so we are clear on exactly what
the variances are that are being proposed.
Okay. Let's see if the Board has any
questions. Gerry?
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I actually
physically rode down both sides. There is no
reason to drive down the north side of the
street because it's basically one owner. But
I observed every single house on the block,
and you know, some of the lots in looking at
the tax map, 1, 2, 3 and 4 are a little bit
larger than yours, and the majority of them
are either small or about the same size. The
one's down closer to Railroad Avenue tend to
be a little bit smaller, but what we are --
what I am looking at it is basically the
largest lot, which is 16.4 down to your
property. So in that case,there is only
three lots that are a little bit larger than
yours.
MS. REINCKENS: If it helps any, I
think two out of those three are not single
family. They are a double family.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Yes, we
have had
October 4, 2012 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
variances on a couple of those. Thank you.
The proposed lot that you are requesting an
area variance certainly conforms to the
neighborhood. That is what I wanted to say.
Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: George?
MEMBER HORNING: I look at it similar
to what Gerry described and if you put the
houses on the tax map to see what parcel had
a house, and they all have houses. I was
curious as to whether or not you could tell
us, have there been any other merged lots on
that side of the street? Or is yours the
only one that ended up being merged?
MS. REINCKENS: I would not know that.
MEMBER HORNING: It doesn't look like
it. Sometimes the merged lots show a
separate parcel on the tax map, but that is
why I looked at how many houses were there
and I put a house on every lot, there is a
house on each lot.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: So the lots are
all developed.
MS. REINCKENS: I would not know that.
They have been there since I moved there in
October 4, 2012 82
1
2
3
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1997.
MEMBER HORNING: Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Ken questions?
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: No questions.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
MEMBER DINIZIO: No.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
in the audience
else
address this application?
(No Response.)
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
Jim?
Is there anyone
that would like to
Hearing no
further questions or comments from the
Board, I will make a motion to close this
hearing and reserve decision to a later
date.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second.
October 4, 2012 83
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Ail in favor?
MEMBER DINIZIO: Aye.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye.
MEMBER HORNING: Aye.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Aye.
(See Minutes for Resolution.)
(Whereupon, the public hearings for
October 4, 2012 concluded.)
October 4, 2012 84
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
C E R T I F I C A T I O N
I, Jessica DiLallo, certify that the
foregoing transcript of tape recorded Public
Hearings was prepared using required
electronic transcription equipment and is a
true and accurate record of the Hearings.
S i g n a t u r e'[-L~~~_~ ~
JeSsica DiLallo
Jessica DiLallo
Court Reporter
PO Box 984
Holbrook, New York 11741
Date: October 15, 2012