HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-01/03/2013 Hearing 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
RECEZVED
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS JAN 22 2813
COUNTY OF SUFFOLK: STATE OF NEW YORK
........................................... B~kARD OF APPEALS
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
Southold Town Hall
Southold, New York
January 3, 2013
10:45 A.M.
Board Members Present:
LESLIE KANES WEISMAN -
GERARD GOEHRINGER
JAMES DINIZIO, JR.
KENNETH SCHNEIDER
GEORGE HORNING
Chairperson/Member
- Member
Member
- Member
Member
VICKI TOTH Secretary
JENNIFER ANDALORO - Assistant Town Attorney
Jessica DiLallo
Court Reporter
P.O. Box 984
Holbrook, New York 11741
(631)-338-1409
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:
Thomas Spurge, #6615
Mariusz Jachimowicz, #6612
New Suffolk Waterfront Fund,
And Robin's Island Holdings,
New Suffolk Waterfront Fund,
Peter and Diane Mollica, #6618
Betty Hermann, #6614
Michael J. Hirschhorn, #6619
LLC
Inc.
%6616
%6617
Page:
3-10
10-17
17-85
17-85
85-94
94-104
104-114
January 3, 2013 Regular Meeting 3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
HEARING #6615 - THOMAS SPURGE
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Thomas Spurge,
#6615. Request for variance from Article
XXIII Section 280-124 and the Building
Inspector's October 12, 2012 Notice of
Disapproval based on application for
building permit for additions and
alterations to existing single family
dwelling: 1) less than the code required
minimum rear yard setback of 35 feet,
located at: 3145 Manhanset Avenue in
Greenport.
Is there somebody here to represent
that application?
MS. MARTIN: Good morning.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Good morning.
Could you state your name, please, for the
record?
MS. MARTIN: Amy Martin, from the firm
of Robert I. Brown Architect and
Fairweather Design Associates, representing
Thomas Spurge, the applicant. This is a
request to put a second-story on a
pre-nonconforming setback where the house
is 10.2 inches closer to the rear property
January 3, 2013 Regular Meeting 4
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
line already, and we're not changing the
footprint in any way shape or form. We
just wanted a second-story to it. There
are -- it's the same as other houses in the
neighborhood. These are mostly
nonconforming lots, and that's the only
reason we're before you, because this is an
increase of a nonconforming lot. The
highest -- the second-story to the highest
point under the ease, is 17 foot 7 inches.
Where it's currently, I believe, about 8
foot something on the ground floor.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay. Let's see
if the Board has anything. Is there
anything else you want to say, Amy?
MS. MARTIN: I don't think so. It's
pretty straight forward. The Spurge's own
the property most effected behind it, which
is going to be their retirement home, and
they just want to make it large enough to
enjoy. Eventually, I guess, use the
property that they currently own behind it
as place to put friends when they come to
visit. They just bought this house
recently and it wouldn't be going on the
January 3, 2013 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
market or anything. It's for something
that they want to live in.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay. George,
any questions?
MEMBER HORNING: Okay. Looking at the
site plan measurements for setbacks of the
rear yard versus the survey that we have,
the survey gives distances of 24 foot 7
inches, 24 foot 8 inches on the other
corner. And then you have 24.10, what is
the most accurate distance would you say?
MS. MARTIN: I guess, I am not sure I
have the survey with me.
MEMBER HORNING: You mentioned just a
10 foot 2 inch discrepancy.
little bit more than that?
MS. MARTIN: I guess we
the survey. I am not sure
So it may be a
opposed to the code required 35 foot.
MS. MARTIN: George, do you have
date of the survey and the surveyor?
MEMBER HORNING: August 30th --
the
have to go by
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Well, the Notice
of Disapproval actually refers to the site
plan. It's closer to 24.10 feet setback as
January 3, 2013 Regular Meeting 6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MS. MARTIN: Then I am assuming that
our drawer's made an error on that and it
would be what the survey says. Unless the
second-story is recessed that iota of two
inches or so.
MEMBER HORNING: It doesn't seem like
it would be on the diagram though. Did you
submit both of these documents to the
Building Department?
MS. MARTIN: Yes.
MEMBER HORNING: What is the
foundation consist of?
MS. MARTIN: It's a brick foundation.
MEMBER HORNING: Is there a basement?
Crawl space?
MS. MARTIN: Yes, there is a basement.
MEMBER HORNING: And just out of
curiosity, I noticed that what would be the
northwest corner there, with the neighbor
seeming to be very close proximity to --
like he had a wood pile or something? Does
he have to walk on your property?
MS. MARTIN: It's Tom's property. The
wood pile is on the applicant's property.
MEMBER HORNING: And that's the
January 3, 2013 Regular Meeting 7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
applicant's wood pile you're saying?
MS. MARTIN: I believe so. Yes.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Ken, any
questions?
MEMBER SCHNEIDER:
discrepancies
site plan for the
like the smallest
24.7 feet. I am going
what the proposed site
also?
MS. MARTIN: I
Just the
between the survey and the
rear yard setback. Looks
setback on the survey is
to assume that is
plan is looking for
submit the property
know, to the survey,
be what --
MEMBER SCHNEIDER:
issue.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
handle that internally.
MS. MARTIN: It's 24
and they averaged it out
will very happily
site plan revised, you
if that turns out to
rather than the .7.
MEMBER
questions.
CHAIRPERSON
It's a technical
I think we can
foot 10 inches
to 10 inches
WEISMAN: Gerry?
SCHNEIDER: I have no further
January 3, 2013 Regular Meeting 8
1
2
3
4
5
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MEMBER
applicant
the rear?
MS.
owns the
adjoining lot
summer home.
GOEHRINGER: Did you say the
purchased additional property in
MARTIN: No, he owns it. His wife
lot behind the home. The
where they currently have a
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: In the site plan
where you calculated the lot coverage at
18.9, was that on the site or did that
include the lot in the back also?
MS. MARTIN: No, no. That is just
site.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: So the only
the
addition to this property is the garage?
MS. MARTIN: The garage with a living
space above. The additional lot coverage
is just the garage, which as you can see
just north of the residence.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: This is a pretty
small lot.
MS. MARTIN: It was subdivided in the
60's for whatever. That was previous.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Believe it or not,
it was one of the first ones that I sat on
January 3, 2013 Regular Meeting 9
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
in the 1980's when they actually built the
house, if I am not mistaken. I think one
of the particular questions at that time
was, are you going to exceed lot coverage
and he said absolutely not. That was one
of the issues that I had. Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Jim?
MEMBER DINIZIO: No questions.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I have no
further questions.
Is there anyone in the audience who
would like to address this application?
(No Response.)
CHAIRPERSON
further comments,
close the hearing
later date.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER:
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
WEISMAN: Hearing no
I will make a motion to
and reserve decision to
Gerry.
Ail in favor?
MEMBER DINIZIO: Aye.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye.
MEMBER HORNING: Aye.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye.
Second.
Seconded by
a
January 3, 2013 Regular Meeting 10
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: Aye.
(See Minutes for Resolution.)
HEARING #6612 - MARIUSZ JACHIMOWICZ
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The next
application before the Board is for Mariusz
Jachimowicz. Please correct me if I
mispronounced your name, #6612. Request
for variances from Article XXIII Code
Section 280-123 and the Building
Inspector's November 9, 2012 Notice of
Disapproval based on am application for
building permit for "as built"
alteration/addition to an existing dwelling
at; 1) a nonconforming building containing
a nonconforming use shall not be enlarged,
reconstructed, structurally altered or
moved, unless the use of such building is
changed to a conforming use, the "as built"
structure is considered a second dwelling
on the property, located at: 9395 Main
Road in Mattituck.
Good morning.
MR. DANTES: Good morning. My name is
Eric Dantes, and I represent
January 3, 2013 Regular Meeting 11
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Mr. Jachimowicz and his wife --
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Would
spell your name for the record?
MR. DANTES: D-A-N-T-E-S.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Thank you.
would you like to tell us?
MR. DANTES: It's basically a property
that was setup in the 1950's. It was setup
as a three family property, and then one of
the houses burned down. So now it's a two
family property with two separate dwellings
Jachimowicz would like to
the rear dwelling and he needs a
to do that because it's a
you please
on it. And Mr.
renovate
variance
nonconforming property, and his
consist of adding a 12X4 closet
existing bedroom, and it would
square feet to
which is about
What
renovations
onto the
add 48
the rear of the dwelling,
1,000 square feet.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
construction come
Department's
MR. DANTES: Mr. Jachimowicz
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Went
building permit?
plans
attention?
How did the
to the Building
in for
a
January 3, 2013 Regular Meeting 12
1
2
3
4
5
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
yes .
MR. DANTES: Went in for a permit,
CHAIRPERSON
building permit?
MR. DANTES:
CHAIRPERSON
given a Notice
WEISMAN: Is there a
NO.
WEISMAN: So
of Disapproval
you were
inspection so it's clear that some progress
has been made on the alterations. That's
fine. I just wanted to clarify what the
circumstances were. Let's see what the
Board has to say about this. This property
does have a Pre-CO?
MR. DANTES: Yes. Two Pre-CO's. One
for each dwelling. I can give you a copy
of that, if you would like?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I think we have
them in our file. Let's see if Ken has any
questions?
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Who is doing the
work?
MR. DANTES: Mr. Jachimowicz is. He
is doing it himself. He does have a --
MR. DANTES: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
We all did site
January 3, 2013 Regular Meeting 13
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
do the electrical
I have no further
I can pass it to
Why don't we go
licensed electrician to
work and plumbing.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER:
questions at this time.
another Board member.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
down the line. George?
MEMBER HORNING: I am curious about
past history. You briefly alluded to a
fire. And I see that there was a building
permit issued for construction from after
structures on it, and there is a big "X" on
one of the structures.
MEMBER HORNING: No, I don't believe
that we have that.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: No, we don't
have that.
MR. DANTES: I have that in here. I
don't think that it has existed in the last
fire damage. Which building are we talking
about?
MR. DANTES: If you go to the tax map.
The only thing that I really know about it
is, if you go to the tax map that you have
here, you can see that there are three
January 3, 2013 Regular Meeting 14
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
is not
20 years, the first structure. He
asking to rebuild that.
MEMBER HORNING: The building permit
issued was never acted upon then?
MR. DANTES: I honestly don't know.
He just bought the property in August of
this year. Last year, 2012. So I don't
know that much.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: When the sale of
the property was issued, it would have
indicated that there were three structures
on this property and there are not three
structures on this property. To your
applicants knowledge, there was never a
third structure that your applicant was
purchasing?
MR. DANTES: No.
MEMBER HORNING: Is there a crawl
space under this building?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Sir, if you are
going to answer questions, you're going to
have to come to the microphone, because we
record this, as we're required by law to
do.
State your name, please.
January 3, 2013 Regular Meeting 15
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
MR. JACHIMOWICZ:
Mariusz Jachimowicz.
is the basement and
And how
do you access
From outside.
I walked around it
20 percent of the house
the rest of crawl space.
MEMBER HORNING:
the basement?
MR. JACHIMOWICZ:
MEMBER HORNING:
earlier --
MR. JACHIMOWICZ:
by tarp.
MEMBER HORNING:
The entry is
covered
Okay. And all of
these, let's call them structural
alterations were put on without a
permit; is that correct?
MR. DANTES: Yes. Well,
was to repair the building.
was, while he was doing it --
being
it and one thing led
MEMBER HORNING:
of it.
MR. DANTES:
MEMBER HORNING:
MR. DANTES: 48
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
a derelict building when
to another.
building
his intent
What happened
it ended up
you got into
He enlarged the size
The building?
Yes.
square feet.
Otherwise,
you
January 3, 2013 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
are before us because there is an
enlargement of the nonconformity. Had it
been repaired in place and in kind, it
might have been available to have a
building permit as of right, in kind and
replacement.
Jim, do you have any questions?
MEMBER DINIZIO: No. I just want to
clear one thing. There is three
structures. There is a shed on this
property. There is not three principal
structures. There is a small accessory
shed.
MR. DANTES: I believe there is.
MEMBER DINIZIO: I just wanted to be
clear on that for the record, that there
was not only two structures on the
property. That's all I
MR. DANTES: Okay.
MEMBER
structures.
MEMBER
attempt,
basement
MR.
have.
DINIZIO: So two principal
GOEHRINGER: Is there any
sir, to utilize any part of this
area for habitable space?
DANTES: No, it's going to be a
January 3, 2013 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
basement.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Is there anyone
else in the audience who would like to
address this application?
(No Response.)
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Hearing no
further comments, I will make a motion to
close this hearing and reserve decision to
a later date.
Is there a second?
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Ail in favor?
MEMBER DINIZIO: Aye.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye.
MEMBER HORNING: Aye.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Aye.
(See Minutes for Resolution.)
HEARING #6616 - NEW SUFFOLK WATERFRONT
FUND, INC. AND ROBIN'S ISLAND - HEARING
#6617 NEW SUFFOLK WATERFRONT FUND, INC.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The next
application before the Board is for New
Suffolk Waterfront Fund Incorporated and
January 3, 2013 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
Robin's Island Holdings, LLC. That is
application %6616. We have another
application. I am going to open both of
them simultaneously. We can address that
way together or separately. I will read
them both into the record. The first
application, #6616. Request for variances
from Article XIII Code Section 280-56 and
the Building Inspector's September 18, 2012
Notice of Disapproval based on an
application for a permit for a minor
subdivision at; 1) lot size less than the
code required 80,000 square feet per Bulk
Schedule in MII District, 2} lot size less
than the code required 160,000 square feet
for the
650 and
Street,
Harbor in New
application is
for Special
Section 280-55
in a Marine II
First Street,
proposed second use, located at:
380 First Street, corner of Jackson
Main Street, adjacent to Cutchogue
Suffolk. The next
#6617, which is a request
Exception per Article XIII
Street.
(B)i to operate a restaurant
District, located at: 650
corner Jackson Street, Main
Adjacent to Cutchogue Harbor in
January 3, 2013 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
New Suffolk.
Is there someone here to represent
this application, Gall?
MS. WICKHAM: Good morning.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I'm sorry,
know, you have to state your name --
MS. WICKHAM: Sure. My name is
Abigail Wickham and I at 13015 Main
Mattituck, New York, representing the
applicant. I would like to advise the
Board that we have here today,
Schnitzler who is the Chair of
you
Road,
Barbara
the New
Suffolk Waterfront Fund Board. Valerie
Marvin who is representing Robin's Island
Holding. Martin Reed who has been doing
the survey work, and also Joe Fischetti who
is an engineer that has been consulting
with us on the project. As well as a
number of Board members from the Waterfront
Fund and other interested parties. So
we're going to try and go through some
brief presentations without going to
reiterate everything that is already in the
application. And then I am sure the Board
will have some questions. We have all
January 3, 2013 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
these people here to hopefully answer them.
I am really excited to be here today. This
is what I consider, the third phase of a
multi phase project. The first was the
acquisition of the project from Peconic
Land Trust, who in turn had acquired it
from active commercial development after
many years of attempting to focus on what
could be preserved from that prime piece of
property. The second phase following the
acquisition was the evaluation and
development of a concept plan, once the
Waterfront Fund had a chance to actually
own and be on the property for a while. To
figure out what would be an attractive
usable and financially viable project in
order to go forward. Now, we're
commencing. Having done that, commencing
an approval stage for the land as a result
of the contracted Robin's Island Holdings
acquisition of approximately one acre.
Accompanied by a large scale preservation
of that property through a conservation
easement held by Peconic Land Trust, which
I will describe a little bit later on.
January 3, 2013 Regular Meeting 21
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
That will be on parcel two. And a
conservation easement that is in the works
through New York State Parks for a bulk of
parcel one to keep that area open and park
like. The resubdiv±sion that we appear
before you today is to realign the
properties and to also confirm the uses
that have historically been predominant on
this property on parcel one in order to
enable it to retain economic viability and
historical usage after the acre is
transferred to Robin's Island Holding. The
fourth phase will be the site plan phase
and that is where the determination of the
actual location of the building, the
layout, the site improvement will be
developed and formalized. That is in the
beginning stages now, but we will
undoubtedly be back here and certainly to
the Planning Board with the details of that
ultimate site plan. And then finally phase
five will be actually constructing and
doing the work. We're are working on that
now. Ail of those five phases, as you can
imagine, require constant fundraising.
January 3, 2013 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
They have a phenomenal group that has been
doing it. The aspect of the fundraising of
this phase three involved, is taking the
funds from the purchase of that one acre
from Robin's Island and the New York State
Conservation easement grant in order to pay
down -- payoff the acquisition loan that
was incurred in order to acquire the
property and also to start the development
process. Robin's Island Holdings has
supported the efforts of the community to
make this project happen, and we think that
it will produce a result that will meet the
goals of New Suffolk community. It will
provide public access to the waterfront,
provide public parking, which is severely
needed in this area, and essentially
provide, not just to New Suffolk, to the
Town, a tremendous facility. So let me
address specifics as to the variances and
the request for the special exception.
There are two variances, as you mentioned.
The Robin's Island Holdings parcel would be
increased 3.42 times up to 68,808 square
feet. Oddly that is not quite big enough
January 3, 2013 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
under MII. So we are here on a rather odd
application. To let you tell us that's
okay even though it's not 80,000 square
feet. And then the second variance is to
restore two primary uses on less than
160,000 square feet, which is the area that
will remain on parcel one after the
transfer of the one acre to Robin's Island
Holdings. That will be an area over a
little over 100,000 square feet. So those
two properties have to go hand in hand, as
well as confirmation of Special Exception
that we have requested to allow the
restaurant usage to be resumed.
Financially, the Waterfront Fund is not in
a position to proceed with the actual site
plan elements and the construction details.
So we're asking you to look at our
conceptual plan and come back at a further
time for relief on an actual site plan
details, but we think that the actual types
of the uses and the way that they fit into
this property, we hope you will be able to
consider favorably. On Variance #1, where
we have less than 80,000 square feet, the
January 3, 2013 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
conservation easement, which I will give
you an outline of it at the end of the
hearing, will restrict the ability to use
most of that property for structures. It's
going to create great privacy for Robin's
Island Holdings. It's going to allow them
to solve an overflow parking problem in New
Suffolk, as parking is very important. And
it also will preserve open space. The
variance as I said, is kind of contorted as
I said, because we're asking to increase
the size of the parcel three or four, but
still it's not quite big enough. We hope
you will consider that favorably under the
code. I just wanted to give you a rough
idea of what uses will be allowed on the --
on the Robin's Island Holdings portion of
the increased acre. It will allow for, low
profile maritime grasslands with associated
plantings. I will hand this into you so
you don't have to all write it down. Low
profile perimeter fencing. Landscaping,
which will be designed and maintained so
it's not to substantially interfere with
scenic values of the property which further
January 3, 2013 Regular Meeting 25
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
the visual aim of protecting the Peconic
Bay view shed. Their considering a low
profile (In Audible) like they have on
their adjoining property on the beach side.
The only improvement, if you will, will be
a small shed or a building that is going to
be attached to the Robin's Island Holdings
building to hold boat storage. That will
probably be seasonal boat storage and a
permeable parking area. Both of those are
shown on your maps. The Planning Board has
asked us to remove the boat shed from the
map because it's not actually been built
yet, but this is an conceptual idea of what
it would look like. They may change the
size or the configuration of it slightly
but that's just to give you an idea of what
would be on that property and that's it.
That we think is a huge, huge benefit to
New Suffolk as a result of that agreement.
The second variance is for the two primary
uses of the marina and the restaurant.
Really is not asking anything different
than what is already there, and has been
there for many, many years. I would like
January 3, 2013 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
to mention that given the property size,
those two primary uses and what they're
going to demand of the property will
automatically eliminate from that property
any other uses that could come in under an
MII Zone, which are pretty intensive.
Those would be things like large boat
storage racks, which is one thing that got
this property to where it is in the first
place. Ferry terminal, big commercial
restaurants, hotels and motels and fish
processing plants. If you have a marina
and a restaurant on this property, you're
not going to be able to have any of those
other things. We think this proposal is
much less obnoxious then what could be
there. Second, each use will be moderately
sized and in keeping with the property and
is going to go through
the other reviews that
proceed with. The marina is
24 slips in size. That size
dictated by the size of the
not going to see the size of
New Suffolk Shipyard.
site plan and all
is -- that we must
approximately
is going to be
lot. You are
a marina like
It's a very small
January 3, 2013 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
marina. It's important to maintain the
marina usage historically and for access
and transient dockage, but it does provide
because of the limited number of slips very
limited income and it's largely seasonal
income. This past year they brought in
$21,000.00. They will be upgrading the
docks and making more usable, but in the
long run, they're not going to see a huge
amount of income from 24 slips. That is
why some of the prior proposals on this
property proposed big boat storage sheds
and all these other things that would go
with a marina. New Suffolk Waterfront Fund
does not want to do that. They want to
keep the restaurant as a modest usage and
the code considers that a primary usage so
that is why we're here for you today. So
as far as the restaurant, I just want to
ask who in this room doesn't wish they
could still get a burger at the Galley
House? And I hope that that would be
enough to get you to grant this project all
together, but assuming it's not, the use
has historically followed this property and
January 3, 2013 Regular Meeting 28
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
the Board's vision for the restaurant use
is really all cafe. The word, "cafe"
doesn't really appear in the code. That is
really the scale that they're looking at.
It's really going to be a small operation
that can provide a community gathering
place. A simple meal, somebody that has
the ability to come in from the beach,
while they're boating or just visiting, and
provide a necessary income for the
Waterfront, so they can sustain the
property. The engineer has advised us
based on the size of the property, 118
seats are available with a sanitary
capacity of that property. The prior
restaurant had
limitations of
with Suffolk County
95 seats. And with
parking and food service
Health Department
that
and
review, we really don't know what the full
number will be. That is something that
will come back at the site plan stage.
That will involve Health Department and
Planning Board input. And also the
restaurant building will be moved back and
if it's not 75 feet from the bulkhead, you
January 3, 2013 Regular Meeting 29
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
will be seeing us again on that, but we
have to go through that as we go through.
The other thing that I would like to
mention is that the proposed site intensity
of this place, property is probably
significantly less than any other property
in New Suffolk because those are -- very
many of them are wall to wall. So this is
really going to have a lot of open space.
A lot of parking and it will adjoin the
Robin's Island acre, which will be largely
open. I would also like to remind the
Board that both of these two uses existed
for many, many years side by side on this
property and really just on the north side
of Main Street part of the property because
the acre that is going to Robin's Island
Holding really wasn't the restaurant marina
except for large boat storage, which really
isn't going to be happening. And also when
those uses were there for many years you
were dealing with miserable parking lots,
boats all over the place. You also had
marinas servicing storage. A lot of things
going on. So this is going to be much more
January 3, 2013 Regular Meeting 30
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
modest. Much more contained and I don't
think dual primary use of marina and
restaurant will be at all out of place
here. As far as the Special Exception,
which you have also opened up, I am not
going to repeat all the tedious language I
have put in the application, which I tried
to track from the code as to what you need
to find and I don't want to repeat what I
just said, but much of the prior discussion
does apply to the Special Exception. So at
this point, I would prefer to move on and
have Barbara say a few words and then see
what questions you might have.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Before we do
this, I would like to enter some letters.
We just received the LWRP
from our coordinator and I
record to reflect the
recommendations
would like the
fact that with regard
to the Special Exception is considered
exempt -- this particular one refers to the
subdivision. They're under two separate
application numbers. The point is, it's
just been received and it's considered
exempt with regard to the lot line change
January 3, 2013 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
and with regard to the restaurant use, it
is considered consistent with the goals of
the LWRP. I have copies for your records.
MS. WICKHAM: Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I would also
like to enter into the record comments that
we received from the Planning Board. If
you don't have any copies, I have them, if
you want to approach.
MS. WICKHAM: I have.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: This is the LWRP
and that you don't have. And this is for
local determination from Suffolk County for
your file. I just want the audience to
know what some comments were. I am going
to summarize from the Planning Board. This
is a letter dated December 18th. We sent
this to them for their recommendation.
They in general, support this proposal
although they don't normally support the
idea of creating a nonconforming sizes. In
this case, I am paraphrasing but it is a
quote, "the proposal minimizes development
potential of the subject property, protects
public access to the water and will
January 3, 2013 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
preserve the water view shed through the
conversation easements placed over key
areas of the property..." I am omitting
some stuff. These goals are consistent
with the Town's comprehensive plan. So I
want you to be aware of their comments.
Also we have received, and I am sure we
will have more comments from the audience,
two letters of support from some of your
neighbor's, no doubt. One is from Joe
McKay and basically reiterating the fact
that the restaurant use is fairly essential
to your plans for sustaining the
development of this property. It also
clear that it's a very collaborative and
creative way that you have approached
packaging these very complicated elements.
It will not only create opportunity for
preservation for the future and today, but
will also require some sort of ongoing
sustained income, and in order to continue
with your plan. I should just let you know
that this Board will want to entertain the
Special Exception permit because I know you
need the reassurance that that is going to
January 3, 2013 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
be in place. But we will likely have to
condition it to site plan approval should
this be granted. And in addition to that,
subject to any further variance relief you
may require once you determine where this
Galley is actually to be located and
whether or not you're going to expand it or
leave it at the same size. That would be
an expansion of a nonconforming use. The
other letter that we received from Jim
Braslow, an e-mail from Julie Saul. The
only concern was for parking. These are
issues that I am sure you are all concerned
with with regard to traffic impacts and so
on. It's a small hamlet. Small hamlet
center. Those are all things that will
resolved with site plan review. I just
want to make you aware of that.
Barbara, if you would, please.
MS. SCHNITZLER: Hi, I am Barbara
be
Schnitzler, 220 Old Harbor Road, New
Suffolk. I am the Chair of the Waterfront
Fund. Just a few comments. For the last
five or six years this organization and our
community and our extensive list of
January 3, 2013 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
volunteers, there are over
raised $1.6 million dollars
purchase of this property.
500 donors, have
towards the
We have done
extensive community outreach to figure out
what people are interested in seeing on the
property. We feel very confident because
the restaurant has always come up as the
number one thing that everybody wants to
see back on this property. We know that it
will encourage the vitality. The property
is morbid at the moment. Especially since
Sandy. And we know that our community, our
donors, over two-third's of the property
owners in New Suffolk have financially
contributed to this project. So we know we
have done our homework. We have had two to
five community meetings every year. The
Land Trust taught us how to do that and
then we taught ourselves. We send out
newsletters. We have a bulletin board, we
have a Facebook, website. So we have tried
to be transparent. We have listened to the
public and we feel that our site plan
reflects the publics wishes. We can't
continue to solicit money at the rate that
January 3, 2013 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
we're been doing it. We have been really
lucky so far. We have had very generous
donors. We just can't expect people to
just keep giving us money at the same rate,
and that is why we're trying to make this
property self sustaining. We have some
time constraints. The Small Business
Administration came out after Sandy for
damage. They have -- they denied our
application for a long term low interest
loan, because they said our mortgage is too
heavy and we could never pay it back. Both
the mortgage and the loan. So we want to
get this mortgage situated and cleared up,
which we can do with the sale of this
property, and the money from the State
grant. So time is really of the essence in
your decision. I also dug up out of my
files the previous plan for this property,
and this is really what got everybody
mobilized to buy this property and preserve
it. It is a landmark. We want to preserve
it. We're preserving the three buildings.
We want to renovate them and reuse them.
The south -- and I don't have a copy. I
January 3, 2013 Regular Meeting 36
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
can make you one, if you're interested.
The south side of this site plan for this
original plan was parking for 106 cars.
The north side was parking for 77 cars, and
153 shrink wrapped boats. So that is what
it was going to be and now we're going to
give you an idea of what it can be with
your help. We hope it will. Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Thank you very
much. Would the Board like to ask some
questions or hear more from the audience?
George?
MEMBER HORNING: Briefly, ma'am, the
last speaker. Could you briefly take us
through this process? You mentioned
Peconic Land Trust and now this
organization, the New Suffolk Waterfront
Fund and explain to us the status of both
of those entities? I am a member of the
Town, but I am not a member of New Suffolk.
MS. SCHNITZLER: It's complicated.
About six years we formed a non-profit, New
Suffolk Waterfront Fund, non-profit 501C3.
The land trust also is. When this bid
proposal came up for the boat rack, our
January 3, 2013 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
community -- and it
growth of the civic
started to say that
some way. We hired
actually, to advise
through the process.
was really an out
association, people
we have to organize in
the Peconic Land Trust,
us, and they helped us
They negotiated the
sale with the
used their revolving
property initially.
previous owner and they also
fund to pay for the
And part of the deal
with the revolving fund is that you can
only have that money for three years. So
after three years, which was two years ago,
the New Suffolk Waterfront Fund became the
owner of the property. We paid them off
didn't have the money still,
but we even
though we had been fundraising, and we had
a loan from a place called Conservation
Fund. Another non-profit. They now hold
our mortgage, and we're hoping to pay them
off now. So the Land Trust is out of the
picture for us now, although they will be
involved in the easement on the south piece
of the property. They will be the
organization that oversees that easement.
They helped us get on our way, but they're
January 3, 2013 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
not involved with us anymore. We operate
-- we have a Board of 15 and we operate --
we just do our own thing.
MEMBER HORNING: Is it fair to say
that then the owner/operator of the boat
marina and restaurant is going to be a
non-profit corporation geared with a
conversation aspect to it?
MS. SCHNITZLER: You know, we haven't
really figured it out yet. We might lease
out. None of us know how to run a
restaurant, nor do we want to learn. We
don't know how to run a marina. So I think
there will be some leases involved. Lots
of people are interested in running this
restaurant. Informally people have come to
us, but we don't have the restaurant use
presently. So we were unable really to
pursue that. The marina needs a lot of
repair. We do have somebody on our Board
who is very knowledgeable. Most of us are
not. So we're not really sure how that
will be. But we know that the Waterfront
Fund will be involved.
MEMBER HORNING: Okay. One other
January 3, 2013 Regular Meeting 39
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
question. Hours of operation of the
restaurant, do you have any idea? You say
you're going to lease out the operation
probably. Are they going to operate
seasonally, year round? Do you have any
idea?
MS. SCHNITZLER: We do have a lot of
ideas and it's our idea to stay very
involved. We haven't worked for the last
five or six years to make this happen to
hand it over to somebody who might develop
it in a way that we don't want it
developed. Gall mentioned the septic
calculations would allow 118 seats. We
have no intention of having a restaurant
that big. We see it -- and if you look at
the architectural schematic, you can see
that we kept the initial Galley Ho. What
is left of it. Because it's a landmark, we
want to renovate it as it is. And we think
that could be a year round operation. Our
community would like a destination for the
winter. Even if it's just breakfast and
lunch, which we think it might be. We want
to keep the Galley Ho up and running. The
January 3, 2013 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
way the design is done. It's just that
there is an additional building, which can
be closed off. That could just be open in
the summer. We can have a more efficient
building by shutting down part of it
seasonally. We would like to have
something that runs year round. We see a
lot more transient dockage as a possibility
once we have a food concern going there.
We think a lot of the food will be
take-out. There is a beach. People can
walk on the beach. People can come on
their boats. People can bike from Town.
There is picnic tables there, a deck. It's
a great location. There is very few places
where you can eat on the water. The reason
I got into this project is because I just
want to sit at the picnic table, eat a hot
dog and look at the water. Simple things
are hard to come by and that is simply what
we're trying to do.
MEMBER HORNING: Okay. And one final
question. The Southold Town Fire
Inspector, we have a copy of a document,
have you seen that?
January 3, 2013 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
MS. SCHNITZLER: I haven't seen that.
Recently?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: It's dated
12/26/12. We think we should just enter
into the record, most of them are going to
be resolved -- actually probably Joe is
going to answer most of the questions.
They don't necessarily send it to you but
we make sure that you get it. We received
it December 26th and there were some
concerns. Bob Fisher is the Fire Marshal,
and this has to do with the Special
Exception permit for the restaurant use.
And he just went to take a look at the
condition that the
all have of course,
property very well.
answered some
question, the
Galley Ho was in and we
most of us know the
Gail has already
questions. The first
will building be moved? And
the answer is, of course, yes. To where,
we're not sure. The second, is the
existing structure viable? Perhaps Joe can
address that, or whoever you wish can
address it.
MS. SCHNITZLER: Joe can address it.
January 3, 2013 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
I can address it. Joe feels that it's
substantially intact and
We're going to move it.
leave it on cribs for a while
establish where it's going to
feels confident that
standing.
CHAIRPERSON
Since we do have
Let's let him enter
opinion.
MR. FISCHETTI:
is Joseph Fischetti. I
within the Town. Three
Sandy, Barbara
look at Galley
portion of the
we stabilize it.
We're going to
until we
go. And Joe
it will remain
WEISMAN: Let's do this.
an expert engineer here.
into the record his
Good morning.
am a civil
days after
My name
engineer
Hurricane
asked me to come out and
Ho building. The rear
foundation had been washed
out, but the structure was pretty much
sound the way that it was. There was no
change in the structure that was there.
When we discussed the building as it was, I
said that it needed to be stabilized and
seeing that they were going -- in essence,
when analyzing, we were going to lift this
building and try and move it out of the B
January 3, 2013 Regular Meeting 43
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Zones that it's in now. That would cause
us to raise it too high. So we would move
it out of the B Zone into the AE Zone, and
I said, let's just stabilize it and lift it
and keep it on the cribs and keep it
stabile until we had a chance to physically
do the renovations. And that is the
direction that we're taking now. It looks
worse than it is, but it is stabile and
sound.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Thank you, Joe.
MS. SCHNITZLER: We would have already
moved it but the gas company had to cut the
gas lines and they just did that last week.
Now I am waiting for confirmation in
writing. We already have our contracts with
the building moving company. We do expect
it to happen soon.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I am just going
to let you, because I want the audience to
be completely aware of the comments here.
They don't need to be addressed today. They
will be in future. Under another comment
from Bob Fisher was under some conditions
indicated on the proposal, is there enough
January 3, 2013 Regular Meeting 44
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
water supply to support possible fire
sprinklers? Again, that is a life safety
code issue. When you get to building
permits, you will be addressing that.
Location of the building on the lot, will
have an effect on prior public safety
concerns. Again, site plan review will take
you through those and make sure that those
conditions are met. More information will
be necessary for final determination. That
is fairly obvious. And finally, I have no
serious objections at this point, which
works out for you. I am glad to hear that.
We like full disclosure at these public
hearings. So everyone is brought up to
date with the same information. We don't
have any other things that we received that
you should know about. At this point, are
there questions from the Board or do we
want to hear more from the audience?
MEMBER DINIZIO: I would like to have
more discussion about the parking, you
know, the marina, the restaurant, add up to
the amount of spaces that will be on this
property. And what would be available for
January 3, 2013 Regular Meeting 45
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
the public?
MS. WICKHAM: The first thing that I
want to do is answer a little bit more on
George's question and the Board should be
aware of. The Peconic Land Trust does have
a right of refusal on this property. So if
the Waterfront Fund were to decide to sell
the property, the Peconic Land Trust would
step in and make sure that it went to the
right type of entity in that regard. Now,
with respect to the parking. Parking is
proposed to be maintained along First
Street, where it is now, and also developed
a parking area inside, up against Captain
Marty's building. They haven't actually
scaled it out or done the numbers in terms
of site plan. So all of the parking is
going to have to be addressed in terms of
the site plan. The New York State
Conservation easement does require public
access. The easement that is shown on your
map has not been finally approved yet. We
hope that we're very close. They're working
on it right now. They require a segment of
public parking. So there will be public
January 3, 2013 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
parking on this property. We found that
there is a lot of overflow parking from the
Town beach that comes down here. You know,
there is parking issues in New Suffolk and
that has been something that has been
discussed in all these community meetings
and discussed with the public. So
definitely parking is going to have to be
maximized and made as good as it can.
MEMBER DINIZIO: I think what I am
looking for, you suggested a couple of
uses, the marina and the restaurant.
Assuming that they both are successful --
MS. WICKHAM: Yes.
MEMBER DINIZIO: Is there enough
parking left for public parking?
MS. WICKHAM: There has to be public
parking made available.
MEMBER DINIZIO: I realize that there
has to be.
MS. WICKHAM: Well, when we get to the
site plan phase the Planning Board is going
to require that we do that. One thing that
I may mention, to the extent that there is
transient dockage, and that is going to be
January 3, 2013 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
an important aspect of this project and the
marina, those people will not be bringing
cars. They will be coming by boat. So to
the extent that the marina has transient
dockage, I don't know how the code works
with that, but logically, if you come by
boat, you don't need to bring a car. So
there are also a lot of people in New
Suffolk who come there by bicycle or what
not. So I am not saying that that doesn't
mean that we don't need to have that much
parking, but it does mitigate it to some
extent, and the demands for parking.
MEMBER DINIZIO: But you feel that
there is going to be enough parking?
MS. WICKHAM: Yeah. When there was a
marina and a restaurant there before they
had enough parking on the site. It was sort
of that gravely lot in the middle. Now
it's going to be shifted.
MEMBER DINIZIO: Because we did get a
letter of concern about that.
MS. WICKHAM: Just to give you a
description of it now, there is parking
along the front that we're going to have to
January 3, 2013 Regular Meeting 48
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
speak to the Town about maintaining.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Gail, could you
go back to the mic? We just want to make
sure we're picking you up on the recorder.
MS. WICKHAM: There are 40 spaces
there. So all the way from First Street
back to where the marina accessory building
is, will be two lanes of parking on either
side of the center aisle. So there will be
parking along the front. And Robin's Island
Holdings, all of their overflow parking
will now be able to be contained on their
site. So they will not be going over into
the public parking areas.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Well, the onset
density is going to be for us to determine
what
on.
the capacity for the restaurant is.
MS. WICKHAM: Correct.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Of course and so
MS. WICKHAM: That's correct.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I would think
that this issue can be resolved through
site plan approval successfully. They
really understand those codes and what is
January 3, 2013 Regular Meeting 49
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
required for various uses. It is a concern.
I am sure it's a greater concern to you --
MS. WICKHAM: It is.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: You live there. I
am sure you are not looking for adverse
impact on the quality of your own life and
the creation of additional traffic.
You are
for the
the
Southold Town. One doesn't know how to
predict the intensity of that use but like
most beaches and amenities, one would
assume that one would come to the Galley Ho
and enjoy the beach. That needs to be
resolved through site plan.
Did you have any more questions, Jim?
MEMBER DINIZIO: Yes. The building
itself, I read an article that you are
going to be moving that. And the placement
of it, has that been finalized? Will that
need variances also?
MS. WICKHAM: Well, as I mentioned
before and Barbara mentioned, it will be
moved. It will be moved back from the
making something available not just
residents of New Suffolk but for
bulkhead. And the attempt is going to get
January 3, 2013 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
it out of the B Zone and into the AE Zone.
I don't know without scaling it out and
figuring everything out, whether it will 75
feet away or somewhat less. As I mentioned
before, we might have to come back here for
a variance to ask that you consider
something from what -- from what this point
is, 15-20 feet -- 18 feet. So it would be
more than 18 feet and much closer to 75
feet. I can't say again. We're not in a
point to have been able to developed a full
blown site plan. We have discussed it with
the Building Inspector. We have had
several meetings with Mr. Verity and trying
to get a handle on all the different
requirements. It is quite possible that we
will need a further variance. We didn't --
let me just mention, there are two reasons
why we didn't do that. One is the amount of
money and time it takes to get to the point
where we can actually produce a site plan,
is considerable. And Number Two, Robin's
Island Holdings is very interested in
moving forward with this process without us
waiting through where the parking is going
January 3, 2013 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
to be and all those other details. And as
Barbara mentioned, time is important in
terms of funding and reducing that
mortgage. And until we can close with
Robin's Island Holdings, we're not going to
reduce the mortgage.
MEMBER DINIZIO: Again, my concern is
that we're going to approve something --
MS. WICKHAM: Well, it's going to have
to be subject to any further approvals as
Leslie mentioned earlier. And if we can't
get a site plan approval without another
variance then implicitly, we won't.
MEMBER DINIZIO: Right. That's my
concern.
MS. WICKHAM: I understand that.
MEMBER DINIZIO: You know, if you can't
be definitive about where that restaurant
is going to be placed, which is something
in all variances. We're very definitive on
surveys and --
MS. WICKHAM: I understand.
MEMBER DINIZIO: It doesn't appear
we're going to have that. That's going to
be sticky.
January 3, 2013 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
MS. WICKHAM: Let me just say this,
there is room on the property to put the
building all the way back. The contention
is how much open space in the middle do you
want to preserve and you know, you have a
park area there and you want parking. So
that's going to be the balancing that we're
going to have to evaluate in terms of
getting the site plan to you and then
adjudicate it. So there is a lot of
conceptual ideas that come in, in terms of
balancing that, because yeah, you can plunk
the restaurant right down the middle of the
property and then the closer you get it to
the street, the more you impact the views.
The more you use up the land that is now
used for community gathering and all kinds
of activities that the Waterfront is so
great about promoting. We don't have a
definitive answer, but as you can see,
everything is looked at very carefully with
a great deal of scrutiny and a great deal
of forethought.
MEMBER DINIZIO: But the picnic table
is where you're going to eat the hog dog
January 3, 2013 Regular Meeting 53
1
2
3
4
5
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
at
the
at
MS. WICKHAM:
MEMBER DINIZIO:
restaurant?
MS. WICKHAM: No.
right now.
Yeah.
That is
not part of
That's where we're
MEMBER DINIZIO: You know, again, we're
going to need to be consistent in our
decision. I mean, you gave me something to
bite on there. You have a concept. You
want to follow through with that concept.
We can't grant a variance based on a
concept. You have to have something
definitive and drawn out --
MS. WICKHAM: We're not asking --
we're asking you to allow two uses and
we're asking you for a Special Exception
to
allow a restaurant. How big that restaurant
is going to be, that's a whole other
application and we understand that. And I
think my papers say that just in case there
is any questions. We fully understand that
there is another level of approval. We
would love to do it all today but we can't.
MEMBER DINIZIO: So we can make that a
January 3, 2013 Regular Meeting 54
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
condition?
MS. WICKHAM: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: It's clear that
the reason here is financial. That you
need some insurance going forward that
certain things will be in place before you
can finalize other things. Otherwise, Jim,
is absolutely right. One of the questions
that I had was where is this going to be
located? Will it require an additional
variance, and you have answered that to my
satisfaction, Gail. You are not at that
point yet, and that you would be back
before us, if you need to. And we will
have to condition things based on that. So
it's very clear that that use is dependant
upon exactly where it's going to be
located, conforming or not. I actually had
a question about the marina accessory here.
Is that intended to be moved or is that
going to stay where it is?
MS. WICKHAM: The plan for that
building is to leave it where it is. It's
been there for many years. It doesn't need
extensive renovations as I understand it
January 3, 2013 Regular Meeting 55
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
tl
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
but it's -- it's going to be used for
people using the marina ordinarily. To
a place to be. Lockers and things like
that.
barn
have
Marina office?
now. They thought they could have movies
and show that off that type of thing. Put
sheet up.
MS. SCHNITZLER: Two of the three
buildings are (In Audible) listed and the
property has been landmarked. I am very
embarrassed to say
until I talked to Jim Graph
was a landmark Commissioner
and I
didn't know
knew that it
it was
that I did not know that
yesterday. I
for six years
was all eligible but I
a local landmark. So we
a
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
MS. WICKHAM: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: What's
storage on the property?
MS. WICKHAM: The barn is a very old
barn. It is going to be maintained as
storage, because you can't ever have
property without storage. There has been no
plans to develop that into anything but
storage. They keep garden equipment in it
with the
January 3, 2013 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
will do everything to preserve those
buildings and make them appropriately,
adaptively to keep them.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Ken, did you have
any questions that you wanted to make?
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: No.
MS. GRANT: My name is Lauren Grant
and I live at 2980 (In Audible) Road in New
Suffolk. And I just wanted to address
Mr. Dinizio's issues on parking. In New
Suffolk, it's been an ongoing problem with
the public beach now. It's so popular with
people coming all over the city to come and
use the beach. The e-mail that you received
probably addresses that as well, because
people who probably don't want to use the
public parking lot go along all the side
streets in New Suffolk. So that is a
condition that is being addressed by the
New Suffolk Civic Association, as past
president of the New Suffolk Civic
Association. There is correspondence galore
between myself and the supervisor at the
time. Scott has been wonderful in working
with us and trying to make -- he has put up
January 3, 2013 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
dozens of parking signs to try and
designate to park where in New Suffolk. We
have many people who come and park on the
streets and then walk to the beach. So I
know having spoken to Ms. Saul about that,
that is a great concern of hers. The Civic
Association is also trying to work with her
and other residents in the area who have
ongoing problems with parking on homes. As
far as the Waterfront is concerned, they
have been very consciousness and helped
with this ongoing problem in trying to
create a parking lot that is next to
Captain Marty's, which really holds a lot
of people. We also work with Legend's and
helping them work with their parking. So
it's a very strong issue that is very
prevalent on everyone's mind. I just wanted
to let you know that it's very, very much
on everybody's mind. And the Civic
Association as well, is constantly trying
to work on it and improve it. Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Thank you. Does
any other Board members have any questions?
Do you want to come forward?
January 3, 2013 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
MR. MAUL: Good morning. My name is
George Maul. I live at 375 First Street in
New Suffolk.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Can you please
spell your name.
MR. MAUL: M-A-U-L. It's across the
street from the Robin's Island property and
from the property that we're talking about.
I am also the landlord for the New Suffolk
Post Office. I have been the landlord for
20 years. I am very concerned about
parking. When the Peconic Land Trust
originally brought this property, they held
a series of meetings at the schoolhouse for
the purpose of obtaining consensus of the
community about what the use of the
property should be. And there were
bulletin boards at the schoolhouse and
every one was given a dot -- every one in
the community was given a dot and asked to
put where they thought they should put it
in what they thought the property should
be. And some of the uses were park, open
space, restaurant, post office -- I don't
remember what the other ones were. I do
January 3, 2013 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
remember that the first two popular uses
were open space and park. And now I am
concerned because the property has passed
through the Waterfront Fund, and it appears
to me that they're trying to put all of the
uses on this one property. And I don't
understand how, if the purpose is
preservation, that all of these uses are
being brought in or more uses than just one
or two. And why those one or two were not
the originally
meeting in the
space and park.
asked for in the consensus
community, which were open
Now I also understand that
there are financial issues about the
property. And I have heard proposals about
it being a snack bar, which I think is
maybe reasonable. And now it's a proposal
for a restaurant. The proposals on this
property have changed over and over. And
over the past five years they continued to
(In Audible) sideways and I would hope that
at some point, the Waterfront Fund would
come up with a real site plan and a real
set of uses so that the entire community
can get behind the issue and feel confident
January 3, 2013 Regular Meeting 60
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
about it. And I think the Board should
deny the Special Exception for a restaurant
until there is a site plan. I completely
support the subdivision and Robin's Island
and what they want to do there. I think
that is wonderful. I think that everything
that Robin's Island has done in the
community area is wonderful. But I am
concerned about the restaurant. I am
concerned about the septic system. Not
because there is going to be one, but in
order to have a septic system, you know,
three feet above the groundwater, that
septic system has to come up higher. Now
where Robin's Island is now, they have
raised the property six feet, and if you
want to talk about a scenic vista, you
can't see any scenic vista when you raise
the property six feet to put septic system
underneath. And you stand up on the street
and you see dirt here. That is not a
scenic vista. You can't see the water
there. Now, I don't know what that means
in terms of a site plan for these
properties, but I think we need to see that
January 3, 2013 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
to see if there is any open space. If the
road is two feet lower than the property,
there is iow profile fencing. We have to
know what this is and see what it is. View
shed? Now, there is a reason why the
process here involves sending registered
mail to people who live adjacent to this
property. That is because their lives and
concerns are immediately next to the
property and they're affected more by it
than the rest of the community is. And I
would hope that the Waterfront Fund would
take that into consideration also. You
know, when Hurricane Sandy comes and all of
the docks get ripped Up and come across the
street, they wash into our property and we
spend two days picking up the dock from the
Galley Ho and putting it in the street so
that it could be taken away by the Town. So
these are, you know, issues that happen
immediately right there. In terms of
parking, please let me say that over the
past few years there are more people in
downtown New Suffolk. If it's going to be a
restaurant, does that also mean a catering
January 3, 2013 Regular Meeting 62
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
hall? What is the difference between those
two? I don't know. Are we going to have
weddings there? Are we going to have bands
on the beach? I don't know. I think we need
to have a plan here of what it's going to
be. As it is now, we have a boat ramp
there and trouble with parking now. On the
first day of clamming season at five
o'clock in the morning, there is all
pick-up trucks that are coming in there.
There is parking for the post office. Okay.
When they have a 5K run, there is hundreds
of people there with cars. They don't bike
there. They come from Brooklyn and Queens.
Boats are dropped off there from Sayville.
So these are real issues that exist and I
would love to support the Waterfront Funds
ideas, but we need a real plan that really
works and then let's do it. But asking for
a special exception without a site plan, I
think is really wrong. I think it's wrong.
I support the subdivision. I support
Robin's Island for the property, but I
would ask that the Board deny the Special
Exception until we have a site plan. Thank
January 3, 2013 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
yOU o
MS. HARKOFF: Diane Harkoff, Legends
Restaurant, 435 First Street, New Suffolk.
Besides parking, one of my biggest concerns
is size of the septic system and how much
water it will displace being above ground.
We have all had to sandbag three times in
the past eight weeks. And flooding is a big
concern for us. Another concern is also the
cost for building this and the flood
insurance, the equipment. What happens
it is not supporting the New Suffolk
if
height and length of this septic system
would be?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: That is not
information that we have.
MS. HARKOFF: I just feel and I heard
at one time that anything you put above
ground displaces more water and pushes it
Waterfront Fund? Then does that require
more fundraising? I know probably most
people, I am told, are opposed to this, but
I would like to see the taxes raised to
support this project rather than continued
fundraising. And does anyone know what the
January 3, 2013 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
towards the buildings on Front Street. I
also would be concerned about the cost of
landscaping on this property considering
how frequently it floods. And I think that
is it.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Thank you. Is
there anyone else that wants to address the
Board?
MR. SKALLY: Hi, yes. Thomas Skally,
270 Third Street. I am only in the
neighborhood for a short time. I think the
parking might be able to help on one of the
side streets. You should be able -- if
Southold could allow that, it would allow
more parking on the street. Maybe that is
not part of the approval with this. And
with Legends, I think if they had a boat
tender service that would take people you
know, back and forth to their boats, it
would increase the revenue for the Town and
help Legends and help Summer Girl. It would
help Galley Ho. It would help everybody. I
think this is something that creates jobs
and keeps the taxes iow, and I think based
on that and itself -- like the gentleman
January 3, 2013 Regular Meeting 65
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
was saying with the septic and the
drainage, I think the engineer might be
able to come up with that or maybe a
different type of septic system that are
more common in areas of Vermont. They would
probably not raise the property as high. So
maybe he might be able to shed some light
on it. Like everybody says, when you're
down at the beach or you're coming down
there -- and yeah, people do walk and do
ride their bicycles. In the winter time
it's a sleep community. In the summer time,
that's part of what New Suffolk is about on
Long Island. There is a North Fork and a
South Fork. That is where people come. They
want to have a good time. Without these
things it would make it boring out there.
Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Thank you. Please
come forward and state your name and spell
it for the record.
MR. ROUSSAN: Hi, Stephan Roussan, 415
Third Street, New Suffolk. R-O-U-S-S-A-N. I
just wanted to say a few things. The
concerns raised today are all perfectly
January 3, 2013 Regular Meeting 66
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
appropriate and legitimate for the
circumstances. Everyone has questions that
they would love to have answered as quickly
as possible. Certainly you can't have too
much clarity and you know, I am certainly
very sympathetic to the
immediately adjacent to
because they're the most
impacted. At the same time,
sort of remind everyone that
properties that are
the waterfront,
immediately
I just want to
in a process
like this, which is done entirely on a
volunteer basis by members of the community
who are giving up their selves and time and
sacrificing a great deal for this, it takes
time and you don't necessarily have the
clarity and answers that you want to say,
as if it were a
business entity
is well funded,
corporate entity or
that is coming in and that
with all the answers ahead
of time. I think we all have to allow for a
fluid process. You know, especially
considering what their fundraising concerns
are. You know, a year ago, this plan wasn't
really on the radar. And then you know, you
work the channels and you develop the
January 3, 2013 Regular Meeting 67
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
relationship and something happens and you
get a break. The same thing with the
application for the grant from the State.
These are fantastic things that allow the
New Suffolk Waterfront Fund to really
secure it's own future and to have it's own
stake. To know that there is a long term
prospect by this without being put in debt
and worry about immediately selling it off.
So it is fluid. It is organic. It's very
frustrating but I think it's important to
recognize how hard these guys are working
and the fact that these guys are doing it
-- it's unfunded and funded by the people
who are supporting it and still managing to
really pull off what is a really
unbelievable accomplishment. And when you
contrast that with what might have happened
there, if it had not been stepped in or
garnered their support and not developed
the New Suffolk Waterfront Fund, the future
of that property, what it might have been
and the impact of what it would have on all
of us, especially for the people, you know,
immediately across the street. I don't
January 3, 2013 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
think it's -- it's just a remarkable
difference to be in the position that we're
in now versus what it might have been. So I
want to commend the Waterfront Fund for
that, and just amazed on how many people
are working so hard on volunteer basis to
make that happen. So I would like to have
those answers too. Parking is a big issue
for me too. And some of the uses that are
being proposed are not necessarily the ones
that I put my dot next to at the highest of
the list. I do remember the restaurant
option. It wasn't what I was going for
myself, but I remember the restaurant
option being extremely popular and one of
the most requested uses for the property.
It was not just park and open space. A lot
of people, you know, were saying, it's open
space now. It's boring. We want some life
and some activity down there. I heard much
more about the days of Galley Ho and having
a burger down there. You might have to go
back to the record and see what the voting
results actually were, but I am pretty sure
that the restaurant was at the top of the
January 3, 2013 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
list, at least the top three. So I just
think that we have to be a little patient
and give these guys a pat on the back too.
To continue pressing. To continue asking.
To continue wanting clarity and wanting it
to come together, but I think we have to
give these guys a little bit of a break
too. Thanks.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Thank you.
MS. DINGLE: Susan Dingle, and I live
at 7400 New Suffolk Road. Just off of
Elizabeth Street, across the street from
the school. And my parents bought the house
in 1967 and were involved in the early days
of founding the New Suffolk Civic
Association. So we have always been
involved and always loved going down to the
Galley Ho, whether it be lunch time or last
at night or whatever. It was always fun,
but times have changed. As I am sitting
here, I of course, support the work of the
New Suffolk Waterfront Fund in really
rescuing this land for future use. I
totally acknowledge all their work often. I
was very moved when I heard George Maul
January 3, 2013 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
speak of his concerns, as someone who lives
on First Street. Times have changed. Never
before, I don't ever remember the Fire
Department coming through to evacuate New
Suffolk because of flooding and the danger
that was presented during Hurricane Sandy,
and I just wondered have we fully taken
into account the possibilities that are now
present that didn't exist before. The
flooding was kind of a theoretical. It
could be a flood zone. It wasn't actually a
flood zone. There was never any previous
experience of a dock being washed up as
George has described. Of course we all have
that dream of having that hot dog at the
Galley Ho and sitting on the picnic bench
and all of that, but I just really think
that we need to consider the fragility of
the environment to really, really consider
that the Eco system of New Suffolk is
indeed fragile. The overburdening of our
community because of the popularity is
something that I think we really need to
take into account. And I just really wanted
to speak at, because I think in our
January 3, 2013 Regular Meeting 71
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
enthusiasm, and our love for our community,
that we may want to rush ahead and do
wonderful things, but I think that it's
important to take time and really consider
those who
really is
you.
the implications of what really appears
be a very changing climate that has
affected our delicate community. And so I
just wanted to express that in support of
are currently impacted that that
a flooding zone, and so I thank
to
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: You're welcome.
just want to make a comment at this point.
Many of the concerns that you have raised,
all of them carefully thought through and
are certainly appreciated by this Board,
are beyond the purview of what is before
us. It is all a process. In order for you
to proceed with the site plan review phase,
where you will actually have
to look at drainage, septic,
placement of the restaurant
whatever scale it turns out
are things that happens at
We too are concerned with
an opportunity
the proper
structure,
to be. Those
another phase.
life safety and
January 3, 2013 Regular Meeting 72
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
parking and we heard your concerns in what
you're trying to do to address them. We
have also heard from the Board and also
from the members of the audience that the
vagueness at this point, where you're able
to pinpoint where that restaurant will be,
relative to environmental impact, parking
impact and so on, is somewhat of an issue.
This Board -- I actually think I would like
to poll the Board in order how to proceed.
We don't have to close the hearing today.
We can close it at our special meeting in
two weeks. Giving everyone an opportunity
to sit through what they heard and provide
whatever written, not verbal, but written
additional comments they would like to make
to this Board. We can close this hearing at
that time. That is for the application on
the area variance. With regard to the
Special Exception request for the
Waterfront, that can be handled a couple of
ways, and I am going to poll the Board in a
moment. We can also do the same, close it
at the Special Meeting or we can adjourn it
to an open date, which means that you can
January 3, 2013 Regular Meeting 73
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
come back without any additional costs. So
that you have more specifics and we can be
more informed on precisely what it is that
you're asking us to grant. So if you would
like to comment on that, fine, but the
Board has some options on how to proceed.
We can also close all of these hearings
right now, subject to any kind of comments
you want to make before that happens.
MS. WICKHAM: I don't have a problem
with the concept of adjourning it and
keeping the hearing open for another two
weeks. I think that if that helps the Board
and gets our hearing done today as people
digest their comments, that is fine. What I
do want to say that we're presented with a
wonderful opportunity here to move forward
with Robin's Island Holdings, but in order
to do that, we have to know what is going
to happen to the rest of the property, and
without all of these applications
adjudicated, we're really not in a position
to do that. I don't know what will happen.
They have presented us with a wonderful
opportunity to move forward. No matter how
January 3, 2013 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
great of a plan that you present, some
people may have a problem with it. I think
all of the concerns here today can be
addressed, and if there are specifics that
need to be addressed when it comes to the
actual
construction of the restaurant and
the approvals of the restaurant, that is
all going to have to come out
with at the appropriate time.
that the Special Exception
all of those site plans to
whether a restaurant, which has
for many, many years, can exist
a special exception. So I would
you not to adjourn that hearing
than the two week process, if that
possible.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Whoever
best person qualified to answer this,
a financial terms, Waterfront moving
forward with the plans, how, in your
opinion, essential is it to have a
and be dealt
I don't think
needs to have
determine
been here
again with
like to ask
anymore
is
is the
from
determination on the restaurant special
exception, would a determination on the
area variances, would that allow you to
January 3, 2013 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
transfer properties
get that cash,
plans, is that a possibility?
to Robin's Holdings,
and proceed with additional
restaurant, then we don't have 6oth.
MEMBER HORNING: May I ask a question?
MS. WICKHAM: Sure.
MEMBER HORNING: Relating to the New
York State easement and the Nature Preserve
easement, it has been mentioned that both
of those easements require a certain amount
of parking, and nobody mentioned how much
or whatever. My question would be, those
easements, do they have any effect on the
total lot reserve --
MS. WICKHAM: No.
MEMBER HORNING: The square footage
required --
MS. WICKHAM: No. They do not impact
density, if that is what your question is.
MEMBER DINIZIO: What we want to know,
MS. WICKHAM: They're all tied
together. Because if you have a ability to
have a restaurant and a marina together on
less than a sufficient area but you don't
have a special exception to reinstate the
January 3, 2013 Regular Meeting 76
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
you have a marina and you have a restaurant
and then you have a park use and then you
have easements, with all of that total, do
you somehow exceed the amount that you
would need to provide for parking? See the
problem that I see? The
hamburger at the
that myself, but
wasn't there. You didn't --
MS. WICKHAM: We're not
provide parking for Legend's
MEMBER DINIZIO: I agree
MS. WICKHAM:
everything as we
mentioned to
dream is to have a
Galley Ho and I have done
when I did that, Legends
-- we have
can as
accommodate all
obligated to
with you
done
Lauren Grant
those uses.
100%.
things that
There is a
that
any more. There are
took the place of Galley Ho.
restaurant there that services
area that was once serviced by the
MEMBER DINIZIO: I agree with you 100%.
MS. WICKHAM: But we will continue to
do so.
MEMBER DINIZIO: We're looking at
congestion. We're looking at planning. You
know, what existed when this restaurant
existed, doesn't exist
January 3, 2013 Regular Meeting 77
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Galley Ho. Now, you're asking to do
another restaurant in that area.
MS. WICKHAM: It has always existed
and I don't think there is another
restaurant in town which has it's own
business, its own clientele. I don't think
that is a reason on what can happen on this
particular piece of property.
MEMBER DINIZIO: Only that you're
talking about
land use. You once had a
restaurant there. You can only have a
restaurant there if you come before this
Board and ask for permission. Now, we're
looking at someone saying, if you raise the
land, you're going to flood my property --
MS. WICKHAM: Let me just address that.
Anything that happens with respect to the
sanitary system
County Health Department.
conceptual site plan that
you, there are some
system will have to
will be approved by Suffolk
And in fact, the
was presented to
areas that the sanitary
be built up. That is
all going to be in accordance with Suffolk
County Health Department.
MEMBER DINIZIO: Okay. Fine. We're
January 3, 2013 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
having a hearing on the restaurant, I think
it's at least appropriate or a person
coming into this town to see what that is
going to look like on a map --
MS. WICKHAM: That is what the site
plan is for.
MEMBER DINIZIO: I agree. Where is it?
MS. WICKHAM: We have given you a
conceptual site plan. The actual site plan,
with the architectural review and all those
things will have to happen at the site plan
stage.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Let me just
request something. I know that you know
this. This Board and we have members on
here who have been on and off for over 35
years, the Board does not, has not,
approved uses based on a concept. They are
always site specific. The code gives us
some latitude -- but what I would actually
like to do is recess for ten minutes
because I want to make sure that we get
this right and see what our legal authority
is. And I would like to confer and go into
Executive Session with the Town Attorney
January 3, 2013 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
and the Board, and it shouldn't take long,
ten or fifteen minutes. I apologize to the
other applicants that need to be heard. We
will get to you as soon as we can, but this
is a complicated issue. It's a double
application and it's important, and we know
that. We want to get it right.
MS. WICKHAM: That's fine.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: So I am going to
make a motion to go into Executive Session.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Ail in favor?
MEMBER DINIZIO: Aye.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye.
MEMBER HORNING: Aye.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Aye.
(Whereupon, the meeting entered
Executive Session.)
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: -- make a motion
to close the hearing on the area variances
for the lot line change. We don't feel,
unless somebody in the audience wants to
object to this, that there is any
additional testimony that is necessary for
January 3, 2013 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
any additional comments that we need. So
that is that. With regard to the Special
Exception permit application for the
restaurant. We're going to adjourn that to
the February meeting in order to accomplish
the following. We're going to request that
you submit to the Board a specific site
plan. It can be exactly the one that is in
front of us now. Right, "as built", exactly
where it is. We would need to have the
and we
on this
septic plan located on this survey
would need to have parking located
plan. We will then be in a position to
evaluate approval of something specific.
We're aware that your plans will change.
We
know that you will go to many site plan
approval, but this will allow us to do
something that the Board has jurisdiction
over, which is to grant the use of a
restaurant on the parcel as determined with
regard to the lot line change. The
restaurant would have been distinguished
because it has not been a continuos use. We
then would be in a position because we will
have an "as built" plan with additional
January 3, 2013 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
information to grant or deny based on
something specific. If you need more time
than February, we will adjourn from
February to March. We're hopeful that
given your timeframe you will be able to
get this done within that time. If you need
to come back to us, you will just come back
to us with amended plans. You know, once
you go through site plan approval, the
Planning Board. The Planning Board, if the
plans change, you just come back before the
Board with those plans and we can proceed
from there. That will allow us to not hold
you up and to look at these things and all
the applications simultaneously. Do you
have
any questions?
MR. SKALLY: I have one question.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: State your name.
MR. SKALLY: Thomas Skally. In the
beginning of this meeting, it was told that
there were time constraints as far as
getting the low interest loan. What
timeframe is that?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: We have --
MR. SKALLY: From what they were saying
January 3, 2013 Regular Meeting 82
1
2
3
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
for their financing --
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Their financing?
MR. SKALLY: Yes. If this is approved
what the
are, the Board
They have 62
closing of the
in a timely manner, that money would be
available to the community?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Here is
Board's legal obligations
will make a determination.
days from the date of the
hearing to make a determination in writing.
We more often than not make a determination
within two weeks from today. We have a
special meeting two weeks after the regular
meeting, and we have draft decisions
written. We do our very best to get it done
then. It's not always possible. It depends
on how complicated. If it's not possible to
be done, it will be done one month from now
at the next regular meeting. We will
deliberate and then do a draft. We're
talking now about the lot line change.
regard to the special exception, if you
have the information you need for the
February hearing, we may have questions on
it. There may be some additional comments
With
January 3, 2013 Regular Meeting 83
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
that some of you would like to make. It
won't be as nearly long of a hearing as it
today, and then we can adjudicate in the
same way. We can even have a draft prepared
for that very same day of the hearing and
make a decision the same date. It depends
on how fast you all act to get us that
information. I can't answer your question
as to the New Suffolk Waterfront Fund.
Maybe Barbara can. So would you like to
answer it publicly or privately?
MS. SCHNITZLER: We can do it
privately.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay.
Any other
Board?
Anything from the
questions or comments from the
(No Response.)
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
audience?
(No Response.)
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay. Hearing no
further questions or comments, I am going
to make a motion to close Application #6616
and reserving decision
MEMBER GOEHRINGER:
CHAIRPERSON
for a later date.
Second.
WEISMAN: Ail in favor?
January 3, 2013 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
MEMBER DINIZIO: Aye.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye.
MEMBER HORNING: Aye.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Aye.
That was for the lot line change.
Now, I am going to make a motion
adjourn application #6617, request for
Special Exception use brought by New
Suffolk Waterfront and adjourn it to the
regular meeting, which is on
7th at 10:00 a.m. And you're
adjournment is based upon the
February
February
that the
receipt
septic
well
of "as built" site plan showing
and elevations for the septic, as
as parking.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Seconded by
Gerry.
Ail in favor?
MEMBER DINIZIO: Aye.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye.
MEMBER HORNING: Aye.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Aye.
to
the
clear
January 3, 2013 Regular Meeting 85
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
(See Minutes for Resolution.)
HEARING #6618 PETER AND DIANE MOLLICA
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The next
application before the Board is for Peter
and Diane Mollica, #6618. Request for
variance from Article III Code Section
280-15 and the Building Inspector's
December 3, 2012 Notice of Disapproval
based on an application for building permit
for an accessory in-ground swimming at: 1)
accessory in-ground swimming pool is
proposed in a location other than the code
required rear yard, located at: 50 Schooner
Drive, corner Anchor Lane, in Southold.
MS. MOLLICA: Hi.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Hi.
MS. MOLLICA: I am Diane Mollica.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay. Just so
you're aware, all the Board members have
been out to visit your property.
MS. MOLLICA: Okay.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: To see what the
neighborhood looks like. To see the
proposed location exactly.
January 3, 2013 Regular Meeting 86
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MS. MOLLICA: Okay.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Is there
something that you would like to tell us?
The proposed pool is along the side of the
house with a 22 side yard setback and 11
feet to the road, and a proposed fence.
MS. MOLLICA: It's really actually very
simple. I don't have a backyard. I live on
the corner. So if everybody visited, you
will know that I have two side yards and a
front yard. My backyard is very narrow and
I have several cesspools back there as
well. So there is no ideal place for it.
The best place would be on the side of the
house where I am proposing. There is ample
space. I have moved the garage door, so I
can take out that driveway and put the
proposed pool there. The only thing that I
would like to say in reference to the sign,
I had two signs posted. We were away from
the holiday and we had a snow storm and
several different storms, and I could not
put back the sign. I brought you evidence
so you can see that I tried and being that
it was a holiday. I got really upset when
January 3, 2013 Regular Meeting 87
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
the gentleman came today and I didn't have
my sign, but I would suggest that they
laminate the sign, because I didn't -- I
tried to put saran wrap on it and nothing
worked. At one time, it was completely
posted for the entire length. So if you
have any questions for me, I think it's
kind of clear.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: How high is the
fence?
MS. MOLLICA: I don't have a fence.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The fence around
the pool?
MS. MOLLICA: I have to put a fence
around the pool. I have not gone into that
yet because I have not researched it. I
understand that there is a certain height
that you need for the pool. So that was my
understanding that I would do whatever is
required, and I have not gotten that far. I
am taking it one step at a time.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: You will be
required by code to put up a minimum four
foot fence, since you're in the front yard.
MS. MOLLICA: That's fine.
January 3, 2013 Regular Meeting 88
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: You might want to
consider installing some evergreen
screening --
MS. MOLLICA: Absolutely. I would want
that.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I am not sure how
your neighbors --
MS. MOLLICA: I looked into that if I
put the hedge before or after the fence, at
four feet and because of the distance from
my house, I could still see the view. So I
will just have to do what I have to do and
I will keep it at four feet.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Jim, any
questions?
MEMBER DINIZIO: Any reason why you
can't move it closer to your house?
MS. MOLLICA: Move the pool closer to
the house? Well, I have a deck and the
deck has always been there. It's a concrete
deck, and it's ten feet away from that. If
I put it any closer, you will walk off the
deck and into the pool. So I would have to
take away that deck that is already part of
my house. And I enjoy the deck, and I am
January 3, 2013 Regular Meeting 89
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
going to use it as part of the outdoor
area.
MEMBER DINIZIO: What about your
cesspools?
MS. MOLLICA: The cesspools are in the
back of the house.
MEMBER DINIZIO: You live on a
peninsula; right? Your cesspools are in the
back --
MS. MOLLICA: The back of the house
which is Anchor Lane.
MEMBER DINIZIO: So I see a drain there
and a well, there is cesspools in that
area?
MS. MOLLICA: Yes. It's in the back of
the house. So if you came in the front door
of my house and just go straight through,
it's in the back of the house.
MEMBER DINIZIO: The driveway is on the
side of your house?
MS. MOLLICA: I'm sorry if this is
confusing. The old driveway is on the side
of the house. That is where I am proposing
to put the pool. The new driveway --
MEMBER DINIZIO: That is on the front?
January 3, 2013 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
MS. MOLLICA: The front of the house.
I moved that.
MEMBER DINIZIO: That is what you
consider the front of your house?
MS. MOLLICA: Yes.
MEMBER DINIZIO: If I walk
front door and straight into your
that is where your cesspools are?
MS. MOLLICA: Exactly.
MEMBER DINIZIO: That wouldn't be the
drywell for your pool?
MS. MOLLICA: No, because I
the drywell in a different area.
through your
house,
to
MEMBER DINIZIO: So there are no plans
recover that?
MS. MOLLICA: No, I didn't like that.
MEMBER DINIZIO: And the deck,
concrete pad, it has been --
MS. MOLLICA: I don't know. The
previous owner put it there. When I went to
the Town to get my survey, it was already
on the survey. So I didn't change -- I took
down a glass enclosure, which was the sun
room and kept the concrete slab, so I could
just make an outdoor patio.
the
would put
January 3, 2013 Regular Meeting 91
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MEMBER DINIZIO: Okay. And the
driveway where the pool is going, that is
all going to be removed and plant grass?
MS. MOLLICA: Yes, I will plant grass
and I will do
a walk way and put a chair or
something like that.
MEMBER DINIZIO: How much decking are
you going to have around the pool?
MS. MOLLICA: I guess about ten feet,
but not all the way around because I won't
have the room to go all the way around.
Probably three feet in the area where I
don't have space. I do have space, I will
do ten feet.
MEMBER DINIZIO: So that will be ten
feet between Schooner Drive?
MS. MOLLICA: Yes. Schooner Drive side
and the street. So all along the street. Do
you have a survey?
MEMBER DINIZIO: Yes. How do we treat
the three feet around the pool and should
that be subject to the variance? That's
eleven feet from the pool.
MS. MOLLICA: I'm sorry?
MEMBER DINIZIO: It's eleven
feet from
January 3, 2013 Regular Meeting 92
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
the property line to the pool, and you want
to go three feet on that side just so you
can walk around?
the
or would that be
MS. MOLLICA:
to put blue stone.
MS. MOLLICA: So when you step out of
pool you don't step onto the grass.
MEMBER DINIZIO: Would that be cement
wood?
No, I
MEMBER DINIZIO:
just lay that on the
MS. MOLLICA: Yes.
it properly installed.
MEMBER DINIZIO: So
was actually going
Put blue stone and
ground?
Well, I would have
there wouldn't be
in between it.
MEMBER DINIZIO: Good luck with that
stone.
MS. MOLLICA: It's a fortune.
MEMBER DINIZIO:
I have.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I
Okay. I think that is
Gerry?
really
don't have
all
blue
cement underneath it?
MS. MOLLICA: Something there just so
the blue stone won't move. Nothing won't
grow
January 3, 2013 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
anything. She doesn't have any other place
to put it.
MS. MOLLICA: Thank you.
MEMBER HORNING: How many residences
are up there on that Schooner Drive?
MS. MOLLICA: There are two other
houses than mine.
MEMBER HORNING: Just two?
MS. MOLLICA: Just two. That is a
dead-end street. There is three, past my
house there is two, but across there is
one. So that's
MEMBER HORNING:
three.
So
you have
approximately
driving their
three different neighbors
vehicles in and out what
turns out to be a dead-end.
MS. MOLLICA: I am not sure if this
matters to you, but those people don't live
there. That is their second homes.
MEMBER HORNING: Okay. They could live
there?
MS. MOLLICA: Yeah.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Anybody else?
Ken?
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: No questions.
January 3, 2013 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
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Is there anyone
in the audience that wishes to address this
application?
(No Response.)
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Hearing no
further questions,
close this hearing
a later date.
I will make a motion to
and reserve decision to
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Ail in favor?
MEMBER DINIZIO: Aye.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye.
MEMBER HORNING: Aye.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Aye.
(See Minutes for Resolution.)
HEARING #6614 BETTY HERMANN
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The next
application before the Board is for Betty
Hermann, #6614. Applicant requests a
Special Exception under Article III,
Section 280-13B(13) . The applicant
owner requesting authorization to
an accessory
apartment in an
is the
establish
accessory
January 3, 2013 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
structure, located at: 305 North Bayview
Road, Extension Southold, New York.
MR. LEONARD: Good afternoon. Robert
Leonard, L-E-O-N-A-R-D. Agent for the
applicant.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Thank you. We
have just received -- a number of us went
out and did a site inspection of the
property for the proposed accessory. We got
a letter of support from the neighbor.
Everyone has a copy of that. Now, we just
found out from the Building Inspector that
the livable floor area is 600 square feet.
That's fine. The code requires -- permits
rather
a maximum of 750.
proposed attached deck,
square feet, that now,
livable space but it's
structure --
MR. LEONARD: Okay.
However, with the
it's like 300
because it's not
the size of the
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
900 square feet. That would
two things. Either reducing
it, making it
of the wood deck,
It's now becoming
require one or
it, removing
smaller. Using pavers instead
because then that doesn't
January 3, 2013 Regular Meeting 96
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
count, or asking for an area variance.
Those are the options. We just found this
out.
MR. LEONARD: So the deck would be
considered livable area?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
the square footage of the
structure. Not apartment.
permits a maximum of 750
on the size of your lot.
MR. LEONARD: So it's 750 total?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Yes.
MR. LEONARD: With the deck?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: No, it's
No it's not. It's
overall
Structure code
square feet, based
the
900 .
MR. LEONARD: 150 feet has
deck?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Yes. Or if
put it at grade, not a wooden deck,
doesn't count at all.
MR. LEONARD: Part of the reason for
the deck is the elevation change. It's
going to be two steps up into the
to come off
you
then it
apartment, and we really didn't want to
have the steps right on the building. I am
not totally against scaling down the deck.
January 3, 2013 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
With that variance, can we handle that
through this Board? What would be necessary
for an area variance? Do we have to start
over again?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: No, we do have
the right to grant a small area variance as
part of a Special Exception permit
application. We have done it once before.
MR. LEONARD: Originally my plans were
to square the deck with a window in the
front. That was another set of plans. I
don't know if that would shorten it up 150
square feet exactly, but we squared up the
deck with the building really just for
architectural and aesthetics. I would
prefer to keep it that way, if we could
arrange it that way, but I don't want to
prolong my building permit's and everything
else. Some of you know me, I am a seasonal
guy and I kind of wanted to get this done
in my off season. So if necessary, I will
cut the deck down if we can do something
here today. I would like to do that.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: While the Board
I guess the Board can provide
can,
January 3, 2013 Regular Meeting 98
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
~7
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
alternative relief to it's projected size,
and say you can have a maximum of "X". And
then you can design how you want to have
it. You can cut it back this way. We don't
need to be designing it for you but we can
provide an alternative to the proposed
30X10.
MR. LEONARD: I have no problems
scaling it down to whatever you all decide.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Another way to do
it would be to have it at grade and then
step down. That is entirely up to you.
Patios don't count.
MR. LEONARD: Right.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: It doesn't count
as square footage. You can put an upper
decking and lower patio. That is entirely
up to you. That's just some information for
you.
MR. LEONARD: As far as I am
concerned, if it's an issue then the deck
gets much smaller to conform to the square
footage.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Gerry,
questions?
January 3, 2013 Regular Meeting 99
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: This is a very
unique application and I only began to
realize the uniqueness of it when I came
out to see you. This particular building is
well set back to the rear of the property
and you have no access to it. For fire and
emergency purposes, you need to put a
driveway in.
MR. LEONARD: Absolutely. We actually
got it painted out in the lawn and after
your departure, I was working on it when --
MEMBER HORNING: I saw it.
MR. LEONARD: Of course it's going to
be nonpermeable. We want to do a blend.
We're not sure if we're going to go with --
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: You mean
permeable, not nonpermeable?
MR. LEONARD: Correct. Sorry, yes.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: It has to be more
than tire tracks.
MR. LEONARD: Which is what we're
looking at now. The width of the gates that
go into the backyard to go into a parking
area back there. We also want to have a
driveway. We also don't want to go too far
January 3, 2013 Regular Meeting 100
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
not knowing what we can and can't do
without it. If I can -- if we can't make
an accessory apartment, it is still an
accessory building, and we're still going
to put the driveway in to get back there.
Just use it for other purposes. The
driveway is a concern for us also and we
plan on putting it in.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: What I do not have
from you is a parking plan to put the
driveway in.
MR. LEONARD: Okay.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: So we need to have
a parking plan for -- I want to say at
least two cars. One car for the house and
one two cars --
MR. LEONARD: A parking
the house or just for the
plan also for
accessory place?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: You just need to
show three parking spaces on the property.
MR. LEONARD: Well, I have a two-car
driveway coming into the home.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: That is not
issue.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The car is
it
the
January 3, 2013 Regular Meeting 101
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
eventually
building; correct?
parking --
MR. LEONARD:
have to have a
of the house?
MEMBER
going to go out through
So where is the
the
Are you saying that we
driveway going into the
GOEHRINGER: For fire and
back
emergency purposes, there is no way for any
emergency vehicle to get to that building
in the back, without a driveway.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: You have to have
access because life safety issues.
MR. LEONARD: Okay. We're not talking
about a 20 foot wide --
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: No.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Just a normal
driveway.
MEMBER HORNING: Plus you have to show
us where the parking would be for the
accessory apartment.
MR. LEONARD: Okay. You need a survey
plan or a hand sketch is good enough?
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: You can write it
right on here.
January 3, 2013 Regular Meeting 102
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: You can scale it
right here.
MR. LEONARD: Anything else that we
need?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Well, let's just
go over a couple of facts that address the
actual proposal. The proposal is for your
grandson?
MR. LEONARD: Correct, my son.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: We have an
affidavit indicating that that is the case.
I am just putting this into the public
record that drivers license and phone bills
have been submitted for proof of occupancy.
And that the owner will reside in the
dwelling, Ms. Hermann. And pretty much
meets the accessory apartment requirements.
I would like to commend you as doing this
as a proposal and not after the fact. I
think that this is the first accessory
apartment that is not an "as built"
apartment that has come into us. It's kind
of nice for the Board that somebody is
thinking proactively that somebody wants to
do this.
January 3, 2013 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
the
of
of
Ken, do you have any questions?
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: No questions.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Now, I didn't see
driveway. Is it on the Cedar Lane side
the house?
MR. LEONARD: Yes, it's on that side
the house.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: So you are going to
give me this plan back as soon as possible
showing the driveway to the building in the
rear.
can.
MR. LEONARD: Very good.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: As quickly as you
MR. LEONARD: I will have it tomorrow,
maybe even this afternoon.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Is there anyone
else in the audience who wishes to address
this application?
(No Response.)
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay. I am going
to make a motion to close this hearing and
reserve decision, subject to receipt of
notations on the existing survey of the
proposed driveway, from the street to the
January 3, 2013 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
2B
24
25
proposed accessory apartment. The parking
for three vehicles on the subject property
and a scaled down deck. As long as you're
doing that, you might as well propose to us
what you think the minimum that is
feasible --
MR. LEONARD: Very good.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: And then we will
decide whether that is agreeable or whether
we want it smaller or what. Since you're
doing this anyway, we might as well give
you an opportunity to tell us what you
think is feasible.
Is there a second on that motion?
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: There is a second.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Ail in favor?
MEMBER DINIZIO: Aye.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye.
MEMBER HORNING: Aye.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Aye.
(See Minutes for Resolution.)
HEARING #6619 - MICHAEL J. HIRSCHHORN
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The next
January 3, 2013 Regular Meeting 105
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
application before the Board is for Michael
J. Hirschhorn, ~6619. Request for variances
from Article XXIII Section 280-122A and the
Building Inspector's December 4, 2012
Notice of Disapproval based on an
application for building permit for
additions and alterations to an existing
dwelling at: 1) a nonconforming building
containing a conforming use shall not be
enlarged, reconstructed or structurally
altered or moved, provided such action does
not create any new nonconformance or
increase the degree of nonconformance.
Pursuant to the interpretation of Walz
(5039) such alterations will thus
constitute an increase in the degree of
nonconformance: (A) less than the minimum
side yard setback of 10 feet, (b) less than
the minimum combined side yard setbacks of
25 feet, located at: 280 Sound Avenue,
adjacent to Long Island Sound, ?econic.
MR. LAIRD: James Laird, Suffolk
Environmental for the applicant.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I just want the
record to reflect that we have just
January 3, 2013 Regular Meeting 106
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
recently received the recommendations
the LWRP coordinator
your proposed action
MR. LAIRD: The
and indicating
is exempt.
subject property
from
that
very unsubstantial addition. Because we're
altering the roof structure around the
addition, it triggered a variance. The
only reason is that it needs a variance is
because of three feet of roof on the other
side. The roof will be reconstructed and it
will add a different look. It will yield
more ceiling living area directly
underneath the addition. The ceiling will
not be changed throughout the rest of the
is
very narrow, very long. It's only 50 feet
wide and the existing house is preexisting
nonconforming and it's 28.6 feet wide. That
leaves a total side yard of --
nonconforming side yard. The second floor
addition is why we're here. The applicant
has requested a variance because in the
installation of a variance of the addition,
the roof surrounding the addition will be
altered. The addition itself is conforming
and it conforms to the setback and is a
January 3, 2013 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
house. It will only be changed directly
underneath the addition. It is -- it won't
damage the character of the neighborhood
because frankly it is an aesthetic upgrade
to the area. That's the jist of it. It's
not particularly huge variance. It's a
marginal variance at most. And almost all
of the encouraging will be into the side
yard.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay. Ken, would
you like to ask some questions?
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Yes. First looking
at your variance reasons, if you want to
get that sheet out. I understand it's a new
second story, to be admissible in the side
yard setbacks, but this area -- the side
yard will be temporary in nature. Are you
speaking to the construction of the unit?
MR. LAIRD: Initially the plan was to
keep the roof grade and now it is to raise
the roof grade marginally. So all the
construction will be taken out when we're
finished with construction except for the
two feet of new roof.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Are you talking to
January 3, 2013 Regular Meeting 108
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
the contractors
MR. LAIRD: Yes.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER:
addition to the dwelling
area variance because of
equipment?
Okay. Any lawful
will require an
the small side
yards. Well, could you construct that
second-story without those encouragements
into the side yard?
MR. LAIRD: Any
require roof renovation.
particular new house and
to make the living space
more habitable, the roof
by two feet by a couple
for higher ceilings.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER:
addition to that would
It's not a
because they want
under the addition
has to be raised
of feet to allow
So let's go with
that. So the purpose is to increase the
ceiling height of the first floor in that
area?
MR. LAIRD: Yes. And the railings that
you see are
of
MEMBER SCHNEIDER:
those railings?
is
What is the height
MR. LAIRD: The height of the railings
two feet. It's really for decoration.
January 3, 2013 Regular Meeting 109
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
It's just to hide the roofing.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: You said the alleged
difficulty has been self-created. You
answered, no.
MR. LAIRD: Because the applicant
purchased this house a couple of years ago
and is what -- it was preexisting
nonconforming.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Okay, but what he
wants to do, his hardship is self-created
because he wants to raise his roof?
MR. ANDERSON: Bruce Anderson, Suffolk
Environmental. I just want to make a couple
of things clear. We're talking about
altering a roof or ceiling height. We're
talking simply within the footprint of the
second floor. Not the entire house. The
remaining roof structure stays the same.
We're not pulling the entire roof off this
house. What we're doing is putting a
second-story on the water side of the house
that is 600 square feet of the house. There
would always be some modification to that
roof, even though the second floor is
conforming with respect to side yard,
January 3, 2013 Regular Meeting 110
1
2
B
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
because the first floor has to support the
second. Having said that, the applicant
has also said, since I am putting the
second floor on and I have to take this
roof off, why not simply make the first
floor ceiling height be ten feet instead of
eight feet, just under where I am putting
the addition. Whether it's eight feet or
ten feet, I am
of roof within
that helps.
MEMBER
question was it
still modifying that section
the required side yard, if
SCHNEIDER: That helps. The
self-created, my opinion it
Which does not
of it.
think if I had an
I would still
Yes.
Whether it be a few
is self-created.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
preclude the granting
MR. ANDERSON: I
eight feet ceiling height,
before this Board?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
MEMBER SCHNEIDER:
inches or whatever.
be
MR. ANDERSON: Two feet.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Your plans, we need
to have some type of indication of what is
January 3, 2013 Regular Meeting 111
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
what. Like a sheet number, who's it drawn
by and dated. So when we write a decision,
we reference a drawing and plans and
surveys that are specific to our decision
making.
MR. LAIRD: I just supplied the plans
on a very hasty notice because of some
confusion.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: The original
application did not have an elevation
showing the pertinent -- let me see, is
that the north view? Yes, north view. To
show what is going on. But anyway, you know
like the normal drawings. What the scale
is. Who it was drawn by. The date and
sheet number. You know the deal.
MR. LAIRD: Yes.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: That's all I have to
say
cellar,
does it
cellar?
MR.
right now.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: George?
MEMBER HORNING: The stairway to
the foundation and how big it
cover the whole building, the
LAIRD: Yes.
the
is,
January 3, 2013 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
is it walkable
stairs and what
foot ceiling
MEMBER HORNING: And
height? You walk down the
do you have, about a seven
down there?
MR. LAIRD: Yep.
MEMBER HORNING: Are you aware of any
variances granted to neighboring properties
in that neighborhood, such as right next
door? They have new construction going on
there, that would be just to the east. Did
you do any research in the neighborhood as
to what variances were granted? For side
yard setbacks for example?
MR. LAIRD: I didn't research variances
granted. I did research the neighborhood
and I did notice the new construction of
the houses and stuff like that and this
would be in keeping with the neighborhood.
MEMBER HORNING: If you gave us some
information regarding that, you would be
surprised to find that there had been
variances granted for your reasons and that
would benefit your application to submit
that type of information. That would be
addressing the character of the
January 3, 2013 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
neighborhood.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Gerry?
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I don~t have any
particular questions regarding this plan.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Jim?
MEMBER DINIZIO: I don't have any
questions.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay. Since there
is no one else in the audience, unless you
want to say something else, Bruce?
MR. ANDERSON: Yes. We would like
about two weeks to provide the additional
information regarding other variances and
also to provide a title block.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Sure. I am going
to make a motion to close subject to
receipt of exactly that, a set of dated
architectural plans, the usual stuff and
perhaps other information regarding side
yard variances in that neighborhood.
Is there a second?
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Ail in favor?
MEMBER DINIZIO: Aye.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye.
January 3, 2013 Regular Meeting 114
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 HORNING: Aye.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Aye.
(See Minutes for Resolution.)
(Whereupon, the January 3, 2013
Regular Meeting concluded.)
January 3, 2013 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
CERTIFICATION
I, Jessica DiLallo, certify that the
foregoing transcript of tape recorded Public
Hearings was prepared using required electronic
transcription equipment and is a true and accurate
record of the Hearings.
Signatu~_
~essica--DiLallo
Jessica DiLallo
Court Reporter
PO Box 984
Holbrook, New York 11741
Date: January 15, 2013