HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-03/07/2013 Hearing1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
COUNTY OF SUFFOLK: STATE OF NEW YORK
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
Southold Town Hall
Southold, New York
March 7, 2013
9:57 A.M.
Board Members Present:
LESLIE KANES WEISMAN - Chairperson/Member
GERARD GOEHRINGER Member
KENNETH SCHNEIDER Member
GEORGE HORNING - Member (Excused)
VICKI TOTH - Secretary
JENNIFER ANDALORO Assistant Town Attorney
Jessica DiLallo
Court Reporter
P.O. Box 984
Holbrook, New York 11741
(631)-338-1409
X
X
RECE~gED
N AR 2 7 2013
BOARD OF APPEALS
2
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1
2
3
4
5
Hearing:
INDEX OF
HEARINGS
Laura Yantsos, %6631
Shamgar Capital, LLC
(Daniel Buttafuoco) %6620
Harbor View Farm, LLC,
dba 8 Hands, #6625
George and Lisa Haase, #6626
RJJ Properties, LLC, #6633
Gregory and Carol Karas, #6630
George Likokas, #6632
Daniel Mahoney, #6628
Raymond Strong, #6629
Vicki Toth, #6627
Page:
3-20
20-46
46-69
69-73
73-84
84-98
98-124
124-132
132-138
138-143
March 7, 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 #6631 - LAURA YANTSOS
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The first
application before the Board is for Laura
Yantsos, #6631. Request for variances from
Article XXIII Code Section 280-124 and the
Building Inspector's October 10, 2012,
updated January 3, 2013 Notice of
Disapproval based on an application for
building permit for additions and
alterations to existing single family
dwelling at; 1) bulkhead setback of less
than the code required 75 feet, 2) less
than the code required minimum side yard
setback of 10 feet, 3) less than the total
combined side yards of 25 feet, 4) less
than the code required front yard setback
feet, located at: 3455
of 35 Bayshore
Road, adjacent to Shelter Island Sound in
Greenport.
MS. YANTSOS: Yes. Good morning.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: State your name
for the record?
MS. YANTSOS: My name is Laura
Yantsos. I am the owner and applicant on
this application. I have been --
March 7, 2013 Regular Meeting 4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
CHAIRPERSON
one second.
MS. YANTSOS: Yeah.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
WEISMAN: Excuse me for
I would like to
give you copies for your records and
review, memorandum from the Local
Waterfront Revitalization Program
Coordinator. We're required to get review
and recommendations on all waterfront
properties from that agency, which is the
LWRP Coordinator, Mark Terry. Just for the
record, his review indicates that the
proposed actions are consistent with the
polices
and standards and
therefore
consistent with the LWRP, and he states the
section of the code. Also we have a letter
from Suffolk County indicating that this is
a matter for local determination. So we
can give you copies.
MS. YANTSOS: Thank you very much. I
was here before. I was here ten months
ago. This was the house that I lived in
since 1956, since my parents owned. I
inherited it. The house is essentially in
the same condition its been in since it was
March 7, 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
built. My father enclosed the carport in
the 70's and I came here ten months ago to
get a variance on that. Now, I would like
to make some modest expansion and
renovations on the house. It would not
affect the present side yards and setbacks
remain.
-- will
I
or whatever they are, they will
Except the house will be at that
have that setback and side yard.
essentially want to square the house. When
I was here last, I did mention that I was
going to do these renovations and
expansion, and that I did want to square
off the house. And you know, you had
reminded me that I did have to come back
here. So the purpose of the expansion and
renovation is so I could better insulate
the enclosed carport by digging a crawl
space and to have a more sensible interior
design of the house. And thirdly, to
create a more aesthetically pleasing
appearance. Especially on the road side,
because when these waterfront homes were
first built in the 50's and 40's, the back
of the house was the road. Essentially,
March 7, 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
the back of my house faces the road. I am
basically the last person on the road to do
a renovation. Most of the houses have been
renovated and the character of the
neighborhood of those houses are very close
together. So essentially I would not be
disrupting the character of the
neighborhood in any way. My expansion is
very modest comparing the renovations and
expansions that have been done in the rest
of the neighborhood. My setback of the
waterfront is probably setback more than
anyone else on that road, and that will be
the same because I am only going out two
feet on one side of the front -- front of
the waterfront side and just to square it
at the waterfront side.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: May I just ask
you, since you brought that up, because
that would be one of the things that the
Board would be interested in. Can you
provide us with an average bulkhead setback
on a 50 foot wide lot along Bayshore and
the water side?
MS. YANTSOS: As a matter of fact,
March 7, 2013 Regular Meeting 7
1
2
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
one of the girls in the office came out to
give me the ZBA applications made by some
of the people in the neighborhood, but I
can tell you that my setback from the
bulkhead is -- I think 60 or over 60 some
odd feet. I would say that most of the
setbacks are between 10 and 40, from the
roadway.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: And you're
basing that assessment on what?
MS. YANTSOS: My visual and just
knowing the neighborhood. I have lived
there since '56. I am very familiar with
everybody's house. I do have these ZBA
applications where it does mention the
setbacks from the water. And I also would
like to mention that after Hurricane Sandy,
the bulkhead was breached and I did replace
it and put up a very formidable bulkhead
between -- I think my application and now,
since Hurricane Sandy.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Actually when I
did a site inspection, a tractor was out
there in the backyard and also the
neighbors I see.
March 7, 2013 Regular Meeting 8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MS. YANTSOS: Yes, we both did it.
And the neighbor next to me on the other
side, did his about five years ago. So all
three of us have relatively -- we have a
brand new one and one has a relatively new
bulkhead.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Can you also
address the average front yard setback?
MS. YANTSOS: The front yard setback,
I would say that about half the
neighborhood has about -- the same setback
as me, which is about 30. I think 30 feet,
between 30 and 40 feet. I think the
setbacks are in the neighborhood. Now,
know I am building this little overhang
I
porch, but this porch would not extend out
any more than the bilco door. It would be
next to it because that is on the road side
and that would camouflage that bilco door
and wouldn't extend out -- I don't think
that it would extend out any further than
the bilco door.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: It appears
that, the front door on the landward side
is 6 feet by 9 1/2 feet in dimensions.
March 7, 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
MS. YANTSOS: Yeah.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: And it will be
diminishing the nonconforming front yard
setback of 31.3 feet, which is what it is
to
your house now.
MS. YANTSOS: To the
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
house, yes.
And you're
proposing that length or a length of 9
feet?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Yes.
MS. YANTSOS: At 24.8. I did
mention that most people -- many
have garages on the roadway that
between 2 and 5 feet from the
think there are about 6 or 7,
want to
people
are built
road. So I
at least, who
to the
over
Yes.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
it?
With a portico
have garages that are very close
roadway. So I don't have a garage but this
kind of provides me some shelter, you know
from the elements and getting into the
house.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: It's basically
an open porch --
MS. YANTSOS:
March 7, 2013 Regular Meeting 10
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MS. YANTSOS: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: It would be
helpful for the Board if you can provide in
writing, some assessments of what would
amplify a little bit of what you just said
and testified to about the applications
that you managed to find, that indicates
bulkhead setback --
MS. YANTSOS: Yes. Would pictures be
sufficient?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Yes. Google
Earth would work.
MS. YANTSOS: I have these
applications, can I give them?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: You most
certainly can.
MS. YANTSOS: Oh, I just wanted to
mention and I don't know how significant
this is but, I just noticed on my plans as
I was looking at them outside, I saw that
my architect has the house backwards. It
has one page with the elevations. He has
the chimney side facing south when --
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Yes.
MS. YANTSOS: You noticed that?
March 7, 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
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I am a
architect, I know how to read
YANTSOS: I don't know -- I just
half the plans.
WEISMAN: It's okay. We
professional
drawings.
MS.
don't understand
CHAIRPERSON
do.
MS. YANTSOS: Now,
setbacks from the water,
to bring you pictures in
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
application,
character of
as far as the
would you want me
addition to --
Yes. In the
it will help us look at the
the neighborhood with regard
to front yard setbacks, including the
accessory garages that are closed to the
road and the bulkhead setbacks, because
those enable the Board to consider the
non-conformities that you're proposing
within the content of other
non-conformities that are within the
character of the neighborhood, which is one
of the standards that we have to review in
granting relief from the code.
MS. YANTSOS: Ail right. How would I
do that?
March 7, 2013 Regular Meeting 12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
CHAIRPERSON
the office, to Vicki,
Whether it's based on
WEISMAN: Just submit to
that information.
looking at other
people's surveys or whether it's based on
previous ZBA determinations or Notice's of
Disapproval that cites those setbacks or
simply making observations, with
photographs indicating how many accessory
structures are next to the road.
MS. YANTSOS: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: It simply
enhances the strength of your application.
MS. YANTSOS: Thank you. I will do
that. Is there any other --
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Yes. I want to
give the other Board members a chance to
ask some questions.
Gerry?
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Why don't you let
Ken go first?
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Go ahead, Gerry.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: As you know from
your previous application, I was very
unsettled about the side yards at 5 feet.
Do you remember that discussion that we
March 7, 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
had?
MS. YANTSOS: Yes, I do. I wanted to
say this. In 1956 when the house was
built, it had a carport with gabled roof, a
foundation. Everything was there except
the walls. They did have a gable. So they
had a half wall coming down. So it was a 5
foot side yard setback there to begin with.
The walls -- putting up the walls on the
enclosed carport really didn't change
anything as far as that side yard is
concerned. Although I saw the reason why I
had to come and get the variance. I just
wanted to mention that what existed there
in 1956, is -- was created with a problem
with the side yard, which wasn't a problem
then, but became a problem over the years
because of the wall. What I am doing now,
that is not going to change except that
it's going to be extended to the side of
the road to meet the other side, and it
would look -- it would look better then it
does now and it wouldn't be a greater side
yard. It would be the same, except
extended.
March 7, 2013 Regular Meeting 14
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The discussion
that I entered into at that particular time
was the issue in Southold Town by Kenny's
Beach, where I told you about Carol Road,
where we requested people putting in garage
doors on both sides so that they could gain
access to their rear yard.
MS. YANTSOS: I don't think that we
had that.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Well, I am going
to enter into that now and enter it into
the record. I am telling you that I cannot
go at this point, because this is a
renovation, with 5 feet. I need -- for me
to vote on this application and I am not
predisposing or anything, I went back
there. I did my entire research of your
home again. That 5 feet has to be 7 feet.
You have got to be able to get some sort
machinery to the other side of that house.
MS. YANTSOS: You couldn't get it
with 7 feet though.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Yes. You could get
without restricting you
taking the two feet off
it with 7 feet but
in any way, except
of
March 7, 2013 Regular Meeting 15
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
of this carport, which is converted to a
room, which is going to be a dining room
and so on and so forth. I am suggesting
that the minimum of 7 feet at the rear of
the house basically. The rear right-hand
corner, standing in front of the house. And
I am just telling you my feelings. And I
go with it ten months ago based upon
fact that the building did exist, but
did
the
now with a renovation aspect and a new
foundation and so on and so forth --
MS. YANTSOS: You have given it to
me. You have given me this variance.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Only because it
existed. I am not the single person on the
Board. I am only one person. So what I am
saying to you, possibly I can be convinced.
So while you're doing your investigation of
the area,
give me some pictures of side
yards, okay?
MS. YANTSOS: Okay.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Now, one thing
that the Chairperson said and I am not
correcting her in any way, I am only adding
and that is the majority
to her discussion,
March 7, 2013 Regular Meeting 16
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
of those garages that exist, except for the
old ones that face Bayshore Road, were
granted by this Board after renovations
were done on houses. So we're going to be
aware of some of those front yard garages
that you're going to be taking pictures of.
The majority of those houses that those
renovations were done, were granted
specific actions on those houses, were what
we refer to as a "front to back house."
Okay. And that is usually a house where the
bedrooms are in front and the house runs
length wise along the property line, okay.
This way. Your's is across. I am just
saying to you, that they have access to
their rear yard, the waterfront side. The
majority of the ones that we have done. So
I am just saying that I need pictures of
houses with significantly reduced side
yards, as your property is, for me to be
able to visualize what is out there without
investigating every one of them. Please.
MS. YANTSOS: Yes. I will tell you
for me to change it and put 7 feet there
now, and change the house, there is no
March 7, 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
point in making any kind of renovation at
all, because I can't do what I intend to do
-- there is no purpose for the renovation
because the interior designs cannot be
accomplished if I want to do that.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: One of the
positive things that you just testified to
and one of the elements that I can possibly
open my position on this, and that is that
you replaced the bulkhead. So we know that
the bulkhead is going to exist for a good
amount of years. That was one of the main
concerns that I had in all these situations
when people ask for to continue there with
their side yards, okay. So that is one
thing. Now, if you can get us some pictures
of some houses with some significantly
reduced side yards, we would appreciate
that. And I thank you.
MS. YANTSOS: Ail right.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: What I am telling
you is that I am not (In Audible). I
wasn't (In Audible) when you
came before us.
MS. YANTSOS:
ten months ago
I just want to mention
March 7, 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
though that
water.
you can do a bulkhead from the
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Okay. Not every
area. You're in Pipes Cove, which is
really a great place to do it. There are
places like Nassau Point,
of wind.
other
have a high velocity
difficult.
MS. YANTSOS: Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Ken?
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Yes. The
ridge height of the house is 21 feet.
is the existing ridge height?
MS. YANTSOS: The height of the
house?
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Yes.
MS. YANTSOS: It's 21 feet. The
height will not change.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: The height will
not change?
MS. YANTSOS: No.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Okay. I didn't
hear you if you said the reasons why
proposing a new foundation here?
MS. YANTSOS: Because that enclosed
where you
It's very
you're
proposed
What
March 7, 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
carport is a little cool in the winter. I
cannot use the room because it's not --
it's on a slab. So I want to better
insulate it there and I also wanted to put
the kitchen in there because where the
kitchen is now, it doesn't make sense with
the carport on the one side and there is a
staircase in the middle of the house and a
living room on the other side. It doesn't
make any sense. I wanted to put the kitchen
-- better insulated, I wanted to put the
kitchen in the carport area. And do it from
there.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: So the purpose is
for utilities, heating?
MS. YANTSOS: It's for insulation,
better warmth in the room.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Okay. Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Is there anyone
in the audience who would like to address
this application?
(No Response.)
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Hearing no
further comments or questions, I am going
to make a motion to close this hearing
March 7, 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
subject to receipt
information about side
front yard setbacks in
water side.
MEMBER
MS. YANTSOS:
CHAIRPERSON
Gerry.
All in favor?
of additional
yards, bulkheads and
your area, along the
GOEHRINGER: Second.
Thank you.
WEISMAN: Seconded
by
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Aye.
(See Minutes for Resolution.)
HEARING #6620 SHAMGAR CAPITAL, LLC
(DANIEL BUTTAFUOCO)
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The next
application before the Board is for Shamgar
Capital, LLC, Daniel Buttafuoco, #6620.
Adjourned from February 7, 2013 at the
applicant's request. Request for variance
from Article III Section 280-14 and the
Building Inspector's October 21, 2012
Notice of Disapproval based on an
application for building permit for
March 7, 2013 Regular Meeting 21
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
construction of a third story addition at:
1) more than the code required number of
stories of 2 1/2, located at: 1165 Kimberly
Lane, adjacent to Southold Bay, Southold.
should add that the way that the legal
notice is written, it says "as code
required." It should be "permitted." Just
Before you get
enter your
to make sure that is clear.
started, would you please just
name into the record.
MR. MEYER: Sure. Gerard E. Meyer,
architect. I practice and reside at 14
Cobalt Avenue, Stewart Manor, New York.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Thank you.
Welcome back.
MR. MEYER: Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Do you have any
more green cards?
MR. MEYER: No, I do not. I had two
that I submitted. The other two I did not.
During my presentation, I will say that I
did hear and speak to one of the other
neighbors who had been informed of the
hearing, and I actually have a copy of the
e-mail and conversation that we had about
March 7, 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
this project.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay. I want to
give you a copy of the Suffolk County
Planning Department. In this case
Department of Economic Development
Planning. Notice of local determination,
to indicate that our LWRP review indicates
that this action that you're proposing is
consistent with the LWRP. These are for
your records.
MR. MEYER: Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: You're welcome.
Mr. Meyer, before we get started, I
just want to mention for the record that
you were before us previously for a
third-story habitable space.
MR. MEYER: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
cooking --
MR. MEYER: That's
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
application, according to
Not sleeping or
correct.
And that
the transcript of
the public hearing, was denied, as you will
recall. And it was based upon our
discussion of that and your indication
that
March 7, 2013 Regular Meeting 23
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
l0
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
that was not
something of
really an issue giving
the roof pitch that you could
accomplish. However, you were okay with
forgetting about it. I believe it was
Member Dinizio at the time, who said we
have two ways to go. One is a Notice of
Disapproval that was amended and
withdrawing that request and the other
simply to deny it, which just makes it
little less time consuming for you, and
Board did that.
MR. MEYER: Correct.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: So the first
thing that we have to establish in our
record, since you're back here for
something that was previously denied by
this Board, we want to make sure that it
doesn't go with res judicata, which means,
revisiting something that we have
And so I would
we have all seen
was
a
the
previously determined, like
you to explain to us, the
plans, please begin by explaining how you
can distinguish between what you're now
proposing and what was previously denied?
MR. MEYER: If I may just start by
March 7, 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
saying that, if I recall correctly, I think
part of our application was approved. Ail
of the other additions and alterations that
we were looking for --
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Yes, they were.
MR. MEYER: Were approved by this
Board, with the fact that that third floor
occupancy being removed.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Yes.
MR. MEYER: So it wasn't so much that
it was denied, it was amended. It wasn't
approved as a third floor.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The
determination granted all of the variances
that were required, the relief that was
required, with the exception of the third
floor.
MR. MEYER: I also happen to have with
me, Mr. Daniel Buttafuoco, who is the
manager of Shamgar, LLC., and the owner of
the property or homeowner. Having some sort
of a third floor area is something that he
felt very strongly about, to the point that
we had talked to the Building Department
about amending that space so that it was
March 7, 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
greatly reduced from what we were seeking
earlier. We have done a couple of items, a
few things with discussion of the Building
Department. We have actually lowered the
pitch of the roof from a 7 and 12 pitch, to
a 6 and 12 pitch, which not only brought
down the overall height of the house from
33 feet to 31.8", but it also reduced the
overall attic of the home. If we were to
establish a 7 foot ceiling height
throughout the attic area, we would now
only have approximately 583.5 square feet
up there. Where as a part of our original
application, we were seeking approximately
780 square feet of finished space. Of this
583.5 square feet, we're seeking to finish
off slightly less than half of that area,
with a 7 foot high ceiling. It would create
a room for a sitting room or a little bit
of a den, but primarily access to an
outdoor elevation deck of approximately
13.6 inches wide by 21 feet long or 283.5
square feet. We feel that this is greatly
reduced from what we were seeking before.
We have also eliminated -- in our previous
March 7, 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
proposal, there were several dog house
dormers that adorned the roof on all sides,
we have removed all of those with the
exception of one reversed peak gable on the
easterly or water side of the house, to
allow some light into this space and more
primarily, access from this one finished
area out onto a observation deck. Again,
not only was this a desire of the
homeowner, it was partly a petition again,
based on -- we had gotten a transcript of
the former hearing, and I hope that
pronounce his
Goehringer?
CHAIRPERSON
name correctly, I think it's
MR. MEYER: He had mentioned during
that hearing that he personally might be
agreeable to something if it were
considerable smaller and we used kind of
like a den or a library, creating access to
this outdoor space. Again, we feel that we
have greatly reduced that area. Even to the
point where we feel that it could arguably
be considered a 2 1/2 story and no longer a
third floor. Last time, as a part of my
WEISMAN: Goehringer.
March 7, 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
presentation, I had read the Town's
definition of a half-story, and again, it
is a half area one floor, then half of the
floor below that is deemed to be half-story
as being under the roof structure. That's
a little bit of a weird word, but in this
particular case, we have a room that we're
seeking to finish completely under the
roof, where the roof goes under the ridge
completely to the top of the plate of the
floor below. So there are no wall
extensions at what would be at a third
floor level. This would truly be attic
space that we're looking to finish off.
And percentage wise, the 283.5 square feet,
is less than half of the total attic area
and only about 12% of the second floor or
the floor below. So it doesn't even come
close to half of the square footage of the
floor below. The second floor of the house
is going to be 2247 square feet, and that
is how we get a little bit more than 12%.
Even the entire attic and everything other
than this one room that we're seeking to
finish off as a 7 foot high ceiling, all of
March 7, 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 other attic area is going to have a
maximum of 6 foot 8 inch high ceiling that
would be completely unusable, except for
storage. And even the total attic area is
only 26% percent of the floor area below.
So again, in our eyes, we pretty much see
it as being a half story, and we're only
seeking to finish off less than half of
that. The size of this room was determined
basically from the layout of the house that
we have. From the plans that you see, we
have a stair on the second floor that will
rise up to the middle of the home. The
length of the room being 21 feet, is
basically the distance from the top of that
stair to the easterly or back wall of that
house, and the 13.6 width, is basically
just aligning the two petitions. Again,
under the roof structure with two other
bearing walls below that can transfer some
of that weight down. That is strictly how
we arrived at the size of that room. And
again, that one reversed gable peak, all
within the normal height of the roof, that
would allow for some windows and a door
March 7, 2013 Regular Meeting 29
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
that would have access to that outside
habitable space. Also, we were trying to
achieve an aesthetical appearance of a
house, and rather just have a fully pitched
roof over this entire second floor, this
little reversed peak breaks it up, as we
felt that the dog house dormers did before.
One of Mr. Verity's comments about trying
to make the rest of it non-habitable, was
to get rid of the dog house dormers, which
almost gave the perception that it might be
used -- being that it would bring natural
light into it. So that is why we have
eliminated those. I have a handout that I
would like to give to the Board, if I may.
One of the other comments in our previous
hearing was that we really didn't cite any
other examples in the Town locally that had
a third floor. In riding around, I was
able to find at least a couple and I have
three examples that I would like to submit,
if I may?
much.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
Thank you very
MR. MEYER: The first example that we
March 7, 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
show you is actually the house next door.
The Hence Residence at 1325 Kimberly Lane,
is the adjacent property to the south of
the subject property. The drawings that I
have submitted to you, I have gotten from
the Town's records Building Department. The
drawings were done in March of 2000. It
basically was constructed as a new dwelling
at that time with a very steep roof pitch
of 10 and 12 roof. And it actually has two
tiered attic space with four dormers. Each
of the two tiers have a 7 foot ceiling.
It's a little bit tough to read those
drawings from the way that they were
copied, but there does appear to be a
staircase from the second floor that goes
up to the lower tier of that attic space.
And there are two dormers at that level
that face front and back. And then when you
go up to another level, there is two more
dormers facing in the opposite direction.
So there is quite a bit of space for what
again, could or should, be considered a
third floor and possibly a fourth. The
second residence, we have given you a
March 7, 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
couple of copies of the drawing, is for the
Starsick (phonetic) Residence, I believe it
is pronounced, at 205 Private Road, %3.
This was also constructed as a new home.
The drawings that I have submitted, have
all been pulled from the Town's files and
were dated in September of 2010. This
project appears to have a full attic with
front and back gabled roof's and windows,
and four dormers. Two to the east and two
to the west. From my calculations, the
floor there greatly exceeds 50% of the
floor below, yet the record and the CO for
this property states that it is a two and a
half story dwelling. The drawings do
indicate that there is a pull down stair
but the location of that and the framing
plan, makes it look as that that full stair
could be installed. And there is also a
record of a fire sprinkler system being
installed in the home, which would openly
be required if it had three floors. In
addition, just as a side note for that
property, that house is also constructed
and located on a severe hill. And what is
March 7, 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
shown as the foundation or the basement
plan, could easily be construed as another
floor and that it's suspect as to whether
50% of that floor is truly below grade.
Last but not least, I was able to find one
other residence, the Kelly Alegially
(phonetic) Residence, I apologize for that,
mispronouncing it too, at 2725 Wells
Avenue. These drawings were from
December 1990 for additions and alterations
to that home. Again, they were copies that
were attained from the Town's records. It
shows alterations and additions to provide
a three-story stair tower that is
approximately 14 foot square with a third
floor level with stairs that rise up to
that level. Similar to an observation deck
or level with some windows that face out
for viewing. And then access from there to
the lower roof attic area for storage. So
these are some fairly good examples of the
area.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The Board is
very appreciative of your careful research.
With regard to these precedents, do you
March 7, 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
know whether or not variances were granted
for those examples that you are providing?
MR. MEYER: The only one that I was
able to find any evidence of a Board of
Appeals case was that last one, and it
really had not to do with the height of
that house or that third floor level, but
the fact that the garage on that property,
that is on the forward of that home and
goes into the front yard setbacks and such.
So it was unrelated to the stair tower in
itself.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay. I will say
that there are examples out there, where
this Board has granted modest finished
space on what would be determined to be a
third-story with obviously the State
requirements for sprinkling that area for
fire safety. Perhaps, if there is a way
that you could, and perhaps even our office
could, we're very capable of doing
research, if you could bring to the Board
some examples of variances that the Board
has granted for third-floor habitable
space. Even though again, they're not
March 7, 2013 Regular Meeting 34
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
cooking and sleeping facilities, certainly
a use for what you're proposing, that would
be very helpful to us.
MR. MEYER: These properties
that I
hearing,
have assembled basically for this
were basically just driving around
observation. The one next door was readily
available. It's a beautiful community. I
like driving around here. Some of these
other homes have popped out. The other
thing is, we're looking at this observation
deck and level as kind of a modern day
widow floor and a lot of the older houses
along the floor, that would be the upper
most level, where the captain's wife would
go up and look out to sea and wait for the
ships to come back to shore.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I will buy that
as a balcony, but not -- there is no widow
that is walking indoors.
MR. MEYER: There is a beautiful old
home on Peconic Avenue, I believe it's
3070, which has that upper most observatory
level. I also just happened to notice on
the way here this morning, the house
March 7, 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
directly across the street, which is an
expanded cape has a third-floor where there
was a gabled roof. And obviously they have
created some oversized dormers on the rear
portion of that house, at the third-floor
level with some balcony and staircases that
wind their way down to the ground floor.
Sorry, I only noticed that this morning.
So I didn't have time to pull those
records. But in addition to researching
you have suggested, I will also look into
that home.
as
were they accomplished with relief from
this Board or were they simply put in after
the fact. We can't clearly, as you can
understand, condone illegal, you know,
creations of a third-floor. Although we
will certainly acknowledge as people who
live here, have seen it for our self. But
of course you're approaching a Board to
legalize it. As far as I am concerned, you
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Well, the Board
would no doubt agree that there are a
number of residential properties that have
an approved third-story. Our concern is,
March 7, 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
have very carefully provided and answered
my questions on res judicata. So I think
that the Board can certainly put that to
rest. Is there anything else that you
would like to tell us before I ask the
Board --
MR. MEYER: Just a few more, if I
may?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Sure.
MR. MEYER: Part of our presentation
is for an interpretation on the denial, in
that, again, by the letter and the
definitions of the law, in our mind, this
is actually a half-story. And there are
lots of applications within this Town, but
all of Long Island and the New York area.
Our request to the Board is to consider it
in that light. It could technically be
deemed a second and a half-story, as
opposed to a third floor. We intend to
sprinkler the whole house. It would be
required by the New York State Construction
Code, should we be able to achieve this
variance, but that is our intention. And
just two other things and I will try and be
March 7, 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
brief. As I had mentioned earlier, I had a
conversation, I was contacted by Mr. Peter
Hafner who was one of the homeowners who
was in the list of the radius of homes that
needed to be contacted. He is currently
out of town but reached me via e-mail and
telephone and we had a telephone
conversation about the project. And I told
him I would follow-up with an e-mail and if
I may provide copies of that. I have heard
from him again. Basically confirming yes,
that he did not have a problem with the
project. His general concern is that being
that he's across the street to the west of
the subject property, he was more concerned
that we did not provide additions to the
home that went either north or south or too
high that would restrict his view. He
still wanted to have a view still of the
bay. That was his general concern. And
not only to additions and alterations, but
also the landscaping of the property, that
would be considerable of him having to be
able to see pass Mr. Buttafuoco's home
across the bay.
March 7, 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
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay. The
Notice of Disapproval does not -- our
attorney has pointed out to us, since you
have brought it up, there is no request in
the Notice of Disapproval or in your
application for code interpretation. I
think it's just safer to say that this is
for a third-story. Unless you want to
adjourn it and go back and apply for a code
interpretation as to whether this is a
third-story or a second and a half-story.
MR. MEYER: I think we would like the
case to stay at it is. I was just
suggesting it for the Board's viewing on
this. It's similar to some of the
residences that I provided, one is a large
third floor. Again, I will investigate to
see if there were variances achieved in
this.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay.
MR. MEYER: I think if the Board were
so fit to grant and the Town will see it as
a third-floor, the New York State Code will
see it as a third-floor, we would treat it
as such for means of egress and
March 7, 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
sprinklering and so on and such.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: By virtue of
changing the roof pitch and the dormer, the
exterior appearance would appear more as a
two and a half-story dwelling.
MR. MEYER: That is correct.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Thank you.
MR. MEYER: Thank you. In my
closing, again, we tried to keep the
aesthetics. We're trying to be considerate
of the other homes in the area and the
neighborhood. We feel that we have done
everything that we basically can and just a
minimal area the would allow Mr. Buttafuoco
and his family some viewing of the bay.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: This is a
lounge area.
MR. MEYER: That is correct.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Presumably when
we finish, sheetrocked and finished floor,
it will be heated as well?
MR. MEYER: That's correct.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: That was my
question. The stairs that leads up to it,
is that an open rail from the second floor?
March 7, 2013 Regular Meeting 40
4
5
'6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. MEYER: Yes. Until it achieves the
height of the attic area and then it would
be an open and closed off to the attic
area.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Ken?
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Yes, I have a
question. You said you were going to
sprinkler the whole house?
MR. MEYER: Yes.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Does that include
the subject proposed or does that just
include the attic?
MR. MEYER: It includes the attic area
that we're looking to close off. I don't
believe the code requires unfinished
unhabitable area to be sprinklered. I
believe it just includes the heated areas,
similar to commercial work. If it were the
attic and unheated, it would just need a
dry system. I believe the code only refers
to the habitable areas, the access and the
means of egress out of the homes and all
the usable homes.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: It would help me if
I could see a cross section of that
March 7, 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
proposed area.
MR. MEYER: Okay.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: To see the height
of the ceiling. Is it a flat roof there or
will it be pitched down?
MR. MEYER: Actually, the entire roof
itself is one large dipped roof.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: I was looking for
something with that proposed attic area.
Something with those two proposed access --
MR. MEYER: Basically what we're
proposing, in that one finished room, there
would be a flat 7 foot high ceiling with
the roof rafters still going up above that
and more attic space and roof ventilation.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: The roof goes from
wall to wall?
MR. MEYER: That's correct.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Those two proposed
access doors --
MR. MEYER: That's correct.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: It would be 7 foot
from wall to wall?
MR. MEYER: Correct.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: The whole ceiling
March 7, 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
would be 7 feet?
MR. MEYER: Correct. And
those doors, into what would
then beyond
be left as the
unfinished or unheated area, would be
power-ties, or members down to 6 foot 8, so
that it could not be used. That was also
at the suggestion of Mr. Verity. To make
sure that it could not be habitable.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: An eliminating
factor?
MR. MEYER: That's correct.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: No further
questions for me.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Gerry?
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: My only question
is a statement, and that is, these
particular uses of -- it's really
non-habitable space. The first one that
came before us was almost like a widows
walk situation, okay. So this is what has
evolved out of this. That is what I was
eluding to at the last hearing. I think
the only thing that we have not done is
taken a cross section of the total square
footage of things that we have granted in
March 7, 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
the past, to see what is the maximum that
we're willing to go, okay. So that when I
made that statement on the prior hearing,
and you came up with a figure of similar
square footage, that was not a calculated
average of square footage, but in general
just a guess. I am happy that you reduced
the ceiling height. I am happy that you --
your aware of some of the neighbors
concerns. We hear this all the time. I
think it has taken great concern of what
you have done here.
MR. MEYER: Thank you. With respect
to the square footage, it was substantial.
We were looking for a 770 square foot room.
We had indicated that it was going to be a
family entertainment area, possibly with a
ping-pong table up there. Again, this is
more of just a sitting area. We have
greatly reduced the space.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Is there any
other questions from the Board?
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: No.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Is there anyone
in the audience that would like to address
March 7, 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
this
MR.
the owner
application?
Please state your name?
DAVIDOFF: Lisa Davidoff. I am
and neighbor at 1015 Kimberly
Lane. I absolutely understand my neighbor
wanting to enlarge and expand his home and
I have absolutely no issue with any of it.
The only thing that was a concern, I was
not here at the original hearing where it
was denied. My mother came in my place. So
I don't want to repeat everything that she
said.
of the
street,
to
the
My only concern is really the value
home and creating a situation on a
where we start to see third floors
comments at that time. One was just the
position of those two homes and how they
sit relative to the view and out towards
the water, is that Mr. Buttafuoco's home is
actually set a little further back. So the
become the norm. And the values that it
would have on the existing homes.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Would you like
address that comment?
MR. MEYER: Yes. I remember her from
last hearing. I think we had made two
March 7, 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
view out towards
available,
what we're
the water and what is
is not going to be changed by
doing. Also the third-floor that
we're
going to be seeking is going to be
underneath the roof. If the Board does not
seek fit to acknowledge that, we will
perhaps eliminate the stair or it will just
be an attic or the whole attic will have
6 foot 8 inch high collar-ties. That door
that we're indicating on the balcony may
just become one single window and there is
no balcony. So it really doesn't change
the overall look of the home or how it
would effect anyone else's view up and down
the strip.
WEISMAN: Okay. Thank
in the audience
this
CHAIRPERSON
you for your testimony.
Is there anyone else
that would like to address
application?
(No Response.)
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Hearing no
further comments, I am going to make a
motion to close this hearing, subject to
receipt of information regarding prior
March 7, 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
variances
that this
with third-floor habitable space
Board has granted.
Is there a second?
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Ail in favor?
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Aye.
(See Minutes for Resolution.)
HEARING #6625 - HARBOR VIEW FARM,
LLC, dba 8 HANDS.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The next
application before the Board is for Harbor
View Farm, LLC, db-a 8 Hands, #6625.
Request for variance from Chapter 72,
Article II, 72-5 (B), 72-6 (1 & 3) and the
Building Inspector's October
updated January 8, 2013
Disapproval based on an
17, 2012,
Notice of
application for
building permit
existing barn
than the code
from the road,
agricultural production
to convert a portion of an
to a farm stand, at: 1) less
required setback of 50 feet
2) the criteria of bona fide
has not been shown,
March 7, 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
located at: 5000 Cox Lane, Cutchogue.
Is there someone here to represent
this application?
MS. FESTA:
MR. GEPPEL:
CHAIRPERSON
your name please
MR. GEPPEL:
CHAIRPERSON
much. So you're
with a herd of sheep?
MS. FESTA: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
Hi. I am Carol Festa.
I'm Tom Geppel.
WEISMAN: Can you spell
for the --
G-E-P-P-E-L.
WEISMAN: Thank you very
in agricultural production
be
I think it will
our first sheep farm in Southold Town.
MS. FESTA: We want to do a
multifaceted farm operation but we chose
sheep as sort of our centerpiece.
Particularly, Icelandic sheep is what we
settled on. They're a
For the meat primarily
are one of the purest
Quite valuable animal
to it because it's not only the
the meat and also the milk that
produced by this animal.
multi-purpose breed.
in Iceland. They
breeds in existence.
and we are attracted
fleece, but
are
Usually sheep can
March 7, 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
be one or the other but not all three.
That is why we chose it. And our objective
is to basically build out a line of
products around the sheep. So currently
the sheep are in Mattituck on leased land
and we would eventually like to move them
over to the property on Cox Lane. Now
currently, there is a barn on the property
that is setback 17 feet from the road,
which we feel is currently not that
aesthetically pleasing or attractive.
However, with some work, it would be ideal
with a farm stand. So you have pictures to
show what it currently looks like. Instead
of having them on the front of the
structure north-facing, this would be out
to
one
can
have
the future parking lot, and basically no
really has to go to the street. They
pull in directly in the parking lot and
access to the farm stand.
MR. GEPPEL: And our application was
for a use and not for the
We were told to submit a
permit application to use it as a
farm stand. So any of the agricultural or
submitted
building.
building
March 7, 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
anything as far as the structure itself was
never submitted. So all I did was write
something that I wanted to use it for and
this came and we started the process. For
whatever that is worth.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: You're
proposing 986 square feet of retail sales
as the farm stand portion of that existing
portion. There will also be animal
housing.
MS. FESTA: No. There will not be
animal housing.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: What will
happen in the rest of it?
MR. GEPPEL: There will be storage.
The building, that side of the building is
separated. There is two structures in that
one barn. There is two pieces. The one is
2100 square feet. You're allowed up to
3,000 square feet in the farm stand. We're
going to reduce that because we can't fill
enough product with 3,000 square feet. So
what we did was construct two storage
areas. There will be stuff for the
animals. It could be for feed. It could
March 7, 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
be for storage of anything. So the space
that we would like it to feel comfortable,
is to be more like a farm stand and that is
roughly 1,000 square feet. Towards the
back of the building.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Ail right. I
would like to enter into the record, two
things. With regard to the setback that is
cleared off. It's an existing setback and
you're actually proposing to create a
parking area, and site plan approval by the
Planning Board is required for that. The
actual opening or door that you're
proposing are setback farther from the road
then where the elevation of 17 feet is set.
The Planning Board has submitted comments
to us on January 29, 2013 supporting the
variances on the basis of the fact that the
proposal is consistent with the
comprehensive plan, and which supports
agricultural operations. You will be
converting the existing Ag building to an
Ag use, which is farming. Secondly, from a
land preservation committee has not
commented on this application but had
March 7, 2013 Regular Meeting 51
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
l0
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
approved the request of February 7, 2013,
to construct a new Morton building for
animal housing. That will take place in
the easement area, which also rights have
been sold from Peconic Land Trust to the
Town of Southold. The barn has a Pre-CO,
January 8, 1992. I wanted to ask you what
you propose to sell in retail? What other
products will you be producing on site and
what will they include?
MS. FESTA: Certainly wool. That
would be one of the principle products. We
estimate to have about 70 sheep, if all
goes well with the lambing season. So that
right there, we generate about $10,000.00
in yarn. So we would like to sell yarn.
We would like to sell meat, although we
would not be selling meat on the premises.
Not until we could have a USDA inspector
facility, where we could do that. That
would be the case. Eventually down the
road we might do that. And then
ultimately, we would like to produce sheep,
but that -- there is other steps involved.
There are other things that we would like
March 7, 2013 Regular Meeting 52
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
t3
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR.
to do, vegetables and things of that nature
as well. So really a sustainable, local
facet farm operation.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: With regards to
vegetables, will you be growing some of
those on your property?
MS. FESTA: Yes. Absolutely.
GEPPEL: We're going to set aside
roughly two acres, an acre and a half to
two acres for vegetables to grow. So
nothing overly large but enough to be able
to provide product.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay. Let's
address the comments from the Building
Department on bona fide Ag operations.
Thanks to our assistant town attorney's
excellent advice and search, we are aware
of the fact that Ag and Market's Law
requires information that indicates that
the property that you're going to be moving
to, has been in agricultural production, A)
is over 7 acres, which we know that to be
the case, but it's been operating preceding
for two years as an Ag property. Now in
your overview, you indicated that Fred Lee
March 7, 2013 Regular Meeting 53
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
had carved that property but the Board's
assistant did some excellent research for
us and produced a record, that in the year
2000, the subject parcel had received an Ag
assessment, which indicates that it has
been in farm production. That should
suffice as an indication that it is indeed
a bona fide Ag operation. That was one of
the questions that I had. Since you're not
actually farming on the property and
proposed to move your operation to that
property, how long have --
MS. FESTA: We have farmed. We have
planted foliage in preparation for the
animals. However, what we harvested that
for, I think we estimated we would
generate
MR. GEPPEL: Close to $40,000 in
foliage value. We were not to put the
sheep there and harvest the hay. At two
times the acre, that is what the underlying
value is. As soon as the spread leaf was
off the property, I spent the last summer
between plowing and discing the pasture,
which I planted in September and is growing
March 7, 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
up nicely. Hopefully in May or June after
this time of lambing, we would be able to
get our sheep over so we don't get caught
up with the foliage getting too (In
Audible) and not eating it and having to
mow it, but it's already planted for what
you would consider an agricultural product
right now.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: That helps too.
MS. FESTA: The value of the flock is
$22,000.00 as it stands today. With the
land and everything else, it's in excess of
$40,000.00.
MR. GEPPEL: We have 37 sheep
currently.
MS. FESTA: 37 sheep at a value of
$22,000.00.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: And the
lambing, you can't predict?
MR. GEPPEL: That will start next
week, by the way.
MS. FESTA: I would say, 70, from the
way that we have experienced.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: That value
increased to?
then
would
March 7, 2013 Regular Meeting 55
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MS. FESTA: Forty-one.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay.
MR. GEPPEL: We have already gone
through one shearing season already. We
made wool. Carol is involved with a lot of
the spinning gills and getting the knitter
markets and spinners, and a lot of that. So
that would be a big part of our business as
well, but that has already been happening.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: On behalf of the
Board, we certainly welcome you into this
difficult and challenging business that we
certainly support wholeheartedly and
keeping in agricultural production.
MR. GEPPEL: The challenges that we're
running into is just cost's. It's just
amazing. $1,000.00 just to get a processor.
The value of that is a couple of thousand
dollars. There is a lot of work that goes
into the process. So we're going to
evaluate if we can do shearing and sell the
fleeces right there, instead of having them
processed. Maybe that is a better angle.
Maybe a combination of that. But the
interest level from the local market has
March 7, 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
been
tremendous but part of our challenge
is going to be costs. One of the folks on
Love Lane has a yarn shop.
hopefully, we can stick to it and people
can come out, which they have done, in this
latest knitting guild. So I'm positive.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Just as
I might indicate to you. The Town of
Southold has put together an Economic
Development Committee whose tasks is to
welcome new businesses and provide all
kinds of assistance to start up new
businesses. A variety of things.
Basically, the members consist of local
business owners and so on and so forth.
think the best thing you can probably do
consult with Philip Beltz who is the
Special Project Coordinator. They're
beginning to put together brochures with
links to website's that can provide you
a side,
I
is
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Oh, yeah.
MR. GEPPEL: She gets stuff from
Argentina and it's like half the price of
what we can even -- what our costs is. So
that is what the challenge would be. But
March 7, 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
with useful information. And they're
intending to provide a welcoming
environment for new businesses of all
kinds, which we certainly need economically
in our Town.
MS. FESTA: We would also love to do
education on that too. Teaching them about
the animals. We're all excited about doing
guided tours.
MR. GEPPEL: It's amazing how many
people don't know where their food came
from or anything comes from. I have heard
stories from Catapano's that people come in
and ask if their eggs are fresh from the
goat. No kidding. It's wonderful to have
people that are interested and be able to
teach them and educate them about where
their food comes from. And the whole side
of know where your food comes from and the
farmer is really the angle, and the FDA.
They already have their trademark. "No your
farmer. No your food."
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Well, there is
a very good chance there is a slow food
movement here on the North Fork.
March 7, 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
Certainly, we would be happy to have you
participate.
MR. GEPPEL: We're excited. We're
getting into the restaurants. Challenges
again, USDA slaughter. Trying to get
animals slaughtered that are USDA clad.
The way that it has been configured is
it's only for big businesses. You know,
you have to basically pay the full-time
salary of a USDA Inspector to have a
slaughter facility.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Wow.
couldn't afford
So we
North
already
is just
That is
able to
our best
Queens.
they
NOW,
that
that.
MR. GEPPEL: We
can't run that many animals up the
Fork to justify that. Yaphank is
a USDA slaughter facility, but that
run by Suffolk County and Cornell.
very difficult. I would love to be
work something there. Right now,
case, it's to go to Jamaica,
And go to a slaughter house and
give you their entire animal back.
I have an entire animal and I can
probably sell it to North Fork Table and
Inn. They have a meat cutting. So they
March 7, 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
can cut it and sell it, but other than
that, I can't sell meat until I can find a
USDA meat cutter and then package it. Then
what would be the cost? It's exciting.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: No one said
farming is easy.
MR. GEPPEL: It's challenging and
exciting and I welcome it. It's just
amazing the amount of hurdles that have
been created to just get something that was
so basic 50 years ago.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Well, this
Board will do its best to give one hurdle
to you in two weeks time.
MR. GEPPEL:
CHAIRPERSON
Thank you.
WEISMAN: Which is when
we next meet to deliberate and give
decisions. Let's see if the Board has
more questions. I don't.
any
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: No questions. Good
luck.
MR. GEPPEL: Thank you.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: What kinds of
animals are these? Are they a specific
breed?
March 7, 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
MR. GEPPEL: Icelandic Sheep. One of
the purest breed sheep's there are because
there is no other animal that was let into
the island of Iceland to breed, because
they would bring in cross-gene into their
gene pool. So they are as pure as they
could come. It's been ten thousand years
since the Vikings came to Iceland. History
is really what intrigued us and also the
triple product of what Carol told you
before. That is wool, meat and milk.
The
milk quality is higher with the Icelandic.
So sticking with the pure breed. They're
all registered pure breed.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Thank you for
mentioning that. I know you had mentioned
it in the beginning. Than you very much.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Is there anyone
else in the audience that wishes to address
this application? Please come forward and
state your name for the record.
MS. BRODERICK: Hi. Jane Broderick,
4845 Cox Lane. I am the property most
adjacent to their proposed property. I
have questions and a few concerns. I don't
March 7, 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
want to be perceived as antagonistic
because I think they will improve the
property. But I do have some concerns that
I would like to share with the Board, so
that maybe some kind of resolution would
work for all of us. First off, I met with
Mr. Freta? Freeta?
MR. GEPPEL: Who me?
MS. BRODERICK: No. I don't know.
In the file, it's F-R-E-T-A, Carol.
MS. FESTA: Festa. That's me.
MS. BRODERICK: In any event, he was
discussing what he would like to do about
the property and he (In Audible) over to my
house. I am on a tiny property. I bought
Mini Borrower's property, and that is what
shows up on the survey.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Excuse me. Is
that the property that is almost on the
corner of North Road or is that the other
way?
MS. BRODERICK: No. It's right up
next to them and it's on .22 of an acre.
And he said, "I am going to run a road in
there right next to your property and then
March 7, 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
swing it around here and then bring it
over." And that upset me, quite frankly.
I am on Cox Lane. That's busy. I really
don't want to add to fumes, traffic. No
more going up there.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I am trying
determine that who it is that you spoke
to
to?
Clearly, it was not the property owner. So
who would you be speaking to?
MS. BRODERICK: There is nothing --
Vicki Toth was kind enough to meet with me
yesterday and go through the files, and
there is nothing on the file.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: About what?
MS. BRODERICK: About a road going in
there.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Then it's
not --
MR. GEPPEL: It doesn't exist.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: You need to
talk to the Board and not to each other.
The point is, there is no road that is
being proposed. Nothing whatsoever is
going to be changed except the fact that
it's agricultural property that is next to
March 7, 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 with that sheep grading on it.
MS. BRODERICK: I don't have a
problem with anything that they're
suggesting, and I wish them well. I just
don't want to have a million cars pulling
in a quarter of an inch off my property.
That's all.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The cars will
be pulling in, according to what we have
before us, will be pulling in next to the
existing barn, which is on the other side
of the house that sits next to yours.
MR. GEPPEL: Over 250 feet away.
MS. BRODERICK: I am on the north
side.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Yes. There is
213.45 feet from the property line, which
would be where your house sits.
MS. BRODERICK: I don't have a
problem with any of that. I had a problem
with the man telling me -- and Vicki was
kind enough to spend time with me
yesterday. And she said, perhaps it's a
private road that they can access.
MR. GEPPEL: May I just add that that
March 7, 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
property and the parking is preserved land.
So nothing can go there and nothing will go
in that property. That is 213 feet of
preserved land.
MS. BRODERICK: I am not allowed to
talk to you but that makes me feel better.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The point is,
there is no.road that is being proposed.
That is not before this Board. Whatever
information you got is not correct. And
Vicki confirmed that yesterday when she
showed you the application. The only thing
that is being proposed is to fence in that
area --
MR. GEPPEL: Right.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
To keep the
herd on the property, and a parking area.
That will be permeable. Probably gravel,
and close to the barn. So that when cars
come in off the road, they will be doing it
right near the barn.
MS. BRODERICK: The only thing that
Vicki did mention to me is that they can't
do a public road there but they can do a
private road. And I was concerned about
March 7, 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
that
being opened to the public.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The only kind
of road that can be put in there legally,
because it's agricultural property and the
development rights have been sold to the
Town, would be a small farm road, which
would simply allow them to come off the
road for their own private use, through
their easement and maybe reach a barn
building or something like that. It would
not be for the public. That is not even
being proposed at this point. They have --
MR. GEPPEL: Nor being considered.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: And as our
attorney pointed out, we don't have any
jurisdiction over that anyway.
MS. BRODERICK: And Vicki mentioned
that
and I have no problem.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: They're
reassuring the Board that is not going
happen.
MS. BRODERICK:
that if they were going
road that they leave it
little bit.
to
I was just concerned
to do a private
off my property a
March 7, 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
not
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
even being proposed.
Well, that is
. MS. BRODERICK: I am glad to hear it.
My other concern is, and I am not getting
into the meat processing but I understand
that they want to do cheese. What kinds of
equipment? And more importantly, what kind
of (In Audible). I am out at work all day
myself. I am going to be listening to you
know, grinding at three o'clock in the
morning?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I can't answer
that because I don't understand what's
involved with the production of cheese, but
I don't imagine that it would be done
anywhere other than inside a building. And
I think that if it's inside a building, it
would be in a building that they already
have on the property, and it would not be
very noisy because it would be indoors.
that correct?
MR. GEPPEL: It has to be inside an
inspected building. That is probably two
years down the
And if we were
road when we consider that.
to consider that, that
March 7, 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
building is not part of an existing
building. It has to be on the reserved
space. A developable land. So that would
still give you the 213 foot cushion before
anything could be put up. We're looking to
add to the Town. To aesthetically clean up
this property. Make it a family farm.
We're not looking to intrude on anyone's
life or make it difficult. The cheese
making has to be indoors. It has to be in
a facility that is inspected and sealed and
closed. If it were outdoors, there is no
noise in cheese making.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Thank you.
Anything else, Ma'am?
MS. BRODERICK: Yes. I just wanted
to add. I wasn't here to complain. I was
just here as a concerned tax payer. I am a
single mother. I was like, "oh, is there
going to be 400 cars going up the hedges?"
But I do think that there plans, which I
did review, look absolutely beautiful. And
I wish them well. I think that they will
add to the community. On a serious note,
they will be adding jobs on a very troubled
March 7, 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
economy. So I don't want any bad feelings
with neighbors. I was just concerned about
a lot of cars and a lot noise.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Thank you very
much.
Is there anyone else that would like
to address the application?
MR. GLOVER: Good morning.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Good morning.
MR. GLOVER: Robert Glover, 1865 Cox
Lane. I have not had a chance to meet my
neighbors yet. So this is the first. I
just want to welcome them to Cox Lane. I
just came because I know there is very few
homeowners on Cox Lane. I think I am one
of about eight on the whole road. So it's
important to all of us and I just wanted to
welcome them. I think it's a great idea.
I came first to talk about the setbacks and
that became not important because -- you
know, I built my house. Had the property
about 15 years. Took a little cottage that
was on that location. Put up a new house.
Just recently, I got a permit for a garage.
You know, I understand that. I spoke to my
March 7, 2013 Regular Meeting 69
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
uncle who grew up here, you know 70 years
ago, Richard Glover. Anyway, I don't want
to go into that. I just want to welcome
them and hopefully it will be great. It's
a good addition. Welcome to the
neighborhood.
MR. GEPPEL: Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Is
like to address
else that would
application?
(No Response.)
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
there anyone
the
further questions or
a motion to
decision to
MEMBER
Hearing no
comments, I will make
close this hearing and reserve
a later date.
GOEHRINGER: Second.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Ail
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye.
in favor?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Aye.
(See Minutes for Resolution.)
HEARING #6626 - GEORGE AND LISA HAASE
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The next
application before the Board is for George
March 7, 2013 Regular Meeting 70
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
and Lisa Haase, #6626. Applicant request a
Special Exception under Section 280-13b(4) .
The Applicant is the owner requesting
authorization to establish an Accessory Bed
and Breakfast, accessory and incidental to
the residential occupancy in this
single-family dwelling, with three bedrooms
for lodging and serving of breakfast to the
B&B casual, transient roomers. Location of
Property: 580 Skunk Lane, Cutchogue.
Welcome.
Please state your name for the
record.
MR. HAASE: I am George Haase.
Residing at 80 Skunk Lane.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay. Let the
record show that the Board, the three
members that were able to do so, have made
an interior inspection by appointment with
the property, and that the property had
been operating as a Bed & Breakfast
historically, and you're here. You have a
CO from 6-05-01. And you have submitted
proof of residency as required by the
Special Exception permit. You have a prior
March 7, 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
2001 B&B permit for
with five parking
to Jean and Louis
owner.
MR. HAASE:
CHAIRPERSON
guest bedrooms.
bedroom on the
three bedrooms. B&B
spaces. That was granted
Genovese, the previous
Yes.
WEISMAN: You have two
I think it was one guest
first floor and two guest
bedrooms on the second floor. And you have
shown on your site plan where you propose
to park the required number of vehicles.
MR. HAASE: Correct.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
you like to tell us?
MR. HAASE: Well,
that we have moved out
We have been
thirty years.
home in '98 in
five years ago
traveling into
What else would
I will just say
here five years ago.
coming out here for over
We have purchased a summer
Southold. We moved out here
to that summer home. I was
the city a couple of days a
week. And we decided that we have made a
partial life change to move out here, and
then we wanted to complete that change and
we figured that the Bed & Breakfast route
March 7, 2013 Regular Meeting 72
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
would be a very pleasing avenue to go. We
would meet a lot of people and enable us to
stay out here full-time and not have to do
the traveling into the city. We started
looking at some places and when we found
the existing operating Bed & Breakfast,
which was operating until shortly before we
closed in July of last year, would be the
perfect route to go.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay. Does the
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: We have a copy
here, this is just for your records. It's
not for -- it doesn't affect much. It just
tells us from Suffolk County Planning that
Board have any questions?
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: No questions.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Not particularly.
We did an extensive inspection. We had
seen the parking area. I didn't park there
and nor did you. We observed our other
member right here parking in the proper
space.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: You're doing a
beautiful job of renovating.
MR. HAASE: Thank you.
March 7, 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
this is a matter for local determination,
and they're not getting involved. Let me
give you that. Also a site plan approval
is not required by the Planning Board.
Is there anyone else in the audience
who wishes to address this application?
(No Response.)
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Hearing no
further comments or questions, I will make
a motion to close this hearing and reserve
decision to a later date.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER:
CHAIRPERSON
Second.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Aye.
(See Minutes for Resolution.)
HEARING #6633 - RJJ
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
application before the
Properties, LLC. This
PROPERTIES, LLC.
Our next
Board is for RJJ
is application
#6633. Request for variance from Article
XXII Code Section 280-116(B) based on an
application for building permit and the
WEISMAN: Ail in favor?
March 7, 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
Building Inspector's February 5, 2013
Notice of Disapproval concerning a permit
for a 12' X 8" accessory shed, at; 1)
proposed structure at less than the code
required bulkhead setback of 75 feet,
located at: 7225 Nassau Point Road,
adjacent to Peconic Bay in Cutchogue.
Is there someone here to represent
that --
MR. BLAKELY: Yes. John Blakely.
Good morning.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Good morning.
Do you have all the green cards with you?
Ail right. We have a copy for you of the
Local Waterfront Revitalization Program
Coordinator's Review of your proposed
action, which is to reestablish a small
shed/bath house, sitting between a landward
and a seaward bulkhead. And he has
determined that this proposed action is
inconsistent with the LWRP Policy. I would
like to give you a copy for your review and
records. You can read it. And also a
Suffolk County Local Determination letter.
Okay. Apparently this shed was 9.3
March 7, 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
feet by 12.3 feet
Sandy.
MR. BLAKELY:
8X12.
Ail right.
about this
MR.
destroyed by Hurricane
That's incorrect.
replace a
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I see 8X12.
What would you like to tell us
application?
BLAKELY: We are trying to
shed that was destroyed by Sandy.
CHAIRPERSON
your hand drawn
from --
MR. BLAKELY:
CHAIRPERSON
from an existing
WEISMAN: And this is
survey that was taken
Yes, it is.
WEISMAN: That was taken
licensed surveyor showing
where you propose to relocate the shed.
Now, all I found in the records -- do you
have a CO or a Pre-CO for that shed?
MR. BLAKELY: No. We shared that
stairs and bulkhead and retaining wall.
Although all the rest were on the survey.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: We did see that
on the survey but I did find a
September 25, 1990 CO for an accessory shed
for ZBA Decision #3381 for an addition of
March 7, 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
an 8X10 shed in the front
from Nassau Point Road.
MR. BLAKELY: Yes.
yard at 170 feet
That's still in
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: No closer than
five feet from the property line and for
storage use only. That is still in
existence?
MR. BLAKELY:
existence.
CHAIRPERSON
didn't find
anything on the previous shed that was
destroyed by Hurricane Sandy. Have you
applied for the Trustees for a permit?
WEISMAN: I
deck approved. You do have to make some
repairs to the stairs. We all did a site
inspection --
MR. BLAKELY: Yes.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: That was all
damaged in Hurricane Sandy?
subject to the Zoning Board.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Shed and then
MR. BLAKELY: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: And what is the
status on that?
MR. BLAKELY: They approved everything
March 7, 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
MR. BLAKELY: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
electric or plumbing in
MR. BLAKELY: No.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
not shown
only?
idea of
whom?
on any of the
MR. BLAKELY: Storage
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
when the shed was
they
North Road.
that
Was there any
shed?
The interior is
plans. Storage
only.
Do you have any
built and by
MR. BLAKELY: It was built by the --
are just behind BP Gas Station on
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: North Fork
and --
MR. BLAKELY: Yeah. They are also the
people who will be building the new shed.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Obviously it was
done by the prior owner without benefit of
a building permit?
MR. BLAKELY: Yes, it was the prior
owner.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: You're
indicating that there are some sheds of
March 7, 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
that
sort in the area?
MR. BLAKELY: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
new but can
didn't observe
you address
with me that show that?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: We have a
photograph in here that shows it prior
the hurricane.
(Whereupon, Mr. Blakely stepped
from the microphone.)
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Well, they
any immediately
that a little more?
MR. BLAKELY: Do
to
away
probably don't have a CO either. Thank
you. I just did want to mention that we
have in the past have had similar situation
where a bath house that came down from a
bluff, that was destroyed by fire, actually
by vandalism. And because it was sitting
where it was sitting, the Board and I don't
remember whether it had a Pre-CO or CO, do
you?
It
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I
was preexisting.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
don't think so.
And the Board
I have photographs
March 7, 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
did deny the applicants the rights to
rebuild. Once a nonconformity like that is
destroyed, it loses it's preexisting
nonconforming status by code. What that
means is, let's say, the roof was damaged
or some planking came off, and you were
going just making repairs to it, in-place
and in-kind, that is one thing. It's
another thing when it's completely
demolished and then to reestablish that
nonconformity. So the Board will have to
consider that very carefully. I just wanted
to bring that to your attention as
something that this Board will have to
really wrestle with. I can't recall
whether the previous example did have a
Pre-CO. If they did, then it would have
been a preexisting nonconformity. If it
doesn't have a Pre-CO, then it would never
conform to begin with. So it's a little bit
different. Given the special nature of the
weather incident and the damage that it is
causing to properties, the Board is being
more mindful of it's responsibility to take
environmental impact seriously and to
March 7, 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
attempt, to the best of our ability, given
the standards that we have to make
decisions by according to the law, to grant
the minimal number of nonconformities that
we can reasonable argue or justify before
the code. I think that is how we will have
to proceed with this application.
Gerry, do you have any questions that
you would like to ask or comments that you
would like to make?
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Well, during the
period of time we were granting a few of
these applications, in and around the
nature of this application, the major
portion of the ones that we did deal with
were particularly sheds that did have CO's
on them. Okay. They were probably -- they
probably never had a building permit but
they were granted CO's. Those particulars
persons that came before us and
predominantly in the Nassau Point area, and
areas where there are relatively high
bluff's, people were not having to carry
the stuff up and down. They did say that
there was a problem. And so the Board
March 7, 2013 Regular Meeting 81
2
3
4
5
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
usually dealt with an in-kind, in-place.
Usually we alter the roof angle so that it
was really shed type roof. Rather than
going with a typical gable line roof. But
they did have CO's. Some of which we all
remember. We didn't see too many there.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: It's difficult
for the Board to justify reestablishing
something that wasn't legalized to begin
with.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Yes. That is what
I am saying. The problem that we have is,
it's very difficult for you to establish
the nature of these in the Nassau Point
area. Particularly in this area because we
really don't have the right to walk into
anyone else's property. So if you can
take any other visual or math or whatever
and tell us how many are down there, maybe
you can possibly do that for us so that we
can understand exactly where they may be in
reference to numbers.
MR. BLAKELY: In reference to other
buildings?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Yes. Sheds along
March 7, 2013 Regular Meeting 82
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
your street. However, we need to know which
of those -- there may be a number of them.
We have no way of knowing unless you do the
research to find out which of those have
been legalized. Which have CO's and which
have variance's because again, there may be
a number of them but they may be illegal.
And unfortunately, again, that is a code
enforcement. Not a ZBA jurisdiction. We
appreciate your coming before this Board to
attempt to reestablish the shed where it
has historically been. But again, I want
to make sure that the Board is clear to you
of what we're up against in trying to grant
the relief that you're requesting.
Ken, do you have comments or
questions?
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: No
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
else in the audience who would
address this application?
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I
mention to this gentleman,
to necessarily limit it to
area. You can limit it to
comments.
Is there anyone
like to
just want to
you don't have
the Nassau Point
portions of
March 7, 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
Cutchogue where the bluffs exist. So we
can understand what we have. It would be
very nice to know, each side of Nassau
Point had five or six of them.
to
The Building
information.
whether or not.
and take a look
here and here.
is. Check with
see if there is
because one
consider is
Okay. That
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
know whether those exist
Department
They will
Again, we have
and with CO's.
can give you that
be able to see
You can just Google Earth
and say there is one here,
Figure out what the address
the Building Department to
any CO or Pre-CO of record
of the things that we do
character of the neighborhood.
is what Member Goehringer is
getting at is, if there are many of them
that area that are legal, that will help
your application. But again, if they are
not legal and you can't find any records
for them, they did probably what the
previous owner did before you, and just
built it. Now that it's gone, it's gone.
And that nonconforming structure to be
reestablished when it was not legal to
March 7, 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
begin with, is a very difficult task. The
Trustees has different jurisdiction. They
had the stairs and so on. We just have the
structure.
Is there anyone else in the audience
who wishes to address this application?
(No Response.)
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Hearing no
further comments or questions, I am going
to make a motion to close this hearing and
reserve decision to a later date subject to
receipt of any information that you would
like to provide the Board with regard to
the character of the neighborhood of sheds
in a similar bulkhead setback that are
legal and have Pre-CO's or that have
received variances from this Board.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: All in favor?
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Aye.
(See Minutes for Resolution.)
HEARING #6630 - GREGORY AND CAROL KARAS
March 7, 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
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The next
application before the Board is for Gregory
and Carol Karas, %6630. Request for
variances from Article XXII Code Section
280-116A(1} and Article III Code Section
280-15 and the Building Inspector's
January 24, 2013 Notice of Disapproval
based on an application for building permit
for an accessory in-ground pool; 1) top of
the bluff setback of less than the code
required 100 feet, 2) location other than
the code permitted front yard on waterfront
property or rear yard, located at: 135
Soundview Road, adjacent to Long Island
Sound in Orient.
Pat, would you just state your name
for the record?
MS. MOORE: Yes. Good morning.
Patricia Moore on behalf of the Karas
Family. Carol Karas one of the property
owners is here. It's really her project.
So her husband set her off in the weather.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Pat, before you
begin, let me just give you a letter for
local determination and the LWRP for
March 7, 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
consistency and review.
MS. MOORE: Great. What I have
submitted to the Board in addition to the
documents that the application and the
accompanying documents typically request, I
know Mr. Horning always ask for this. So I
tried to provide it. I gave you one full
packet that has the decisions and the
surveys for your files. I gave the Board
just the front as well as the Google maps.
Since you have all this information within
your own records. I did want to provide one
full set for your convenience. This
property is located in Orient by the Sea,
which is a development that was created in
1961. At the time, there were no setbacks
from the top of the bluff. Environmental
regulations were quite different. The map
was approved and there were certain setback
requirements that they were really
measuring. Most of the time from the high
tide mark, other than the bluff -- the 100
feet from the top of the bluff. The most in
the 60's what you got was kind of a general
character development. So that the homes
March 7, 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
can go approximately 35 feet from the front
yard and then they could extend as close as
they wanted to as close to the bluff. Those
conditions are no longer in place. You
definitely have a lot of regulations. And
in particular, the zoning regulations to
keep structures just a 100 feet from the
top of the bluff. The house is an existing
house. There is an existing concrete patio
and the location of the pool -- the ideal
location for any waterfront property owner
to put the pool in the rear yard directly
behind the house. However, in light of the
environmental regulations and efforts to
maximize the distance to the top of the
bluff, the appropriate location here was
placed at 83.6 feet, the closest point from
the top of the bluff. No closer then the
house that sits at 80.9 feet from the top
of the bluff. This proposal, while it
places the house technically in a side
yard, when we're dealing with a waterfront
property, often times that application is
made to you because it is the most
appropriate, if there is room, is to keep
March 7, 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
it no closer to the environmental line,
whether it's on the bay or the sound, no
closer than the existing structures for
what was proposed here. We do keep the
pool at the appropriate side yard setback.
So we don't need a variance there. It does
not make sense on most waterfront
properties, unless there is waterfront on
all sides to put a pool in the front yard.
It wouldn't make sense in the character of
this community. None of the homes have
pools in the front yard. So that option
isn't really practical that the owner or
the community would favor. I did provide
you with a list of variances here because
the property was -- the properties in this
neighborhood were developed in 1961. The
homes have variances of one type or
another. Whether they needed variances for
houses, decks or so on. I put a Google map
to show that there are pools located along
the sound here, interestingly none of them
needing variances because most likely those
came with the homes prior to the bluff
setback. I didn't find any variances for
March 7, 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
the pools in most of these -- well, they
look like the pools are in the rear yard.
Most of them on top of the bluff. Some of
them are attached by decking. None have
been considered accessory structures. So
there is the design of the home, which is a
little different. I didn't see those
variances. I found a lot of others. That
is why I looked at only the variances that
were applicable to Sound front properties.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Can I ask you a
question?
MS. MOORE:
Sure.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: While we're on the
subject. The first one that you have
handed us referencing the variances. The
first one, 137 Sound Avenue --
MS. MOORE: Yes.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Where is that in
relationship to your applicant's property?
MS. MOORE: I just -- let me, if you
would like. I did for my own sake, the tax
map, just marking the variances. Directly
to the east of my clients property is the
first variance.
March 7, 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
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: And they were
granted? What were they granted?
MS. MOORE: They were granted -- his
setbacks from the top of the bluff in --
this one actually has several variances
that it has received in the past. It has
three variances. The deck variance, I
pulled up and quite frankly, it was not
real clear to me. I gave you what I got.
It looks like the original deck was
replaced with the wood deck, because I
couldn't see the original deck of the
setbacks that were approved. The
replacement deck, which is, I believe
it's
#6049, because
a second floor
application was denied with
relief. So what ultimately
was the deck at 36. It
MEMBER SCHNEIDER:
granted a
was
feet?
MS. MOORE:
significant variance.
house is so close. It
they have actually asked for
addition as well. The
alternative
was approved
was a covered deck.
So the neighbor
setback from the bluff at 36
Right. There is a
Partly because the
was all justified
March 7, 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
but in comparison to the request that we're
making, it's a insignificant variance.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Okay. Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I want to ask a
question, Pat, if I might?
MS. MOORE: Sure.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Two things
actually. Of course we all did a site
inspection. The (In Audible) that is on
the survey that we observed there. That is
on the applicant's property?
MS. MOORE: Yes, it is.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: It's obviously
ten feet from the property line.
MS. MOORE: Correct. Yes, it is.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The second
question that I had, I didn't see any
proposal for pool de-watering, drywell or
for a -- where the pump equipment is going
to go. We generally do have some concerns
about --
MS. MOORE:
CHAIRPERSON
address those?
MS. MOORE:
Yes.
WEISMAN: So can you
I was actually asking,
March 7, 2013 Regular Meeting 92
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
I1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
because they needed the variance, they
haven't really gone to the next level of
getting the design and the contract with
the contractor.
sense, if you wanted to
on the approval that we
It would certainly make
place a condition
would keep all
equipment on the landward side of the pool
-- nowadays, there are pools that don't
even require any drywell's. They're self
contained. I don't know ultimately if she
needs a drywell. The Building Department
would make the applicant have a drywell if
it is necessary. And that would be
provided on the landward side of the pool.
Adjacent to the driveway. There is five
feet between the pool and the driveway. We
can put a drywell under the driveway as
another alternative. Once my client
decides on the design, we will work on
that. As far as the pumps go, I know that
they need to be ventilated. We can
certainly again place any pumps or wastes
away from the property line. Keeping it as
far as away and being a good neighbor or if
it has to be closer, we can encroach to the
March 7, 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
extent possible without a fire hazard.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: You would
probably -- I would assume that you would
probably want to do that to your own --
MS. MOORE: Exactly.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Do you want to
give me a distance in what you were looking
for with the pump?
MS. MOORE: Well, we can certainly
say that we will make it no closer than ten
feet. The ten foot is the closest setback
of the pool. We can use part of the back
of the pool between the ten and the patio,
as the area where the pumps and any
equipment can go. Does that make sense?
Let me show you what I am volunteering.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Can I just
confirm the size of the pool? It's 15X267
MS. MOORE: Yes.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Is it a vinyl
pool or a gunite pool?
MS. MOORE: They have not gone that
route either. I asked them if they wanted
a salt water pool or -- They want a very
nice one. We will -- I am not sure if that
March 7, 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
makes a difference --
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Well, for
de-watering. If you have to change the
liner, you're going to de-water the pool.
MS. MOORE: Okay.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: From
environmentally, a cement pool is better.
In my particular opinion.
MS. MOORE: Would you be okay with
that? Yes.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: When you're on
the bluff and you have a problem with the
liner, it is going to be a significant
environmental hazard --
MS. MOORE: That's fine. Not a
problem.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Well, I do want
to say that I appreciate the effort to keep
this as far away from the bluff as
possible. It does not make sense in terms
of character of the neighborhood to have a
pool in the front yard. We know the
neighborhood very well.
MS. MOORE: The sanitary system is in
the front as well.
March 7, 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
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I think the
unique thing you have, we know that we have
-- a couple of significant subdivisions.
It's a cluster. They are extremely long
MS. MOORE: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I see that you
have already modified the existing -- looks
like cobblestone patio that you had there
already at grade. Bear in mind, if you
went to an attachment of a raised deck
to the house, you wouldn't even be before
MS. MOORE: Yes. We went over that.
The design did not match the house.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: You are
probably going to modify that patio or
rearrange it anyway. I would imagine
you would not want grass on one side,
because of the mess.
MS. MOORE: Right.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
probably be putting
it at some point or
it's the location that
side yard.
So you will
that
pavers somewhere around
another. At the moment,
is before us for a
March 7, 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
MS. MOORE: Right. The next step for
us is that once we're approved with the
location, we're going to design more
carefully with any disturbed area so we can
go to the Trustees with a patio and the
final design, because that would be within
the jurisdiction of the Trustees.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Sure. Well, the
other thing that we have and based upon the
survey, the theoretical proposal condition
and subject to final review of the final
design by this Board. So we can stamp the
actual proposed final location and so on.
I am going to assume where you're proposing
it now.
MS. MOORE: Now.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: You may decide
that you want to move it closer to your
house even more and have a patio?
MS. MOORE: Okay.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: So I would like
to really see -- we can grant the side yard
but I would like to have the option of when
your finalizing to see where if you may
need a de-watering drywell, where you're
March 7, 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
going to locate the pump equipment.
Exactly what it is going to look at. So
that would allow us to grant the location
so you can proceed but have the right to
stamp the final drawings. Just so that
it's right and part of our final records.
MS. MOORE: That's fine.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: It's a lot
better to do it that way.
MS. MOORE: Okay.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Is that all
right with this Board?
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Wonderful.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Is there anyone
else in the audience that wishes to address
this application?
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I
one further comment,
just want to
make and that is, I
also like the maximum setbacks -- excuse me
side yards, this is not interconnected with
the house. So you still have 8.2 on the
side of the house to get to the rear yard.
Still the ability of the setback on the
easterly side.
March 7, 2013 Regular Meeting 98
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MS. MOORE: Right.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I think that is an
extremely positive step.
MS. MOORE: Well, thank you.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Ail right.
Hearing no further comments or questions, I
am going to make a motion to close this
hearing and reserve decision to a later
date.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Ail in favor?
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Aye.
(See Minutes for Resolution.)
HEARING %6632 - GEORGE LIKOKAS
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The next
application before the Board is for George
Likokas, #6632. This is a request for a
Waiver of Merger under Article II, Section
280-10A, to unmerge land identified as
SCTM# 1001-31-3-23, based on the Building
Department February 1, 2013 Notice of
Disapproval, which states adjoining
March 7, 2013 Regular Meeting 99
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
conforming or nonconforming lots held in
common ownership shall unmerge until the
total lot size conforms to the current bulk
schedule (minimum 40,000 square feet in
this R-40 Residential Zone District) this
lot is merged with Lot's ~10 and Lot #9,
located at: 9775 Main Road, aka, State
Route 25, corner of Stars Road, 425 Stars
Road, Lot #10, and 455 Stars Road, Lot #9,
in East Marion.
State your name for the record.
MS. BISHOP: Stacey Bishop. East End
Construction Services for the Likokas
Family. Hi, How are you?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Good. Thank you.
MS. BISHOP: So basically what we have
here is an existing nonconforming. As the
Town knows, they have had the property on
the market trying to sell it without
success. So what they decided to do now is
make the application for the Waiver of
Merger with the intent of creating the two
conforming lots to the rear of the Main
Road property. They propose to construct
a modular home similar to the
March 7, 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
characteristics that exist in the
neighborhood, and sell those lots with the
home. And use the money to rehab the
property that is on the frontage of Main
Road, which they intend to keep for their
family.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Do you have any
green cards?
MS. BISHOP: I already turned it in to
the Town on the 5th and I didn't get any
postal cards yet.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay. we have
just for your records a letter from Suffolk
County indicating this is for local
determination for this Board. That they
have no interest in this application.
MS. BISHOP: Okay.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: If you would
like a copy, you're welcome to have one.
The Board does have some questions. We do
know the history of the property. The
title search was very clear. Essentially
you merged because the entire family had
trusts with everyone's name. Now, I believe
there is a Life Estate situation. Okay.
March 7, 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
Normally, when we review these Waiver of
Merger's, we have two lots. One held single
and separate of such thing or because it
was nonconforming in size. One that has
historically been kept vacant and one that
dwelling.
MS. BISHOP:
to generally develop with a
Right.
principle
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: It's a little
unorthodox in the sense that we have one
developed lot. One that is developed with
cottages. One that has a principle dwelling
with one cottage on it. And so we need to
see a few things. The records show that
there are no Pre-CO's for any of these
properties.
MS. BISHOP: That's
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay.
proposal here is to maintain the
dwelling and do some renovating.
correct.
The
existing
MS. BISHOP: Correct.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: And the garage
and the accessory cottage.
MS. BISHOP: Correct.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Just so you
March 7, 2013 Regular Meeting 102
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
realize, you're attempting, just by getting
rid of all the cottages, creating some
degree of greater conformity by
establishing the middle lot as vacant
talk
MS. BISHOP: Correct.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: But I want to
to you a little bit about what is
happening on Lot #23, which faces the road.
Visual observation alone indicates that
aside from the fact that there are no CO's
or Pre-CO's, if you were eligible for a
Pre-CO on that cottage, you may have a
right to keep it even though -- as a
principle dwelling, even though you're over
the permitted lot coverage. The only way
you could keep that cottage if you
establish the CO's or Pre-CO's and then
apply for an accessory apartment in that
cottage, which now the law does permit.
Again, the accessory cottage would only be
permitted if you have a Pre-CO and if in
fact you are willing to have someone in it
who is either a family member or qualifies
for the Affordable Housing Registry.
Otherwise, at the very least, that cottage
March 7, 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
will need to be removed as a second
dwelling. Right now, if you consider the
fact that it's viewed as one property, the
whole thing is anomalous and nonconforming.
MS. BISHOP: It is anomalous.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: So can you
address that for us, please?
MS. BISHOP: Sure. In discussions
with the Building Department, the way that
we were kind of taking a look at this is
with respect to the lot coverage, based on
some quick calculations, it seems to be
approximately 28 or 29 square feet over the
20%, which that's my daughters closet.
It's not really a big matter of square
footage that we're referencing here. There
were not Pre-CO's. So what we kind of
decided that we would do is come here
before the Board for a determination of
Waiver of Merger under the conditions that
the cottage would not be -- it will remain
on the property but not used for any
rentals. We take that off the table --
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: You're going to
demolish the cottage?
March 7, 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
23
24
25
MS. BISHOP: No. It's going to be
strictly intended uses for family. The
intent is not to rent it or maintain part
of the business or maintain anything like
that. This is an extended family that has
a long history of visiting the North Fork
and just want to be assured that they have
the room to accommodate them.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: There is no way
they can legally do that.
MS. BISHOP: What the Building
Department thought, we can get the Waiver.
Keep that as strictly for family things.
Because there are no CO's, anything that
they have to do is obviously going to go
through the Building Department. At that
point, we would address the CO situation
and the actual rehabilitation of that
property because, we're not exactly sure
what it is that they're going to exactly
do. This existing structure is extremely.
It is one of those things that has been
added on over the years. So it might not
be feasible to fix it and maybe more cost
effective to knock it down and similarly
March 7, 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
add a modular dwelling. The family's hands
are kind of tied right now from a monetary
standpoint, because they tried to sell the
property to no avail and they need the
funds from the sale of the other two lots
to have single family homes on it, to
really be able to address that front
property. So what we're speaking about
with the Building Department was my
discussions with them and just to submit
for this Waiver. Perhaps seek approval
from the Board under the conditions that
the cottage remains presently. It does
conform to the accessory building code with
respect to the height and the setbacks and
what not. With the sole understanding that
it is solely for the family dwelling, that
it's not to be rented out year round or
otherwise. And
application for
what it is that
do with
then when they make an
the building permit for
they collectively decide to
then it can be
regulations
If we need
that property,
addressed through all the
the Building Department.
another Notice
of
of Disapproval and come back
March 7, 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
before you at that time, then we can
address it collectively as an entire
project rather than lump it in with the
Waiver.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Again, this
is
awkward.
MS. BISHOP: I understand.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The goal of the
merger was to upsell. Now we don't have
any issues with understanding and
recognizing lots that conform to the
character of the neighborhood and the
You're
side
and proposing the benefit,
substantial benefit--
yard. That is clear enough.
reducing the nonconformance
cottages
is a
by reducing the
which
MS. BISHOP: Absolutely.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: A new principle
dwelling. However, my concern is with the
degree of nonconformity on Lot #23. That
will be sort of sanctioned by unmerging
these lots. A family can use an accessory
structure for family use if they legally
apply and qualify for that use based upon
the now permitted the accessory structure
March 7, 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
containing the accessory apartment, but it
has to be, you know, built prior to 2008.
You have to apply for a Special Exception
And you have to
it, and that is
you have.
So it's quite
permit before this Board.
have a Pre-CO and CO for
clearly not something that
MS. BISHOP: No.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
out of order.
MS. BISHOP: It is. And you know,
granted the whole thing and I understand
it's anomalous. In speaking with the ZBA
office and the Building Department, we were
trying to get the most done as effectively.
And then just leaving the rehabilitation of
Lot ~23 for down the road. If it could
stay at status quo because really, it's not
looking to add anything that is going to
change the characteristic of the
neighborhood or integrity of the
neighborhood. As this is for such a long
time and it's really the effects as it is
now, it's not going to be a detriment to
the neighbors or anybody. And because it's
going to be strictly for familiar use, they
March 7, 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
are not introducing another element. They
are not introducing any renters or
anything. It is strictly going to stay as
is. So you're not really necessarily
changing the characteristics as much. I
understand what you're saying with respect
to the code but this is basically why we
are here, to kind of talk about this a
little bit and try and come to a
compromise. They're willing to get rid of
the rest of the cabins and get rid of this
nonconforming use and this eyesore in this
community. To be honest. Just to allow them
to maintain that for the interim while the
family collectively decides how they're
going to address the use. They can't do
anything. This isn't something that they
can do as a weekend project. They have to
go back to the Building Department when
they address this to collectively decide
how they will address the existing
structures on the property. At that time,
because everything is the way that it is
now, just kind of thought that we could ask
the Board just to leave it as status quo
March 7, 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
and let's address that collectively decide
what it is that they're going to do. We
will go back to the Building Department
and --
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Well, the
problem that I see in doing that, is that
you're asking us address all of this
nonconformity. When you say status quo --
MS. BISHOP: Well, as it exist for
that one building.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Well, no it's
for the principle dwelling as well. Nothing
has a CO and nothing qualifies.
MS. BISHOP: And nothing is conforming
on this property because of the --
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: What you are
asking us to do is to bless whether it's
temporary basis or not, you know, all of
a
the nonconformities that exist on Lot #23
by unmerging them. I understand that this
is a greater nonconformity that will take
place on the other lot but the Board will
have to figure out how we can legally
proceed on this. One of the things that we
always have to consider is the
March 7, 2013 Regular Meeting 110
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
establishment of a precedent for other
nonconforming properties. And even though
there is a long history on this, you know,
there are other properties that have a
second dwelling and seasonal cottage on
their property. You know, this is exactly
why the code was written. To reduce those
second dwellings on the property. So I am
not saying what the conclusion is going to
be. I just want to address all of these
impacts.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: We're
that maybe we have a discussion
counsel and go into Executive
about ten minutes and discuss
suggesting
with
Session for
the options
that we have.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Do you want to
ask any questions before we do that?
MS. BISHOP: Excuse me. It seems to
be a CO issue as well, but there is nothing
that we can kind of do. With respect to
lot coverage again, we're not that far
over. Because it's existing as it is.
Again, you can kind of view it -- I
understand what you're saying from your
March 7, 2013 Regular Meeting 111
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
I9
20
21
22
23
24
25
standpoint and a precedent. This is as it
has existed. It's already nonconforming
use.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I understand.
You do have an option, you realize, if that
cottage were demolished, you would still
have an accessory garage on the subject
property, which qualifies it to the same
degree as the cottage does. It qualifies
for it to be converted to an accessory
apartment, because it is an accessory
structure. If the applicant wanted to
apply to have an accessory apartment for
family use on that property, they do have
the option of doing that with the garage,
which is certainly less than the
establishment of the second dwelling.
MS. BISHOP: I understand your
concern. The problem that I would have
with that is the cottage is preexisting.
It's already there. And so to go back and
make applications to the Building
Department to rehabilitate a garage, you
know, you're doing everything as a piece
meal. This is a collective -- as you
March 7, 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
mentioned, this is a trust. You know, more
minds have to know what is going to happen
with that place. So the premise is to
maintain it for the seasonal use. No one
lives there year round. It's not a great
impact on the community but just to
maintain that for the interim just so they
collectively decide how they will better --
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: What we're saying
is that we have difficulty in dealing with
the Waiver based upon what exist and what
is left over. And that is the discussion
that we're going to have with counsel.
Okay. And that is where we are. Okay. I
will give you my take on it after it.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: We're very --
we're attempting to be very open-minded
about it. We want the record to reflect a
lot of the issues and concerns that the
proposed waiver offers. None of the
structures have Pre-CO's. Without any of
those in place, we're faced with a
different set of challenges. I am going to
respectfully and I apologize, it was just
March 7, 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
requested, is to make a motion for
Executive Session for advice with legal
counsel for ten minutes or so, and then we
will come back into this. It will help us
to ask more questions and help the Board
come to some potential strategies that we
can pursue. So I am going to make a motion
to enter into Executive Session.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: All in favor?
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Aye.
(Whereupon, the Board entered into
Executive Session.)
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay. Well,
we're not terribly much farther from where
we were. I want to ask you. Have you
applied for any CO's with the Building
Department?
MS. BISHOP: No.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: So you're not
sure if whether you're eligible?
MS. BISHOP: That's correct.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: So the first
March 7, 2013 Regular Meeting 114
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
thing that we need to do is make that
determination of whether or not you're
eligible for a Pre-CO for the subject
seasonal cottage. That would be the first
thing. Because if you had not determined
that, you know, if you don't have a Pre-CO,
you're arguing before us to leave things
status quo, but in fact, you haven't
established any legal rights to do so. You
have no legal basis for making that.
MS. BISHOP: I understand.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: So that is the
first thing that we need to do, is to find
out how they're interpret what is going on
on that property.
MS. BISHOP: We are going to wait and
see what the family is going to do.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Ail right. Let
me see if Ken has some questions that he
would like to make.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: No. Each of the
Pre-CO, which is very important here. It
would be very difficult to grant the use
that cottage.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The agent is
of
March 7, 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
24
25
just confering with her client.
MS. BISHOP: Thank you for your
patience. So after speaking with one of
family members, the cottage of #23 will
come down in conjunction with the other
cottages pursuant to an approval with the
Waiver of Merger. We will leave on
the
Lot #23 the existing garage the two-story.
As I explained to Mr. Likokas, if he wants
to add or make an application to the
Building Department at a future date for an
accessory building or something, we can
begin that process with the Building
Department. Following the building code's
of the Town. And if it's nonconforming for
the structure then we will come before this
Board.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Let me just
clarify something. In order to be eligible
for an accessory apartment in an accessory
structure -- we know that the proposed
people who will be in it will be family
members. That's fine. But in order to be
eligible, you have to have a Pre-CO.
Because the accessory structure has to have
March 7, 2013 Regular Meeting 116
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
existed prior to 2008.
of renovations to the
that
He can do all kinds
garage --
Well, that is something
time.
That's right.
MS. BISHOP:
he can address at that
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
MS. BISHOP:
before you here is
Merger.
The immediate motion
for the Waiver of
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
MS. BISHOP:
discuss that --
Right.
And down the road he can
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
Good. We're all on the
to proceed with what is
Absolutely.
same page. We want
before us.
MS. BISHOP: Absolutely.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I wanted to ask
the current owner of that family, are you
proposing to inhabit the principle
dwelling?
MR. LIKOKAS: Correct. We have been
there for over 40 years.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: If you can just
come to the mic to enter that into our
transcript, please and just state your
name?
March 7, 2013 Regular Meeting 117
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. LIKOKAS: My name is George
Likokas. I am the son of (In Audible)
Likokas who purchased the property in '68.
We have been there for over 40 years. We
want to continue that home in East Marion.
It's an ideal location. We would like to
keep that structure as a main house and
have space for the entire family. It's
myself and my sister and her whole entire
family and my parents. We're dealing with
basically three separate families. We want
to rebuild to accommodate at least one of
the three families and the other two
maintain the main house for their own.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay. That all
makes sense. We can just also point out
that the accessory cottage and the garage
are not in conforming locations, because
unfortunately you're on a corner lot with
two roads. It's in a front yard where the
accessory structures are required in a rear
yard. It's just kind of riddled with
issues but we're all trying to make more
conforming and that is a good thing. So we
welcome the opportunity to proceed based
March 7, 2013 Regular Meeting 118
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
upon the removal
well, everything
existing
MR.
CHAIRPERSON
constitutes
of a nonconforming --
is nonconforming but the
accessory cottage.
LIKOKAS: Right.
WEISMAN: Which
a second dwelling. Then we can
proceed from there. Bear
should you want to create
apartment in an accessory
careful in how you proceed.
existing garage. You can't
new one. It won't qualify.
in mind, that
an accessory
structure be
Look at the
just build a
MS. BISHOP: That's correct. I have
explained that they will need to make
applications to the Building Department.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The application
for an accessory apartment comes directly
to the Zoning Board because it's a Special
Exception permit that you don't require a
Notice of Disapproval for. What you need
to get from the Building Department is the
eligibility of a Pre-CO and bring that to
us with your application and then we can
proceed. And then obviously any
renovations to the dwelling goes to the
March 7, 2013 Regular Meeting 119
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Building Department.
MS. BISHOP: Right.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: I just have a
question. Why wouldn't you proceed with a
Pre-CO for the main dwelling and the garage
and that cottage and try and get a CO?
Apply for that, and if you can get that --
MS. BISHOP: I think what happened
was when they put it on the market, they
didn't research the CO issue. That is
something that should have been addressed
when the property was put on the market.
Then they would have had several years to
kind of go that route. Right now, with the
time constraints and the deterioration that
is becoming, and what the family is doing
now is to formulate a remedy to create a
better situation for the family.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: So just to be
clear, you're going to take down that
second cottage?
MS. BISHOP: That's correct.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Okay. And the
accessory apartment, later when you get a
CO on this property with the garage being
March 7, 2013 Regular Meeting 120
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
an accessory
convert that to an
providing that you
MS. BISHOP:
to the dwelling, you can
accessory apartment,
get a CO.
Right.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Whatever
nonconformities that we have established in
the record, will be reduced by the removal
of that second dwelling. Then the issue is
to obtain Pre-CO's so you can obtain to
convert the garage. So that can give you
the flexibility and you will be able to
renovate the dwelling. That is with the
Building Department.
MS. BISHOP: That's correct. And
that gives them time in the future to
address that.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Just for the
record, the survey is showing two proposed
modular dwellings. One on Lot #9 and one
on Lot #10.
MS. BISHOP: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Are you
proposing to undertake those or are you
showing that there is a building? So are
you proposing to construct those to develop
March 7, 2013 Regular Meeting 121
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
those lots or just showing that it's
possible to place something like that
conforming location on two lots?
MR.
intent.
back and
sale and
and be it a
replacement
in a
LIKOKAS: No. That is our
To build two modular homes in the
generate enough capital from the
eventually put that into Lot #23
renovation or an actual
of the structures. Ideally, it
would be nice to put new structures. I
think the amount of capital that is going
to be required to renovate those main house
and the accessory building is obviously
gone now. It's going to be absorbant. So
it just may make sense to put new
structures in there. For lack of a better
term, bypass the CO issue.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: So you're
saying that those are going to be the
developer of two properties.
MR. LIKOKAS: Right. Unless somebody
buys the vacant lots for a million dollars
and we get out. I think that is ideally
the game plan. I am not a developer. It
seems to make sense that if we invest a
March 7, 2013 Regular Meeting 122
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
little bit more money into the putting new
structures, we will be able to get the
return that we can use towards the main
house.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay.
MR. LIKOKAS: We're all getting an
education, or at least I am.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Well, you know
what, it's challenging for the Board too.
Every time an application like this comes
before the Board, we learn something. It's
an ongoing process. This is not a straight
forward and I am sure you know, this is not
a straight forward Waiver of Merger because
of the history of these two properties.
MS. BISHOP: Of course.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Just so we're
both on the same page.
MS. BISHOP: Just to speak on the
modular issue, it's really to put something
nice. It's not a mic-mansion project.
That we're looking to blow out the
neighborhood. It's a three bedroom, two
bath ranch or something comparable, a cape,
with a two-car garage and we would
March 7, 2013 Regular Meeting 123
t
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
strategically
properties. It's
community because
construction. You're
days. They can raise
renovation.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
withstanding members of the
provide a buffer for both
also a benefit of the
no prolonged
in and out
capital
in 45
for the
As long
community,
we're
yes .
glad that you're going to stay here.
MR. LIKOKAS: We want to be here,
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: We're glad to
see these buildings come into more
conformity.
MR. LIKOKAS:
Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Any questions
or comments from the Board or from the
audience?
(No Response.)
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay. Hearing
no further questions or comments, I am
going to make a motion to close this
hearing and reserve decision to a later
date.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second.
March 7, 2013 Regular Meeting 124
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Ail in favor?
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Aye.
(See Minutes for Resolution.)
HEARING %6628 - DANIEL MAHONEY
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The next
application before the Board of Appeals is
for Daniel Mahoney, #6628. Request for
variance from Article XXIII Section 280-124
and the Building Inspector's
November 13, 2012 Notice of Disapproval
based on an application for building permit
the code
feet, 2)
minimum side
located at:
for partial demolition and construction of
a new single family dwelling:
required front yard of 35
less than the code required
yard setback of 10 feet,
3930 Stillwater Avenue,
of Track Avenue, in Cutchogue.
Is there someone here to represent
this application?
MS. ROMANELLI: Leeann Romanelli.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Thank you. Ail
1) less than
setback
corner
March 7, 2013 Regular Meeting 125
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
right. So we have a proposed partial demo,
a 1974 Pre-CO on the property. The front
yard setback is proposed at 10.3 feet. The
side yard setback is 3.7 feet. This is a
corner parcel and it appears that you're
proposing the renovations and additions
within the footprint as existing.
MS. ROMANELLI: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Raising the
house to 26.4 feet high by adding a
second-story. Is that all accurate?
MS. ROMANELLI: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Let me ask you,
is the entire house being demoed or removed
or is this --
MR. SCHWARTZ: Mark Schwartz,
architect for the project.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Hi, Mark.
MR. SCHWARTZ: They are going to
knock it down to the first floor deck and
build from the first floor up, rebuild.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: And that has
been determined to be partial demolition
and 25% is remaining?
MR. SCHWARTZ: That is the way that
March 7, 2013 Regular Meeting 126
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
we're presenting it.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: They're calling
it a partial demo. Actually, I asked the
Building Department if in fact 25% of the
structure is remaining and they referred to
it as a partial demo, rather than a total
demo, 100% wipe-out. The reason why I am
asking that is because obviously the code
has become extremely ingenious in how to
define a demolition and I just -- that is
why I am asking, what part is not being
demolished because to make sure it's not
being considered a total demo.
MR. SCHWARTZ: Okay. So the entire
foundation is going to remain and the
entire floor joists will remain and the
subdivision-floor will remain.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The deck?
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Entire
foundation. Floor joists. Small house.
Decking. Okay. All right. So I don't have
a foundation plan in the packet. So I am
going to -- the site plan shows a building
being moved. So obviously something is
March 7, 2013 Regular Meeting 127
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
going on. Is this an all new foundation?
No, you're saying, it's existing?
MR. SCHWARTZ: No, we didn't do a
foundation plan at this point for the
existing. We can provide you one if you
want that.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Well, if that is
what you're saying that you're preserving
the foundation for the basis for a partial
-- determination of a partial demo, it's
important to know what you're preserving.
MR. SCHWARTZ: Okay.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: So certainly
moving the bilco door around, we would want
to know any repairs or expansions of the
foundation or anything like. We would like
to know that.
MR. SCHWARTZ: Okay.
MS. ROMANELLI: Do you have the
existing floor print? I think you do.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Yes. The bilco is
there on the south side?
MS. ROMANELLI: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: That I noticed,
but it's not a foundation plan. It's a
March 7, 2013 Regular Meeting 128
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
floor plan.
MS. ROMANELLI: Well, I
from the bilco, the existing
same.
MR. SCHWARTZ: Well, we
foundation plan and we will
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
kind of new constructions or
might want to show that both
section.
MR. SCHWARTZ: Okay.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
an idea. I just
business if this is
gone down that road
just try and clear
MR. SCHWARTZ:
MEMBER SCHNEIDER:
questions.
property line
quick
the
guess asides
is exactly the
will do the
submit it.
And show any
repairs. You
in plan and in
So that we have
don't want to get into the
a demo or not. We have
too often. So let's
that up immediately.
Okay.
I have a couple of
What is the distance from
to the pavement on Track
Avenue? Approximately?
MR. SCHWARTZ: About 30 feet.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: And can you
describe Track Avenue? Is it a main
traveled road?
March 7, 2013 Regular Meeting 129
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. SCHWARTZ: No. It's more of a
secondary traveled road.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: It's the
strangest thing. If you follow Stillwater
down into goes into Track.
MS. ROMANELLI: It's confusing. You
can't follow the street signs back there.
I mean, Track Avenue is definitely not the
more traveled road.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: That answered my
question. And do you know when the
dwelling was built? We have a CO for
Do you know when it was built?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: We
the property card. There is
question that I
from the survey
can check
another
1974.
have, and it would appear
and site observation and
on
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Even a tiny bit
the fence on the shared yard that is
of
property. It's on the shoulder.
MS. ROMANELLI: Well, yeah. It's
the grass part but over their property
line.
inspection, that there is a four foot high
picket fence that is not on the applicant's
March 7, 2013 Regular Meeting 130
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
shared with the dwelling next to it, a
little bit of that is not on their property
either. The rear yard is.
MS. ROMANELLI: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I would expect
that the applicant is going to be asked to
move the fence onto their property. I
mean, it's going to reduce their protected
backyard area. It really needs to be on
their property and not the Town shoulder.
There is a number of other houses in the
area that is two-story's.
MS. ROMANELLI: This is the smallest
house.
MR. SCHWARTZ: They wanted to keep it
at cape style and add some dormers on the
side. To try and keep it on a small scale.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: It looks about
like the house next to it. It has a
significant side yard. That is a good
thing. This property is pretty close to
the side yard but it shouldn't have a huge
impact visually on the adjacent neighbor
since they have a substantial side yard of
their own. And it looks like the front
March 7, 2013 Regular Meeting 131
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
ll
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
yard setback on Stillwater is conforming.
MS. ROMANELLI: You know, I didn't
receive any phone calls. I sent the
mailings out. They are well
height requirement.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay.
questions?
you
have any more
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: No.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
MEMBER GOEHRINGER:
within the
Ken,
Gerry?
No questions.
MS. ROMANELLI: Will they make the
comments about the fence?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Well, I cannot
speak for anyone else on this Board.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Everything has to
be relatively conforming. You have an
encroachment.
MS. ROMANELLI: The fence would not
hold up --
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: It's subject to
the CO.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: At least we
cleared up what is going on with the
foundation.
Is there anyone in the audience who
did
March 7, 2013 Regular Meeting 132
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
wishes to address the application?
(No Response.)
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I am going to
make a motion to close subject to receipt
of a foundation plan indicating the
preservation of existing and any new
expansion or repairs required.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Ail in favor?
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Aye.
(See Minutes for Resolution.)
HEARING #6629 - RAYMOND STRONG
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The next
application before the Board is for Raymond
Strong, #6629. Request for variance from
Article III Code Section 280-15 and the
Building Inspector's January 10, 2013
Notice of Disapproval based on an
application for building permit for an
accessory in-ground pool; 1) location other
than the code permitted front yard on
waterfront property or rear yard, located
March 7, 2013 Regular Meeting 133
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
at: 2205 Bayview Avenue, adjacent to
Arshamomoque Pond in Southold.
Okay. Welcome back. Just state your
name for the record, please.
MS. ROMANELLI: Leeann Romanelli.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Just let the
record show that the LWRP who indicated
that it was LWRP exempt. Do you have a
copy?
MS. ROMANELLI: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: What would you
like us to know?
MS. ROMANELLI: Just the fact that
they would really like to put the pool on
the side, a 16X32 pool, where they're
proposing behind the existing garage, which
kind of blocks the view from the street.
They don't want to go farther in the rear
yard because there is a (In Audible) issue
and getting closer to the water in the
back. So they're trying to avoid any
issues with waterfronts and that is it.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Is there any
landscaping that you are going to do on the
southeasterly side?
March 7, 2013 Regular Meeting 134
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
ROMANELLI: Do you know of any
MS.
proposed?
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yes.
I believe they're going to put
row on that property line.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Can
some indication on what they're
Mark Schwartz.
up a hedge
you give us
going to do
was a landscaped
ago. I forget who, but
copy of that.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER:
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
had one that was proposed
This is even
Thinking back, there
plan that was done a while
I can get you a
Thank you.
Well, we just
in a side yard.
setback farther from the water
because it's really open there?
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: If you're
standing at the garage, you're right, you
don't see straight back or any diagonal is
very, very difficult.
MS. ROMANELLI: They are also putting
a perimeter fence around. Obviously they
have to have that because of the pool. I
don't know.
MR. SCHWARTZ:
March 7, 2013 Regular Meeting 135
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
body. And quite frankly, given the
environmental impact, the problem that we
have encountered with horrible weather
events, it's probably a good idea to get it
away from the water. It's relatively flat
back there.
MS. ROMANELLI: There is a bit of a
slump.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Yes. When you
get to the water. I have a question. Your
application did not address why it cannot
be placed in a conforming front yard.
Could you do that now, please? Because the
front yard is a conforming yard on
waterfront property. I would like you to
address why it needs to be a side yard
instead of a front yard?
MS. ROMANELLI: Well, I would expect
that it's more concealed on the side yard.
They did just renovate the house. It's a
beautiful house to look at from the street.
However, they want to, you know, the septic
is in the front. The drainage is in the
front. So they don't want to get involved
with that.
March 7, 2013 Regular Meeting 136
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. SCHWARTZ: Also, it still needs
to abide by the front yard setback, which I
believe is 40 or 50 feet. So you wouldn't
be able to put it in the front of the house
itself.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Right.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: And the septic is
in the front?
MS. ROMANELLI: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I just wanted
to have that addressed for the record.
MR. SCHWARTZ: That's fine.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Is it a gunite
pool or a liner pool?
MR. SCHWARTZ: I believe they're going
to do a gunite pool.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Is the drywell
here for that?
MS. ROMANELLI: The drywell's on here
are, I believe, for the roof runoff. I
think it's a self -- they don't need a pool
drywell for this pool, right, Mark?
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Is it the new
system?
MS. ROMANELLI: I believe so.
March 7, 2013 Regular Meeting 137
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. SCHWARTZ: I am not familiar with
it to be honest with you.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: There is a
drywell. I guess you're tying in both?
MS. ROMANELLI: I am not exactly sure.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The pool
equipment is located next to the garage.
That is a good place for it. Okay. Ail
right. I am good. I don't have anymore
questions.
Ken?
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: No.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Gerry?
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No. Just that if
it's a not a new system, then they're going
to have to put a drywell.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Well, there
a drywell.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That could be
the garage. I don't know.
is
for
MS. ROMANELLI:
to clarify it.
I guess, we will have
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: The application
appears that it's one of those systems with
March 7, 2013 Regular Meeting 138
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
the pumps that doesn't require a drywell.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: It does?
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Yes. The
application states that.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Okay.
MS. ROMANELLI: Well, we can clarify
that.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: It's #4.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Ail right. Thank
you.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Hearing no
further questions or comments, I am going
to make a motion to close the hearing
subject to receipt of a landscaped plan.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Ail in favor?
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Aye.
(See Minutes for Resolution.)
*******************************************
HEARING #6627 - VICKI TOTH
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The next
application before the Board is for Vicki
Toth, #6627. The applicant request a
March 7, 2013 Regular Meeting 139
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Special Exception under Section
280-13B(14) . The Applicant is the owner
requesting authorization to establish an
Accessory Bed and Breakfast, accessory and
incidental to the residential occupancy in
this single-family dwelling, with three
bedrooms for lodging and serving of
breakfast to the B&B casual, transient
roomers. Location of property: 425 Jacobs
Lane, corner Main Bayview Road in Southold.
the
Would you please
record?
MS. E. TOTH:
CHAIRPERSON
state your name for
Emily Toth.
WEISMAN:
You're here to
present the application?
MS. E. TOTH: Yes. We're here
presenting an application for a three
bedroom Bed & Breakfast.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay.
site inspection, the members that
We did a
are
guest
them are
The proposed
Two of
present here today.
rooms are three upstairs.
en-suite's and bathroom. And one will
share an existing bathroom. The survey
shows, though not in scale, six parking
March 7, 2013 Regular Meeting 140
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
spaces. And certainly observation would
indicate, that there is more than enough
room. The driveway is not specifically
wide enough for two lanes, but a little
jiggling, you would be able to deal with
that.
Gerry, do you have any questions that
you would like to ask?
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Not at this time.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: I have no
questions.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Let me ask you,
because there isn't an issue with parking.
The lot is huge. So there isn't an issue.
You have every reason proceed based on the
standards there. I do want to just ask, if
you're planning to park just in that
circular driveway, your house parking, or
are you going to be parking guests
someplace else?
MS. E. TOTH: Yes. We plan on up to
two guests parking on the circular
driveway. There is plenty of room that
they can get out or move around without any
March 7, 2013 Regular Meeting 141
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
issues. And then there is that other part
that comes out next to our garage, and
there is room for another ~hree cars, if
needed. But we park down by the barn
anyway, which there is plenty of room also.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I just want to
indicate, you do have enough -- certainly
the ones that are perpendicular to the
house, certainly have enough room to
jack-knife and not have to back out of the
driveway.
MS. E. TOTH: Right. Yes.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: So I would
simply request that when the B&B is in
operation, that there a small sign put on
the premises for where guests parking will
take place.
MS. E. TOTH: Yes. We're fine with
that.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: It just needs
to be clear so that there is no jostling of
vehicles in a way that is not safe. That
is not necessarily the busiest street in
the world but it does have some traffic on
there. So you probably wouldn't want to
March 7, 2013 Regular Meeting 142
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
have people
That is one
thing for a
you're used
MS. E.
backing up
way to avoid that.
homeowner to do it
to it --
TOTH: Right.
onto the street.
It's one
because
may
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: But some guests
not be as quite skilled in backing up.
Other than that, I really don't have any
comments or questions.
Any other questions?
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No. I think most
of the questions were answered by the
physical inspection.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay.
What are your plans for operating
this Bed & Breakfast? Is it full-time,
year round? Part-time?
MS. E. TOTH: We plan on full-time
year round. Mostly sticking to weekends.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Ail right. I
don't have any further questions and there
is no one else in the audience.
So hearing no further questions or
comments, I will make a motion to close
this hearing and reserve decision to a
March 7, 2013 Regular Meeting 143
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1
2
3
4
5
later date.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Ail in favor?
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Aye.
(See Minutes for Resolution.)
*******************************************
(Whereupon, the March 7, 2013 Regular
Meeting concluded.
March 7, 2013 Regular Meeting 144
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
CERTIFICATION
I, Jessica DiLallo, certify that the
foregoing transcript of tape recorded Public
Hearings was prepared using required electronic
transcription equipment and is a true and accurate
record of the Hearings.
Signature'S____
Jessica DiLallo
Jessica DiLallo
Court Reporter
PO Box 984
Holbrook, New York 11741
Date: March 17, 2013