HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-11/01/2012 Hearing 6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
COUNTY OF SUFFOLK: STATE OF NEW YORK
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
X
X
Southold Town Hall
Southold, New Yor
November 1, 2012
10:07 A.M.
RECEt'4ED
BOARD OF APPEALS
Board Members Present:
LESLIE KANES WEISMAN -
GERARD GOEHRINGER
JAMES DINIZIO, JR.
KENNETH SCHNEIDER
GEORGE HORNING
Chairperson/Member
- Member
Member
- Member
Member Excused
JENNIFER ANDALORO Assistant Town Attorney
(Left at 10:55 A.M.)
VICKI TOTH - Secretary
Jessica DiLallo
Court Reporter
P.O. Box 984
Holbrook, New York
(631)-338-1409
11741
2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
INDEX OF HEARINGS
Hearing:
Kimogenor Point, Inc. #6550
Michael & Debra Thompson, #6600
Emilia & Ilya Kabakov, #6602
Diane B. Ryan, %6601
David Korchin & Joan Rentz, #6604
Joseph M. Melly, #6603
Bee-Hive Development Corp. #6605
Michael & Emily Kavourias, #6606
Page:
3-45
45-60
60-78
78-95
95-106
106-117
117-137
137-138
November 1, 2012 Regular Meeting 3
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
HEARING #6550 KIMOGENOR POINT, INC. (BINGHAM)
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Re-opened by
Resolution for the sole purpose of
reviewing the proposed construction method
for the foundation and the preservation of
portions of the existing dwelling as
described and granted in the original
decision #6550, located at: 50 Jackson
Street, New Suffolk.
MR. SAMUELS: Good morning. Tom
Samuels, on behalf of the Bingham's who
are here, and also Pat Moore who are
representing them. Yes, this was for the
sole purpose of addressing the foundation
and construction technique and elevation
of the house, and in the earlier
application that was granted by you guys,
the flood zone was an error. It was an
older map. It was an older copy. My
fault. So unfortunately we had to come
back with obviously the correct
information and put this into a V Zone,
which requires a piling foundation. Even
though we thought and hoped to preserve
the remnants of the existing block
November 1, 2012 Regular Meeting
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
foundation, that will not be possible, as
we are renovating the house beyond 50% of
its market value, and therefore a pile
foundation is required. Obviously, under
the circumstances, it is clear, we want to
conform. We need to conform and it would
make no sense to do otherwise. Kimogenor
Point survived intact from the storm but
the water did rise, obviously, and if
there had been wind from that direction
for a long period of time, there would
have been scouring action and there would
have been worse problems down there. So
really our intention now is, if possible,
to use a simple timber piling foundation,
which would require moving the house to
the side during the demolition of the
existing and the construction of the new.
If that process is not acceptable to you
because of the use, multi-family use of
the site, then we are prepared to instead
use a helical screw pile foundation, which
is steel columns that are screwed into the
ground capped with concrete, which bears
the remainder of the timber pile
November 1, 2012 Regular Meeting 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
foundation above. It's a technique that
would allow the house to remain. It would
have to be lifted up but it would remain
in its exact location while that is being
installed. It is more expensive then a
typical timber foundation. We are
prepared to go that route, but I think we
would probably prefer the flexibility in
discussing with the contractor of going
with one or the other FEMA compliant
piling foundations.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: That is what I
thought you were proposing. We got a
letter from you with the foundation plan
showing the helical screws and the --
MR. SAMUELS: And that --
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: -- going to
remain in place.
MR. SAMUELS: Correct. Unless you
are willing to give us the flexibility
otherwise, that is what we are going to
do. And we had heard, I think, there was
that preference on your part. I am
stating it only now because there are
rational reasons to consider a timber pile
November 1, 2012 Regular Meeting 6
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
t
2
3
4
5
foundation. But like I say, if there are
objections to the moving of the house and
the replacing of the house, then we are
absolutely prepared to go with the helical
screw pile foundation.
MS. ANDALORO: You don't have that
application before you. I would prefer
that you
you. You
you other
CHAIRPERSON
just stick with what is before
don't have anything else before
than the helical screw.
WEISMAN: That is
correct.
MS. ANDALORO: You should not
consider anything else unless they revise
their application.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Well, it's not
really an application. It's a submission
in writing with a foundation plan. The
Board was concerned originally with the
idea of preservation of the existing
foundation, though part of the basis of
our understanding for demolition and the
percentage that could be salvaged, so that
it wasn't deemed to be a demolition. The
foundation was going to be in part
November 1, 2012 Regular Meeting 7
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
preserved, and it would be raised, you
know, in place. So there is no where to
on the beach?
No.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: On th road?
MR. SAMUELS: No. Okay. So we
understand that.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: So we wanted
put this. I mean,
MR. SAMUELS:
to have in the record, an understanding
a couple of things. First of all, in
using this alternative foundation method,
let's pursue that for a moment. I have
actually asked the Building Inspector to
be here to speak to the public record.
Also, Tom, what additional percentage of
of
demolition is going to be required now
because you are now going to have to use a
new foundation?
MR. SAMUELS: When we calculated the
percentage of demolition required,
initially we did consider the foundation.
So I would say no change, other than the
change itself, we were not looking at the
foundation at the time or we were not
considering the demolition of the
November 1, 2012 Regular Meeting 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
foundation as part of the demolition of
the overall structure when we gave you an
estimated percentage last time. So we are
absolutely still preserving the required
25% of that structure. In fact, we would
be preserving more
certainly going to
requirement regardless
foundation.
than that. We are
meet the minimum
of this change
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
jacking this up
foundation, will
Okay. So
and installing a new
allow you to proceed
originally granted with preserving
portions of the dwelling and so on,
we originally stamped as approved?
MR. SAMUELS: That's correct.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Which what
going and what was being saved and so
MR. SAMUELS: That is correct.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Let's look
was
on?
a moment in the change of elevation. That
was another issue. I understand there is
two things here. One, I think you are now
-- the new plans are at 11 feet, and that
you are involved with seeking a New York
as
those
that
for
November 1, 2012 Regular Meeting 9
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1
2
3
4
5
State Building Code
foot free board --
MR. SAMUELS:
Variance for the 2
consistent with the neighbors, we think
that the nine foot elevation is better.
That's correct. That
is something that we do not have in hand
yet, although -- unless Michael has gotten
in hand anything beyond that on paper, a
verbal understanding from Ricard Smith
from the State that this was appropriate,
that we would -- in other words, satisfy
FEMA requirements, meet the code
absolutely, but have flexibility, so to
speak again, with the State's additional
two foot of free board, as they call it,
which they are -- it sounds like prepared,
although we don't have -- and I think his
hands are full now, even up to the last
few days when we were calling and trying
to get confirmation from him. I would ask
you again just for flexibility. They
obviously meet FEMA and do what they have
to do but those additional two feet are
still in play. In order to keep the house
as much as possible in line with and
November 1, 2012 Regular Meeting 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
The house that we recently did has as a
finished floor elevation of nine foot.
And that house was not effected by the
storm. There was still an additional two
feet of space below it in this storm. So,
you know, obviously this storm could have
been worse, but we were above where the
sea level came. So my request to you is,
yes, we have to meet FEMA, which would be
plus nine. If the State requires us to go
to eleven, then we will of course do that.
It's our desire to minimize the height of
the first floor and still be compliant
with the spirit of the law and also the
practical need to be above any predictable
flood tide.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Tom, at nine
foot elevation, where exactly above the
existing grade would the finished first
floor be?
MR. SAMUELS: Well, the greatest
sloping it comes to about 6 feet in the
front, on the dune side. And it comes
down to about 5, 4 1/2, 5 on the back
side. The house now is at 6.84 foot.
November 1, 2012 Regular Meeting 11
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
That is the first floor elevation
currently as 6.84. Just shy of 7 foot.
So for convenience, it is a little below
that. So we are actually looking to raise
it two additional feet. You know, there
was two inches of water in the house, in
this last storm. So the flood waters came
to about 7 foot in this last storm.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: And at 11
feet, if you don't get the variance?
MR. SAMUELS: At 11 feet, I'm sorry?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: At 11 feet --
MR. SAMUELS: How high would it be
above grade? Well, that would be close to
about 5 foot above grade on the water side
of the house. So it would -- in other
words, I don't have submitted drawings of
that. It's just -- it would definitely
create more. We would still do the
project. I think the owners are committed
to this, but it would just create the
impression of a bump in a row of houses
that are all relatively consistent. Most
of the original houses are at about 7 foot
probably. The new one that we had done a
November 1, 2012 Regular Meeting 12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
few years ago, Archer, was at 9 flat, a
little bit. And the roof line was
designed in a way to minimize that
This is a full two-story -- one and
story house. So we are just trying
work with the character of the
neighborhood.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: And the
pilings wouldn't be visible in either
case?
MR. SAMUELS: No, correct.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Can you
look.
a half
to
you are proposing?
11 feet.
MR. SAMUELS: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Is that the
right foundation plan?
MR. SAMUELS: I can give a detailed
one, but otherwise, yes.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay.
MR. SAMUELS: This is the same
drawing, but the flood line is
representing the red line on that.
please
just come forward and confirm that these
drawings that are here are the ones that
I believe this is at
November 1, 2012 Regular Meeting 13
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Ail right.
Ken, do you have any questions? Before we
get to Mike, or Gerry or Jim, any
questions of Tom?
MEMBER GOEHRINGER:
to the gentleman
if he is here?
MR. SAMUELS: Do
speak
job,
I just wanted to
that is doing the
you mean the
out how high the building is going to be
elevated, and if the building is going to
be absolutely 100% elevated above the
existing foundation, just for the sole
purpose of FEMA. I mean, that's it, to
contractor?
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Yes.
MR. SAMUELS: He is not here. The
job was not formally awarded to the
contractor. We needed to get through this
before we could establish our timeline
appropriately, and really bring somebody
into it. The general contractor that is
favored at this time, has of course been
talking to marine contractors to work out
exactly these details.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: We have to find
November 1, 2012 Regular Meeting 14
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
meet these FEMA requirements, and if there
is going to be any movement of the home
other than the additions that you propose,
you know on that basis.
MR. SAMUELS: What I think, Gerry,
would happen, because it is surrounded on
two sides by an open porch, it is very
likely that it was our intention to
replace that porch anyway. We would have
to remove that porch, and then reconstruct
that porch. The core of the building gets
raised straight up with steel -- like any
house --
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Yeah, like any
house would.
MR. SAMUELS: Right. Then they get
a little bobcat or whatever, and they
remove what they can. And then they get
in there. The actual process of
installing pilings underneath the house, I
can't say I am familiar with that. I
haven't done it, but I am assured with
those that have, including my structural
engineer, that this is done all the time.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: But the point
November 1, 2012 Regular Meeting 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
and question, Tom, when you look at these
foundations, I spent a lot of time on the
South Shore looking at these based upon
the (In Audible) that we had over in
Westhampton. I was responsible for
purchasing all of the easements that they
used. Every one of these are basically a
cross-bridge underneath. How are they
going to do that with steel? Are they
going to roll it? Are they going to put
steel across? You know, how are they
going to get it done?
MR. SAMUELS: This shows the piles.
This shows a pile foundation which is
attached to the top -- (In Audible).
(Stepped away from the microphone.)
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Did you need a
copy of this back?
MR. SAMUELS: No, you could have it.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Jim, do you
have any questions of Tom at the moment?
MEMBER DINIZIO: No.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Maybe, if you
would, the Building Inspector is here. We
thank him very much for taking the time to
November 1, 2012 Regular Meeting 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
come before the Board.
MR. VERITY: Good morning.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Good morning.
MR. VERITY: Mike Verity, Chief
Building Inspector Town of
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
much for being here.
MR. VERITY: Not a
Southold.
Thank you very
problem.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: You have been
involved in discussions with the applicant
about the New York State Building Code
variance for the 2 foot free board?
MR. VERITY: That's correct.
MEMBER DINIZIO: Can you address
that and also speak on the difference in
potential demolition, whether it has to be
11 or at 9? Is there any difference from
your original determination that you
include the foundation --
MR. VERITY: Can I just clarify
flood zone? Is that a VE8; is that
correct?
are
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Yes, it is.
MR. VERITY: So if that is a VE8,
talking 9 over 11.
the
we
November 1, 2012 Regular Meeting 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
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
I need you to
be at the mic so we can get this into the
record.
MR. VERITY: The reason why I am
asking and so that everyone understands
this, I just want to make sure that
everyone is on the same level.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Good.
MR. VERITY: Same playing field.
MR. SAMUELS: VE8 means that the
entire structure must be above that
elevation. So what we are looking to do
is flush frame the girders, with 3x8x12
girders running along the top of the
foundation with the floor framing of the
house. Again, obtain those heights that
we were required by FEMA but also you
know, trying to keep the house down to the
maximum extent possible. We are not
allowed to have mechanical systems below,
wiring. Nothing. It has to be completely
clear underneath the house. So that in a
VE8 Zone, that means that we need that one
foot of structure and then the floor
elevation would be about at 9, probably a
November 1, 2012 Regular Meeting 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
little above 9. Roughly speaking though,
at 9.
MR. VERITY: Just making sure we
have the bench marker. I knew Tom
understood that. I just wanted everyone
else to be clear that it's a VE8. So your
lowest horizontal member, according to
FEMA has to be at 8. Okay. According to
the State, it has to be at 10.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay.
MR. VERITY: And to answer your
question about the State variance. The
State, they're still closed, but I spoke
to the State this morning via cellphone.
And the gentleman that is handling it
said, even if they had to go for a Board
review, there is almost 100% certainty
that they would get their 2 feet of free
board relief. So they are going to try
and do it on a local level but it depends
on the amount of -- I don't want to say
destruction, but on the amount of
reconstruction. So the amount of
demolition for lack of a better word.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay. Our
November 1, 2012 Regular Meeting 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
concern was two-fold. One, and that is
why we really wanted this in the record.
So that we are just clear and there
wouldn't be any problems in the future.
That no additional demolition would put it
into a total demo would be -- would result
as a consequence of this change of
foundation, from the original foundation;
is that correct?
MR. VERITY: Uh-huh. I think we can
really thumb this down, and the only
discussion that we should really be having
is whether or not it exceeds the 75%.
Whether we put the deck of cards
underneath, whether he puts the helical,
whether he puts the pile foundation,
shouldn't even be a discussion, because we
-- the Building Department can write that
permit. If this wasn't Kimogenor Point,
and it was a nonconforming house, a
single-family dwelling on one house and
one lot, we would write this permit
without any discussion. Because of the
uniqueness of that neighborhood and
Kimogenor Point area, we are giving you
November 1, 2012 Regular Meeting 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
the courtesy to look at this. We wouldn't
even consider it any other time. We could
have a house at a 3 foot property line and
we would write the permit.
underneath an existing house would be
automatically. Again, not to repeat
A foundation
done
myself, but the biggest question today is
whether or not they are going to maintain
less than 75%. Any other discussion, it
really doesn't have to be had. I think
it's wasting everyone's time. So that is
only thing that you have to consider.
The biggest
the 75%. I think we
have did in the past
the
It's not even required to have a height
variance. So that is even not a concern.
concern is that they maintain
can do that, as we
recently. It's a
shut and close case, my opinion. You
handle it the way you want to handle it.
But again, whether they find a way to move
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
you're here.
MR. VERITY:
project. It's a
That's why
It's a very simple
very simple process.
It
November 1, 2012 Regular Meeting 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
is just how they have to handle it. I was
out at the project yesterday -- at the
property yesterday. There are areas that
they can move that house, and again, that
is not for me to say, but they have a
triangular area. They can possibly move
it to these possible areas of the side.
As long as they do not disturb the
neighbors sanitary system, but again, that
is for the engineer and the architect to
work out. And I don't think anyone else
has to get involved with that. The only
thing today that I think we have to get
involved with is for them to say, "yes,"
we are going to stay under the 75%. We
are going to comply with the State Code
and comply with under the 75%, and done
deal after that. It's pretty simple.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: But Mike, the
original Notice of Disapproval was also a
setback from the water.
MR. VERITY: It's a setback from the
bulkhead.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Yes.
MR. VERITY: That's correct, but
November 1, 2012 Regular Meeting 22
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
that is not changing.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I understand
that, but I am just saying.
MR. VERITY: But that was already
granted regardless --
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No, I understand
that.
MR. VERITY: If we were discussing
height --
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Yes, I know.
MR. VERITY: Gerry --
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: We are trying to
gain the understanding of the new process
that
they are doing.
MR. VERITY: Yes.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER:
information in the record,
the purpose of this.
And putting that
and that was
MR. VERITY: Yes.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: And to clarify
the elevations.
MR. VERITY: Again, I think based on
the stuff that was submitted to us, it was
submitted to you -- I don't want to say
it's teetering on the line of de minimus,
November 1, 2012 Regular Meeting 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
but it's teetering on the line of de
minimus in our eyes. Maybe not in your
eyes. So maybe that's why I am trying to
stress that point. As long as they're
maintaining that less than 75%, there is
really no change, because the bulkhead
distance was already granted. You are not
with a height variance. You are not hit
with any other variances other than a
nonconforming building with a
nonconforming use because of the Kimogenor
Point make up. So it's really simple.
Really simple.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: It's simple
from your expertise. Before this Board,
it wasn't that clear because we don't
collectively have that expertise. And
when you're talking about from going from
jacking-up the
tearing out a
pilings,
beyond
of our
for us
record,
existing foundation to
foundation and putting in
that often elevates a building
what is typical, and that is part
balancing test. It was important
to have the facts before us in the
for all concerned parties, so that
November 1, 2012 Regular Meeting 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
we can act accordingly, because we do have
a different set of standards than what you
look at.
MR. VERITY: No, I understand that.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: That is why we
appreciate you being here to clarify for
our record what the consequences would or
would
change,
this
not be. In this particular proposed
as a consequence of knowing that
is a different flood zone.
MR. VERITY: I understand.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: We didn't want
to revisit anything else. That has been
granted. No one had a problem with it,
the Board needed to understand that
house would still be preserved using
as originally granted.
MR. VERITY: That's basically what I
am trying to say.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay. Jim,
questions?
MEMBER DINIZIO: No.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Ken?
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Yes, I have a
question. In the Building Department's
but
the
this method
November 1, 2012 Regular Meeting 25
1
2
4
5
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
opinion, is a pile foundation more
preferred or the helical sonotube
MR. VERITY: We are going to leave
that up to the design professionals and
homeowners. That is really their choice.
Again, it's all about cost. It's all
about how they affect the environments,
you know. There is a whole different
mindset from pilings to helical.
a huge difference.
not something that
He's never used it
experienced it before.
There
Like Tom said, it's
they use everyday.
before. I have
Personally, would
even comment on
the attorney, so I
Thank you. So I
I use it, and should I
that? No according to
won't comment on that.
can't really answer that question.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Fair enough.
MR. VERITY: So either one shouldn't
a difference, whether they use field
make
stone foundation for that, whether it's
FEMA compliant, it shouldn't matter to the
Board. It shouldn't matter to us. It's
really for the homeowner, and more
importantly to the designer of the
project
November 1, 2012 Regular Meeting 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
on
how that should be installed.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Okay.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The difference
is, if you put in wood pilings, the house
gets jacked-up but it has to be moved some
place.
MR. VERITY:
accomplish that through
But again, if they can
an agreement with
the neighbors. There is places. Again,
can't comment on that. You know --
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Unless the
house is not only lifted but moved and
certainly there is weight and stress on
the structure that is there. And our
concern is, if that happens, do we begin
to see the domino effect of uh-oh, we
can't maintain these walls anymore --
MR. VERITY: Well, that was my
point. Then they would have to come back,
if they find that out -- either way it has
to be moved. It's going to be raised.
It's just a matter if it's staying here or
if it's going here or over to here.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The LWRP would
want this on the beach.
not
November 1, 2012 Regular Meeting 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
is what I am
MR. VERITY: That
stressing the most.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: If you want to
come and address the Board, you have to
come to the mic. State your name please.
MR. BINGHAM: This is Dan Bingham.
I am the owner, myself and my wife,
Jackie. In regards to moving the house,
and we have thought about this. We
haven't gotten an official permit or what
have you for this, but there is a space in
between our house and our neighbors house
on the land that is co-owned in the
community where we could move it and
temporarily store the house, and/or on the
driveway. So there is some spots that we
can move it as opposed to bringing it onto
the beach, which we recognize would be
some sensitivity on that.
MR. SAMUELS: To address your
question to Mike, I can be a little more
frank, I think, I hope.
MR. VERITY: Can I just comment on
that, again, I think it should be left up
to the homeowner and the designer on what
November 1, 2012 Regular Meeting 28
1
2
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
type of foundation that they want to use,
but if they do put it in the road, as long
as you put in the stipulation or
conditions, that they provide access for
emergency vehicles back and forth. That
all, I think can be achieved. And again
to stress the 75%, once they move it or
raise it or whatever, they have to
maintain it. And they have to understand,
if it goes beyond that, they would have to
go back before the Board. Two simple
things. Again, Tom, at my age, I start to
forget things. So I want to put that out
there before I forgot.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Thank you, Mike.
MR. SAMUELS: I understand that our
application for this re-opening does refer
to the use of piles, but I will state for
the record, that as a designer, I would
probably prefer the simple timber pile
foundation because it is simple. That it
is continuos. It doesn't involve joints.
You have a member which is pounded into
the ground. You know, inserted in a way
which will be there for some time. So I
November 1, 2012 Regular Meeting 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
been on
would prefer
Not just for cost reasons but for
structural reasons as well.
MEMBER DINIZIO: You know I have
the Board a long time. We
the simple timber foundation.
have
have
after
you move a house, as to whether or not you
have any right. In other words, you can
lose it all. It's not 75% anymore. It's
100% of the existing setback, which is an
established setback. Realizing that we
have granted that setback. When we
granted that setback on the fact that the
house wouldn't be destroyed beyond 75%.
And what I am hearing now from both of you
I
is, you would prefer to move the house.
understand the wood pilings, and as a
technician, I would like to have
possible that at any point, that could be
weak. I understand, but we have turned
everything forward. You are building
pieces here. I can see where that is
down homes where people have come and say,
look we are going to move the house across
had this discussion. You know, we
gone back and forth whether or not
November 1, 2012 Regular Meeting 30
2
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
the street or whatever. It was on North
Sea, I don't know if it was you or not --
MR. SAMUELS: Wasn't me.
MEMBER DINIZIO: But in any case, we
turned these things down based on that,
and not withstanding Mike's all we need to
consider is the 75%, if we consider that,
and we consider what we have done in the
past, once you move the house, you have
100% with --
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Yes, you do.
MEMBER DINIZIO: With the decisions
that this Board has made in the past. I
think, if you can address that in some
way?
MR. SAMUELS: Jim, I understand what
you are saying, and that is why we came
back with helical piles, because we knew
that you had that sensitivity, and that
sensitivity is not in my professional
skill set. My attitude would be, the
house is still there on the property. It
still exist as a use, even though you
can't get up to it because it's going to
be 12 feet in the air, until it's put back
November 1, 2012 Regular Meeting 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
on its foundation. From my perspective,
the house still exist and has not been
demolished. It's been moved from its
site, but it is still on the property.
actually exist. I don't know what
happened on North Sea Road, but, maybe
was moved off the property. That is
something different. We came back with
the helical screws because we
sensitivity on your part. So
prepared to do that. But for
telling you that if we could,
pile foundation, in my opinion,
professional opinion, it would
in the long term for the
it
knew of that
for
that house. Because of the simplicity of
the structural system, which has been --
over 500 years ago, that is the simple
technology. The helical screws work. I
have absolute confidence in it. The house
will be fine, but it is just a more
complicated technology. Plus we have to
then bring masonry onto the job, which we
don't have any masonry on the job. In the
timeframe that we are talking about does
It
be better
Bingham's and
we are
the record,
a simple
November 1, 2012 Regular Meeting 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
make a difference, because here we are,
the first day of November. We would like
this project to get going. Concrete is
only going to be running for I don't know
how much longer. So you don't care about
that, and I understand that is not your
concern, and I am not asking you to think
about it at all. I am sort of telling you
a little bit of where I am coming from in
my stated preference for a simple pile
foundation.
MEMBER DINIZIO: I just wanted you
to be aware --
MR. SAMUELS: I understand.
MEMBER DINIZIO: In this case, it's
history, not necessarily our personal
beliefs.
MR. SAMUELS: I understand.
MR. VERITY: And Jim, mine is not a
personal belief. Mine is based on history
and zoning. If they were to come into us
today and put a pile foundation under an
existing house, it wouldn't be standing
here.
MEMBER DINIZIO: I understand that.
November 1, 2012 Regular Meeting 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
MR. VERITY: So whether they raise
it up or more it a little bit. The North
Sea, the attorney is here that
representing that property, it's not
apples to apples. It's apples to oranges,
but
day over a lemonade,
MEMBER DINIZIO:
have had that discussion
gone the way that
know, honestly.
believe that if you
move
we can have that discussion another
if you want?
In all honesty, we
and it hasn't
you think it has, you
Some of us on the Board
move that house, you
Well,
they don't really
that's where it's
already granted.
MEMBER DINIZIO: And I couldn't
agree with more. It carries on to this,
this whole place is nonconforming.
MR. VERITY: That is sort of the big
thing.
MEMBER DINIZIO: You know, we are
have setbacks there. So
different from many properties.
setbacks that they only have is
setbacks from the bulkhead,
the setbacks.
MR. VERITY:
The
the
which was
November 1, 2012 Regular Meeting 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
going down that road --
MR. VERITY: You know, you can
the argument that that is the whole
make
I am going to tell you, we have made
decisions differently. Once you start
moving that house, I am not so sure we can
agree that is not -- you know, doing
something that shouldn't be done. We
granted a setback based on the fact that
the house was not going to be demolished,
and there is some disagreement as to what
actually is 75% and 100%. I think I am
pushing. I know the preferred method,
but --
MR. SAMUELS: Jim, I am pushing too,
but I am pushing from the other side, and
we are prepared to accept your decision,
as long -- well, hopefully, will be at
least up to us, to put a new foundation
underneath this house. But hopefully, the
timber pile foundation, because it seems
purpose of the nonconforming code, but I
think --
MEMBER DINIZIO: I realized
preferred method is these wood piles, but
November 1, 2012 Regular Meeting 35
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
like a simpler solution, but we are
prepared to accept based on the simple
lift and drop of this new foundation and
however you see that.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: That
you have presented?
MR. SAMUELS: That is what we
presented. FEMA -- you know,
to comply with FEMA, with the
is what
have
we are going
State of New
codes and
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: That is really
why we wanted to reopen. We wanted to
make sure that it was still going to be
height conforming and it wasn't going to
be changing a setback. It wasn't going to
MR. SAMUELS: Yes.
York and Southold, and all other
requirements.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Well, the
amended application is to do precisely
what you had originally proposed and what
we had originally granted, which is to do
repairs and additions and alterations, in
place and in kind. Just as you are
listing it and instead of repairing the
foundation, just replacing the foundation?
November 1, 2012 Regular Meeting 36
1
2
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
be a full demolition because we went down
that road twice. So I think now the
record reflects accurately what the Boards
concerns were. Unless the Board has
additional questions or comments, or
anyone else in the audience who would like
to address this application?
(No Response.)
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
that we have no computers and
electricity, and Board Member
could not be here.
We have in the past
applications based upon a
inspections during the
process. What is your
one?
MR.
earlier.
VERITY:
I said
beneficial to the
designer, as well
MR. SAMUELS:
Given the fact
phones and
Horning
One second.
conditioned
series of
construction
feeling about this
foundation inspection,
thereafter,
inspection.
I had recommended that
we would -- it would be
property owner, the
as the Town.
So normally you have a
and a survey
and then there is a framing
Are you looking for something
November 1, 2012 Regular Meeting 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
additional after the framing inspection?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I am asking
Mike.
MR. VERITY: Yes, basically it would
be the amount of demolition at that time.
To make sure that we are all on the same
page. That you are not going to exceed
that 75% and we would rather discuss it
before, than after. That was part of
Jimmy's point.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: In what phase
do you want to do this inspection?
MR. VERITY: After the house is
moved and the foundation is set, then we
could have that site visit.
MR. SAMUELS: Okay.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: You mean lifted?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: You mean
lifted?
MR. VERITY: Yeah, they can lift it
and see. I am sure they would know what's
good and what's bad. I can quickly see
with 20 minutes that I was there
yesterday, what is good and what is bad.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: So when the
November 1, 2012 Regular Meeting 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
foundation is done and the house is
lifted --
MR. VERITY: If you want to back up
a sec, it's something that we can work out
right now? If you want to do it once the
house is raised and take a look at it.
You can do two inspections then. Once the
house is raised, with whomever is doing
the raising of the house, then after the
foundation is set, and before it goes back
on, it shouldn't be much of a change. I
can't see the house falling down once they
move that house back on the foundation.
You can do it in two inspections, if you
would like. Once the house is moved, and
whatever foundation you chose, which
again, I don't think is really that
important.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: We have
testimony from Tom that he inspected this
house and he has looked at some great deal
the foundation portion or the plate
portion of it or whatever you want to say,
and that you said that everything looks
good to you?
November 1, 2012 Regular Meeting 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
MR. SAMUELS: Yes.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER:
we are addressing now.
MR. SAMUELS: There
framing and insulation that
into these walls.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER:
MR. SAMUELS:
whatever schedule
And that is what
may be a lot of
is going to go
Right.
We will comply with
inspections you guys
come up with.
MR. VERITY: I don't know if we
discuss that after or if it needs to be
ironed out now, a two phase inspection
once it is raised and moved, and then
can
prior to going back on the foundation,
because there is probably going to be some
engineering stuff that is going to be at
that point in time. Once you move
something, you might see something that
has to be modified, and I think we have
the ability to handle that between the
Building Department and the owner and the
design professional.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Ken?
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Let me just clear
November 1, 2012 Regular Meeting 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
something up. So what is before us is the
sonotube helical design?
(No Verbal Response.)
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Okay.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Tom, I would
like to make sure that I have from you the
survey, foundation plan, elevations.
Let's assume that the elevation should be
at 11, as originally proposed --
MR. SAMUELS: Okay.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: In which case
it would be less, but I would rather grant
more than less.
MR. SAMUELS: Okay. And not prevent
us from lowering though?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Of course not.
as we
MR. SAMUELS:
meet the code.
Okay. As long
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Yes. If we
condition this based upon you getting
the variance, and you don't get the
variance --
MR. SAMUELS: Yeah, I'm screwed.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Then we go
again. That is not what anybody really
November 1, 2012 Regular Meeting 41
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
wants to do. You may assume all kinds
of things and we are not instructing
anything on what anyone says, you don't
have it. So we don't know whether it's
9 or 11, we don't know. 9 would be
preferable to everybody, but we need from
you what you are proposing to us right
now?
MR. SAMUELS: Okay.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: And I will
make a note that if the variance is
granted from the State, it won't interfere
with --
MR. SAMUELS: Okay. I will get you
all the drawings you need.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: What I am
going to suggest, everyone is experiencing
with the electricity
hurricane, I am going
close this hearing at
now from the
to make a motion to
the Special Meeting
in two weeks. That doesn't mean that we
won't necessarily have a draft prepared,
but if for some reason because the
computers and phones are not up and
running, we need a little bit more time,
November 1, 2012 Regular Meeting 42
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
strictly because of this crisis, then we
will have it. So I will make a motion to
close the hearing at the Special Meeting.
MR. SAMUELS: Okay.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: It gives you
time to get the drawings in also.
MR. SAMUELS: Yes, and we can do
that very quickly, I hope. I am only
again going on the record to say that I
hope that at that Special Meeting that you
will have enough, and I am going to try
and get that to you in advance, so you
will be able to actually make that
decision that day.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: We will try.
You see that is the goal. There is no
desire to delay this. The problem is,
Vicki sends the draft out. Somebody has
to write the draft. Vicki and I review
them. They go back out to Board Members
for review, and then we review it. So the
problem is, some of us have computers and
some of us don't have computers. So we
can't all get them, and some of us can't
type them. You know, it just depends on
November 1, 2012 Regular Meeting 43
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
how quickly we get back up and running.
We will certainly do our best.
MR. SAMUELS: Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: To try and
accommodate all of the applicants before
us today. I think as a prudent procedural
caution, we are probably going to
adjourn --
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I'll second it.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: -- all these
hearings to the Special Meeting. Again
assuming we can have the drafts and just
take care of them that way.
So we have a second on the
adjournment to the Special Meeting, which
is two weeks from today.
Mike, you have concluded your
testimony?
MR. VERITY: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I want to
thank you again --
MR. VERITY: Not a
time.
problem. Any
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: -- for
time.
the
taking
November 1, 2012 Regular Meeting 44
1
2
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. VERITY: And thank you for
listening to me.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: We always
listen to you. We don't always agree, but
we always listen.
So motion and seconded to adjourn --
I guess it is subject to receipt of the
current proposed at 11 feet elevation.
Seconded by Gerry.
Ail in favor?
MEMBER DINIZIO: Aye.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Aye.
(See Minutes for Resolution.)
HEARING %6600 - MICHAEL & DEBRA THOMPSON
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The next
application
Michael and
Request
Section
Inspector's
Disapproval
building
before the Board is for
Debra Thompson, #6600.
for variance from Article XXIII
280-122A and the Building
September 20, 2012 Notice of
based on an application for
permit for partial demolition and
November 1, 2012 Regular Meeting 45
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
~5
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
second story
existing
the code
re-construction to an
family dwelling at: 1) less
required minimum side yard
than
Schwartz for the project.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
copy of the LWRP?
MR. SCHWARTZ: No.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Why don't I
give you a copy. Just for the record,
this is deemed by the coordinator to be
consistent with the LWRP, with a potential
buffer recommendation. And this is from
architect for the project. We are looking
to extend the existing roof line
approximately five foot higher, ridge to
ridge than what is there now. The
Suffolk County for local determination.
Okay, Mark, do you want to state your name
for the record, please.
MR. SCHWARTZ: Mark Schwartz,
Did you get a
setback of 15 feet, 2) less than the code
required combined side yard setbacks of 35
feet, located at: 9280 Nassau Point Road
adjacent to Peconic Bay.
MR. SCHWARTZ: Good morning. Mark
November 1, 2012 Regular Meeting 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
existing floor is going to remain. We are
not extending the footprint on the
nonconforming side at all. This is
basically -- it started as a pitch roof,
now maybe a two-pitch or a three-pitch.
In the inside, we have some tie rods
holding them together, exposed tie rods in
the bedrooms. So we are trying to
eliminate those tie rods, restructure all
the walls and bedrooms. It's all going to
be basically the same. We are not
knocking down the whole second floor.
It's just a roof rip and a higher pitch.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay. We are
looking at two variances, since side yard
setback at 9 feet, where the code requires
15 feet, and a combined side yard setback
of 25 feet, where the code requires 35
feet. You are not changing -- these are
preexisting nonconforming setbacks?
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yes, they are, but I
can see on the enlarged footprint, we are
purposing a deck that does approach a
little bit more than the 16 feet, maybe
it's 14 feet.
November 1, 2012 Regular Meeting 47
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: In the side
yard, it is a 16 foot setback. It is
changing from -- How deep is that deck?
Well, the existing garage is 15 feet. You
are encroaching in the side yard with the
house but not going beyond the 16 feet
that exist at the garage level; correct?
MR. SCHWARTZ: Well, the deck is
going to be about 15 feet off the side
yard, which is a legal side yard, but it
effects the total. So I guess that is why
there is a second variance in here.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Mark, I am
looking at your partial site plan, this
one here, the heavy wade dark line that
goes around, what does that represent?
MR. SCHWARTZ: Those are hay bales.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Okay. The
building envelope on the lower side right
there, 20 feet off the property line, I am
a little bit confused.
MR. SCHWARTZ: That is a good point.
The dimension is to the hay bale and it
should be to the side yard.
November 1, 2012 Regular Meeting 48
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: So the existing
garage, would that be more than 20 feet?
MR. SCHWARTZ: I am just pulling out
the existing footprint. Yes, it is.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: So your building
envelope is 20 feet on the lower portion
of this drawing; correct?
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yes.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: So would you
agree that that might be an error?
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah,
the dimension
the
to the
MR. SCHWARTZ: I think I have it on
the existing conditions of the survey.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Nope.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: I don't recall
seeing a survey.
MR. SCHWARTZ: Well, I have a copy
here if you want it?
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Yes. So that
well -- well, it's a dimension to
legal line. It's not a dimension
side yard.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Did you submit a
copy of the survey or just put it on the
site plan?
November 1, 2012 Regular Meeting 49
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
l0
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
would reduce the combined side yard
setback.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: We don't have
a survey. Let's clarify what is going on
here. We need to have consistent
information. The survey is showing 22
feet for the garage. Your site plan, you
are showing 16 feet.
MR. SCHWARTZ: I am sorry about
that. It's drawn correctly. We just
didn't show the dimension. The 21.2.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: So then to
address your comment about the proposed
wood deck, the wood is proposed in a
conforming location?
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yes. Correct.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Mark, I wanted
to ask you about one of your reasons here.
When you talk about the neighborhood,
character of the neighborhood, you are
talking about roof height, and you don't
have a height variance before us. Your
height is fine.
MR. SCHWARTZ: Except we
the roof in a
are raising
nonconforming side yard.
November 1, 2012 Regular Meeting 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
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Yes, that is
true, but if you are talking about
character of the neighborhood, you need to
talk about other properties that also have
nonconforming side yards, you know that
sort of thing. Do you see where I am
getting at? And it's helpful to the Board
to have this information because then we
can say what you are proposing is
consistent with other setbacks of the
neighborhood. You are increasing the
nonconformity by raising the roof height.
The roof height itself is still
conforming.
it's
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: So it's both,
true, but that would probably be
whether the relief
the neighborhood does not
comparable -- unless
there are comparable
height roofs. Then
to apples.
MR. SCHWARTZ: Okay.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
was substantial because
consist of
you can show us where
setbacks with similar
you are talking apples
It is just
November 1, 2012 Regular Meeting 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
helpful to the Board, as well as any other
application, if applicants and their
agents can really make that comparison for
us. In other words, we will look at
whatever you want to use, but when looking
at other variances in the neighborhood, it
makes a stronger case before the Board.
And the allege difficulty, you say it is
not self created. I mean, the applicant
bought the house where it is at, right?
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: It is self
created.
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: So they were
aware or should have been aware of the
nonconforming nature of the property that
they purchased.
MEMBER DINIZIO: He said, "yes," in
that.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I'm sorry, you
are absolutely right.
MEMBER DINIZIO: Recently, we have
had discussions amongst the Board
concerning what Leslie is trying to
explain to you, that it would be much
November 1, 2012 Regular Meeting 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
better for us to receive the information
from you. So it's kind of a new thing for
you, you know, you convincing us that it
fits in the neighborhood. I know it's a
little bit more work.
MR. SCHWARTZ: I understand.
MEMBER DINIZIO: Then we are not
advocating -- we try to get away from
advocating, looking up information to
justify a variance.
MR. SCHWARTZ: I understand. I was
thinking more about the height.
MEMBER DINIZIO: It probably was
something that you weren't aware of.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Well, the
other thing for example, when we went out
and made a site inspection, the house is
already a large two-story house and has
decent bulkhead setbacks and the side
yards are very well screened on both
sides. The lot is extremely narrow, which
in someway explains why it has
nonconforming side yards. You have a
decent size house on a very narrow lot,
you are going to potentially have
November 1, 2012 Regular Meeting 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
nonconforming side yards. So if it is not
visible from the street and it's not
visible from the neighbors or having an
adverse impact, those are kind of the
things that certainly when I go out and do
a site inspection, that I am looking for.
It is helpful to the Board if those
arguments are made in the public record.
Gerry, do you have any questions of
Mark?
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No, I don't.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: I have a few
more.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Ken.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Can we refer to
the survey that we just made copies? If
you can refer to that, to your site plan,
PS-2.
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yes.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Looking at the
survey first, that would be on the
northern property line. The survey
indicates a side yard setback of 10.1
feet.
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yes.
November 1, 2012 Regular Meeting 54
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 SCHNEIDER: And as you move
easterly along that property line, the
dwelling gets further away from the
property line. Now, let's refer to your
site plan, the site plan shows 10.1 feet,
as does the survey in that same corner.
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yep.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Then in shows 9,
at that other corner. Do you think that
it was some type of computer graphic?
MR. SCHWARTZ: Well, yeah. Yeah.
It's the dimension to the hay bale which
should have been the property line.
10.1 is the closest point.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER:
the closest point. On
southern property line,
the closest point.
MR. SCHWARTZ:
combined
So the 10.1 is
the other side, the
we have 22.1 is
The
you have a
You are
maintaining that; is that correct?
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yes.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: There is no
decrease in any side yard or any combined
Yes.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: So
side yard of 32.2.
November 1, 2012 Regular Meeting 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
side yard?
MR. SCHWARTZ: Correct.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Ken, what did
you say, 32 --
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: 32.2.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: And the Notice
of Disapproval says 25 feet.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Well, the Notice
of Disapproval was referring to, I believe
the site plan.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: It's basing it
on your site plan and not your survey. So
hay bales.
guess we
it's
need
probably looking at the
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: So I
a new site plan.
MR. SCHWARTZ: Definitely.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: And probably
new Notice of Disapproval.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER:
have to be --
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
MEMBER SCHNEIDER:
yes .
a
Well, the numbers
Consistent.
Corresponding,
So can you do that?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: That's easy.
November 1, 2012 Regular Meeting 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
MR. SCHWARTZ: Definitely.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: So we have a
Notice of Disapproval that reflects the
survey.
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yes.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: So the new
construction will be in a conforming
location with respect to side yards?
mean, except for the roof?
MEMBER DINIZIO: Well,
the subject of the variance.
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yes.
the roof is
MEMBER SCHNEIDER:
pitch is about between
combined existing?
MR. SCHWARTZ:
MEMBER SCHNEIDER:
building code for that
current code? That
MR. SCHWARTZ:
want to have roof
pitch is 3 or a 4.
MEMBER
And the roof
two and three
I believe so.
And what is the
since it's not to
is the --
Well, generally you
shingles where a roof
MR.
together
SCHNEIDER: 4 or more.
SCHWARTZ: Holding the roof
is not ideal, and that is why
November 1, 2012 Regular Meeting 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
they want to do it.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: I am just saying,
structurally, you are not to current code.
I just wanted to comment on that. And
what are you raising the pitch to, you
said -- is it on the plan?
MR. SCHWARTZ: No, we don~t show it
on the elevations, I don't think. Itts
about an 8 or 9 pitch.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: You can show it
from a 2 pitch or a 3 pitch going to a 9
pitch, something, if we can get that
information?
MR. SCHWARTZ: Sure.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Because you are
increasing the degree of nonconformance.
I have no further questions.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay. So we
need information from you on the roof
pitch and a new Notice of Disapproval
showing a corrected -- the single side
yard at 9 foot is still accurate, right?
But it's going to be a nonconforming
combined side yard setback and it's not
going to be 25 feet?
November 1, 2012 Regular Meeting 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
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: No,
inaccurate. It's 10.1.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
the combined is 32.2; correct?
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Yes.
going
the 9 is
10.1,
to be within the building
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: You
and then
The deck is
envelope.
know what,
what I think needs to happen, you need to
go back to the Building Department with
the correct information. I have never
seen hay bales drawn. But anyway, Mark,
just make sure you give them the exact
accurate survey
Notice of Disapproval
MR. SCHWARTZ: I
MEMBER SCHNEIDER:
pointed out to me that
side it is proposed at
yard.
anyone
like
and that they give us
that matches it.
will do that.
Vicki just
on the southern
a 20 feet side
MR. SCHWARTZ: Okay.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
else in the audience
to address this
Is there
that would
application?
a
(No Response.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
Anything else
November 1, 2012 Regular Meeting 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
from the Board Members?
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Hearing no
further questions or comments, I am going
to make a motion to adjourn this hearing
to the Special Meeting two weeks from
today subject to receipt of a proposed
roof pitch, and an amended Notice of
Disapproval and a corrected site plan or
survey reflecting the Notice of
Disapproval.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Ail in favor?
MEMBER DINIZIO: Aye.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Aye.
(See Minutes for Resolution.)
HEARING #6602 - EMILIA & ILYA KABAKOV
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The next
application before the Board is for Emilia
and Ilya Kabakov, #6602. Request for
variances from Article III Section
280-15(B & C) and the Building Inspector's
November 1, 2012 Regular Meeting 60
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
September 24, 2012 Notice of Disapproval
based on an application for building
permit to construct an addition to an
existing accessory building at: 1)more
than the code permitted maximum height of
22 feet, 2) more than the code permitted
square footage of 3% maximum, located at:
1700 Park Avenue, adjacent to Great
Peconic Bay in Mattituck.
Again, we have: LWRP showing exempt
and local determination. Do you want a
copy of this, Mark?
MR. SCHWARTZ: Sure.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: So we have
here two very large accessory buildings
that have received previous variances from
this Board. Let's just get the numbers
straightened out here. The propose height
of the addition is what the existing
nonconforming structure is, which is 25.33
feet high, where the code permits a
maximum of 22. And the building will
measure 4,496 square feet in and in AC
Zone it's not supposed to be more than 3%
on lots over 60,000 square feet, and the
November 1, 2012 Regular Meeting 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
as-built's already exceeds that.
December 6, 2007 was the ZBA variance that
denied the proposed additional
construction to the existing storage
building and granted variances for an
as-built accessory building. That is what
happened before this Board in 2007. Your
proposed addition is 350 square feet; is
that correct?
the
MEMBER GOEHRINGER:
application.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
is the square footage that
proposing, Mark?
MR. SCHWARTZ: 322
increasing the footprint
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
the percentage of
be increased?
It says 322 on
What
you are
exactly
4% of the parcel side. It's
pretty small whatever it is.
is second story,
to lot coverage.
the existing
MR. SCHWARTZ:
remove
going to be
Some of it
which doesn't contribute
Are you proposing to
spiral staircase?
Yes.
square feet,
of the building.
And what is
lot coverage that will
The existing structure is
November 1, 2012 Regular Meeting 62
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
see
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay. Let's
what questions the Board has. Gerry?
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Visually, I went
looked at this from the driveway
over and
and this appears to be a fill-in
situation. Is there anything else that I
am missing in your plans?
MR. SCHWARTZ: No, that is what we
are intending to do. Continue with the
same roof line and tie it in, in between
the two structures.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Why is that
necessary? It's a huge.
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yes, it is. I can
show you some photos.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Mark, just so
you are aware, Gerry and myself on this
previous decision, did an interior
inspection. So certainly the two of us
are very well aware of what is in there.
However, I should say for the record
variances run with the land, as you know.
When we grant something, the balancing
test does not permit to include what is
referenced to things that are customized
November 1, 2012 Regular Meeting 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
to a particular personal use, because it
could be used by anybody. They could sell
it. So the personal means of an
individual, in and of itself, are not
sufficient. We have to look at the other
reasons that are in the balancing test.
Personally, I have profound respect for
the Kabakov's. I know they work very
well. They have made wonderful
contributions. The one thing that I can
say about it, the scale is already been
accomplished. It's already in place.
They're there. The proposed addition
fills in a very, very small portion that
is already there. If there is any damage
that is done, it has already been done.
Having said that, we need to look at what
the arguments are beyond that personal
need for additional storage.
MR. SCHWARTZ: I believe when the
building was built, the code for accessory
buildings was not changed to what it is
now. So I think the square footage and
the height of the building was not
nonconforming when they did it.
November 1, 2012 Regular Meeting 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:
It was
certainly there before the accessory
structure law was changed. That's for
sure.
MR. SCHWARTZ: The reason is just
aesthetics to really tie the building
together, and their use.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Well, the
benefit cannot be achieved by a method
feasible because the proposed additional
will create an extension in the storage
area for arts and sculptures and is
critical to the owner. That is not why it
cannot be achieved without a variance.
It's because it is completely
nonconforming. And so, any addition is
going to create the necessity for a
variance. That is why you can not do it
without a variance. It's nonconforming
already. That is why I was confused. In
your application you say the amount of
relief is not substantial because the
proposed addition is only 315 square feet
and a total lot coverage of 11.4%.
Accessory structures are calculated in an
November 1, 2012 Regular Meeting 65
1
2
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
AC Zone based on the size of the structure
relative to the property, but Gerry just
pointed out it looks like a 322 square
foot addition.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Is that only on
the ground floor?
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The 22 is the
total?
MR. SCHWARTZ: No.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: So what's
accurate?
MR. SCHWARTZ: I am not sure this
one is accurate.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: We certainly
need to know that.
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yep.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: We just need
accurate figures. When we have two
different sizes stated in two different
places, we don't know what is accurate.
So you need to just tell us what is
accurate.
Gerry, do you have any questions or
comments?
November 1, 2012 Regular Meeting 66
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 GOEHRINGER: No. The only
comment that I have is that it's an
expansion on a significant nonconforming
building. No question about it. It's not
the percentages as it stands right not.
It's the total of it. I certainly
remember the fact that we had a very
extensive inspection of the premises and
we understand the reasons
have and what they need.
that the or whatever the
Department granted in
for what they
We would hope
Building
2007 would have been
the max that they are doing, and that is
not the case.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Ken?
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Can the applicant
look at placing another accessory building
somewhere else?
MR. SCHWARTZ: We haven't discussed
that at this point. We did generally talk
about it. They would rather not.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The total lot
coverage is only 11.4%. They certainly
have another option of building another
one, as long as it doesn't exceed 750
November 1, 2012 Regular Meeting 67
1
2
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
square feet. Actually, it can exceed more
than that, because it's in a AC Zone. It
can be up to 3%.
MR. SCHWARTZ: What they wanted to
do was connect the two structures together
to use it for what they need to use it.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: What is
happening underneath the staircases?
MR. SCHWARTZ: Just more storage.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: They are not
changing the height and they are not
encroaching on
really a very,
addition.
the side yard. So it's
very small proposed
Having said that, it's very
difficult to justify
nonconforming. That
MR. SCHWARTZ:
for a small addition.
are doing.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
or questions?
That
any expansion that
is what this is.
They are just looking
is what they
Jim, comments
encourage
is
MEMBER DINIZIO: Well, I mean our
existing law with respect to accessory
structures seems that the Town wants to
smaller accessory structures on
November 1, 2012 Regular Meeting 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
properties. So adjoining these two
buildings together lies in the face of
that. You can attach it to the house and
not even need a variance. We had that
discussion the last time the Kabakov's
came before us, and I think the Town is
concerned about the size of the accessory
structures because they are large. They
want to inhibit that in some way. Asking
to adjoin these two buildings together
lies in the face of that. If you can give
us some compelling reason other than the
fact that these two large projects, and I
say that because if they sell the land and
the next owner is the owner of Nascar
cars. And he wants to store them in the
building, which appears to be big enough
to put garage doors and tune up cars, now,
we have our neighbors, one of which I
know, tuning up his Nascar, because we
encouraged a building that size. So I am
compelling reasons
they do. I know
a good friend of mine.
people on a different
going to need some more
why. I understand what
Dave Kappel. He is
He represents these
November 1, 2012 Regular Meeting 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
side. I have seen their work. It's
really neat stuff, but there is a reason
why they make industrial zoning. So you
can do these things and show this kind of
art work. That is what it is for. To
show this kind of business. How far do
you take that? Whose an artist and who
isn't an artist? I think Gerry will
remember, we had a particular welder or
glass blower trying to convince us --
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I remember it
well.
MEMBER DINIZIO: Then we had someone
come and say that is not art. So I think,
you know, I personally, would like to hear
more compelling reasons why should we
increase an nonconformity that was already
granted. Increasing a nonconformity that
we have already granted. I think that
there is
your
no compelling reason for that, in
MR. SCHWARTZ: I can't
we want to connect these two
to have similar height. So that
you are looking at it, it's not a
than
buildings
when
tell you more
November 1, 2012 Regular Meeting 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
building and another building.
MEMBER DINIZIO: It will only be
conforming to the point where it would
look like a building but the building
itself is totally nonconforming. You
know, we granted a variance for that, and
for you now to add onto that, I don't see
on what
that.
to the
any compelling reason certainly
you have written down. It says
Considering the next variance goes
next person.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
one second, Jim.
corrections that I
Excuse me for
I just see some minor
want to check with you,
Mark. It is really one building. I think
they are just creating an in fill. They
are not two separate buildings. They are
already attached.
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: You are
removing an interior stair and having an
exterior connection from one part of the
building to another part. It already
exist in place, is that correct?
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yes.
November 1, 2012 Regular Meeting 71
1
2
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
I5
I6
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: There are
other separate buildings on the property.
You are proposing to put a little bit on
the ground floor that fills in something
on the concrete pad, and then raise it up
to the existing roof height?
MR. SCHWARTZ: Correct.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I just want to
be sure. It's just making a really big
building bigger by 322 or 315 square feet.
So we need to first of all know that, the
total square footage of the building and
proposed.
Is there anyone in the audience that
wishes to speak? Come forward and give us
your name for the record.
as
spell
MR. MAKUCEWICZ: John Makucewicz.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Would you
your last name, please?
MR. MAKUCEWICZ:
M-A-K-U-C-E-W-I-C-Z.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Thank you,
sir. What would you like us to know?
you the neighbor?
MR. MAKUCEWICZ: Yes. The only
Are
November 1, 2012 Regular Meeting 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
concern that I have, where they are
putting the second floor addition, there
is a power line that feeds our house and
two other homes. What are they going to
do with the power line?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Where does --
MR. MAKUCEWICZ: It goes right over
the roof of the first floor. So if they
put a
power
second floor, they can't have a
line above that. So where would
they put a power line that feeds our house
Maybe you can
and two other homes?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
address that, Mark?
MR. SCHWARTZ:
the power line.
MR. MAKUCEWICZ:
be the second time.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
come
We plan on raising
Again? This would
forward and state your name.
MR. BEEBE: My name is Sid Beebe. I
am a general contractor, and I do work at
the Kabakov's house. When we raised that
line to the first floor, we just felt that
in the future that they might want to put
You have to
November 1, 2012 Regular Meeting 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
approve,
enough.
bit
a second story on there, but LIPA did not
and did not raise it quite high
So they have to raise it a little
further.
MR. MAKUCEWICZ: So you have to put
new poles in again?
MR. BEEBE: I don't know. I have
not spoken to LIPA.
MR. MAKUCEWICZ:
it above the roof at
You have to raise
least 10 feet. It's
be across the roof
not even supposed to
with power lines.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
second. I do need to let
you are not allowed
You have to address
MR. MAKUCEWICZ: I'm
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
You are not aware.
often. So you have
MR. MAKUCEWICZ:
years ago and said why
across that roof, and I
mine. And they said
to code. So if they
Just one
you know that
other.
to address each
the Board.
sorry.
It's okay.
You don't do this very
to ask questions.
LIPA came to me two
is that power line
said it is not
that is not according
put two new poles in,
November 1, 2012 Regular Meeting 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
one on my
property and one on the
Kabakov's, and raise it up 25 feet -- so
my concern is that if they raise it 22
feet -- still only going to be a couple
feet below the power line. So do they
have to put all new poles in again, and
that going to affect my house and my
second house, whether I have to put new
poles in.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
road.
power
I don~t know
of
is
MR. BEEBE: The electrician that was
dealing with them could answer better than
I can. I can only say we raised the lines
-- the lines were raised a foot, if that,
DINIZIO: Well, it's their
easement. It's probably their easement.
They are not going to give up an easement.
They might put them underneath the ground.
that anyone can answer that.
MR. BEEBE: We asked them -- there
power on the main road as far as the
We asked them about eliminating the
through there but they refused. I
guess it is too big of a job for them to
do.
MEMBER
November 1, 2012 Regular Meeting 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
above the original roof line as it was.
And the pole that was changed on the
Kabakov's property was old and she was
concerned that it was going to fall over
at some point and rot. So she wanted a
new pole. So we had asked them to raise
it above the roof line of the existing
second story structure. I can't tell from
where it is, whether it's above it or not.
That is what they were asked to do. I
don't know what is the height point from a
ridge to a power line.
MR. MAKUCEWICZ: I have been in the
business for over 30 years and you are not
allowed to put a line over an existing
roof.
MR. BEEBE: I
certainly didn't put
the structure there.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: One of the
things that might be possible is you,
the builder, to
is possible and what
do should a variance
the consequences.
MR. MAKUCEWICZ:
as
investigate with LIPA what
they're proposing to
be granted, what are
I have no trouble
November 1, 2012 Regular Meeting 76
1
2
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
that
am just
and how that
me and two
with the variance at all. I
worried about the power line
is going to effect everybody,
other persons next to us.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Right. So
is a very important point you made
and certainly something you would want to
know regardless what the Board does here.
You would want to know.
MR. BEEBE: I would prefer that the
lines were higher.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Is it possible
for you to find out?
MR. BEEBE: I can do my best.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: You would need
to know. If you are going to build that
addition, you would have to know. Find
out now rather than later.
MR. BEEBE: Right.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Is there
anyone else in the audience who wants to
address this application?
(No Response.)
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Hearing no
further questions or comments, I am going
November 1, 2012 Regular Meeting 77
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
to make a motion to adjourn this hearing
to the Special Meeting two weeks from
today, subject to receipt of additional
information from Mark, relative to the
square footage and any other arguments
that you would like to make in regards
the impact of the proposed addition
information regarding the height of
poles and what would have to happen.
Something from LIPA.
Is there a second?
to
and
these
MEMBER DINIZIO: Aye.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Aye.
(See Minutes for Resolution.)
HEARING #6601 - DIANE B. RYAN
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The next
application before the Board is for Diane
B. Ryan, %6601. Request for variance from
Article XXIII Section 280-124 and the
Building Inspector's September 18, 2012
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Ail in favor?
November 1, 2012 Regular Meeting 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
Notice of Disapproval based on an
application for building permit for
partial demolition and
additions/alterations to an existing
single family seasonal dwelling at:
1) less than the code required front yard
setback of 40 feet, both streets on this
corner lot, located at: 320 Fleetwood
Road, corner Hamilton Avenue in Cutchogue.
Is someone here to represent the
application?
MR. MCGAHAN: Hi, my name is Doug
McGahan. I am the agent and general
contractor for the project. I live in
Cutchogue in the neighborhood. Close to
the subject property.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Do you have
some additional green cards?
MR. MCGAHAN: Yes, I have one
additional card and one --
(Stepped away from the microphone.)
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay. We have
a proposed front yard setback of 12.9
feet, and that would be on Hamilton, and
31.11 feet. The code requires front yard
November 1, 2012 Regular Meeting 79
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
setbacks of 40 feet in both locations.
MR. MCGAHAN: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: It looks
you are going to maintain the existing
setback on Hamilton, which is the 12.9
feet and to encroach 8.6 feet to
Fleetwood,
to be
porch, one-story
that accurate?
MR. MCGAHAN: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
a year round home?
MR. MCGAHAN: It is in an
to construct a small front
for a water view. Is
like
effort to
create a more year round home. I think it
was depicted at 30.11 inches, which is --
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Yes, what I am
saying is that you are going to be
decreasing --
MR. MCGAHAN: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The existing
front yard setback by 8.6 because that is
the depth of the porch --
MR. MCGAHAN: Yes, that is correct.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Ail right. So
tell us what you would like us to know, if
This is going
November 1, 2012 Regular Meeting 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
you would?
MR. MCGAHAN: This obviously is a
corner lot and the house has been there
since at least my time. The only view
that they have towards the water is the
view off the side that is presently facing
the Fleetwood Road. And I think the main
concern she wants to have a porch there is
so she can sit out there and enjoy the
view. It is the only side of the house
that she has that view from. The house
built very close, the 12.9 feet from
it has
Hamilton Avenue, which is the way
been and the way it will be. The
architect didn't want to encroach any
further. Obviously we would never get the
variance and the only reason why we are
encroaching this is for a porch. One of
her real desires is to have a front porch
to sit on and enjoy the views. There is
no other way to put a porch on that house.
Ascetically, the porch should be on the
front of the house, a covered porch to
still have that cottage style look to it.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: When I looked
November 1, 2012 Regular Meeting 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
at the size of the lot, which is pretty
substantially, it is a lot of wooded area
to one side there. Why not just demo the
thing and just build something that you
want that is a little more conforming with
regard to Hamilton, at least?
MR. MCGAHAN: A lot of it was a cost
issue. She didn't have the means for
doing that and it was beyond her budget.
She has been in the house for quite a
while and she loves the charm of the
house. The kitchen area and the side area
of the house on the Hamilton side has been
renovated, and she just feels if she can
achieve her goals with your blessing, it
would be so much easier for her
financially and help accomplish her goals.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Are you going
to preserve the foundation?
MR. MCGAHAN: The existing house has
no foundation. It was built on pilings.
The new addition over towards the wooded
bedroom area will have a crawl space
foundation under it.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: So there is no
November 1, 2012 Regular Meeting 82
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
foundation existing
space.
MR. MCGAHAN: Correct.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Jim?
MEMBER DINIZIO: I had
time with your A.1 drawing.
and a proposed crawl
a real hard
just ask you a question. Why can't you
take that piece that is nonconforming and
move it to the other side and not even ask
for variance? Is there a reason?
MR. MCGAHAN: You mean to demo the
house?
MEMBER DINIZIO: No. I mean, you
can keep the 12.9, because the house exist
there. You are adding on to the back of
the house from Hamilton.
MR. MCGAHAN: Yes.
MEMBER DINIZIO: The piece that you
want to add on of the porch, why can't you
do whatever is not increasing the
nonconformity, just move it to the other
MR. MCGAHAN: Most of that, Jim, is
deck footing.
MEMBER DINIZIO: I was trying to
make heads and tails out of it. Let me
November 1, 2012 Regular Meeting 83
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
side? Is there a reason?
MR. MCGAHAN: That side, it's really
just bedrooms. I have the blueprint for
the house, if you would like to see it.
MEMBER DINIZIO: I just wanted to
know if there was a compelling reason.
MR. MCGAHAN: She wants to have the
porch off the general living area of the
house, which is already existing on that
side of the house. The only addition she
is putting on is bedrooms and one bathroom
for those bedrooms. The existing living
area,
right
there
wouldn't
porch.
existing kitchen area and porch
there -- to have a new porch over
by the new bedrooms, it certainly
be the most
I understand
have pushed the whole
again, that is just a
MEMBER DINIZIO:
conforming lot?
MR. MCGAHAN: Yes,
MEMBER DINIZIO: That
MR. MCGAHAN: Yes.
MEMBER DINIZIO: What
logical place for a
your point, we could
house back, but
cost issue.
This lot, is that a
it is.
is 40
feet?
about a patio
November 1, 2012 Regular Meeting 84
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
instead of a deck?
MR. MCGAHAN: Well, she is going to
have a deck out back. Her real desire was
to have a covered front porch which adds
to the charm of the house. She really
liked the cottage charm of it. The house
is a good elevation from the ground. So
to walk down five or six steps to a patio,
at her age, she would rather have a front
porch with a rocking chair, and I don't
have any other real reason other than
that.
MEMBER DINIZIO: How many square
feet is actually going to be from the 40
foot line? How many square feet is that?
MR. MCGAHAN: It's on a diagonal.
So maybe about 100, at guest.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: You know the
way you have this drawn, Jim has a point.
You have an existing screen porch which is
within that setback.
MR. MCGAHAN: Actually, on that side
of the house, it's not a screened porch.
It's an existing -- it just has windows in
it.
November 1, 2012 Regular Meeting 85
6
7
8
9
t0
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1
2
3
4
5
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: But it's
labeled existing screen porch, okay.
MR. MCGAHAN: That is mislabeled.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The question
is, could that not be converted to the
porch that you are proposing, and then be
within the right location for its
relationship to the other floor plan? I
am looking at the site plan right now.
The proposed new porch, the part blackened
in that would be encroaching the front
yard setback and to the left of that, I
can't read what it says. What is that
proposed, or is that existing? It looks
like existing? I am reading the plan. Is
that
an existing bedroom?
MR. MCGAHAN: The dark
proposed new area.
yOU.
void.
room?
area is the
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay. I got
It is not on this plan, it's just
MR. MCGAHAN:
That empty square
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The one that
adjacent to the proposed porch?
a
November 1, 2012 Regular Meeting 86
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. MCGAHAN: That is the existing
glass-in area.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: No, we are not
looking at the same thing. Proposed
porch, look at the floor plan and to the
right of that, that space. It looks like
a covered porch and it's not labeled, and
I can't really tell. That is within
the --
MR. MCGAHAN: Can I take a look at
yours?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Yes, please.
Do you see what I am talking about?
room.
MEMBER DINIZIO: It's confusing.
MR. MCGAHAN: This is the glassed-in
This is the new porch that we are
adding on. The line goes through here.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: So what I am
trying to point out, the piece to the
right is within a conforming setback?
MR. MCGAHAN: Yes, it is.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: And that is a
proposed porch, a much smaller one, and
the steps don't count.
MR. MCGAHAN: Right.
November 1, 2012 Regular Meeting 87
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
1
2
3
4
5
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Jim, other
questions?
MEMBER DINIZIO: I guess you are not
going to move it. It should be where you
want it to be. I thought it was easier
for her to get out and not go down a bunch
of stairs --
MR. MCGAHAN: That side of the house
is a bit higher. It's like six steps.
MEMBER DINIZIO: Okay. Six steps.
Okay. I just wanted to --
MR. MCGAHAN: I understand. The
architect, I am sure he explored a lot of
options. I was not involved in the design
phase.
MEMBER DINIZIO: I think if you had
positioned the drawing the same as the
survey, then I would have been able to
figure it out.
MR. MCGAHAN: Right.
MEMBER DINIZIO: You say in your
reasons that the existing dwelling and the
sides of the Ryan property have setbacks
equal or less than that which is proposed.
Can you supply us with that information?
November 1, 2012 Regular Meeting 88
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
~9
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. MCGAHAN: I don't have surveys
for those properties. When I was there
looking things over, I measured the
distance of the house to what appears to
be the road. There is a fence there.
There is a monument on Diane's side.
There isn't a monument on the other side.
I don't think the garage has the same
requirement.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: No, it
doesn't.
MR. MCGAHAN: In that neighborhood,
the houses are very close to the road. It
was built way back when. Seasonal
cottages without heat.
MEMBER DINIZIO: That is what I am
getting at, if what you say is true, this
is how it works and it's within 300 feet,
then I am wondering why you even need a
variance?
MR.
MCGAHAN: Because it's been
there forever, I believe.
MEMBER DINIZIO: There is an
existing setback on the 12 foot side.
MR. MCGAHAN: I was talking about
November 1, 2012 Regular Meeting 89
1
2
3
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
the side that faces Fleetwood. The houses
that face Fleetwood are close to the road
just like what we have here.
MEMBER DINIZIO: The Fleetwood side,
right now you are 40 feet away.
MR. MCGAHAN: Right.
MEMBER DINIZIO: You are just asking
for --
MR. MCGAHAN: 8 feet.
MEMBER DINIZIO: Right. Is the
house next door, because I didn't look --
MR. MCGAHAN: The house next door is
situated in a very similar --
MEMBER DINIZIO: 40 feet or --
MR. MCGAHAN: No, it's less than 40
feet.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Are you
talking about the cottage on the other
side of Hamilton?
MR. MCGAHAN: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: It looks to
me, that both the Hamilton and Fleetwood
side, the cottage with the white and green
on it, is a little bit bigger than the
existing.
November 1, 2012 Regular Meeting 90
1
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. MCGAHAN: Hamilton is a little
bit bigger. I didn't measure it. The
house is what it is. Towards Fleetwood,
the houses are
from the road.
all about
Yes.
WEISMAN:
the same distance
and give us some
DINIZIO:
draw them, you know,
our records. You
additional 8 feet.
MR. MCGAHAN:
lives on,
setbacks.
MEMBER
big front yard setbacks.
helpful to the Board, if you
along Fleetwood, on the side
They have very
So what would be
could go
your client
of those
Even if you hand
something to have in
know, to justify that
Okay. Sure. I am not
a surveyor, but I will certainly take
pictures and show you which ones are
close. There is really only that one
cottage and a couple of lots that are
set
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I think along
that side, but on the other side of
Fleetwood there is a couple of large
houses.
MR. MCGAHAN:
CHAIRPERSON
November 1, 2012 Regular Meeting 91
1
2
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
further
is just
there.
MEMBER
little maps
back, and towards the other side
the garage on her vacant lot
DINIZIO:
there and you
doesn't have to be really
MR. MCGAHAN: Sure,
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
new entry porch, you don't
steps, it looks a little bit
Even if you do the
draw it in, it
accurate.
I understand.
The proposed
count the
more than --
50% would be nonconforming?
MR. MCGAHAN: I think
less than 50%.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
good if maybe we had the
the percentage of that.
less the impact, the better
regards to nonconformance.
a little bit
So it would be
square footage or
You know, the
it is with
It's not like
-- 700 square feet makes a difference.
This is a small percentage.
could provide that and some
CHAIRPERSON
MR. MCGAHAN:
of nonconforming or comparable
MR. MCGAHAN: Along that same
WEISMAN: Yes.
Okay.
So if you
other examples
setbacks.
road?
November 1, 2012 Regular Meeting 92
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1
2
3
4
5
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: And one of the
standards that we have to apply is the
character of the neighborhood.
MR. MCGAH~N: Okay. I did go down
the road and that is why I stated that in
my application that it is similar to the
neighborhood.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: You can go on
scale it out. It's not
can draw a line where
Google Earth and
as accurate. You
they are relative to what
proposing.
you are
MEMBER DINIZIO: To make what you
propose useful, you have to have it on a
part of the house you can enter it. You
are not going to enter a bathroom. You
are not going
MR. MCGAHAN: They
so they can have it open
room of the porch.
to enter into a bedroom.
want to have it
from the living
MEMBER DINIZIO: Yes. I just wanted
to establish that.
MR. MCGAHAN: Yes.
MEMBER DINIZIO: Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Gerry?
November 1, 2012 Regular Meeting 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
MEMBER
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
MEMBER SCHNEIDER:
dead-end there?
MR. MCGAHAN: No.
GOEHRINGER: Ho questions.
Ken?
Hamilton
is a
Hamilton goes
MEMBER GOEHRINGER:
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
MEMBER DINIZIO: Aye.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER:
MEMBER SCHNEIDER:
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
Aye .
Aye.
Aye.
Second.
Ail in favor?
between the Fleetwood Road and Glenwood
Road.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Okay.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Is there
anyone in the audience who wishes to
address this application?
(No Response.)
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I am going to
make a motion to adjourn this hearing to
the Special Meeting subject to receipt of
the square footage of the proposed porch,
the percentage of the proposed porch
encroaching and the examples of other
nonconforming setbacks from Fleetwood.
November 1, 2012 Regular Meeting 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
(See Minutes for Resolution.)
HEARING %6604 - DAVID KORCHIN & JOAN RENTZ
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The next
application before the Board is David
Korchin and Joan Rentz, #6604. Request
for variances from Article XXIII Section
280-124
July 27,
Notice
and the Building Inspector's
2012m updated October 4, 2012
of Disapproval based on an
application for building permit for "as
built" shed and deck addition to an
existing single family dwelling at: 1)
less than the code-required minimum side
yard setback of 10 feet; 2) less than the
code required rear yard setback of 35
feet, located at: 2085 Bay Avenue,
adjacent to Marion Lake in East Marion.
State your name for the record,
please.
MS. KRAMER:
Meryl Kramer. I
owner.
to do
replacing
Hello. My name is
am a architect for the
I am actually -- I have been hired
some interior renovations and
windows and doing a small wood
November 1, 2012 Regular Meeting 95
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
lattice type screen on the entry porch and
extending the covered porch on the end
lightly. But before I do that, I wanted
to get the house into compliance. The
owners had done some of the work. There
was a shed 8x12 shed on the back of the
house in place of where the wood deck is
now. That was moved or removed and the
deck was built. And they built the shed
and the outside shower on the side yard.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: So we have an
"as built" shed and a 3.3 foot setback
from the side yard, where the code
requires 10. And we have a deck addition
at 24.9 feet rear yard and the required
setback is 35 feet. We also have
consistency determination from the LWRP
coordinator reminding us that the Trustees
permit was only for the deck on
July 18, 2012, and they established a
non-disturbance buffer from the picket
fence to Marion Lake, and the LWRP
recommends that the buffer be shown on the
survey.
MS. KRAMER: I was just reading that
November 1, 2012 Regular Meeting 96
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
because
I just received that now from
Vicki, I am not sure when they say "picket
fence?"
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Yes, there
used to be a iow white picket fence that
is now brick looking.
MS. KRAMER: The one right in the
wetlands area? So it's in -- there is
nothing on the survey and they are asking
us to show it on the survey?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Yes, because
the Trustees, and he recommends
maintaining it, is that they require that
and it is non-disturbed now. They're not
asking for anything else now. Mark is
just suggesting that we show that as a
non-disturbance buffer on the survey and
that the fence be located on the survey.
leaders as
fertilizer,
Also that the applicant meets with
compliance of Chapter 236, which they
going to have to do anyway.
MS. KRAMER: Right.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Gutters and
you know. And no use of
or pesticides on
are
herbicides
November 1, 2012 Regular Meeting 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
the lawn area. Would you like to address
that in any way?
MS. KRAMER: I will forward the
information to the owners. And I need to
check my application to the Trustees which
was not a public hearing. It was an
administrative permit. I thought the shed
was on there, but I will take care of it.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
probably not within their
It is landward of
would probably be
addition.
The shed is
jurisdiction.
the house. So they
only addressing the deck
MS. KRAMER: Okay.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: You can check
with Elizabeth from the Trustees. I am
not sure it's within their jurisdiction.
So Ken, do you have an questions?
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Yes, sure. What
is the use of the shed?
MS. KRAMER: Storage. I mean, right
now the house is incredibly small as you
know, and there are no closets in the
house. I believe that they put furniture
or whatever fall items, lawn furniture,
November 1, 2012 Regular Meeting 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
pillows. Things like that in shed.
Rakes, hoses. That type of thing.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The survey is
really tiny.
MS. KRAMER: Would you like a
larger?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: That would
certainly be helpful.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: To serve the same
function, could one be placed somewhere
else on the property in a conforming
location?
MS. KRAMER: I suppose it could.
The thing that is nice about this shed is
that it is only about 5 foot tall, and
it's -- so it is nonobtrusive visually.
And as you can see, the neighbors property
has a shed on it and it's only -- I think
it's only 4.1 -- no, 1.4 from the property
line. I find that much more visually
invasive because it's a higher, 6 or 7
foot tall structure. Whereas this is kind
of nestled up on the side of the house,
because visually goes away. Rather than a
separate shed that would be in the middle
November 1, 2012 Regular Meeting 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
of the small property. I mean, it's only
30 foot side yard but the whole house is
20 feet and the whole property is 60 feet.
Anything you put there, although it might
conform, would be visually more offensive.
I think that is my opinion. That is just
my observation.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: It would have
to be in a front yard. Is this an extra?
Can we have that?
MS. KRAMER: Sure.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: The shower stall,
could the shower stall be located in
another location?
MS. KRAMER: I think it's the exact
same -- to be up against the house, it
would be on the -- you have pictures, it
would have to be on the public side of the
house on the side yard, is that what you
are referring to?
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: I am just asking
a question.
MS. KRAMER: Potentially it could
be. It would be on the entry approach
side of the house. So there wouldn't be
November 1, 2012 Regular Meeting 100
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1 the privacy.
2 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Could it be
3 incorporated into the deck somehow?
4 MS. KRAMER: Well, it kind of is
5 now. It's wrapped around the side but the
walkway kind of continues. It steps down.
Right now it's landward of the rear of the
house. We wouldn't want to put it by the
water any further, correct? So the only
place it would either have to go would be
on the front of the house attached to the
front porch, which would be odd or on the
western side of the house, which is -- it
feels like a front yard but there is real
no front yard.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Okay. I have no
further questions at this time.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
Gerry?
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I have no
questions.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I will say
that there is in place a stockade fence
the side yard and the house -- adjacent
house is quite far away from that. And
because the shed and the shower are very
November 1, 2012 Regular Meeting 101
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1t
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
low profile in height, it really doesn't
have -- it has no visual impact at all.
The deck is also very low to the ground.
There is a huge side yard on the other
side for emergency equipment. Frankly,
given the size of the lot, seems to me
putting in a very compact location of the
side yard that isn't very useful in
keeping much anyway. It doesn't have, in
my mind, again, the Board members have
their own perception, but in my mind it
really isn't problematic. Not very
intrusive on anybody.
Jim, do you have any questions or
comments that you would like to make?
MEMBER DINIZIO: Why can't you make
it a patio?
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: You mean the
deck?
it's
MEMBER DINIZIO: Yes. I mean I know
there. If you put it on the ground
you don't need a variance.
MS. KRAMER: I suppose it would take
-- the deck is fairly small, and it would
take -- you would need at least three feet
November 1, 2012 Regular Meeting 102
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
for a landing to get out. So this is only
8 foot in change, the deck itself. So you
would still need -- I guess you would gain
five feet, a landing is exempt and you
would need to have the french doors. So
it would be marginally better, I suppose.
You would want to be at the level of the
house, and that is the advantage of the
deck.
MEMBER DINIZIO: So you just want to
be able to walk out from the house onto
the deck instead of stepping down,
correct?
MS. KRAMER: Yes. Stepping down and
I think marginally you would be improving
the situation because you would need to
have a substantial size stoop, which is
exempt from the code because it's not --
MEMBER DINIZIO: The stoop is 10xl0
regardless.
MS. KRAMER: A 10xl0 is allowed.
MEMBER DINIZIO: Yes.
MS. KRAMER: Let's just round up and
say about 9. So it's about double.
MEMBER DINIZIO: It's 100 square
November 1, 2012 Regular Meeting 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
feet. I just wanted to establish that.
needed to ask that question because you
could just lay stones on the ground. I
wanted to establish what you are gaining
aside from the fact of leaving it just
way it is.
MS. KRAMER:
Well, right now,
to ask the -- because of the storm that
just had, the deck has actually been
uprooted somewhat. The footings, the 3
foot
I
the
I need
we
did work on the
MS. KRAMER:
WEISMAN: Yes.
And for the record, I
house directly adjacent
to
want to make sure. I think
make sure before they
problem but we
they would want to
did the work again.
CHAIRPERSON
sonotube's have been uprooted.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Really. That
was the surge.
MS. KRAMER: Yes.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Wow.
MS. KRAMER: It must have been
uplifted. So the owners would like to put
it back the way it was. Obviously, if we
are getting the variance that won't be a
November 1, 2012 Regular Meeting 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
it years ago, and they do have a very
similar configuration with a shower on the
same side as -- because they are also very
close to the property line. This survey
doesn't show the house but it is
configured very
similarly.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The house with
shed or the other side?
MS. KRAMER: The house with the
the
shed.
MS. KRAMER:
similar location.
CHAIRPERSON
this is a
MS.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay.
The shower is in
WEISMAN:
seasonal cottage.
KRAMER: Yes.
a
anyone else in the audience who
address this application?
Response.)
there
wishes to
{No
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I think of it
a little differently than a seasonal
house.
MEMBER DINIZIO: Well, setback is
setback whether you live there or not.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay. Is
Okay. Well,
November 1, 2012 Regular Meeting 105
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, I am going to make a
motion to adjourn this hearing to the
Special Meeting which we are doing,
because we are not sure what we are going
to be able to accomplish without power,
with the computers and so on.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: That gives us
two weeks. We will try and have this in
place anyway.
MS. KRAMER: Okay.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
Aye.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER:
MEMBER SCHNEIDER:
Seconded by Gerry.
Ail in favor?
MEMBER DINIZIO:
Okay.
Aye.
Aye.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Aye.
(See Minutes for Resolution. )
HEARING #6603 JOSEPH M. MELLY
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The next
application before the Board is for Joseph
M. Melly, ~6603. This is a request for a
November 1, 2012 Regular Meeting 106
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1
2
4
5
6
Waiver of Merger under Article II, Section
280-10a, to unmerge land identified as
SCTM# 1000-104-2-24, based on the Building
InspectorTs June 14, 2012, updated
September 10, 2012 Notice of Disapproval,
which states adjoining conforming or
nonconforming lots held in common
ownership shall merge 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 #1000-104-2-23, located
at: 1375 and 1475 Sterling Road, corner
of Horton Road in Cutchogue.
Good afternoon.
MS. ROMANELLI: Good afternoon.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Would you
please state your name for the record?
MS. ROMANELLI: Sure. Leann
Romanelli.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay, Leeann,
so this one is rather unusual. We are
going to need you to explain what
happened. There was of course a Waiver of
Merge granted by this Board in 1997,
November 1, 2012 Regular Meeting 107
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Decision #4508.
MS. ROMANELLI: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The lot was
created by deed on February 6, 1967. The
present owner purchased this property on
October 9, 2009. Somehow due to improper
estate planning, these lots remerged. So
can you explain what exactly happened
here?
MS. ROMANELLI: Yes. It has been
owned by the same family, both lots since
'70, by the father. I don't know when it
was merged the first time. Like you said
'97 was a Waiver of Merge and since then
and all the estate planning, they were
transferring everything to Joseph M.
Melly, in which they had that all in deed.
And then the father got sick and the
paperwork never got to where it was
supposed to get to file it or do --
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Both lots
MS. ROMANELLI: Both lots.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Both lots
that
were unmerged?
November 1, 2012 Regular Meeting 108
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
MS. ROMANELLI: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Was
transferred to senior or junior?
MS. ROMANELLI: They have
been in senior's name and then
through the estate to Joseph M.,
always
transferred
from what
So both
I understand from the deed.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
lots --
MS. ROMANELLI: Transferred to
Joseph M., in 2010.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Joseph M.
Melly, that must be the son?
MS. ROMANELLI: Who is currently
owner by deed.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: And
through the estate planning?
MS. ROMANELLI: Yes.
the
that was
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: And why was
that done, for what purpose?
MS. ROMANELLI: Well, I guess the
father just wanted to transfer everything
over to his son, you know, both lots in
the family. Both lots. The corner lot,
is the vacant lot, the one unimproved lot.
November 1, 2012 Regular Meeting 109
1
2
3
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay.
MS. ROMANELLI: And then I guess the
father got sick and became ill and nothing
was ever done with the filing of any of
the papers. They want to keep it in the
family.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The filing of
what papers, the transfer of deed?
MS. ROMANELLI: Yes. I guess to
change the name of the deed so that they
didn't get merged the second time.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: So here we are
again. How was it discovered that they
merged?
MS. ROMANELLI: Actually, I am not
sure how. I don't know how he found out.
MEMBER DINIZIO: He had a life
estate. You have to really look at this
thing. It seems to me, lot 22-023 which
is the vacant lot?
MS. ROMANELLI: 23 is the improved
lot. 24 is the vacant lot.
MEMBER DINIZIO: He had a life
estate on that? Or Joseph J. Melly Jr.,
owned it and granted a life estate to
November 1, 2012 Regular Meeting 110
1
2
3
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
Joseph M. Melly, that is the father,
right?
MS. ROMANELLI: Joseph M., is the
son. Junior is the father.
MEMBER DINIZIO: Junior is the
father?
one
Mis
the
MS. ROMANELLI:
who is making the
MEMBER DINIZIO:
-- one is Joseph A,
father.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
MS. ROMANELLI: It's
MEMBER DINIZIO:
Joseph J., Jr.,
Joseph M. Melly.
MS.
lots.
granted the
Joseph M., is the
application now.
There is two Joseph
I see. That is
Joseph J. Jr.
confusing.
It looks like
life estate to
ROMANELLI: In 2010
on both
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
Say this
before everybody, so we can figure out
what is going on here.
MEMBER DINIZIO: Honestly, I think
we should have somebody legally take a
look at this, Jennifer or somebody and
explain it to us.
November 1, 2012 Regular Meeting 111
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I agree with
you. In determinations, we have to get
the technical legalities correct, so that
they are not challenged. So we need to
know exactly what happened and what
transpired on what date. And if you could
timeline and what
went, where, that would
We could have our
I have never seen a
provide us with a
happened and what,
be very helpful.
attorney check it.
re-merger before.
MEMBER DINIZIO: The last thing on
both of them say the exact same thing.
MS. ROMANELLI: I am guessing the
2010 is when they discovered it was
remerged, because that is the latest. The
deed was '97 and was not merged yet. So
they went to go rewrite the deed, like you
were just reading on the 2010. Joseph
Jr., to the life estate interest to Joseph
M, and that must be when they discovered
it was merged again. And then the whole
application went in some time after that.
And then sometime this summer he filed an
application to unmerge it again to get all
Nover~ber 1, 2012 Regular Meeting 112
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
this
of.
deed and estate planning taken care
GOEHRINGER: Because it's
that means is that
but it is not the
it. The transfer
the aspect of whose name it is
they convoluted both of them
MEMBER
life estate -- all
a cloud on a title,
transfer aspect of
aspect is
in. Somehow
into the same name and that is the reason
the Building Department is looking at it.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: It says being
a
it's
Joseph M., had 10%, which is the same.
Joseph J., had 90% to Joseph M. Melly
subject to life estate. So that is when
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The variance
'97.
MEMBER DINIZIO: And then on 2000,
was
in the father's name and in the son's name
and winded up being in the son's name and
subsequently merged.
MEMBER DINIZIO: In '96, it looks
like they started splitting with the
interest. Joseph M., got 10%. Joseph J.,
got 90%, and then '96 is before the
variance.
November 1, 2012 Regular Meeting 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
Joseph M., the son had that, and that was
in 2001. So it was in 2001, after they
unmerged them, they merged them again.
That was to Joseph M. Melly that was
subject to a life estate from the father.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: So in 2001
both lots became the property of --
MS. ROMANELLI: Joseph M.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: And were
remerged. So my question is, something
must have triggered an awareness of this
merger --
MS. ROMANELLI: Yes, and I honestly
don't really know what that was.
MEMBER DINIZIO: It could be that
they want to sell the lot.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I mean, I am
trying to figure out.
MS. ROMANELLI:
their intention is,
he was telling me.
as
it in the family.
the Melly family.
surveyor
That is not what
as far as I -- as far
They want to keep
He wants to keep it in
MEMBER DINIZIO: They probably have a
come in and do a title search and
November 1, 2012 Regular Meeting 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
all of that.
came about.
when?
MS. ROMANELLI: The title
just did for this application.
MEMBER DINIZIO: 2012. I
wondering if they had
MS. ROMANELLI:
So that is probably how it
The title search is dated
was
another one?
They didn't.
search we
We
checked to see if there was anything on
record and there
MEMBER DINIZIO:
surveyor may have
CHAIRPERSON
triggered this
could --
MEMBER DINIZIO:
too. It could figure
wasn't.
So either a
done it or --
WEISMAN: Some action
awareness so that they
Estate planning
out how much worth
he is. A bank could have.
MS. ROMANELLI: This is just a
guess. I am guessing it was through the
estate planning. I don't think they had
any intentions of selling that lot or
improving it. Like I said, they wanted to
keep it in their name and in the family.
MEMBER DINIZIO: So it's going to
November 1, 2012 Regular Meeting 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
stay
look
in the family no matter what way you
at it. It never left the family?
MS. ROMANELLI: No. It has always
been single and separate and they have
always gotten separate tax bills.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: So what do you
want from Leeann?
MEMBER DINIZIO: I don't want
anything.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I guess Jim
helped us go through it. So we probably
don't need this. I just think we should
probably have our attorney take a look at
it. That's all.
MS. ROMANELLI: And if you need
anything else from me, I mean, I can get
what else.
light on
whatever we need. I don't know
Maybe they will be able to shed
something that we don't know.
MEMBER DINIZIO: I think the
search tells it all.
MS. ROMANELLI: Yeah.
MEMBER DINIZIO: Obviously you
record that lot as being a separate
Four years later you merged it for
title
did
lot.
November 1, 2012 Regular Meeting 116
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1 whatever reason.
2 MS. ROMANELLI:
3 there is no intention
4 now or improving
5 CHAIRPERSON
there anyone else
wishes to address
Right. Like I said,
of selling it off
it at this point.
WEISMAN: Okay. Is
in the audience that
this
application?
(No Response.)
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
further questions
Board, I am going to
adjourn this hearing
Hearing no
or comments from the
make a motion to
to the Special
Meeting two weeks from today.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Ail in
MEMBER DINIZIO: Aye.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye.
favor?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Aye.
(See Minutes for Resolution.)
HEARING #6605 - BEE-HIVE DEVELOPMENT CORP.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The next
application before the Board is for
Bee-Hive Development Corp., #6605.
November 1, 2012 Regular Meeting 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
Request
for variance from Article XXII,
Section 280-116(B), based on the Building
Inspector's August 14, 2012 Notice of
Disapproval concerning an application
construction of a new single family
dwelling at: 1) less than the code
required minimum
bulkhead, located
Boulevard, corner
to Arshamomaque
Southold.
MS. MOORE:
Moore on behalf
principal of Bee-Hive
neighbor's, the Papas
for
setback of 75 feet from a
at; 400 Old Cove
Beverly Road, adjacent
Pond, aka Mill Creek,
Good afternoon,
of Bee-Hive. I
Patricia
days, I did go back and go see that there
are no changes to the property. The
property was -- withstood the storm
beautifully. The first photograph I
the fact that we have had some significant
storms. I did -- the day before yesterday
or the yesterday, I am losing track of
have the
here. We have the
here and the most
direct neighbors to the southeast. I have
given you a couple of documents just to
bring the property back up to date given
November 1, 2012 Regular Meeting 118
1
2
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
showed you is the cement wall, the
retaining wall, the seawall has been there
for -- certainly prior to '77, when Haas
developed that community. So it's a
significant and very well built structure.
You can't build them like that anymore.
The second photograph I show you is from
the land side of the fence that goes along
the retaining
vegetation.
vegetative
to the
wall. You can see the
There is a very nice
natural buffer from the water
seawall, that helps protect that
structure. The third photograph is a
staking, which actually the water must not
have come up onto the property because the
staking is still there when the storm had
hit. So that cove area is a very
protective site and the property is
really
a desirable piece of property given the
fact that it withstood the storm really of
the century. The next photograph I give
you is just the neighbor to the waterfront
side. It is a two-story house. That
house is actually one of the newer houses.
It looks like it was built in conformity
November 1, 2012 Regular Meeting 119
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
with the
construction
compliance.
FEMA standards. Any new
really requires FEMA
Similarly the construction of
this house has to be FEMA compliant. What
I also have given you is an updated survey
dated October 16th. Ail that was changed
on that survey is
drywell details.
the drywell's of the corners.
got it, I am sharing it with
provided additional
The surveyor provided
And since
the Board.
We obviously have to meet the code with
respect to drainage. It used to be that
the Board conditioned everything on
drywell's and drainage, but that is the
code. That doesn't change anything.
Finally, the last photograph -- excuse me,
not photograph, survey, which I believe is
already in your packet, shows the setbacks
of the waterfront homes that abut this
property seawall and you can see the
average setback of homes in -- are less
than 30 feet. We have the Papas home
which is 33 feet from the bulkhead. Then
you have the home from the west of this
site which is 20 feet from the bulkhead
November 1, 2012 Regular Meeting 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
and further west 20 feet, and finally 30
feet. What the applicant has proposed is
a 50 foot setback from the bulkhead, which
is significantly more conforming than the
rest of the community. We were able to
accomplish that by providing a building
envelope. One that conforms in all other
aspects by providing setbacks from the
properties. With the Building
Department's assistance, we have the front
yard setbacks from Beverly Road and Old
Cove Boulevard that are both conforming
setbacks. So leaving only a variance from
the 50 foot -- excuse me, a variance from
the bulkhead. There is no way of
constructing on this property without a
variance from the bulkhead given the
dimensions of this property. This
subdivision was created prior to
regulations and all the other homes were
built within that period of time and
ultimately under the code that didn't
require variances.
any problems with
site. I
We don't anticipate
the development of this
provided you with a letter from
November 1, 2012 Regular Meeting 121
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Mr. Fischetti just to confirm that this
would be built in a standard way, hence
FEMA would be required. It allows
construction with the grate system,
than piles or much more elaborate
other
construction. With respect to the DEC,
they have no jurisdiction here. Given
fact that the seawall was in existence
prior to '77. The Trustees -- an
the
application will be made to the Trustees.
I don't anticipate a problem there because
50 feet is a very generous setback for
structures. And as you know, the Trustees
want to see the ZBA variances prior to
variances. So that would be the next step
in the process. Health Department again
is not a problem, and is permitted to be
developed by the Health Department. Our
design to the sanitary -- we have a
preliminary design but the ultimate design
would be up to the Health Department. We
have made an application to the Health
Department but they want some additional
information because they do have public
water and they want the location of the
November 1, 2012 Regular Meeting 122
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
water lines on Beverly Road underground
and the process of getting that
information, the surveyor has to go out
with metal detectors and identify the
location of those water lines. Otherwise,
it is just a standard process with the
Health Department.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I have a copy
for you, if you don't have one of the
LWRP.
MS. MOORE: No, I don't have one.
Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: That is for
local determination. In the case that it
is consistent, recommending a 10 foot
non-turf landscaped buffer be established
landward of the concrete seawall. I am
just reading it out so that you can
address it, if you care to.
MS. MOORE: Yeah. Certainly a
non-turf buffer would be required by the
Trustees. Whether it's going to be
vegetative or non-vegetated, we will leave
that up to the owner. We do have the
Bayberry which is a significant buffer on
November 1, 2012 Regular Meeting 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
the seaward side of the seawall. You
start reducing the yard with a lot of
vegetation. Just want to leave room. So
I would prefer to leave that up to the
owner in whether they want to put
vegetative on the landward side of the
seawall. Certainly we have no problem
with non-turf. I anticipate
will require that but aside
think my preference is to
owners the vegetation.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
the Trustees
from that, I
leave to the
There are two
other comments. It's obvious, the
required stormwater --
MS. MOORE: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
Sure.
Finally,
that
the sewer (In Audible) used on the survey
is a few years old and it is recommended
that the Board verify the depth of the
water distance. It has probably not been
updated, even though we have an updated
survey that you just gave us, it's
probably the same soil board.
MS. MOORE: Oh, I am sure. The
Health Department did not ask for anything
November 1, 2012 Regular Meeting 124
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
more current. I think --
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: It's 2008.
MS. MOORE: Right, but we have an
application to the Health Department and
they would have asked for something more
current if they felt that it was
necessary. This is pretty much a sandy
filled land. This whole area was filled.
The bay was dredged. There really are no
issues with respect to the impervious
natures of the soils here.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Jim?
MEMBER DINIZIO: I think a boring is
a boring and I don't think you are going
to get much more out of it. I am just
going to go over your reasons. You have
quite a number of setback that are set by
avid front yard setbacks.
MS. MOORE: Correct.
MEMBER DINIZIO: That the Building
Inspector uses. That is your established
setback?
MS. MOORE: Correct.
MEMBER DINIZIO: And even the
setback to the bulkhead itself, 50 foot,
November 1, 2012 Regular Meeting 125
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
far exceeds, and that is obvious just by
going down there, far exceeds everyone
else's setback. It is mostly do because
it has to be mechanical?
MS. MOORE: There was a previous
application and a previous design that
really didn't make use of the property
properly. And I believe that it was
Mr. Goehringer that recommended the
caddy-corner design --
MEMBER DINIZIO: I remember that
decision. I am looking at this --
MS. MOORE: Yes, but it was a
completely different design.
MEMBER DINIZIO: The setbacks have
been established by normal business in the
town. I mean, the front yard has been
established. The rear yard has been
established -- although, I don't believe
we have established bulkhead setbacks.
Certainly this --
MS. MOORE: Well, as far as the
character of the neighborhood, this is
much better. It is more conforming than
the rest of the neighborhood.
November 1, 2012 Regular Meeting 126
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MEMBER DINIZIO: The last question,
a lot of the preexisting nonconforming
setbacks, what do you mean by preexisting
nonconforming --
MS. MOORE: No, no. A preexisting
nonconforming that is less than one acre.
So it doesn't conform with the one acre
setback requirement or even when you go to
the undersized lot provisions, this
property is just over 14. So we are using
the preexisting nonconforming setbacks of
a lot that is under 20,000 square feet.
MEMBER DINIZIO: And is it anyones
opinion that the seawall is okay?
MS. MOORE: Oh, the seawall is
perfect.
MEMBER DINIZIO: I looked at it and
it seemed to be okay.
MS. MOORE: Yes.
MEMBER DINIZIO:
little shaky.
MS. MOORE: Not
though.
MEMBER DINIZIO:
was just put so they
Some parts were a
on this property
No. The seawall
could make the
November 1, 2012 Regular Meeting 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
development.
MS. MOORE: Yeah. They kind of
created these lots, I forget the year,
'50's. I have the old deed and the Haas
survey of the development. They were one
of the first to bring public water. The
water lines had been there since that
development.
MEMBER DINIZIO: Looks like 1954.
That looks like all I have.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Gerry?
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Looking at the
survey, it appears that the lot goes into
Old Cove Road by approximately 10 feet; is
that correct?
MS. MOORE: Yes.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: And it
encompasses the whole entire
Beverly Road by 20 feet?
MS. MOORE: Correct.
section of
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Now,
established front yard setback
area?
under
what is the
in the
MS. MOORE: Well, I actually took
the code, I have to use the
November 1, 2012 Regular Meeting 128
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
the property line. So I
from the most conservative, which is
the code requires, from -- we
have -- on Old Cove we have 26.3
plus 10 to our property line. And on the
opposite side, we have 24.8 plus 20 to our
property line, but that really is
irrelevant because the code speaks from
the right-of-way.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: From the street?
MS. MOORE: Yes.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: So in other
words, you were not denied setbacks on
either road?
MS. MOORE: Correct. I calculated
based on the code requirement. The
average setback is taken from the road and
right-of-way,
took
from, as
actually
not the property line.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER:
way to push this
MS. MOORE:
MEMBER GOEHRINGER:
bulkhead to the
MS. MOORE:
MEMBER GOEHRINGER:
So there is no
back any farther?
From which direction?
From the
roadway?
Not without a variance.
Is that the
November 1, 2012 Regular Meeting 129
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
minimum distance from the septic tanks and
the pools or could the house go back
further?
MS. MOORE: Towards the road?
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Towards the
corner of Beverly and Old Cove?
of
MS. MOORE: The problem is the depth
the house more than anything else. So
we have -- we are working within a
triangle. If I went any where else, I
think I would have to get a front yard
variance. Given the previous decision
what was written in that decision, I
assumed -- felt that it should not go
closer to the road. If it was my
and
misunderstanding from the road, it's all
on me. Your goal is typically to reduce
the number of variances that are required.
So I have actually reduced it down to one.
So the one that I really
can see from the staking,
actually put the 75 foot
the 75 feet about midway
just doesn't make sense.
designing something that
can't and as you
the surveyor
on -- that puts
on the house. It
You start
becomes really
November 1, 2012 Regular Meeting 130
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
unattractive too to the character of the
area.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The reason why I
say that is because you have setbacks on
the surrounding
us with at 19. The
The greatest one of
houses that you furnished
former pastor house.
part of the property is
once you go across the street
Boulevard, you got 17.9, 12.2
the two to the western
25 and 27.9, but
to Old Cove
between Old
Cove and Beverly. And they look like they
are pretty close. The reason why I ask
and this is in your statement, and this is
not a derogatory statement at all. You
say that the 50 feet is more than what the
other areas are. Certainly, these -- a
majority of these houses except for one,
the big brand new one over there, were all
constructed prior to any --
MS. MOORE: Even that one shows 36
feet to the bulkhead. I thought this one
was being generous. Any one of the
Trustees consider this to be reasonable
distance.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I am just
November 1, 2012 Regular Meeting 131
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
looking at the whole picture.
MS. MOORE: I know. Believe me, we
wrestled with this before coming into you.
Ideally I would like to have come up with
an average setback that could have been
closer, but the way that we calculate the
average setback on this site is the
conforming 35 feet. So we are using 35
plus 14.6 as an average setback on Beverly
Road. That brings us to 24.8. If we use
just that house as an average setback we
could have been closer. And I think the
first application considered it that way.
They looked at the closeness of the Papas
House. They thought they could push it
back the other direction but the Board
didn't like that. So I can't read
decisions better than the way that I read
it.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Okay.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Ken?
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: No questions.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I will say
that I think this is a very big
improvement. I think you did a great job
Noven~er 1, 2012 Regular Meeting 132
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
bringing this to the Board. Your reasons
are well thought of. When did the owners
purchase the property?
MS. MOORE: '97.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I
thing that I would just
only
that the Board has taken the
once an owner or applicant
property, once the zoning
guess the
point out is
stance that
purchases this
is in place.
They would have previous knowledge of what
they were buying into. So in that sense,
the Board has argued that it was self
created. If they had purchased this prior
to zoning being in place, then I
understand. The Town would have been
responsible.
MS. MOORE: I was going to say,
far as an area variance is concerned,
not as standard to deny a variance.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: That is
as
it's
correct, and no one is suggesting that it
is. I am just pointing out that the Board
has determined that to be the appropriate
response on whether it is self created or
not. I really don't have any questions on
November 1, 2012 Regular Meeting 133
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
this. I will see if there is anyone in
the audience -- if you come to the podium
and state your name for the Board.
MS. FEDER: My name is Virginia
Feder. I live to the west of the
property.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
would you please spell your
us?
MS. FEDER: F-E-D-E-R.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
What would you like to tell
MS. FEDER: I live in
was there on Monday at
The water filled up to
Ms. Feder,
last name
for
bulkhead. The water came over the
bulkhead. The water came 10 inches over
the bulkhead. I measured the tide on my
garage door. My garage was flooded. A
little room off the garage was flooded.
My furnace in the house was flooded. My
house is on cinder blocks. So it's three
steps up, and the house was okay. I left
it for one night and came back the next
day. The tide line was on the far west
Thank you.
us?
that house. I
eleven o'clock.
the top of the
November 1, 2012 Regular Meeting 134
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
north side of Old Cove Boulevard. The
washout is considerable. I haven't gotten
to it yet but someone is coming out
tomorrow to work on it. Two large cracks
on the bulkhead. This is obviously very,
very fragile land. It was taken from the
sea and probably eventually the sea will
take it back. My other concern is that my
water lines and my gas lines come under
this piece of property. The main line for
the water line is on the other piece of
property north of Old Cove Boulevard, the
water line comes from there and goes
across this piece of property to my house.
The same with the natural gas. On one
other occasion, when a house was built, I
got sand in my appliances because my water
line was severed. Needless to say, I
would not like to have a two-story next to
me. I am sure that this is probably going
to be a two-story house, but it's the bulk
area of the water. That's all I have to
say.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
And good luck
Thank you.
with the clean-up with your
November 1, 2012 Regular Meeting 135
1
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.
Any other comments that anyone would
like to make?
(No Response.}
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Any questions
from the Board?
(No Response.)
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay. Hearing
no further questions or comments, I am
going to make a motion to adjourn this
hearing to the Special Meeting on
November 15th. Pat, as you heard earlier,
we are not closing the hearing because
many of the Board members -- some of the
Board members don't have electricity or
access to computers to work on drafts.
MS. MOORE: Our office, we don't
have internet. We have computers
internally. And I gave Vicki my cellphone
number. So if anything comes up, you can
certainly get a hold of me. Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay. Motion
is to adjourn to November 15th.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Ail in favor?
November 1, 2012 Regular Meeting 136
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MEMBER DINIZIO: Aye.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Aye.
(See Minutes on Resolution. )
HEARING #6606 - MICHAEL & EMILY KAVOURIAS
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay. The
final application before the Board is for
Michael and Emily Kavorias, #6606.
Request for variance from Article XXIII
Section 280-124 and the Building
Inspector's October 2, 2012 Notice of
Disapproval based on an application for
building permit for additions and
alterations to an existing dwelling at:
1) less than code required front yard
setback of 40 feet, both streets on this
corner lot, located at: 1240 Inlet Drive,
corner Miriam Road, in Mattituck. Being
that there is no one here to address this
application, I am going to make a motion
to adjourn this application to the
December 6th Regular Meeting of the Zoning
Board of Appeals. Let's put that on at
November 1, 2012 Regular Meeting 137
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
10:00 o'clock. Is there a second?
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Before there
a second, I will be recusing myself on
is
this application. This is Member
Goehringer and I am, as my elected
position in Mattituck as Park District
Commissioner, this is contiguous to this
process, and this is a substantial beach
front area adjacent to this property and
contiguous too.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Well said, Gerry.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay. So
there is a motion to adjourn. Is there a
second?
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Second.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Ail in favor?
MEMBER DINIZIO: Aye.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Aye.
(See Minutes for Resolution.)
(Whereupon, the November 1, 2012
Regular Meeting concluded.)
November 1, 2012 Regular Meeting 138
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
C E R T I F I C A T I O N
I, Jessiea DiLallo, certify that the
foregoing transcript of tape recorded Public
Hearings was prepared using required
electronic transcription equipment and is a
true and accurate record of the Hearings.
Signature_
Jessica DiLallo
Court Reporter
PO Box 984
Holbrook, New York 11741
Date: November 12, 2012