HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-04/04/2013 Hearing 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
COUNTY OF SUFFOLK: STATE OF NEW YORK
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
X
........................................... ~.ECE~/ED
Southold Town Hall
Southold, New York
~OA~R~) 0~: APPEALS
April 4, 2013
9:45 A.M.
Board Members Present:
LESLIE KANES WEISMAN - Chairperson/Member
GERARD GOEHRINGER - Member
GEORGE HORNING - Member (Left at 2:27 P.M.)
KENNETH SCHNEIDER - Member
VICKI TOTH - Secretary
JENNIFER ANDALORO - Assistant Town Attorney
Jessica DiLallo
Court Reporter
P.O. Box 984
Holbrook, New York 11741
(631)-338-1409
2
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
INDEX TO HEARINGS
Hearing
Kimogenor Point, Inc.
(Bingham), #6550
Thomas Spurge, #6615
Douglas C. & Kathleen M. Folts,
Nicholas & Mary Antonucci, #6638
Leslie L. LaVecchia, #6634
Katherine Andreadis, #6639
Steven & Yvette Einczig, #6637
Richard Frizzi, #6640
Robert & Deana Finora, #6642
John Spiro, #6636
#6536
Page
3-69
69-77
77-81
81-88
88-111
111-121
121-136
136-147
147-163
163-187
April 4, 2013 Regular Meeting 3
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
HEARING #6550 - KIMOGENOR POINT, INC.
(BINGHAM)
Re-opened per
Based on the
Board Resolution.
Building Inspector's
March 5, 2013 Notice
on work performed is
the ZBA decision, 1}
and
of Disapproval based
beyond the scope of
deemed a demolition
construction of new single-family
dwelling, located at: 50 Jackson Street,
adjacent to Great Peconic Bay, New Suffolk.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Good morning,
please state your name for the record.
MS. MOORE: Patricia Moore on behalf
of the Bingham's. And I have here today
with me, Mr. & Mrs. Bingham. I have also
North Fork Woodworks, who are the
contractors, who are working on the job.
It's Kyle Schadt and Scott Edgett. I also
have the professional architect, Tom Samuels
from Samuels & Steelman.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Before you get
started, I would like to do a few things.
One, I would just like to review, very
briefly, just for the record, the three
April 4, 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
public hearings that we had prior to today's
hearing on this application. We have three
very lengthy transcripts, and I just want to
review them briefly and then I would also
like to limit today's discussions to what
appears to be a request on your part to
uphold the -- to overturn the Building
Inspector's Notice of Disapproval issuing a
determination that this is a demo. That is
the first thing that we want to establish
today, whether or not in fact this is a
demolition. That is what the Board is
prepared to address today. We don't want
to
revisit any of the other issues about
enlargement or anything like that. We want
to do this first and get that
way.
MS. MOORE: Before you do
want to put on the record our
the re-opening of the hearing,
proceeding. We
followed all of
the procedures and at
though not a standard
variance criteria, it
out of the
start, I
objection to
to this whole
believe that we have
the decisions. Followed all
this point, even
under the area
has been a financial
April 4, 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
hardship for the owners that have gone
through an extensive expense and delay in
proceeding with every step of this project.
So I do want to state our objection to that.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: So noted.
MS. MOORE: I also -- I'm sorry. I
also want to place on the record, I checked
with Tom Samuels and I checked with the
contractors, we do not have a Notice of
Disapproval even though your basing it --
the notice does say there was one issued in
March.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: We can provide
you with that.
MS. MOORE: I would put on the record
that no one on the applicant's side ever
received a Notice of Disapproval.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay. Well, we
will make sure that you have that.
MS. MOORE: Yes. I would like it
right now so we --
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Ail right.
Fine.
MS. MOORE: Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Again, it states
April 4, 2013 Regular Meeting 6
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
exactly what the legal notice stated that is
dated -- I am just going to enter it into
the record, March 5, 2013. It is actually a
Notice of Disapproval that is issued to Tom
Samuels for being at Kimogenor Point. I am
surprised you didn't get a copy. But in any
case, it says for demolition and
construction of a single-family dwelling and
obviously the tax lot and the address. Was
disapproved on the following grounds of
proposed demolition and construction on this
permitted since the
the scope of the
nonconforming lot is not
work performed is beyond
ZBA decision #6550. Okay.
MS. MOORE: So we're
issue that the work being done
scope of the decision?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
determined to be a demolition.
MS. MOORE: Okay.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
today we wanted to address
dealing with the
exceeded the
let me -- let me just refresh everyone's
memory so that we're all on the same page.
We have had two public hearings on this
So that is why
that issue. Now
It was
April 4, 2013 Regular Meeting 7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
application. The very first one, if you
recall, was for a proposed demolition. And
at that time, that was April 5th of last
year. At that time, the Board made it very
clear in the minutes of that meeting, that
if this building were to be demolished,
because this is on such a unique piece of
property, it would lose it's preexisting
nonconforming use. And again the use, it's
a nonconforming building with a
nonconforming use. And the nonconformity
has to do with the fact that the code does
not permit more than one dwelling on a
single piece of property. It's still a
residential use in a residential zone, but
because of the multiple dwellings, the use
is nonconforming. There are a couple of
properties throughout Southold Town that are
in the same situation. We made it clear
that if that was extinguished by the
demolition, you would need to apply for a
use variance to reestablish the
nonconforming use in order to proceed. That
the precedent that we had for that would was
in-place and in-kind. It was also made very
April 4, 2013 Regular Meeting 8
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
clear that that is not what the applicant's
wanted. The applicant's wanted to enlarge
the footprint, even though the code does not
really address that, it permits enlargement
up to a certain percentage for
non-residential structure. Not residential
structure. The Board, in cooperation,
proceeded to explain all the issues. They
were all flushed out. At the second
hearing, which was on June 7th, the
architect came back with an attorney and
said that they were going to drop the use
variance application. We do want to enlarge
the footprint and we would be able to use
the existing foundation in order to do that
and we're requesting -- you know, porch and
some habitable space 17% expansion on the
grounds level and additional habitable
space on the second floor with two
additional dormers. The Board in its
belief, believed that was okay to do on
the basis that it was -- had really strong
arguments that it had to do with strong
reflection of the character of the
neighborhood and proceeded to grant that
April 4, 2013 Regular Meeting 9
1
2
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
variance for a bulkhead setback as well.
Then it was determined, by my looking at
the LWRP recommendation more carefully and
the initial site plan, that there was an
error made that this was in a DE Zone and
not an AE Zone and the house was going to
have to be raised for FEMA compliance
standards because the map was going to
change. We then opened the hearing again to
address the new foundation. That hearing
took place on November 1st of last year. At
that point, we discussed the possibility of
a demolition and it was again made clear,
that the applicant -- the architect said,
well, we're not going to have to
necessarily move it from the site. We will
have to raise it but we won't have to move
it off the site by using helical screw
piles. We will be able to jack it up and we
will be able to save the structure, as was
determined in our decision that it should
be saved. Subsequent to that, construction
began. We saw the building up on privings
(phonetic.) Apparently, and this is what we
want to review, the first floor walls fell
April 4, 2013 Regular Meeting 10
1
2
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
away. What was left and what was up on
privings was the second floor with the roof.
We all saw that. The assumption was, the
Building Department, based on two conditions
within our amended application to permit the
FEMA compliant foundation, the Building
Department determined that there was
probably 25% left in that second floor. Ail
right. Assuming it was all to be used as it
was. Now, we had a color-coded floor plan
originally that was submitted to this Board
indicating what would be preserved and what
would be demolished, and what new walls
would be added, when I asked in the
transcript in the minutes of the hearing, on
what basis was that structural analysis
done? As to what would remain and what
would be removed. The answer was, "it's not
based on a structural analysis but rather on
where we want the floor plan to go." Okay.
So that is exactly what's in the minutes.
So we're going to leave those walls
primarily exterior walls in place. And we
will be able to preserve more than 44% of
the existing structure. That wasn't 25%.
April 4, 2013 Regular Meeting 11
1
2
4
5
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
The Board proceeded on that basis to grant
all of the various rights to proceed with
making this new construction. And we did
stamp drawings with an enlarged footprint.
Whether we're permitted to do so or not, we
made the determination that under our
variance powers we would. And the problem
now that is before us, is that the Building
Department has determined that the scope of
work done on the property has exceeded the
variance relief granted by this Board and
has determined this to be a demolition. So
what we would like to do today is take
testimony from those who are here as to
exactly what is left, what happened to the
first floor walls? What happened to the
second-story? What was preserved, and what
is no longer part of the original
structure? So now please proceed.
MS. MOORE: Okay. I would defer to the
transcripts and the prior hearings as part
of the record. We have incorporated
everything. So we will rely on the record.
If that --
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Yes. That's
April 4, 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
fine.
MS.
MOORE:
To begin with, I want
of fact, from the
which was adopted or
start with a point
original decision,
granted July
there really
change of the
analysis that
point. By the time that
to
5th of 2012, and at that point,
wasn't no consideration to the
code, which had the 75%
had been codified at that
came in when the helical
used for the foundation,
decision does reflect
correct. And I would
the definition
all understanding exactly what we're
record
we're
being asked to testify to. And the
definition of demolition, which is in the
code, added April 24, 2012, as Local Law
#6-2012, says any removal of a structure
a portion thereof that exceeds 75% of the
total square footage of the existing
structure before the start of the new one.
So that's something to keep in mind that
visually. And as you have stated on the
record, the plans have always reflected
the second decision
piles had to be
at that point the
the 75%, and which is
just read for the
for demolition so
or
April 4, 2013 Regular Meeting 13
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
expansion of the footprint, new dormers, new
portions of the building. So visually you
see the new from the outside and the -- and
we maintain through -- and we're going to
put on the record, that not more than the
75% was removed. So since this is mostly a
technical hearing, I would ask that the
contractors come up first and describe what
they did. And explain for you -- you know,
the mode of construction.
MR.
EDGETT: Good morning, guys.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Good morning.
MR. EDGETT: My name is Scott Edgett.
I am the owner of North Fork Woodworks.
Just to start off, I want -- some of you
guys know us. You know, Kyle and I are
local Mattituck graduates, and we have built
ourselves off reputation. Not big
or anything fancy. We have a
And we really, really
honest and truthful as we
can. And that no time did we ever feel --
we knew from the beginning of this, that 25%
of this structure had remained and at no
time did we ever, ever think that we came
advertising
good reputation.
strive to be as
April 4, 2013 Regular Meeting 14
1
2
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
close enough to not doing that. I think
it's obvious if you have watched the stages,
and we have plenty of pictures if you guys
would be interested in them, we went through
every extent to maintain this home, this
cottage. The original house was something
called "balloon framed." 2x4's were from
the first floor all the way to the second
floor. There was no "plates" per se on the
second floor. I mean, the floor framing.
The first floor, once the house was
elevated, you brought up and wanted to know
what happened with the first floor, it was
very minimally framed, and once the house
was elevated to 20 feet, it was off balance
and caused for a very dangerous
situation. That is why we ended up removing
the first floor, confident that -- we were
well over. The second floor was 44% of the
whole existing structure. So we felt that
we had plenty of room to frame and adjust
the structure to fit within that. Once we
-- Again, we have plenty of photos showing
the time frame. Once we framed the first
floor, we met with Mike and (In Audible)
April 4, 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
lowered the entire second floor back down on
the first floor structure. At that point,
we basically stripped all the accessories
off it and left that entire framed
structure. We modified it from there. That
is where we cut in and added plates.
Wherever there was a 7 foot wall and needed
to be a 8 foot wall, we basically sistered
everything up with new materials. When you
are in the second floor of the house, you
could see the entire back side of the
existing structured roof, still sistered
with new. It definitely appears to look
new, but it's there. The whole back wall of
the house was there. Ail you see is studs
next to each other. And it's been hundreds
of hours for Kyle and I in managing and
putting this together, and really carefully
and thoughtfully trying to build a structure
up to code and something that we can all be
proud of at the end of the day and follow
that 25%. So that -- if you have any
questions or if Kyle has anything else to
add?
MR. SCHADT: One thing that I would
April 4, 2013 Regular Meeting 16
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
just like to really add --
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: You have to just
enter your name. This is recording.
MR. SCHADT: My name is Kyle Schadt,
North Fork Woodworks. I would just like to
add one thing about the original structure
and the balloon framing, and just to bring
you up to speed, if you're not familiar with
how it is and how it was done back in that
time. Basically vertical studs, which would
carry the weight of the wall and the weight
of the roof, generally on conventional
framing, 16 inches on center. In this
structure, we had an upright vertical stud
at every window and door opening. A 40-foot
wall, which we have some pictures showing,
was only about 11 studs at that point, at 40
feet, which with additional framing, you
would have somewhere in upwards of 40 studs.
So with that said, in our frame of thinking,
25% of each wall, when we did cut the walls
and lift the house and keep what was there,
we have almost still 11 studs. So we felt
confident that was more than 25% in those
sections. So with that said, I just wanted
April 4, 2013 Regular Meeting 17
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
to make everyone aware of how many studs did
exist on the 40 foot wall on the back water
side of the house.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I am looking at
your photographs and your explanations and
one of them says, any photos will convey (In
Audible) existing studs on the second floor.
What else was preserved? You indicate on
another page, there is some flooring --
MR. EDGETT: As well as the other
floor joists beneath. And the roof rafters.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: So you're
suggesting -- what percentage of the
original framing members is, do you feel
that has been preserved?
MR. EDGETT: Again, each wall is
different. We definitely averaged well over
25%, because if we talk about the water
side and studs that still remain and 100%
there, we have 25% of the front fall. We
have over 50% of both gable walls still
remaining. And then 25% of the front wall
still remains. So it still averages well
over 25% that framing. Again, when you walk
in the building, you will still see these 11
April 4, 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
studs that are black and old. Now you see
traditional lumbar every 16 inches on
center. It looks minimal at this point. That
was the reason for some of these pictures.
There is areas where there is a wall with 3
studs, and of course, now they have 15 or 20
studs. So it looks minimal, but it is well
without a doubt over 25%.
MR. SCHADT: And just one more
comment, when we cut the walls on the second
floor, we added new plates. Scott and I
both felt that it was our way -- it is a
fire stopper from the first and second floor
intersection, and we felt comfortable that
is where we could add that block, to be
altered used as plates.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: We have another
photograph that indicates that -- in looking
at the existing second floor walls, gable
and (In Audible) 44% or 880 square feet.
Although sheathing did not remain (In
Audible) the new structure as planned. What
would be helpful to the Board if Kyle and
Scott or Tom, if you could submit to us a
color coded framing diagram showing exactly
April 4, 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
what is new and what was preserved, and what
percentage was preserved. That will really
give us a blow by blow explanation. This is
a good start of what you have provided. We
have in our records that goes back -- in our
original determination, which was amended
strictly to change in the floor -- change in
the foundation, indicated that the public
hearing on June 7, 2012, the applicant's
agent abandoned the total demolition of a
dwelling and submitted a revised Notice of
Disapproval dated May 3, 2012. A site plan
and floor plan showing approximately 50% of
the dwelling would be demolished and then
reconstructed with enlargements to the
existing footprint. The change removed was
in considerations of a use variance
requested and allowed the Board to proceed
with the original area variance
application. Clearly what happened was, the
Board assumed based on these drawings, I
am not sure if you're familiar with this
one, that it was considerable more than the
25% was going to remain. Now, technically,
the definition of a demolition, yes, 25%.
April 4, 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
Nevertheless, this is the scope of work that
we actually endorse in the drawings of this
set-up. So that is why we really wanted to
explore what happened. Why were the first
floor walls removed?
MR. EDGETT: The first floor walls
were removed, again, once we went to these
helical piles and the house had to be lifted
20 feet in the air -- And again, I can show
you an enlarged photo if you would be
interested in seeing actually what the first
floor walls consisted of. And as we began
to lift the house, we first lifted the house
about a foot off the foundation, the whole
house started unsafely teetering and being
off balance. Because there are so many
pieces mixing, the accessories were ripped
off outside the building. And became a very
unsafe situation. So again, for Kyle and I,
what we did was, we went around, we looked
at the studs. We looked at what we were
doing upstairs and we determined that there
was nothing really to be saved.
Especially after -- as you can see on the
approved plans, all the new door and
April 4, 2013 Regular Meeting 21
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
window layouts almost laid out exactly the
way that it was with the stud. There
would have been absolutely nothing left.
And again, most of this stuff was hidden.
So once we got inside the shell, that is
when we realized that there is really no
structure in this building. And again, we
went way over and above to say, well, we're
going to save more of it. If you want to go
through this house and count the studs, you
would realize that we saved a tremendous
amount of this house. And again, it was
hundreds of hours, a ton of time. It was
never taken for granted what we needed to
do, and we really thought that we went way
over and above to do it.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Well, I am going
to state two things at this point. Number
one, as you know, I know your work and I
respect it, and I have no questions in my
mind knowing your reputation, knowing that
you did what you diligently could to
preserve the structure. I wanted to request
the addition of a color coded framing
diagram verifying a percentage of what is
April 4, 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
left with regards to the framing. This
Board would like to set-up an inspection
with you present, so we could do a
walkthrough and you could point out -- and
Tom could be there, the two of you. We
won't do it as a group because we have to
observe the Open Meetings Law. We have to
do it in a timeframe, a Saturday from 10 to
12 or something and no more than two of us
at a time will be going through the dwelling
to avoid having a quorum so we adhere to the
Open Meetings Law. That would both be a
good deal to us. That could be very helpful
in our proceeding. Let me ask the Board
here if anyone has any questions for the
contractor.
MEMBER HORNING: Is there anything in
the application that was submitted, probably
the most recent one, I am not sure, but
there are a series of photos at the end that
you folks submitted including one that was
showing what was left of the existing second
floor after you lifted it up. Were all
these photos taken at the same time? I
presume that they were.
April 4, 2013 Regular Meeting 23
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MS. MOORE: They actually come from
the report that was submitted by the
contractors. So what Leslie was referring
to when she was asking the questions, are
those photographs of the report. You
probably have the report attached. I am not
sure if it's a photocopy or an original
copy. You probably have it as a photocopy.
MEMBER HORNING: What are the basis of
the photos?
MR. SCHADT: The photos are taken by
myself and guys that work for us throughout
the project that are pretty much photo
logging on their phones or whatever. This
is a bunch of photos that were sent to us
from people that we knew were watching, our
wives included in taking pictures. We kind
of put together as a photo log. They were
taken from Day 1 all the way to when we were
stopped.
MEMBER HORNING: They are not all
taken at the same --
They are not.
You can't provide
say this one was
MR. SCHADT:
MEMBER HORNING:
date as to when, let's
April 4, 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
taken --
MR. EDGETT: That was the day of our
inspections. That was the second time that
we met Mike outside showing what still
remained and where we began construction on
the first floor and lowered it.
MS. MOORE: If I could interrupt for
one moment? In your decision of November
2012, you placed the following conditions.
The first one being stormwater management
compliance, that is standard. And then the
second is, "once the house is raised and
secured above the existing foundation, the
applicant or agent must call the Building
Department to schedule an inspection to
confirm the amount of demolition will not
exceed 75% of the structure before
additional construction commences." So that
was in fact one of the inspection points,
and who was there? Who did the inspection?
MR. EDGETT: Mike Verity.
MS. MOORE: Thereafter it says, "the
applicant or agent must call the Building
Department for a second inspection once the
new foundation has been placed and prior to
April 4, 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
lowering the house." And who did that
inspection?
MR. EDGETT: That was Mike Verity
again.
MS. MOORE: I would just point out
that one of the comments that you are
making, we were talking about the 44% under
the decision, but in fact by the time that
the decision was ever an issue, you actually
are stating and confirming that the amount
of demolition will not exceed 75% of the
structure. So you're comparison of this
construction and the colored coded plan of
the first hearing is not quite accurate, in
a sense that the law had changed at that
point, and the 25% hadn't
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
make one addition. That
our writing this
changed after.
MS. ANDALORO: The
in July 2012. So the 75%
place.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
MS. MOORE:
been retained.
So I will just
law was prior to
It wasn't
determination.
first decision was
was already in
Right.
I understand that, but as
April 4, 2013 Regular Meeting 26
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
a matter of law, the code now defines
demolition.
MS. ANDALORO: That code was in place
when the first decision was written.
MS. MOORE: I understand that but --
MS. ANDALORO: It may not have been
referenced but it was utilized by the Board
in coming to that decision. We don't need
to argue that.
MS. MOORE: Well, we might be --
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The only reason
why I brought it up at all was because we
were given certain representation as to how
this construction would be preserved and how
it would proceed. And it is not infrequent
that when construction commences, things
that are -- that you assume you can do, you
find out are not good building practices.
At that point, you come back to this Board.
You come back to the Building Department and
you explain it.
MS. MOORE: But I think --
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Wait a minute.
This Board has bent over more than backwards
to cooperate at every step despite a number
April 4, 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
of errors that were made throughout this
process in granting this applicant and what
they wanted on this property. Even to the
extent that despite a prohibition in the
code, we used our various powers granted
through the State to permit and enlargement.
Not a de minimus enlargement, but a 17%
enlargement of the first floor and
additional enlargement, and I have the
square footage but I don't want to bother
and look it up, but it was more habitable
space on the second floor. We did it in
part based upon the other variance standards
that discussed Kimogenor Point, fact
that unlike other properties
they
and the
that are
seasonal cottages, these are dwellings that
have been enlarged, rightly or wrongly,
have been enlarged over time.
And you made
Board based its
facts. So
a good presentation, and the
determination upon some of those
I just want the totality that we have been
through and how we have attempted to
cooperate again and again. I mean, we could
have stopped this dead in the water on a
number of occasions by not re-opening the
April 4, 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
hearing and let it just sit there. You
know, what we were trying to do -- with the
foundation, when that error was discovered
and with this application now was to allow
the applicant to reasonably proceed with
creating their home on this property. So I
want us to have some recognition now --
MS. MOORE: I --
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The Board has
done way more for this property that it has
to do on many others.
MS. MOORE: We understand that.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: There are so
many anomalies. I mean, you probably would
have had the right to rebuild in-place and
in-kind. That is not what you wanted to
So you know, all of the things that have
been represented to us are in fact part of
the record and part of what we considered
when we made our determination. I just
needed to state that.
MS. MOORE: That's fine. I just --
understand the contractors and everybody
the Bingham's side of this. Their
understanding was with the new decision of
do.
I
and
April 4, 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
75%, that that was the number that they were
having to follow. So if it was something
less than 75%, it just wasn't clear to
anybody that you were going by a 44% ratio,
even though they have quite a bit of more if
in fact the 75% number, that was the new
number based on the decision that was
written and the reopening of the hearing,
because obviously there had to be a new
foundation, and the process of getting that
new foundation, there were less expensive
ways then helical piles but to maintain the
integrity of the original decision, they
were willing -- the owners were willing to
spend more and just raise it and put the
helical piles. So everybody here was
working in good faith, both sides to get
this project moving and forward. None of
us are trying to impune your character in
any way. We're just -- understand that our
position is, that we have never -- we have
not exceeded that 75% figure.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: That is why
we're here to find out exactly what
happened. There are all kinds of rumors
April 4, 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
indicating that the hurricane knocked
everything down.
You're objecting to the fact that you
got a Stop Work Order for a demolition?
You're going to be objecting because I asked
you to submit a framing diagram?
MS. MOORE: Well, I am --
MS. ANDALORO: That is kind of what
you're saying.
MS. MOORE: I am objecting the -- the
way that you presented it, you are going to
compare the new colored coded framing
diagram --
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Don't make
assumptions about what I am going to do with
the information --
MS. MOORE: That is the way that my
brain is analyzing.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: You are making
assumptions about how the Board --
MS. MOORE: That is fine. I just
wanted it on the record to be clear that
we're following, at least in our minds, we
have maintained the code compliant
demolition definition.
April 4, 2013 Regular Meeting 31
1
2
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MEMBER HORNING: If I may, because I
sort of got interrupted. I was trying to
follow my own train of thought here too.
Your argument would be that it's not a
demolition, I presume, and that is what
we're trying to elicit from you, in fact.
And going back to this application that
have made in March based upon maybe the
latest Notice of Disapproval or Stop Work
Order or based on something --
you
MS. MOORE: Your phone call.
MEMBER HORNING: Okay. There are some
in here and all I am trying to say is
photos
that it would be helpful, if you could, it
would be helpful to me and my colleagues if
you can somehow provide some dates with
these photos so that we can match up
approximate
then I want
of -- we made a
the decision in
dates with the pictures. And
us to walk through this process
decision, then we amended
November, and then at some
point, you got a Stop Work Order and there
is a new Notice of Disapproval, and I wanted
to cover that ground. But before I do that,
you also submitted a diagram --
April 4, 2013 Regular Meeting 32
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MS. MOORE: Yes. Tom Samuels, the
architect provided that.
MEMBER HORNING: Okay. I had to base
some questions on this. In the original
construction, you had these balloon timbers
MS. MOORE: Why don't we get Tom on
because he is going to discuss the balloon
framing.
MEMBER HORNING: I want to go through
the process.here. It went from the
beginning of the first floor, the first
floor to the edge of the rafters, and they
were of a certain length and then apparently
to separate them, you cut them to separate
the two, and if a site inspection was done
right now on what remains of the second
floor, you are going to find those original
pieces of balloon framing; is that
correct?
MS. MOORE: That's correct.
MR. SAMUELS: That's correct.
MEMBER HORNING: And then on the first
floor, those are not there or -- because you
rebuilt the entire first floor?
April 4, 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
MR. EDGETT: There is nothing. We
actually did reuse it from blocking off
little things. There was really -- we did
use it for the sake of saying, we did not
just throw it out. We really went -- again,
we used all of it to have more and more --
to save as much as we could with this house.
MEMBER HORNING: You started out, the
attorney started
reopening of
-- because I
out objecting to the
the hearing and I have always
really wasn't totally
supportive of opening the hearing up myself,
and I should have told my colleagues that
more adamantly, I guess, because I thought
we were doing you folks a favor. And I
didn't necessarily want to go that route,
and so tell us how you would have handled
this -- let's say we were not sitting here
right now, let's say you have a Stop Work
Order that is in effect --
MS. MOORE: That is the first
assumption that we would like to refute.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: How do you
refute that? Do you go to the Building
Department and argue it or do you come
April 4, 2013 Regular Meeting 34
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 the Board for argument to make an
interpretation?
MS. MOORE: Before I start, I want to
put on the record, how you advised that to
Can we just put on
gentleman is?
Well, both of them
stop at this point --
MEMBER GOEHRINGER:
the record who this
MS. MOORE:
standing --
MEMBER GOEHRINGER:
speak, they have to pull
it's heard by both of
are
Well, when they
the mic over, so
them, please.
MR. EDGETT: We were just -- Mike
by for an inspection. We were under the
impression that someone told him to come
came
again, and this would be the third time, to
look at it. He left and didn't say anything
wrong. He just left at that time, and I
guess spoke to whoever asked him to go look
at the house again. And then Mike just
verbally asked us to just hold off. Don't
send anyone over at this time, you know,
until we figure out what's going on at this
time.
MEMBER HORNING: Can you provide dates
April 4, 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
or approximate dates or
possible as to when --
MR. EDGETT: Right
as accurately as
off the top of my
head, I can't. Maybe February, early March.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Mike Verity did
a site inspection on February 28th. That
was the day before he got back to us and
placed a formal Stop Work Order.
MEMBER HORNING: Can I ask one other
question?
inspection
one of the
on the
MR.
MS.
My question being the site
and the nature of it, was that
required site inspections based
decision in November or was this
EDGETT: It was not.
MOORE: Were you ever given a
written Stop Work Order?
MR. EDGETT: Not this time, no.
MS. MOORE: Just so you understand,
the reopening of this hearing, I understand
you're going back to the #6550 decision,
because you keep re-opening that decision.
I understand in theory, you're saying that
this is something better in having to come
back and reapply in total, okay. My
objection is that there was no reason to
April 4, 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
come back to
application or even
of this application
relitigate in a sense the whole
the technicall aspects
because we're complying
with the previous decision as amended in
November, and as the inspections that were
part of the condition of that inspection,
both of those objections are passed and we
proceeded to continue. So that is my
objection on the record. My objection is
this entire proceeding and having to come
back. Now you ask procedurally how do I
object, well, my understanding is, you were
reopening the hearing in order to
incorporate whatever it is that you felt may
or may not have been done here into the
original decision. That is how I understood
the appeal to be.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I don't know how
you reach your understanding. I am going to
state it again. We felt that we were doing
the applicant's a favor. If you had gotten
this Notice of Disapproval indicating that
this was a demolition, you would have no
where to go with it. No where. You're dead
in the water. You would have had to appeal
to
April 4, 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
back to this Board to overturn the Building
Inspector's determination that this was a
demolition. We thought that it would be
helpful to continue and try and resolve the
problem and take testimony from you to find
out what happened.
MS. MOORE: Understood. I understood
it that way. I understood it as a positive.
You know, maybe you --
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Then why are you
objecting?
MS. MOORE: Because if you deny this
and I have to go to an Article 78, one of my
arguments is, this was not authorized stop.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Let it not go to
litigation. Stop jumping the gun.
MS. MOORE: Understand. My role is to
raise the objection so that I can appeal.
Just like you're putting in the record
your synopsis on the record, I too have to
put objections.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I understand
that.
MS. MOORE: So please understand that
we're all here with appreciation for what
April 4, 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
you're doing. We do understand that we're
all trying to make this project continue so
that these poor people can continue to
finish the project. We have the summer
coming on. Kimogenor Point is a very active
place, and you're going to have lots of
kids there. Having a house like this in
this condition, stopped, is really
detrimental to the Kimogenor Point
community. None --
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Just wait a
minute. The Building Inspector stopped it
because at his estimation, and we need to
hear from him also, but we wanted to give
you first crack and explain what happened.
It is only fair. We wanted to understand
why you -- why we should in fact overturn
his determination or not. Ail right. And
in order to do that, the first step is to
find out what happened. That is all we're
doing here.
MEMBER HORNING: Can I continue then?
Picking up in the February 28th site
inspection by the Building Department, can
we pick up from there for a minute? In your
April 4, 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
estimation, what did that mean? A verbal
Stop Work Order, a written Stop Work
Order, a new Notice of Disapproval?
What did this February 28th site inspection
by the Building Department mean too?
MR. EDGETT: So the last time that
Mike Verity came out for what -- for a
surprise inspection or a request, someone
asked him to go and come out to the house
and see about a complaint, at that point --
I mean, he has clearly asked us to no
longer go to the project and do any work.
He said do what we need to do to protect it
via tarp, but no further construction
could go further. And we were clear about
that.
MEMBER HORNING: Is there a written
Stop Work Order?
MR. EDGETT: No, sir.
MR. SCHADT: Mike had mentioned to me
on that day, that we could finish that day
out. Do the necessary things to protect.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Did you ever ask
Mike Verity for a written Stop Work Order?
MR. EDGETT: No.
April 4, 2013 Regular Meeting 40
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
they
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Well, obviously
issued a Notice of Disapproval and it's
to Tom Samuels, and you're saying, you never
No, I did not receive
add to their discussion,
said we have some
got one.
MR. SAMUELS:
one. Basically to
Mike called me and
problems. I want you to
all went into the office
been March 1st, that Monday,
Maybe Friday.
CHAIRPERSON
come down. So we
and that would have
I guess it was.
WEISMAN: And this Notice
of Disapproval is dated March 5th.
MR. SAMUELS: Right. It was
between the 28th and the 5th.
somewhere
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: That's fine.
MR. SAMUELS: -- to see what the story
was. At that point, they submitted
photographs and a timeline of their own and
I submitted a document and a certification
that I believed that 25% remained. Mike
said he would take it into consideration.
Three days later, he called me again to say,
we would have to come back here. So I don't
believe there was an actual Stop Work Order.
April 4, 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
We never saw the Notice of Disapproval
either, but that's how that happened.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Thanks, Tom.
Actually, while you're there, you might talk
about the diagram that you submitted?
MR. SAMUELS: Yes, to explain it a
little bit. The concept of balloon framing,
vertical structure goes from foundation to
roof, and that the intermediary floors are
framed into the walls, as opposed to the
modern platform frame where you build the
floor and build the floor on top of it, and
each floor is self supporting. In a balloon
frame, the second floor is hung on the walls
of the two-story studs. So there is a gap
of spaces, which by modern standards are not
considered appropriate. I am not sure of
the history of why the balloon frame -- I
think the balloon frame is probably a
depravation of heavy timber framing, where
you would have used big posts and there
would have been big structural elements,
whereas a platform frame was predicated on
the idea of stick framing 2x4's. So the
original house was balloon frames. There
April 4, 2013 Regular Meeting 42
1
2
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
was no plates at the second floor level, and
there gaps. And by means of explaining,
trying to explain how lightly framed the
house originally was.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Can I just ask a
question? Did you anticipate the framing to
change in the house, asides from everything
else?
MR. SAMUELS: As far as the balloon
versus platform framing? I knew that a lot
of new framing was going to have to be
added. I did not think that we -- I can
say that this whole issue of balloon versus
platform was an issue to me. Although, I
knew we wanted to in approved drawings
increase the ceiling height of the first
floor by replacing the first floor framing,
that was always part of the approval. Part
of the building plan. We were going to add
structures to the bottom of the existing
first floor in order to achieve that extra
height. When I saw that the first floor
was no longer there, basically, we went
through the first series of discussions
with the Department and Michael Verity, it
April 4, 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
became clear that we were going to attempt
to reframe the first floor then obviously,
we were going to put a double top plate and
drop that down, which is all we did. So at
that point, this changed from balloon
framing to platform framing.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Ken, do you have
questions?
SAMUELS: I would also like to
MR.
recognize your willingness so far to work
with us and to help achieve this project. I
know that it's very complicated and back and
forth, and things have come up. We are
looking for a clear process forward here.
You have been willing to work with us on
here. I hope that continues. There has
been tremendous effort, I can not overstate
that, has been taken on the part of the
builder, my part, the owner, to achieve this
project within the confines of your original
variance, amended variance to us. We really
have gone out of the way by lifting the
house and securing it. It's a great expense
and effort and concern with having it up in
the air for two months, through storms and
April 4, 2013 Regular Meeting 44
1
2
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
all kinds of floods, has been very stressful
for all of us. A lot of effort and concern
has gotten into this. We're incredibly
humble to be here before you again and have
the ability to continue, but I just want
to make sure that it is clear to you that
we did not go in -- and these guys did not
go in there, and certainly it's not my
intention to go in there and throw out
your instructions to us. We have tried
very hard to do the right thing throughout
and end up for the Bingham's sake, would
probably end up
hurricane sake,
what is a peculiar piece
my perspective at least,
say we have gone through
with a properly constructed,
code compliant residence on
of property. From
common sense would
a huge effort to
achieve this and we preserved whatever we
could. They have preserved whatever they
could and I respect their, Kyle and Scott's,
intentions here. And to achieve this
project under the very difficult
circumstances that have been presented to
them.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Thank you very
April 4, 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
much, Tom.
MEMBER HORNING: Can I ask a question?
Based on the timeframe and chronologically
of the whole thing, the last hearing was
November 1st and the Board rendered a
decision, an amended decision and amended
the previous decision, which I presume
allowed for the elevation of the building
for getting the right flood zone
requirements in place and install the
helical pilings. And that was the beginning
of November and I think the decision was on
the 15th or something like that in
November. Then you got notice that we made
a decision and proceeded to continue with
the plans, your plan, of elevating the
building and putting that helical pilings in
place?
MR. SAMUELS: The plan was already in
place when you gave us your approval. We
submitted to you those drawings.
MEMBER HORNING: I mean, continued
exercising --
MR. SAMUELS: Well, we got a building
permit at that point.
April 4, 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
MEMBER HORNING: When did you start
raising the building?
MR. SAMUELS: The exact date -- it was
early in December, because of the holidays,
it was up in the air.
MEMBER HORNING: How high up did you
lift it before you realized that this is
unsustainable? We can't lift it any
further because of safety issues, as the
contractor has been talking about, and then
what did you do next?
MR. SAMUELS: I am going to give you
my understanding of it but this is really
their view. I would say that we raised it
no more than 18 inches higher then we
needed to go. This was the second floor.
The first floor and what happened there,
it's in their court. I would say the house
was raised in their supervision. They were
there. It didn't get raised much more
then it needed to go. They didn't put it
down very far. It only came down about 18
inches. So not much higher than it needed
to but it appeared to be up way much higher
in the air, which was -- the way it was
April 4, 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
explained to me, in order to install the
foundation.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Just to be
clear, I want to acknowledge for the record,
Tom, your letter indicated that -- there is
all kinds of documents because Suffolk Times
was going out and taking pictures. You
indicated that there had been some erroneous
reporting about what was going on there was
a consequence of Hurricane Sandy and storm
damage, and in fact this was based solely on
foundation building practices and nothing to
do with --
MR. SAMUELS: There was storm damage
to the house but that didn't specifically
affect our plans. There was water in the
house from Hurricane Sandy before the house
was left open but we're not here today
because of the storm. And there was --
there appeared to be and you referenced,
Leslie, about some rumors and what not and
maybe there were or maybe there have been a
lot of affected people from the storm that
have issues that are a concern to them and
you, but our issues were not specific to
April 4, 2013 Regular Meeting 48
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
Hurricane Sandy.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Thank you.
MR. EDGETT: Again, the first day,
when we started the cribbing and after the
demo, what we did was we sprung the house
about a foot off the ground. This was done
strategically because we actually had to add
more steel structure and we had to be able
to bring the house back down on top and be
able to remove the steel. The building went
up 19 1/2 feet off grade, and we couldn't
pull that steel out at 19 1/2 feet. We
actually had to -- once we construct the
first floor, we had to lower it back down
the first floor deck. But after we rose
to
on the first floor. And because they were
off centered and it was a very light
structure to put so far in the air in a
vulnerable area being right off the beach
and high winds that it was very unsafe to
that house one foot and between us and the
house movers who was doing house moving, we
decided that it was very unstable -- because
there was really only two and half walls
that existed that were going to be adjusted
April 4, 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
keep those walls. That is why we removed --
and again it was minimal. I do have some
colored photos of actually how that first
floor was structured. It was minimal. And
that is when we removed that. The day
after, that is when Mike came down. A few
members of the Trustees came down. That is
when we worked out at that time, why we
removed the first floor, you know, a couple
of walls.
MEMBER HORNING: So the question then,
you said that the Building Inspector came
down in February, so --
MR. EDGETT: It was before then. It
was shortly after. Before the holidays.
MEMBER HORNING: I'm sorry. I got
that wrong. It would be nice if somehow you
guys can date these photos.
MR. EDGETT: I did make a note. We
will definitely do that for you.
MEMBER HORNING: So sometime after the
November 1st decision, which was actually
decided sometime around November 15th,
sometime right after that time period, you
folks tried to lift the building up, so this
April 4, 2013 Regular Meeting 50
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
would be in the second half of November
2012, you started lifting it up. You lifted
it up about 18 inches --
MR. EDGETT: Or less.
MEMBER HORNING: Or less. Off of the
existing foundation. Subsequent question
been moved other than
the house has never
lifted up?
MR. EDGETT:
MEMBER HORNING: Is
MR. EDGETT: That's
Just up.
that correct?
right. We
would
have definitely liked to have moved the
house in a different location. It would
have been a lot easier.
MEMBER HORNING:
lifted it up about
it to be unsafe.
MR. EDGETT:
in.
18
Understood. So you
inches and you deemed
That's correct.
MEMBER HORNING:
Continue filling us
of
I show you a couple
MR. EDGETT: Can
pictures?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
MR. EDGETT: So right
structure was lifted,
Yes.
before this
you could see the
road
April 4, 2013 Regular Meeting 51
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
side and again, you can see how many studs
there actually are. This is actually an
internal picture. You see this corner
structure. There is one stud in the corner.
And the way that the house was constructed,
on either side of the window -- this wall
had 11. This is the same day. As you can
see once we did the cribbing and started to
lift, you can see how this was unsafe
because there was all these open space.
There was actually no open structures tying
this together. When you talk about balloon
framing, this stud actually went to the top.
We actually had to cut these, which is a big
part when you walk through the house. That
is where we cut along this line and removed
basically this. This. And that's really --
there really wasn't a ton of structure.
MEMBER HORNING: So in this photo, you
have not touched any of the balloon --
MR. EDGETT: We did. We touched a
couple of the balloon framing -- we
basically cut it to that height. And that
is where we now have leveled around. We put
a plate underneath and now lowered it. I
April 4, 2013 Regular Meeting 52
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
will grab one more.
MR. SCHADT: If I could make one more
comment, Kyle Schadt, North Fork Woodworks.
When we sprung it to the first 12 to 18
inches, to kind of point on that, we did
that in order to -- the house movers set-up.
Spring it up 18 inches for you. You come in
and demo the first floor floor system
because he couldn't get in there to bring in
the cribbing and then go up 20 feet and find
solid ground. So that was the first time
that he lifted it.
MR. EDGETT: In the next picture here,
and so the next picture you will see the
size of the new construction next to the old
house. It is dramatically different. And
again, now that you look at this it looks
minimal. But you will see that we lowered
this onto all new steel and framing, while
maintaining this entire floor and slipped in
some steel and timbers in there. You could
see the shingles and the dormer still on
there. And this is exactly what we worked
off of, which even on the new structure, you
take this on four corners, you know, it's
April 4, 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
well more than
house, all the
we felt that we left
When you walked around
were 15 studs that did
basically the timeline
worked.
25%. You go through the
joists upstairs. That is why
so much more of this.
this house, there
exist. And that is
in how that all
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Can you, based
on those photographs --
MR. EDGETT: I think I can.
MEMBER HORNING: And the helical
pilings are in place?
MR. EDGETT: That is correct.
MEMBER HORNING: And how high did you
have to raise the structure? That is what,
about an 8 foot lift?
MR. EDGETT: Can I get one more photo?
MEMBER HORNING: Sure.
MR. EDGETT: The reason why I had to
the house 19 feet, I had to actually
lift
put a machine under this building for this.
If we moved over, we could have done driven
piles, but I had to get a small machine to
screw in the pilings.
MEMBER HORNING: And you are going to
April 4, 2013 Regular Meeting 54
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
provide us with some dates?
MR. EDGETT: That's right. I think it
would be better, I am not sure if you have
any of the colored ones that I originally
submitted, it gives a better look. Where
you could see the dark colors. To see
exactly what stands there --
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The black and
whites are more difficult.
MR. EDGETT: It's harder to see.
MEMBER HORNING: Let me ask you this
then.
MR. EDGETT: Sure.
MEMBER HORNING: This picture here
which represents the elevated to the highest
MR. EDGETT: That's right, the second
floor of the building.
MEMBER HORNING: Does this, in your
estimation, represent a greater than 25% of
the structure that is still remaining?
MR. EDGETT: If you -- no matter how
you measure this house, no matter what is
sitting here right here, this whole second
floor, which was two bedrooms and a bathroom
April 4, 2013 Regular Meeting
1
2
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. SCHADT: Three bedrooms.
MR. EDGETT: Three bedrooms, I'm sorry
and a bathroom, it's 44% of the existing
structure. There is a lot more than 25% in
this structure alone.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: And what do you
think remains of that structure?
MR. EDGETT: Here is a very good --
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Material wise --
MR. EDGETT: No, that is not the case.
If you look at the plan, every wall -- on
the second plan that is attached, that is
supposed to remain, which in fact remain.
Now, you can say that this wall is to
remain. These two six foot doors cut into
it. There is not a lot of material there to
work with. So this is what we have dealt
with. Again, for Kyle and I, this is what
you are going to look at there except for
these little rafters because that would be
in the ceiling. But all this and this back
side still remains. The flooring of the
existing staircase still remain. Ail the
flooring will underneath.
April 4, 2013 Regular Meeting 56
1
2
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: So what will be
helpful in addition to those photos, some
dates on other photos, if you could also
provide -- Vicki will call you and we will
set up a time or when you can walk us
through. We all have been out there again
to inspect the site, but you can appreciate,
it's a construction site -- and nobody is
crawling up on ladders to do an inspection
MR. EDGETT: I do not have stairs
going up.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: As long as you
can secure it enough for someone with gray
hair that can get up --
submit them, so we have
MEMBER HORNING: Can
least one other copies of
that?
you give us at
those photos?
MR. EDGETT: Absolutely.
of colored photos.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
continue,
So two sets
Before we
Tom, did you have anything else
MR. EDGETT: I managed.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Why don't you
put dates on that in sequence and then
April 4, 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
that you would like to add?
MR. SAMUELS: No.
MR. EDGETT: The only thing that I
would like to add, is that this has cost
Kyle and I a tremendous amount of time and
it has been very difficult and expensive for
us. I don't know if this is too much or out
of line, but if you could take that into
consideration, and that it's kind of just a
small hometown builder, if we could just
kind of take that into consideration and
just kind of understand that this is a lot
for us in a lot of different ways and I do
appreciate everyone's help with that.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The Board will
move in an expeditious way as it possibly
can. We always do that with every
applicant.
MR. EDGETT: Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: We always try
and do that timely. We try and proceed in
the way that makes sense. We're going to
look at some of the information that you're
going to submit. Please just state your
name for the record.
April 4, 2013 Regular Meeting
58
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. BINGHAM: Good morning. Dan
Bingham. I am the owner with my wife
Jackie. I just want to make a couple of
comments. One of which was, we bought this
house seven years ago in a condition that
was very dilapidated. And I will say that
we bought it with "eyes wide open." Knowing
that this was going to be a challenge and
knowing that this was going to be some bumps
in the road going through the potential
rebuilding it. I did want to appreciate
your time and efforts and everything and
going through this and recognizing that
everyone has put a lot of time into it. I
did want to recognize, Pat, in her help in
the legal side. Tom, for going over and
above his efforts on the construction side,
Kyle and Scott as well. They touched on
some of the costs. I went -- we went into
it knowing that this is going to be a
challenge. Knowing that there is going to
be expenses. We went into it eyes wide
open. I think some of these guys got pulled
into it. But you know, just for the record,
I wanted to show my appreciation for
April 4, 2013 Regular Meeting 59
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
everyone's
this and hopeful
outcome.
CHAIRPERSON
MEMBER
time and effort in
and eventual
going through
positive
WEISMAN: Thank you.
HORNING: Can I ask the
attorney some quick questions then?
Regarding your objections to reopening the
hearing and with regard to this March 5 -- I
just wanted to ask you when were you aware
of the new Notice of Disapproval?
MS. MOORE: I didn't -- actually, I
don't recall ever seeing it. I must have
been given a date because my application
refers to it, but when I went looking for
it, we didn't have it. So much so, I called
Vicki, I said, "What am I appealing?"
Because I didn't know what the basis of the
appeal was for. So what we thought was
based on -- or our understanding of what the
Board wanted to do, was to reopen to really
review the construction technique and review
the construction to make sure that we were
within the scope of the law, which now
required retention of the 25%. That is why
I wrote it that way. It wasn't -- that
April 4, 2013 Regular Meeting 60
1
2
3
4
5
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
really was the issue. Are we complying with
the Board's directive? Again, I go by the
Board's amended application and by the
amended application, we had different plans
submitted and the 75% was reflected in the
decision. So I know --
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Just give me one
second. The only additional plan that we
had was a foundation plan. The house plans
were exactly the same on that
decision. Right?
MR. SAMUELS: Yes.
amended
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The architect
said, yes. The plans didn't change. It was
just the foundation plans that was requested
in the amended decision. And the conditions
were put into place partly in collaboration
with the Building Department to ensure that
the intentions upon what we based were met.
MS. MOORE: Exactly. And they passed
those inspections. I want to emphasize
also, both of those inspections they passed
on and they were permitted to continue.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Well, we're
going to do a site inspection. We have done
April 4, 2013 Regular Meeting 61
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
a walk through. We have taken lots of
testimony. It is much clearer now then it
was at the prior hearing, which is why we
re-opened.
MS. MOORE: Exactly.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: So that you are
not delayed anymore and sitting there with
tarps.
Let me ask if there is anyone else in
the audience who wishes to address this
application?
MR. SAMUELS: Can I just address
George's question with the timeline? When
Michael Verity told me that we were going to
have to come back here, I told Pat. That
was probably March 5th. Even though we
didn't get the physical paperwork in the
hands, that was how.
MS. MOORE: Yes.
MR. SAMUELS: That was the timeframe.
MEMBER HORNING: And if you legally
objected to the opening of the hearing, were
you intending on doing that or not?
MS. MOORE: I did it here. On the
record, I am just stating that we think that
April 4, 2013 Regular Meeting 62
1
2
3
4
5
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
this hearing was not necessary because we
have complied with both of the decisions and
the code.
MS. ANDALORO: {In Audible) her first
stop is here. That is what she is saying.
MS. MOORE: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: You didn't
really have a choice.
MS. MOORE: I had no choice.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: And we decided
to cooperate --
MS. MOORE: You had a choice of either
making me apply or reopening the hearing.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: It was a lot
cheaper for you to just reopen --
MS. MOORE: Absolutely. That is why I
took it to mean a very positive favorable
message. So understand, that the way that I
described it to the clients was, "well, it
could have been a lot worse." The reopening
of the hearing is -- everybody is trying to
work together. My objections are purely for
the sake of the -- our legal rights. One
thing that I did want to say is that after
you have done that inspection, if you feel
April 4, 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
at that point that everything is fine and
we're in good shape, I would ask that maybe
we avoid having to go to continue this
hearing and continue the whole process,
because at that time, the Board would have
been satisfied we have abided by the
decision.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I
you have asked that, however, the
some expertise with constructions
not experts. They are experts.
Building Department is experts.
architect of record is an expert.
am going to
we will do and what I
understand why
Board has
but we're
The
The
So what
propose
that we do subject to receiving the things
that we have talked about, is to adjourn to
next month, which is the next reasonable
time that we can examine this because we're
going to have to have Mike Verity make
comments. Now that you have testified,
we're going to need to have him take a look
and examine. We have to offer him an
opportunity of what he wants to say, and I
am going to request that our transcriber do
these minutes from this hearing as quickly
April 4, 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
as possible.
MS. MOORE: Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: So that he will
have benefit to be able to read all this
testimony. We will notify him of the
building inspection that the Board wants to
do and if he or Pat Conklin wants to come
down and do a walkthrough with you guys,
that's up to them. That has been done
before. He may find different information
when that happens. I don't know. I am
going to ask you to submit as soon as
possible -- Vicki will call you and Tom, to
set up a Saturday from like 10 to 12 or
something like that, as soon as possible.
And then again, I am going to reiterate that
diagram, color coded diagram of what is new
and what remains. Both the floor plans and
framing. Whether it's the roof framing or
wall framing, would be very, very helpful to
us. If you so wish, do an inventory list --
a list of materials that remain in the
structure, and try and give us a percentage.
And then you're going to submit construction
photos of the ones that we saw today, color
April 4, 2013 Regular Meeting 65
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
and time and date. Sequence them in some
sort of construction. They were very
helpful by the way. They are much more
clearer then what we see before us today.
So that is going to be extremely helpful to
this Board. So I am going to -- hearing no
further comments, make a motion to adjourn
this hearing to May 2nd.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER:
time.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
Second.
Let's get a
MR. EDGETT: Can I ask one thing?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Yes.
MR. EDGETT: Would it be okay to
weather in the roof? It may be another
month before we get to meet again? I would
like to move forward and at least tar paper
the roof, to weather it?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: You know, I am
not sure if we have authorization to do
that. It's not unreasonable to request
through the Building Department. We can't
do that but we can let Mike know exactly
where we are with this and he will be having
the transcript as soon as possible. That we
April 4, 2013 Regular Meeting 66
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
are going
just want
possible.
MR.
has
to be dong a site inspection.
to clear this up as soon as
EDGETT: I understand.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: And the Board
no objection I am sure to securing the
property, so there is no damage to the
property while we're getting this sorted
out. I will let Mike know
our call, it's their call.
MS. MOORE: Thank you.
MR. EDGETT: Thank you.
that but
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: So we're going
to adjourn this to May 2nd at 9:30.
Just hold on one second, please. We
have a second, but we haven't voted yet.
I
it's not
MS.
BINGHAM: Hi, I am Jacqueline
Bingham. I am very frustrated because,
know, it looks like we have not done
anything wrong here, as far as I could tell.
And Mike Verity was at the last meeting.
Why isn't Mike Verity here today? Why do we
have to wait a whole other month now? Every
time we wait, this is like an expense for
all of us. This is crazy.
you
April 4, 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
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Well, he is not
here. I am not sure why he is not here. He
wasn't probably called to be here. We were
not interested in a confrontation. We
simply wanted to hear your side of the
story. Maybe we can do this with simply
getting written comments from him without
having to take further testimony.
MS. BINGHAM: Because it sounds like
to me he knew he was going to have to
approve one way or the other -- I mean, if
he had to make his comments on it, why
wasn't he asked to be here?
look,
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Well, you know,
the problem is the Zoning Board only
operates twice a month, and we do things as
quickly as we possibly can. We have a
special meeting in two weeks and then the
next hearing. When I tell you we have an
agenda, an incredibly heavy schedule for
May, and I still made room to hear you in
May and not make you wait any farther. It's
a very busy time right now for the Zoning
Board. You know, spring is coming. We're
trying to move these applications as quickly
April 4, 2013 Regular Meeting 68
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
as we
owners.
do and I
the best we
and we will
can for the sake of the property
So the best that we could possibly
understand your frustration, but
can possibly do is adjourn this
do as expeditious as possible,
if
now and then, we will
all we can do. Those
there are things that we can do between
do but that is really
are the only two
legally noticed meetings we have in a month.
MS. BINGHAM: Well, you could possibly
have a special meeting --
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: We will probably
discuss it at the special meeting but I am
not sure that we will have a determination.
I want to leave the hearing open, in case
there are additional questions. If we close
it, then we would have to
if we had more questions.
MS. MOORE: We don't
guess the concern --
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
understand the concern.
reopen it again,
want that. I
I really do
MS. MOORE: No. No. As a matter of
law, you have asked us to bring our experts
to testify. So we presented the case --
April 4, 2013 Regular Meeting 69
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: We understand
that and that is what we're going to move
forward on; however --
MS. MOORE: But you don't need Mike
Verity at that point --
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Not true. I
disagree. This Board disagrees. We need to
resolve this. If you are going forward with
the Building Department, this is what you
need to do. We need to resolve this. That
is what we're attempting to do as quickly as
possible.
Having heard a second to adjourn to
May 2nd at 9:30 A.M.
Ail in favor?
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye.
MEMBER HORNING: Aye.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Aye.
(See Minutes for Resolution.)
HEARING #6615 THOMAS SPURGE
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The next
application before the Board is for Thomas
Spurge #6615. Re-opened per Board
April 4, 2013 Regular Meeting 70
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Resolution. Request for Variance from
Article XXIII Section 280-124 and the
Building Inspector's October 12, 2012
updated March 5, 2013 Notice of Disapproval
based on an application for building permit
to demolish and construct a new
single-family dwelling: 1) less than the
code
35 feet, located
in Greenport.
Good morning.
record.
MR. BROWN:
Brown, architect
required minimum rear yard setback of
at: 3135 Manhasset Avenue
State your name for the
Good morning. Robert
for Mr. Spurge.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: So we re-opened
this because in the original determination,
this was going to be a renovation on the
existing foundation with expansion of the
foundation, and it was going to be additions
and alterations. And then it became clear
that you sent something in to us indicating
-- actually it wasn't clear. So I asked to
let us know if in fact this was a demolition
now. We determined that it was and we needed
you to show us additional drawings and to
April 4, 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
come back to the Board.
MR. BROWN: In the course of
developing the site and asking for the
permit, we came to the realization that in
real terms, nothing would be left for the
existing house except for the basement.
Except for the foundation, in order to do
proper, safe, code related construction.
At
that point, in order to avoid issues in the
middle of construction, as per some of our
conversations with the people at the
Building Department, I sent a letter trying
to, obviously not very well, clarifying
exactly what was happening with the project
at that point. We followed that up with
another letter and here we are. The intent
of the project, the final building map, as
it were, is the same as you approved
originally. It's just at this point, we
feel in order to construct it properly,
especially in the area of nonconformance,
because of the number of doors and windows
we would be changing, it would be nothing
left of the existing wall.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Well, I applaud
April 4, 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
you for taking the course of action that you
did. Your right, better before, rather than
during. Let me just clarify. According to
the new plans that we have, the site plan
and elevation, you're proposing to use the
existing foundation; correct?
MR. BROWN: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: What condition
is the existing foundation in?
MR. BROWN: There is an issue in the
rear -- one of the rear corners of the
existing foundation that needs repair, but
the foundation as a whole will be less than
tact.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: And you are
going to put a new foundation under the
proposed --
MR. BROWN: Under the proposed --
there is an attached garage on the side.
Just a few feet of additional living space
in the front, which is -- as of right.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Just for the
record, so we can understand what is
involved here. What would you estimate it
would cost to remove the existing foundation
April 4, 2013 Regular Meeting 73
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 put in a new one and make the whole
thing a conforming front yard and rear yard?
MR. BROWN: I don~t know that we can
move it forward without infringing on the
front yard.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Well, actually
you can because what you're showing here --
if I could get a cost and an economic
hardship into the record, indicating that
it's economically necessary to use the
existing foundation, then we have a strong
justification in doing so. Because
according to this site plan, the proposed
new portion is not on the existing
foundation, is going to be a conforming
25 foot rear yard and 35 foot front yard.
So in theory, you do have a building
envelope to move the foundation to both a
conforming rear and front yard. So I just
wanted to ask you what would be involved?
MR. BROWN: Off the top of my head, I
would estimate between $30-$40,000.00.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay. Ail
right. Well, I do want to note that the
proposed new two-story addition that is not
April 4, 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
over the existing foundation, does have a
conforming rear yard.
MR. BROWN: Yes.
that little area
In order to maintain
of courtyard at the back of
the garage along the side
house, that would be lost.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Where is the
courtyard?
MEMBER GOEHRINGER:
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
courtyard? It looked
MR. BROWN: It's
outdoor dining area.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay. There is
a foundation plan. There is a floor plan.
of the existing
Right here.
That's the
to me like a setback.
off the existing
Bilco door. Okay. I don't have
questions.
George, questions?
any further
now?
MEMBER HORNING: The existing right
MEMBER HORNING: Yes. The existing
front yard setback is how many feet? Can
you tell us?
MR. BROWN: The required setback is 35
feet.
April 4, 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
top
MR. BROWN: I don't have that off the
of my head.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: It's 50.7.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: It's still a
conforming setback.
MR. BROWN: If I may,
photograph of the existing
front
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
MEMBER HORNING:
yard setback is
MR. BROWN: Yes.
HORNING:
I have an
block?
Sure.
And the proposed
35?
But the garage is
aerial
save a considerable amount of money. And
the other is to avoid -- well, in order to
make a more architecturally front existing
is, to maintain the existing foundation. To
MEMBER
attached?
MR. BROWN: Yes.
MEMBER HORNING: So again, it seems
like in a demolition, the questions becomes
why can't you make the building conforming
with a front yard and 35 foot rear yard
setback?
MR. BROWN: Well, I think there are
two issues that we addressed in that. One
April 4, 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
of the house. Avoiding having the garage
door in the front or the same plane.
MEMBER HORNING: The proposed second
floor doesn't cover the entire foundation
does.
does. Okay.
either?
MR. BROWN: Yes, it
MEMBER HORNING: It
That's it for me.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
questions?
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Do
maintaining the
setbacks?
MR. BROWN:
MEMBER SCHNEIDER:
questions.
Ken, any
you plan on
existing nonconforming
MR. BROWN: Oh, of course. I have
taken a close look at this. It does appear
to be sound except for that one corner, as I
a demo situation, you will let us
this is
know?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Gerry?
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: If at any
particular time you decide that you can't
use the existing foundation, I realize that
That's correct.
I have no further
April 4, 2013 Regular Meeting 77
1
2
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
mentioned.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Is there anyone
in the audience who would like to speak to
this application?
(No Response.)
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Hearing no
further questions or comments, I will make
motion to close this hearing and reserve
decision to a later date.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: All in
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye.
MEMBER HORNING: Aye.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye.
favor?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Aye.
(See Minutes for Resolution.)
a
Article XXII, Code
HEARING #6536 DOUGLAS C. & KATHLEEN
M. FOLTS
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The next
application before the Board is for Douglas
and Kathleen Folts, #6536. Re-opened per
Board resolution. Request for variance from
Section 280-116B and the
April 4, 2013 Regular Meeting 78
1
2
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
Building Inspector's February 11, 2013,
Notice of Disapproval based on a building
permit application for demolition and
construction of a new single family
dwelling, at: 1) less than the code
required riprap setback of 75 feet, located
at 90 Oak Street, Harbor Lane, adjacent to
East Creek a/k/a Eugene's Creek in
Cutchogue.
Good morning, Mark.
MR. SCHWARTZ: Good morning. Mark
Schwartz. Architect for the project.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay. So the
previous determination granted you the right
to do additions and alterations to an
existing family dwelling, and now, you're
requesting to re-open the case on the
proposed demolition and construction. We
approved additions and alterations in ZBA
Decision #6536. And you're indicating that
the applicant's property was damaged by the
Hurricane and want to raise the height 24
inches higher than approved by the previous
ZBA decision to prevent flood damage?
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yes.
April 4, 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
CHAIRPERSON
WEISMAN: What else would
hasn't
you like to tell us?
MR. SCHWARTZ: The design
changed. Just really to looking to raise it
up a couple of more feet because for storm
and being as high as we need to be. The
existing foundation, although we're not
going to use much of it, will remain. We
are going to build a new foundation
underneath the expanded area.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: It looks like
you want to add three courses of block to
some new poured walls and bring it up a bit?
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: And the setback
is previously approved at 49 feet. And the
alterations and additions are going to be
the same as also approved previously. Is
that right?
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
indicating that you will be able
of the existing foundation?
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
You also are
to use
some
Questions? Ken?
April 4, 2013 Regular Meeting 80
1
2
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Again, all things
equal to the previous decision, you're just
raising the house by two feet?
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yes. We have
to the Trustees and the DEC
raise
Okay.
Now,
gone
and we have
it.
are
gotten the approvals to
MEMBER SCHNEIDER:
MEMBER GOEHRINGER:
raising the topography around the
are you just leaving the block --
MR. SCHWARTZ: We're going to
you
house or
raising the grade of the existing only, and
the rest will remain the same.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Is there anyone
in the audience that would like to address
this application?
(No Response.)
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Hearing no
the hearing
date.
further
comments, I make a motion to close
and reserve decision to a later
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Ail in favor?
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye.
back
be
April 4, 2013 Regular Meeting 81
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MEMBER HORNING: Aye.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Aye.
(See Minutes for Resolution.)
HEARING %6638 NICHOLAS & MARY ANTONUCCI
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The next
application before the Board is for
and Mary Antonucci, that is #6638.
for variance from Article XXIII Section
280-124 and the Building Inspector's
February 21, 2013 Notice of Disapproval
based on an application for building permit
additions and alterations to an existing
Nicholas
Request
35 feet, located at: 770 Shipyard Lane,
corner of Landon Road in Southold.
Good morning.
MR. ANTONUCCI: Good morning.
Nicholas Antonucci and this is my wife, Mary
Antonucci.
today.
We're advocating for ourselves
fine.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: That's perfectly
You want to make additions and
single-family dwelling: 1) less than the
code required minimum front yard setback of
April 4, 2013 Regular Meeting 82
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
t0
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
alterations to your single-family
dwelling?
MR. ANTONUCCI: Yeah.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: You're proposing
a 23.3 foot front yard setback on Landon
Road. You have a corner lot. And the lot
size is 11,250. You're adding a
second-story. Proposing to do that. There
is a 1972 prior variance for an accessory
building at 23 feet from Landon Road, and a
1970 CO for the single-family dwelling and
garage.
MR. ANTONUCCI: And that is correct.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Now, you're
building over the first floor footprint?
MR. ANTONUCCI: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Is there
anything that you would like to add?
MR. ANTONUCCI: Yes. I would like to
mention at this time the building plans that
you see in front of you, we're probably not
using those plans any more. Just because
it's cost prohibitive for us to do that, but
we do plan on moving forward with plans to
build, but we will be staying within the
April 4, 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
envelope of the building right now. That's
what we want to do. So I wasn't sure,
being somewhat of a lay-person what to do.
Should we withdraw those building plans and
not come here for the variance but after
speaking to a couple, and doing some of my
own research, they said that once you get
the variance, the envelope, I will have that
variance. So I don't know if that is true
or not. I wanted to make that known.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Well, thank you
for bringing that to our attention, because
we would have run into problems. What
happens is, when you have a variance we
stamp the drawings that have been submitted
and we base our decision based on those
drawings. But if you're going to change the
drawings, let me just pole the Board and see
what they want to do. What we need to do is
adjourn, which would be more cost effective
then reapplying, so that you can go ahead
and get the new plans and come back to us.
How long do you think it would take to get
those plans?
MR. ANTONUCCI: I am hoping within the
April 4, 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
next two to three weeks.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay.
really filled up for May, but we
adjourn this to June so that you
the new plans and take it back to
Building Department, and say, "do
We're
could
could have
the
you need
to do an amended Notice
the original one fine?"
your new plans to
copies for us and
of Disapproval or
And then submit
Vicki. She will make
then we can just proceed
with your request. You will provide the
copies to the Board and she will give them
to us.
MR. ANTONUCCI: We apologize. We're
sort of new to this. We do have to expand
our house because our family is growing and
is
we've just -- after we got the plans, we
didn't realize how much it would cost to
rebuild. We had a price in mind, but when
we went out to bid, it was like, okay. So I
apologize for wasting your time with
everything that we had to do up until this
point.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: No, it's not
I think what we will just
a waste of time.
April 4, 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
do, if the Board agrees, to just make a
motion to adjourn to June, and giving you
the time you need to get the plans that you
really want to propose to us. That way we
can get it done all properly.
MR. ANTONUCCI: That sounds
reasonable.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: What do you plan on
changing?
MR. ANTONUCCI: We may not be doing a
second floor at all.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: So you will be just
adding on to the first floor?
MR. ANTONUCCI: Absolutely, and just
reconfiguring. For instance, our bathroom
is much larger than what it needs to be for
our needs. So we can make the other
other children can
And expand our
like a little
bedrooms larger, so my
have a larger bedroom.
kitchen into -- we have
breezeway --
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: I saw that.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Then it may or
may not require an amended Notice of
Disapproval. Just take the plans back to
April 4, 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
the Building Department and with your
Notice of Disapproval, and just say we have
changed our plans. This is what we're
proposing now. He will either say this is
fine or he will give you an updated date or
change the Notice of Disapproval to a new
one. If the Notice of Disapproval is the
same, then we won't have to re-advertise or
do another mailing or anything because it's
all the same. If in fact, the Notice of
Disapproval changes, then Vicki will call
you and you will have to do a new mailing
and post it.
MR. ANTONUCCI: Okay. I have the
average setback information. So when I
do reapply, I bring back all that
information --
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Are you
talking about character of the neighborhood
and --
MR. ANTONUCCI: Yeah, all that
information.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I think so.
That's excellent. That's exactly what the
Board is looking for, but I think it would
April 4, 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
be best to wait and kind of look at the
whole package for what you are going to
finally propose.
MR. ANTONUCCI: Okay. So our next
step will be --
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Well, your next
step would be to go back and get the plans
and make sure that is good to go. That
you're satisfied. That you can afford it.
And then take those plans to the Building
Department with your old Notice of
Disapproval and old drawings. Tell him that
you changed the plans. Say, "do I need an
updated Notice of Disapproval? Is there
anything different from what you already
gave me?" And if so, request to amend the
Notice of Disapproval. Take all that stuff
into Vicki in our office, and we will review
the whole thing.
MEMBER HORNING: If you can find out
when the house was build?
MR. ANTONUCCI: It was 1933.
MEMBER HORNING: Ail right. Thank
you.
MR. ANTONUCCI: Thank you.
April 4, 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
the
So I
this
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Thank you.
Ail right. There is no one else in
audience to address this application.
am going to make a motion to adjourn
hearing to June 6th at 9:30 A.M.
Are you clear on how to proceed?
MR. ANTONUCCI: Yeah.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Is there a
second to the motion?
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Ail in
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye.
MEMBER HORNING: Aye.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Aye.
(See Minutes for Resolution.)
favor?
HEARING #6634 - LESLIE L. LaVECCHIA
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The next
application before the Board is for Leslie
L. LaVecchia, #6634. Request for variance
from Article III Code Section 280-15 and the
Building Inspector's January 23, 2013 Notice
of Disapproval based on an application for
building permit for an accessory in-ground
April 4, 2013 Regular Meeting 89
1
2
3
4
5
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
swimming pool,
swimming pool
other than
located at:
at: 1) accessory in-ground
Eye
Road in Orient.
Good afternoon.
MS. GIGLIO: Good afternoon. Jody
Giglio of Bennett Enterprises. With offices
at 1101 Scott Avenue Calverton, New York
here on behalf of the applicant. I believe
you all have a copy of the survey of where
the proposed pool is supposed to go?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Yes.
MS. GIGLIO: The subject premises
known as Suffolk County Tax Map No:
District 17, Section 2, Lot 1.5 otherwise
known as 908 Birds Eye Road, is partially
on
a private road. The Town Zoning is AC R-80.
The subject premises has some of it on a
private road, known as a minor subdivision
of Jonathan D. Sterne. The application is
seeking approval from the Zoning Board of
Appeals to allow for the installation of a
22x42 in-ground pool. There was a previous
ZBA decision, which I have provided you all
is proposed in a location
the code required rear yard,
908 Private Road %2, a/k/a Birds
April 4, 2013 Regular Meeting 90
1
2
3
4
5
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
a copy of that, it's dated March 10th of
1983, Appeal #3097 in the name of Mr. &
Mrs. Robert DeVoe. The Zoning Board
determined at that time that it was an
application to reconfigure the lot in a
subdivision that a right-of-way previously
discussed was in question by the Board and
they granted the application. So the
question becomes where is the front yard on
a private right-of-way. The parcel is
unique and the subdivision is unique. As
mentioned in the findings of the previous
ZBA decision, the front of the house faces
south. There is a circular driveway for
access to the
front door. The rear of the
home faces the Long Island Sound, yet it's
not a waterfront lot. We believe that the
positioning for the proposed location of the
pool is suitable considering the location of
the home and the uniqueness of where the
placement of that home took place when the
home was built. As I said, it's a unique
application and the front and rear of the
home has to keep access to the home in the
front. We have maintained the setbacks from
April 4, 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
the side yard, and pushed the pool as far
away as possible from the wetlands based on
the positioning of the house. Across the
un-improved right-of-way is a wetland, as
you see on the survey. So you can clearly
see that we have pushed the pool as far away
as we can. I also have a contour map that I
can pass out to all of you because as the
property, as you get further east to the
house, the property slopes down
significantly. I wanted to stay away from
that slope in order to avoid disruptions or
any -- you know any detriment to the
adjoining wetlands. The applicant has no
objection to a buffering of arborvitae
screening to the west of the property and on
the northerly property, where the fence is
located to the north, if need be. The
driveway, as you can see in the front yard,
it's one that is used regularly by guests
and residents of the house. So we can
really not put it in the front yard where
that circular driveway is. We believe that
the granting of this variance will not be
detrimental to the adjoining properties, nor
April 4, 2013 Regular Meeting 92
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
will it diminish the values thereof. The
granting will not have an impact on the
environment. This is not a waterfront lot.
So we will seek approval from the Southold
Trustees to ensure protection of the
wetlands to the north. The applicant will
adhere to all requests of the Trustees for
the purposes of installation and maintenance
of the pool, if this Board should grant the
application. This is not a self-created
hardship. The home was placed on the parcel
in 1987, with different ownership. The
front of the house was determined at that
time. The application is unique, in that it
is situated on a private right-of-way and
the position of the home on the lot is
preexisting prior to the prior ownership.
We respectfully request the granting of this
variance. There is -- there are alternate
locations where the pool could be placed. I
guess you could say the rear yard, but that
would bring it closer to the wetlands or
closer to the slope, which is why we chose
these elevations and this location thinking
that this would be the best. I did have an
April 4, 2013 Regular Meeting 93
1
2
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
opportunity to speak with counsel for the
objection letter for some of the issues that
you have, and I also received a copy of it a
few minutes ago. Said that maybe you want
to talk to the property owner to the west,
because if the pool is situated closer to
the right-of-way and a screen landing, which
is this, you probably wouldn't see the pool
from the residence that would be built to
the west. So that is something that I have
asked counsel to go over with their client,
to discuss. We have no objections to moving
the pool to the center of the property or
the rear of the property, or moving it over
another 10 or 20 feet, as they request, but
that would move it closer to the wetlands
and closer to the slope that I was talking
about previously. And I will pass up a copy
of that map so you can have a better idea of
what the topography is on this property.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: So in this
particular point, you are in the talking
stage with the neighbor?
MS. GIGLIO: Yes. We have spoken to
neighbor's counsel who has recommended that
April 4, 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
we move the pool over another 10 to 20 feet.
We have no objection to, however, we will be
required to cut into the slope in order to
provide for the pool, as you can see of the
topography that I have submitted to the
Chair.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER:
be 10 or 20 feet, or do
going to do?
MS. GIGLIO: Well,
So is it going to
we know what we're
it's up to you if
you like where the location of the poot is
now, based on the slope and those distance
to the wetlands, or whether you would like
it moved over 10 to 20 feet or 5 feet,
whichever you want to decide on, in order
approve this application, we would be
amenable to any recommendations that you
have.
happen
to
towards the north. If you moved it over to
the east, you are going to come smack into
the wood steps on the landing, which would
probably require a redesign of those steps.
MS. GIGLIO: I don't think that would
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Well, what would
-- because you really can't move it
April 4, 2013 Regular Meeting 95
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
be a problem. You have to really look at
10 feet around the pool in order to get
equipment in there. So there would have to
be some cutting
Did
the
MEMBER
you receive
neighbor?
MS. GIGLIO: I
minutes ago. Vicki was
it to me.
MEMBER
something about
the relevant
into that slope, I believe.
HORNING: Can I ask you this?
a copy of the letter from
just got it a couple of
kind enough to give
HORNING: And there is
a map included. A copy of
Suffolk County Tax Map showing
the proximity of the proposed structure to
-- did you get a copy of that?
MS. GIGLIO: No, I certainly did not.
I did not receive any attachment or copy of
that, other than the two page letter.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: We didn't
receive it either. They said that they
attaching it but we didn't get it.
MEMBER
survey and I
HORNING: I am looking at your
see a road, Bird's Eye
I don't see the other
I am asking, does the neighbor
right-of-way there.
property.
were
April 4, 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
own that right-of-way? Is that what the
situation is?
MS. GIGLIO: It's a deeded
right-of-way. So I believe that the County
will say that the owner does own it. My
client has ingress and egress on that
right-of-way, which is why they are claiming
that they are 10 feet away from the
neighbor's -- from the adjoining property
owner. The pool would be 10 feet away,
because they own the right-of-way.
MEMBER HORNING: And you use it? You
have two sort of driveways?
MS. GIGLIO: I have the map --
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: We have that.
But which are the two neighbor's?
MS. GIGLIO: I believe that the person
that is writing the letter owns Tax Lot
#1.11, 1.9, 1.14. Those are the three that
I believe they own.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Those are three
properties?
MS. GIGLIO: Correct. So it was --
because they owned the property and 1.9, the
front yard may not be a desirable location
April 4, 2013 Regular Meeting 97
1
2
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
for the pool. So -- and then if we could
just move it over a little bit, as I said,
we have no objections to, however, it's
going to be moving closer to the slope and
the wetlands.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Hold on. I just
want to make sure. The two named property
owners in this letter that we received --
MS. GIGLIO: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay. So it's
pretty much all of the surrounding
properties with the exception of 1.4; is
that right?
MS. GIGLIO: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay. Maybe it
will be useful at this point to hear from
the audience who submitted this. Please
come to the mic and just state your name for
the record and basically tell us what you
would like us to hear about your objections.
MS. QUICK: My name is Dolores. I am
a paralegal at Twomey, Latham, Kelly,
Dubin --
your
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
last name?
Would you spell
April 4, 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. QUICK: Q-U-I-C-K.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: So
in this colored coded tax map
are your clients that
these
firm?
you brought
to show that
have hired your
MS. QUICK: Correct. I apologize.
Mr. Dubin who signed the letter was unable
to attend today, and we wanted to make sure
that you had those documents. And
Ms. Giglio -- we did speak with her this
morning in regards to moving the location.
Our clients have no objections to the pool
itself, but they would like to see it moved
a little further than the property line.
More than the 10 feet. An additional 20
feet would be very appreciated by the
neighbors. Further east, the -- and they
also appreciate the offer to put up year
round Evergreens to the north for the
Masiano {phonetic) and on the left for the
(In Audible) that is basically our clients
position, what the neighbors would like to
see. They have no objections to the pool
but they would just like to see it a little
bit further away from that property line.
April 4, 2013 Regular Meeting 99
1
2
3
4
5
7
8
9
l0
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Ten feet just seems a little too close.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Are the
Gusterson's at 1.117
MS. QUICK: They are on 1.11 --
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The one that
would be most affected would be 1.11.
MS. QUICK: They own that lot and the
one immediately
south of that.
north.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
to the south and the one
And the Masiano's are to the
applicant has no objection
screening on the north and
property
stated by
MS.
very
And the
to Evergreen
the westerly
privacy. That was
think
And our clients are
lines to provide
Jody.
QUICK: Yes.
appreciative of that.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I mean, I don't
that you can go over too much more,
another 10 feet. They have to redesign the
stairs. That would be doable. Of course
with enough room for Evergreen screening,
you're not going to see it at all. The
problem is, you are gong to have an adverse
environmental impact if there is too much
April 4, 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
land contouring. That is not what anybody
wants because it's all downhill from there.
You go into other owners property. And yes,
there is wetlands to absorb runoff, and we
will require, as proposed, a drywell for
pool de-watering. The pool equipment to
in a sound proof container.
MS. QUICK: Yes. That will also be
To keep the noise.
WEISMAN: I don't think
very
much appreciated.
CHAIRPERSON
that you can go 10 feet more beyond that.
You're going to get into really big slopes
and then you're going to require retaining
be
and then you will have a drainage
Of course, if everyone is willing,
just be granted alternative relief
walls
issue.
you can
with the setback requirements. A total of
20 foot. If that is the only objection --
MEMBER HORNING: Well, we are going to
call out Evergreen screening and state the
height requirement.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Now the only
other thing that I do want to ask about, I
am looking at the survey. This is probably
for Jody. The survey is showing an existing
April 4, 2013 Regular Meeting 101
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
fencing that
being on the
encroaching
areas. The
surrounds the property and not
owners property. It is
on the right-of-way in some
Board really has problems in
granting
nonconformities
mic --
MS. QUICK:
encroachments.
noticed.
a little
really see to well
had.
variances for properties that have
like that. Come back to the
There was a number of
There was the fence that we
The gate in the front. There was
bit of a wooden arbor. We couldn't
from the survey that we
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: A fence or a
gate that needs to be moved onto the subject
property. So if we condition this based on
the encroachment, other than the driveway,
But just moving
Do you see what I
really that is the road.
the gate and all fencing.
am talking about Jody --
MS. GIGLIO: Yes. I
applicant would prefer to
property on her
been brought to
why it was not
think that the
have all of her
property now that it has
her attention. I don't know
done prior to closing. Ail
April 4, 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
of those things are usually done prior to
closing. That the fence is on the subject
property, otherwise the Title company won't
certify it. They have no objection to
putting the fence on the property. They
will probably want to upgrade the fence. I
am sure that is probably going to be the
case. There are certain requirements with
the pool enclosure and the Town Code, that
would require a new fence. So we have no
objections to that. And we have no
objections to moving it over 10 feet.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: And the
Evergreen screening is good too?
MS. GIGLIO: Correct. The only thing,
we had discussed the Evergreen planting on
the northern or on the western property line
and the northern property line, I just want
the Board to take into consideration the
slope as to the topography map that I have
provided you with, in the planting. So if
you could depict on a survey where you would
like the Evergreen planting on the north,
then we would certainly consider that. We
have no objections. We certainly have no
April 4, 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
objections to the west, but to the north, we
can see a problem. So if we could just
adjourn and come back another date when it's
determined where you would like those
Evergreen plantings to the north.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I don't know
that we need another public hearing to
consider.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No, not at all.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: You don't want
to do planting in a hole. It's not going to
accomplish what you want or the neighbors
want.
MS. GIGLIO: Right.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: So plant it to
the closest most flat, practical area.
Doesn't have to be totally flat. We don't
want to see a lot of land contouring.
MS. GIGLIO: We don't want to disrupt
the properties owners also by planting
arborvitae's to the north.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: What type of
decking are you putting around the pool?
Those are all the issues --
MS. GIGLIO: Minimal is what they are
April 4, 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
saying.
CHAIRPERSON
MS. GIGLIO:
patio type.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER:
north really wouldn't be
WEISMAN: Flat patio --
It would probably be a
Anything facing
a real practical
issue because of the sloping.
MS. GIGLIO: Yes.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I am not
telling
you what to do. I am only suggesting.
MS. GIGLIO: Understand. One of the
reasons why they bought this house was
because of the view. So they are interested
in keeping the view to the north. So we
would have no objections to planting
arborvitae's to the north, but if height
could be specified at this time, so we could
determine, you know, something that would be
acceptable to the applicant.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: It's hard to
figure that out with this survey. You would
have to go out into the field and stake
this, in order to really figure it out. And
I am not sure that --
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The only other
April 4, 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
thing is to have is a landscaped architect
submit us a plan. They will take into
considerations all the contours that you
have.
MS. GIGLIO: Okay.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
We could close
subject to any receipt to a plan that
incorporates -- puts the fencing back on the
property, that's code conforming.
MS. GIGLIO: Okay.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: And where you
would like to put the Evergreen screening.
I can understand you wanting to preserve the
view, but I can also understand the
neighbors reluctance to want to be -- see
people walking around the swimming pool. So
the height becomes an issue, because if you
put in (in audible) or something like that,
it's very tall.
MS. GIGLIO: As you can see, as the
land contours down towards the sound, that
residence will be at a much lower level.
They're not going to be seeing a lot of
people walking around from their backyard,
because their house would be at a much lower
April 4, 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
topography, then the current --
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: That's why a
landscape artist would be able to tell you
the topography and down from that elevation,
how the view would be screened without
certainly blocking the LaVecchia's view.
The other thing, the Building Department
might determine, depending on how much
contour you have down there, a hard place in
the way of a retaining wall. It's now
considered more of a structure than a
swimming pool. They don't require
particular setbacks, because it's a hard
structure, but if you start putting in
retaining walls and so on
find out --
MS. GIGLIO: That's
you want to
why I was
concerned and keep it opened rather than
from closing it, but we wouldn't have to
reapply if it was determined that a
retaining wall would be
MEMBER GOEHRINGER:
necessary.
The last question
is it a gunite pool
that we always ask is,
MS. GIGLIO: I believe it's a gunite.
April 4, 2013 Regular Meeting 107
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
9
10
1t
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That alleviates
some of the problem for the issue with the
retaining wall, because the poured concrete
is a retaining wall in and of itself.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Well, you know
what, maybe we should just adjourn to get a
landscaped plan, and that way, the neighbors
get a chance to look at it. And you get a
chance to look at the property. Then if the
Board has any questions, we could ask --
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Excuse me, I don't
mean to cut you off. These plantings have
to sustain the winds of the winter. So the
plantings have to be on that basis. It's an
unprecedented view but you do get some
pretty heavy north winds.
MS. GIGLIO: The plantings to the
north would be iow level Evergreens. I
don't think as of right now, as you are
driving down the north, looking up, you are
not going to see the pool. So I would think
that a iow hedge or something to that effect
might be appropriate but we will consult
with a landscaped artist and check, and
hopefully they will be able to have their
April 4, 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
pool
and maintain the view.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Ail right. Why
don't we do that then. I think we are all
on the same page. So we accept another
survey that shows the proposed drywell and
pool equipment and the relocation of 20 feet
from the westerly property line. The
removal of the encroachment. I mean, I
don't even care if you put on a fencing
afterwards, that is code required.
MS. GIGLIO: We can put a note on the
survey to say that the fence is to be
relocated prior to the Certificate of
Occupancy of the pool.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: And submit the
landscaped plan. I would be very interested
to see how high the retaining walls have to
be, if any. You know, to try without any
retaining walls at all. If there has to be
some, then we would like to see what that
looks like.
MS. GIGLIO: So we're going to move
the pool over for an additional 10 feet, for
a total of 20 foot setback; right?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Yes. And at
April 4, 2013 Regular Meeting 109
1
2
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
that time, you are going to provide planting
to the north and the west, and the removal
of the encroachment. And you are confident,
at whatever expense it might be, whether
it's a landscaped architect or nursery
person, as long as it comes from plant
materials and grades and sloping. It can
even be done in conjunction with whoever you
are going to use the pool.
MS. GIGLIO: Their current landscape
artist who has done some plantings in the
yard owns a nursery. So they are going to
ask him. I am sure they are going to get
something back that will be pleasant to both
the surrounding property owners and also the
applicant.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Jody, do you
think that you could have this within two
weeks?
MS. GIGLIO: Absolutely. We're hoping
for that, because they would like to enjoy
the pool this summer.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Let's just do
this, if you can have it in next week some
time, we will leave this open to the Special
April 4, 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
Meeting and we will close it in two weeks at
the Special Meeting, after we have received
it. That gives us the option, if we have
any questions, then we can put it back on
for May for a real quick hearing. The
likelihood,
attorney
MS.
if you can give a copy for the
that is representing the neighbors?
GIGLIO: Absolutely. I may even
be able to get a letter of support that the
surrounding neighbors have seen the
landscaped plan and they have no objection
to it, then maybe you -- I don't know, it
might not be protocol for you to approve
applications the same day, but as I said,
they would like to get the construction
started -- they are going to be coming to
their home for the summer and don't want to
have pool equipment and dirt for people's
Memorial Day.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: If we have what
we need, we can close at the Special
Meeting, and you know, if you get it
within a weeks time, it's likely we can have
a draft decision available to deliberate on
and get the whole thing done within two
April 4, 2013 Regular Meeting 111
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
weeks time.
MS. GIGLIO: We will get that to you
as soon as possible. Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Anyone else in
the audience who wishes to address this
application?
(No Response.)
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Hearing no
further comments, I will make a motion to
adjourn to the Special Meeting.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Ail in favor?
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye.
MEMBER HORNING: Aye.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Aye.
(See Minutes for Resolution.)
HEARING #6639 KATHERINE
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The
application before the Board is
Katherine Andreadis, #6639.
variances from Article XXIII
and Article III Section 280-15 and the
Building Inspector's January 22, 2013 Notice
ANDREADIS
next
for
Request for
Section 280-124
April 4, 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
of Disapproval based on an application for
building permit for construction of a new
single-family dwelling and accessory
in-ground swimming pool: 1) less than the
code required minimum front yard setback of
35 feet, 2) less than the code required
minimum rear yard setback of 35 feet, 3)
more than the code permitted maximum lot
coverage of 20%, 4) accessory in-ground
swimming pool proposed in a location other
than the code required rear yard, located
at: 300 Fiddler Lane, corner of Meadow Lane
in Greenport.
MR. SCHWARTZ: Hi, Mark Schwartz,
architect for the project. I handed you up
copies of surveys and photographs of houses
that are nonconforming houses in the area
and I attached the tax map in red. To the
best that I could tell that they are
nonconforming existing structures. Either
front, rear or side yard nonconformities.
So that is something for you to take a look
at some point. The first one on that sheet,
was the best that I could find as a similar
project. I am not sure if that is a ZBA
April 4, 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
approved or not. It is certainly
nonconforming.
MEMBER HORNING: Mark, did you
research variances at the same time in that
neighborhood?
MR. SCHWARTZ: No, I did not.
MEMBER HORNING: Okay.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Let's just
review for the record, what the variances
actually are. This is for a new
single-family. This is an unimproved lot.
It's a corner lot. And the -- new home and
a new in-ground pool. The front yard
setback of 15 feet from Meadow Lane
proposed, the code requires 35 feet. There
is a rear yard setback of 30 feet proposed.
The code requires 35 feet. A lot coverage
with the pool, 21.5%, where the code permits
a maximum of 20%. And the pool is 15 feet
from Meadow Lane, considered to be a front
yard, however as proposed, it would
considered a functional side yard. Now,
let's see, the house is 898 square feet,
which 15.2% of the lot coverage. Okay. You
did argue in the application that the house
April 4, 2013 Regular Meeting 114
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
is consistent with other nonconforming lot
sizes and setbacks. You provided some
stuff. You provided a bunch of photos, but
I don't see relevant to those photos, any
nonconforming lot coverage's, lot sizes or
nonconforming setbacks
So does this packet do
things?
MR. SCHWARTZ:
of the houses and there
one.
or prior variances.
any of those
Yes. They are photos
is a survey of each
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: So we have to
study this as character of neighborhood?
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Now, there is a
white fence. It looks plastic or something.
Now, is that the neighbor's property?
MR. SCHWARTZ: That corner?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Yes. Well,
there is two things. There is a shed that
looks like it's actually on the applicants
property.
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yes, there is. His dad
lives next door and I think he put that on
the property, and I think he put that shed
April 4, 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
there. That would have to be corrected.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Yes. That would
have to be removed and applied for once
there is a principle dwelling there.
MEMBER HORNING: Would that affect the
lot coverage?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: It would if the
shed remains. Sure.
MR. SCHWARTZ: It won't remain.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay. I did see
one swimming pool across Meadow Lane, which
looks to be a conforming rear yard. Let's
see what the Board has to say. Does anyone
have any questions?
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The pool is to be
5 feet from the property in the back?
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yes.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Is that the father
of the applicant?
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yes, it is.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: And then 5 feet
from the south property line?
MR. SCHWARTZ: That would be
considered the side yard.
MEMBER GOEHRIMGER: My only question
April 4, 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
is, what is the possibility of getting any
more footage and I realize that there is a
diagonal on Meadow Lane, 15 feet. I realize
it falls away at the closest corner. Can
you askew the house in any way, just turn
a little, to get a little more footage?
MR. SCHWARTZ: What we tried to do
there is that since Meadow Lane is a
it
MR. SCHWARTZ: And on the adjacent
lot, there is a garage that would pretty
much line up with that 15 foot corner of the
house. Somewhat in keeping what is there
nOW.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: If you just turn
it a little bit, you would get a little more
footage on this side, and would only cock
out this corner. That is the only reason
why I said it. Usually, in that particular
situation, usually people (In Audible). Do
secondary road, and actually from the actual
property line to the actual is about another
6 feet deep. So it feels like you have over
30 feet from asphalt to where the house and
pool would be.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Okay.
April 4, 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
you know the actual dimensions of the
swimming pool?
MR. SCHWARTZ: It's approximately
15x25. And those setbacks actually could be
3 feet instead of 5, but I wanted to keep it
from the property line as much as I could.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Do we have a
drywell for the swimming pool?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: It's not shown
on the survey.
MR. SCHWARTZ: It's not shown on the
survey but we have room for it.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: And the last thing
is, where is the mechanics going to be for
the swimming pool?
MR. SCHWARTZ: Probably on the south
property line.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The only problem
is you have -- or will have a neighbor over
there. So you are going to have to make
this some sound proofing.
MR. SCHWARTZ: Okay.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: George, do you
have any?
MEMBER HORNING:
Sure. The Notice of
April 4, 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
Disapproval doesn't specifically say it.
It does say that the swimming pool is
proposed at 15 feet from Meadow Lane, which
means that it should be in the rear yard and
it's in a place other than the rear yard.
MR. SCHWARTZ: Well, actually that is
what I was told rear yard. So it's in the
rear.
wouldn't
MEMBER HORNING: So turning the pool
really have any bearing other than
making the setback from Meadow Lane a little
more, if you could -- say more than what it
is now.
MR. SCHWARTZ: I do think we can move
that a little bit a few feet on the front
yard. I say we could move it to 3 feet to
the property line.
By the time you
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
put in a fence and any kind of screening,
which may be beneficial to the neighbor, I
am sure you don't want less than 5 feet.
MEMBER HORNING: The northeast corner
is what, a 15 foot setback to the
pavement --
MR. SCHWARTZ: To the pavement, it's
April 4, 2013 Regular Meeting 119
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
actually 31 feet. It's about 15 feet of
grass.
MEMBER HORNING: Would it be roughly
the same distance from the pool, 15 feet?
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yes.
MEMBER HORNING: Okay.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Ken?
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: No questions.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: You have
Department of Health approval yet?
MR. SCHWARTZ: No, not yet.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: No public water
in there --
MR. SCHWARTZ: No, there is.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I have a question.
Is there any reason why you didn't build the
house at 24x36 as opposed to 26x367 Again,
to gain a little more?
MR. SCHWARTZ: I am sure we could have
did 24x36. We can alter that.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: You can go 24x367
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: And while
retaining that 10 feet side yard?
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Yes.
April 4, 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
MR. SCHWARTZ: I think we can do that.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Do you want to
submit alternative plans or grant
alternative relief? You know, that way you
can just proceed?
MR. SCHWARTZ: I will have to give you
an updated survey. I should also do a
landscaped plan.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: So it's not 24x36,
it's going to be 26X347
MR. SCHWARTZ: 24x34 we can work with.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: 24x34. Okay.
And then you can calculate the lot coverage.
Is there anyone else in the audience
wishes to address this application?
(No Response.)
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Hearing no
am going to make a
hearing subject to
survey and plans and
who
further comments. I
motion to close this
receipt of a revised
with
a revision on lot coverage.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Ail in
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye.
MEMBER HORNING: Aye.
favor?
April 4, 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
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Aye.
(See Minutes for Resolution.}
HEARING %6637 STEVEN & YVETTE EINCZIG
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The next
application before the Board is for Steven
and Yvette Einczig, ~6637. Request for
variance from Article XXII Section
280-116(B) and the Building Inspector's
January 9, 2013 Notice of Disapproval based
on an application for building permit for
demolition and reconstruction of an existing
single-family dwelling at; 1} less than the
code required bulkhead setback of 75 feet,
located at: 3055 Wells Avenue, adjacent to
Jockey Creek in Southold.
Good afternoon, Pat.
MS. MOORE: Good afternoon. Patricia
Moore on behalf of Steven and Yvette. I
also have with me Eileen Santora who is the
design professional on this project, and I
-- I guess I will start with a point that
the proposed project here is not a
demolition. It's taking the existing house
April 4, 2013 Regular Meeting 122
1
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 putting additions and putting a second
floor. The client certainly hasn't paid for
nor anticipates a demo of this house. We
hope that we don't get a surprise at the
end, but hopefully that is not the intention
of the application that has been made, or at
plans that have
are not for
certainly going
been drawn by
demolition. The
to be used.
the existing
will have
in fact the
least the
Eileen. They
foundation is
reuse of the existing house. But just to
start off with the standards, we do have --
this house was built with a CO from the late
50's. It has -- for the most part, not been
improved since the 60's. Yvette Einczig is
the granddaughter of the owner who built the
house. Her grandparents built the house.
Ultimately it went through the family estate
and she bought out her other siblings. So
she is now -- she and her husband are now
the owners. She wanted to keep it in the
family. Her plan right now, they are still
not old enough to retire. This hopefully
The existing house -- much of
house is going to be used. I
Eileen testify as to what is
April 4, 2013 Regular Meeting 123
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
will be their retirement home. So you
understand, this house, is one that they
want to keep and preserve and certainly with
the improvements. The surrounding homes,
this is in subdivision that is from 1927.
Many of the homes were built later than
that. They were quite lovely. It's a
really nice neighborhood year round.
Established home. I would say at this
point, majority of the homes there are
year-round residents, who are actually --
they live out here in Southold. Many of our
local professionals live on this block. It
really is a lovely block. The homes have
all been renovated or expanded over the
years. This is really maybe one or two
homes now that are left in their 60's motif.
And so this will certainly an improvement
and in conformity with the character of the
neighborhood. The rest of the neighborhood
has been improved and is really very nice.
This house, if you have done the
inspections, the storm left behind roof
shingles and the house is really in --
aesthetically not very attractive.
April 4, 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
Structurally it is still sound. There is
condition of sound, and I will have Eileen
again, put that on the record. The existing
setbacks of the house are preexisting. The
setbacks, again, we're using the foundation.
Because we're using the house where it is,
the proposed deck will encroach into that
75, but that is understandable. Certainly
the house and the decking -- actually
everything is behind the neighbors home.
have two neighbors. One did a beautiful
renovation facing the water on the east.
We
You gave an approval not to long ago, Matin,
I think it is. I pulled the decision and
they really did have several variances.
These poor people first came out with a
demolition and reconstruction. They
couldn't take it. They came back to you and
took the project down and ended up with a
third variance that I don't recall for what.
In any case, it's a very lovely home. And
they have both the decking and the patio
that is really well done with beautiful
landscaping in the back. On the opposite
side, the west side, the home again is
April 4, 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
lovely.
older.
house.
That is more traditional. It's
I did not see variances as for that
The existing house is actually
protruding further
property is actually
bulkhead is further
a little deceiving,
to the water. Their
longer and their
out to the water.
while their house
closer to the shoreline, their bulkhead
further out because of earlier billing --
you know, the good old days before the
regulations changed. So I have an aerial
photograph and a Google map that I will
provide for your filing, although your
It's
is
going over the existing patio.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Is that
elevated? Is that a raised deck?
the existing house is about 1200 square
feet. Again built by Ms. Einczig's
grandfather in the 50's. The house now has
one small bathroom. Inadequate bedrooms.
No air conditioning. The proposed deck is
probably have them already. You can see the
existing house and the proposed house is in
keeping with the character of the
neighborhood. My clients pointed out that
April 4, 2013 Regular Meeting 126
1
2
3
4
5
7
8
9
10
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MS. MOORE: Yeah, because the egress
from the back sliders is about two steps up.
Three steps up. So yes, it would be at the
height of the back slider.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: What is the
current setback? I know right now it's a
flat patio.
MS. MOORE: Let me look --
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: You are
proposing to the raised deck?
MS.
MOORE: The raised deck.
because the house is angled
east, facing the northeast.
shortest. From the end of
39.1,
towards the
That is the
the deck, it's
portion of the
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The first floor
and the foundation will remain?
MS. MOORE: The first floor -- Eileen,
39.1, and from the larger
deck, it's 41 feet.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: But do you know
what it is to the existing dwelling?
MS. MOORE: 39 plus 8. It would be 8
feet more or less. It's a little bit of an
angle. So if that is precise enough for
you.
April 4, 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
can come up and explain.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: You have to
state your name.
MS. SANTORA: My name is Eileen
Santora. I am the residential designer.
The foundation is sound and the -- the
garage will move forward, towards the
street. So we're going forward with the
garage a little bit as you can see on the
plans. And we will put a
the existing house.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
we received from the LWRP
indicating inconsistency.
copy?
MS. MOORE: No.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
second-story over
One other thing,
this morning,
Do you have a
They are
recommending; however, a 15 foot nonturf
landscaped buffer along the existing
bulkhead including retention of the large
(In Audible) trees that are along the
property because it does slope very
dramatically.
MS. SANTORA: That would be no
problem.
April 4, 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
MS. MOORE: There are a couple of
trees within the foundation and you see
them in the photographs. So some of those
trees really shouldn't be kept because they
are growing --
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: That is not what
he is referring. The ones closer to the
bulkhead.
MS. MOORE: Yeah. That's fine.
MS. SANTORA: They plan on new
landscaping. They are going to be putting
the new electric lines that come to the
house that come underground from the street.
They are going to switch from oil heat to
gas heat. To be more eco-friendly. They
plan on using more green products. They are
planning to make this house a house for
today and their children and grandchildren
tp keep.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Gerry?
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I understand the
utilization of the home and of course the
foundation and so forth. Without the
additions, you have a front yard of 96.6
feet. With the addition that you are
April 4, 2013 Regular Meeting 129
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
putting on in the front yard, you have a
89 foot front yard setback. I can't
understand why you can't get 41, 42, 43
setback from the bulkhead. My request and
it is only my request, is to reduce the deck
to 3 feet across. I looked at the plans
and it has to do with the dining room area
and a guest suite. I just don't think that
it is prudent to reduce the front yard --
MS. MOORE: What you are asking for is
certainly a consideration. May I just --
certainly I think that we can reduce that
area. Certainly more of access that we're
talking about. French doors and so on, for
opening purposes, maybe 4, rather than 3.
MS. SANTORA: Especially the mom is
handicap and she needs to get out onto the
deck. So 3 feet wouldn't be much.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Okay. So we're
looking at 43.17
MS. MOORE:
that
Plus 4.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: 39 plus 4 --
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: 43.1.
MS. MOORE: With your permission, if
is ultimately what the Board wants, I
April 4, 2013 Regular Meeting 130
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
tl
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
that?
survey that shows that
to make sure -- because it's
want to make sure we do the
can give you a
because I want
at an angle, I
numbers right. Sometimes the numbers
tend to make sense but then when you're
doing it on a survey, it might be off a bit.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: You want to verify
Is that what you want to do?
MS. MOORE: Yes. Whatever that number
is, we will agree to that setback. Is that
all right?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: That's
me.
MS. MOORE: Only for
MS. SANTORA: Good.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
fine with
questions?
MEMBER HORNING:
that portion.
That will work.
George,
If we could just go
through some of this paperwork, the file.
The Notice of Disapproval that we are
working from dated January 9, 2012, that
more than a year ago, right?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: No.
MEMBER HORNING: Is that
MS. MOORE: It's a typo.
a typo?
is
April 4, 2013 Regular Meeting 131
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MEMBER HORNING: 2013. Looking at
this, the Notice says for demolition and
reconstruction. And then we look at the
applicant's description, and statement #1,
calls for a demolition of existing building
area. We are looking at the environmental
assessment form, calls for a demolition and
reconstruction of an exiting family
dwelling. It looks like the applicant maybe
filled that in. And we're looking at the
building permit dated November 20, 2012,
which calls for alterations and additions.
So we have three documents that are calling
for demolition, and we have one building
permit application calling for additions and
alterations, upon which the Building
Department issued their Notice
Disapproval citing demolition.
saying that it's not a demolition?
MS. MOORE: Well, the EIF was
of
And you're
worse case scenario, demolition and
reconstruction. It's still a Type II
actions regardless. So the SEQRA short
form, certainly I can give you a revised
short form that says renovation.
the
April 4, 2013 Regular Meeting 132
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MEMBER HORNING: We don't work with
beliefs. We work with facts. The Notice of
Disapproval is citing a demolition. I am
asking you, is it a demolition or --
MS. MOORE: Well, because we're
retaining certainly more than the 75% of the
structure, and in fact that is something
that the Building Department should have
noticed from the plans but for whatever
reason --
MEMBER HORNING: Why do you think that
they have cited it as a demolition?
MS. SANTORA: Probably in their eyes,
it would be easier to knock it down and
build it again. The homeowners don't want
that. They want to keep the existing house.
MEMBER HORNING: Wouldn't it be easier
to have an amended Notice of Disapproval
getting rid --
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: We have
requested to be clear about this, that the
Notice of Disapproval when it's a partial
demo, indicates partial demo, because if
they wrote it as a demolition. Your
application does call it a demo. It calls
April 4, 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
it a couple of different things. However,
we just want to clarify that is not your
intent and make sure that the paperwork is
consistent with what you're proposing to
You know, if you're asking for a demo
because that is the worse case scenario,
once you get in there oh, it might wind up
that way, that is one thing. What you are
saying is, you have done thorough
inspection. Foundation is structurally
intact. The first floor existing walls can
be rehabilitated without being demolished,
do.
and
survey showing that increase bulkhead
setback with a reduction of the deck size,
just to go back and say that we perceive
this to be a partial demolition. Renovation
the scope. Perhaps you can go into the
Building Department and talk to Pat Conklin,
since you're going to be doing an updated
then we need to know that. Ail we're really
trying to do is get the facts consistent.
That's all. We can do either. We want to
make sure it's consistently presented.
Otherwise, we can have one set of drawings
and they come back to us, and it went beyond
April 4, 2013 Regular Meeting 134
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
lB
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
and reconstruction or enlargement or
whatever. Let's clarify what we're really
trying to do. She will rewrite it as a
partial demo maybe. When the code changed,
a lot of people were calling it demolition
and they were preserving a whole lot more
than 25%. So we said in that case, write it
up as a partial demolition. So we don't get
confused. We just looked at the plans, but
it would appear that because of the entire
roof and the back wall are all windows,
which certainly needed to be replaced, she
perceived that was to remain on the first
floor foundation was less than 25%. She is
very, very careful in calculating the
building envelope and foundation and so
So I would
to go back
her. And if it needs to be a demo and you
just need to tell us what you're preserving
think the best way to proceed is
and have that discussion with
and so on, so be it. As long as you can
verify that you want to use that foundation,
fine. But we really need to make sure that
we're all on the same page.
MEMBER HORNING: The proposed plan
April 4, 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
calls for making a larger slab for the
garage and then using part of the existing
garage for kitchen pantry or extension of
the kitchen, would
slab?
MS. SANTORA:
that be on the existing
Yes. It's going
raised. There will be a crawl
raise the floor up. That will
room/pantry.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
any questions?
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: No.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
else in the audience that
address this application?
(No Response.)
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
to do is get a survey
setback. We're going to sort out
to be
space. They
be a laundry
Ken, do you have
that the plans look now, I can understand
why Pat Conklin determined it to be a
substantial demolition. If that is the way
What we're going
with the new bulkhead
the Notice
of Disapproval to confirm that it isn't a
demo. That you're are using the existing
foundation and it's a partial demo. The way
Is there anyone
would like to
April 4, 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
that it is, then that is the way it is. We
just don't want you back here again. And
also showing the nonturf buffers.
So we're going to close subject to
receipt of a revised updated survey showing
a 4 foot deep width deck. Portion of which
is now 8 feet. Showing a landscaped buffer
or a nonturf buffer and confirmation of a
demo or a new notice indicating partial
demo.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Seconded by
Gerry.
All in favor?
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye.
MEMBER HORNING: Aye.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Aye.
(See Minutes for Resolution.)
HEARING #6640 - RICHARD FRIZZI
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The next
application before the
Frizzi, #6640. Request
Article XXIII Section
Board is fro Richard
for variances from
280-124 and Article
April 4, 2013 Regular Meeting 137
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
XXII Section
Inspector's March
Disapproval based
280-116B and the Building
1, 2013 Notice of
on an application for
building permit
single family
code required
setback of 10
for construction of a new
dwelling: 1) less than the
minimum single side yard
feet, 2) less than the code
required minimum combined side yard setback
of 25 feet, 3) less than the code required
minimum rear yard setback of 35 feet, 4)
more than the code permitted maximum lot
coverage of 20%, 5) less than the code
permitted bulkhead setback of 75 feet,
located at: 680 Rabbit Lane, adjacent to
Gardiners Bay in East Marion.
Pat, I want to make sure you have a
copy of the LWRP. While she is doing that,
let me just enter into the record, the
variances, which there are five, are a rear
of 28 feet, where the code
A single side yard setback of
the code requires 10. A total
yard setback
requires 35.
6 feet, where
side yard setback
requires 25. Lot
code permits 20%.
of 16 feet, where the code
coverage is 29%, where the
A bulkhead setback of 70
April 4, 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
feet, where the code requires 75 feet. This
is a demolition and a construction of a new
single-family dwelling, consequences to
their storm damage. The intent is to leave
the existing accessory garage. The rear
yard setback and lot coverage -- the lot
coverage was 36% and when proposed is 29%.
It is less than what was originally there.
What the Trustees letter that we just got,
confirmed exactly what the LWRP indicates,
that the proposed patio within the coastal
erosion hazardous area is inconsistent, and
they are suggesting to reduce it to 200
square feet. And it is not practical, and
the LWRP confirms that it is consistent with
regards to everything else because due to
the size of the parcel, it is not practical
to relocate the structure outside of the
hazardous space. We are all very familiar
with Rabbit Lane, and the problems with
building on Gardiners Bay. The Trustees
actually confirmed what the LWRP said. We
just got that yesterday actually. So you
have a copy of that too, Pat. I just want
to make sure that you have all the
April 4, 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
correspondences
MS. MOORE:
CHAIRPERSON
is a new bulkhead
MS. MOORE:
course everyone
bulkhead. That
business, which
in.
yOU,
that we got.
Okay.
WEISMAN: Looks
in place.
Yes. Mr. Frizzi and of
else there that lost their
was the first order of
was to put the bulkhead back
like there
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Pat, let me
is the intent to have a heated
ask
know
to ask any questions?
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Were there any
variances on this prior?
MS. MOORE: I think there was a
variance for the garage and I think there
was a CO. Maybe, I am mistaken on the
variance but there is definitely a CO for
That should be in your packet. You
what, the variance is 280A. I
that.
year-round house?
MS. MOORE: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: So it looks like
the existing front yard of the house is
conforming. All right. Gerry, did you want
April 4, 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
remembered something.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER:
dwelling
MS.
building.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
to ask some questions?
MEMBER SCHNEIDER:
original side yard setback?
MS. MOORE: Oh, boy.
Yes. One family
and one accessory building.
MOORE: Right. An accessory
Ken, do you want
Yes. What was the
I think it was
like a 2 foot. 4.7 on the east side. From
a walkway, 6.5. On the upper side, 4.5. On
the opposite side --
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: So you are
increasing that?
MS. MOORE: Yes. We're mindful of the
side yards.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: So you reduced the
nonconformity?
MS. MOORE: Reduced the nonconformity
and also provided better access point on one
side to 10 feet.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: There was a
question about the septic system. Where is
that going to be located?
April 4, 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
MS. MOORE: Well, right now, it's
always on the street side. It has been on
the street side. Right now, it is just
northwest of the deck. So we have to
replace it because it was built -- because
the Sandy Storm filled it. Also, there was
some compromising of it. Not only from the
storm, but there was, I think when (In
Audible) came in, it might have effected it
as well.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Between the house
and the bulkhead?
MS. MOORE: No. No. It has always
been on the street side. But now, since we
are moving the house back, we have to move
the sanitary back. So we're going to --
it's probably going to be under the
driveway. We're going to have to get a
covenant from the Health Department allowing
-- you know, a driveway cover.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: I understand. So
that is a Health Department issue. So you
don't have to build any elaborate tank
systems or things?
MS. MOORE: I don't believe so.
We
April 4, 2013 Regular Meeting 142
1
2
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
haven't gone there yet. We have to figure
out where the house is going
This area does have standard
systems. Also, Mr. Frizzi
because my concern was the
driveway, but he pointed
sand to his property and
property. So in a way,
You know, we have more
sanitary and the water.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER:
reducing the lot
MS. MOORE:
MEMBER SCHNEIDER:
conforming with
MS. MOORE:
to go first.
sanitary
pointed out to me
sanitary and the
out, Sandy brought
elevated their
that is a positive.
distance between the
And you are
coverage?
Yes.
Any issue with
the deck requirements?
Patio requirements.
That's fine. That is not a problem.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: It's pervious.
It's going to be on sand anyway, but that is
a recommendation of the LWRP.
MS. MOORE: What's interesting and I
will just put on the record, I have been to
Trustee hearings where this is the
recommendation on Rabbit Lane, but in fact
the contractors, Costello and the others, it
April 4, 2013 Regular Meeting 143
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
really is beneficial to have that patio
decking, whatever, to cover the slash-pad
and be behind the bulkhead and give that
extra amount of protection. Hoping that
maybe after they are built, they realize
better practice
recommendation,
the bulkhead. So I
opportunity becomes
based on the contractors
essentially put a lid
would say that if
available, that it
and we can abide
contractors.
a
considered De Minimus
the recommendations of the
Because it --
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
recommendations
the moment --
behind
that
be
Abide by the
of the Trustees, because at
MS. MOORE: Right now, of course.
we had to change it, they would have to
change it. Yes.
If
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: They are
recommending what the LWRP recommends.
is the basis upon which we will proceed.
However, for right
to
make
that feature, you have a
request a change of the provision.
MS. MOORE: Okay. Well, if you don't
that a condition, we just abide by --
That
April 4, 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
the Trustees are going to require it,
unless they change it.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: We have to
address the LWRP in our determination, and
how it is viewed to them and recommended as
consistent. The patio is inconsistent.
MS. MOORE: I understand that, but
guys don't recommend patios.
you
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: But it's in a
Coastal Erosion Hazardous Zone where nothing
is permitted.
MS. MOORE: Well, I disagree with that
analysis of the Coastal Erosion Line, but
that's okay. That's a different Board. I
am just putting on the record that they may
be a possibility.
that
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I understand
generally at-grade patios --
MS. MOORE: Right.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: That is why we
requested in addition to the LWRP comments
in addition to the Trustees. They confirmed
the same recommendation. We have both
letters. I just wanted to bring that up
here.
April 4, 2013 Regular Meeting 145
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
else
MS. MOORE: Okay. That's fine.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Is there anyone
in the audience that wishes to --
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: I have one more
quick question.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: My
Okay.
other concern
is, with the houses very close to each
other, how will the other properties be
protected from other damage during
demolition and construction? That is from a
neighbor, Joseph and Joanna Canusa. Can you
address that, please?
MS. MOORE: Sure. I have the
contractor here. I spoke with Mr. Traniska
(phonetic) and as soon as we know that we
are okay, we're ready to remove the -- my
client is
not safe.
MR.
certainly not happy
S?ITILLAIRE:
with something
Joe Spitillaire,
Spitillaire Construction
Street, Southold.
something similar to
I'm sorry, Sound
situation. The
Management, Main
We're presently doing
this on the Sound side.
View Avenue. Similar
houses are very close
April 4, 2013 Regular Meeting 146
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
foot to the property line.
word than "demolition," we
house. So if that is the
that we have to use, then we can.
together. Six
To use a better
disassemble the
technique
We can -- I can pretty much guarantee there
will be no damage to the neighbors property.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Okay. That sounds
good to me.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: We just wanted
to address the neighbors concern.
MS. MOORE: Sure.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Is there anyone
else in the audience who wishes to address
this application?
(No Response.)
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Anything else
from the Board?
(No Response.)
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Hearing no
further comments or questions from the Board
or from the audience, 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?
April 4, 2013 Regular Meeting 147
1
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: Aye.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Aye.
{See Minutes for Resolution.)
*******************************************
HEARING #6642 ROBERT & DEANA FINORA
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The next
application before the Board is Robert and
Deana Finora. That is #6642. Request for
variance from Article III Code Section
280-15 and the Building Inspector's
February 15, 2013, Notice of Disapproval
based on an application for building permit
to construct accessory building, at: 1)
accessory building is proposed in a location
other than the code required rear yard,
located at: 165 Orchard Street in New
Suffolk. Good afternoon.
MS. FINORA:
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
Hi, how are ya?
The
accessory
building proposed in the front yard, where
the code requires a rear yard location.
It
shows that there was a previous garage now
removed. The photographs indicate that
there was a (In Audible and demolished.
April 4, 2013 Regular Meeting 148
1
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 it is proposed to be replaced in-kind.
It has a gable roof; is that correct?
MS. FINORA: That's correct.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay. Attic
an
loft. Are you proposing to use it as
actual garage?
MS. FINORA:
vehicles.
Storage shed. No
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I did notice
upon site inspection that that is a very
heavy traffic right-of-way into the marina.
runs
MS. FINORA: Orchard or?
MS. MOORE: Not Orchard. The one that
alone side your property.
MS. FINORA: It's not really heavily
traffic. Those boats, I don't even know if
they are really used. We don't hear a lot
of traffic.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Maybe it's a
coincidence that when I was there, there
were cars going back and forth.
MS. FINORA: We actually received some
letters in the mail. I believe they are
rebuilding those docks.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Maybe that is
April 4, 2013 Regular Meeting 149
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
what
well.
it was.
MS. FINORA:
Those were damaged as
Creek and proposed flooding the back and
side yards.
MS. FINORA: That's correct.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: And you have an
old survey showing a framed garage in the
same location as proposed. There is
demolition permit from the Building
Department dated 1/02/13 to demolish the old
garage. There is a CO from 1984 for a one
family dwelling and one-car garage. It is
now not going to be used for a garage.
MS. FINORA: I don't know how they
ever got a car into there.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Ail right. That
is all that is in the application. Is there
anything else that you would like to tell
us?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Since it's not
going to be used for vehicular storage, you
won't have to worry about egress and ingress
at all on this property. Your application
states that it is located near Schoolhouse
April 4, 2013 Regular Meeting 150
1
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. FINORA: I would just like to
point out, if there was any other spot on
the property where we could relocate the
garage, we would. We do have a sizeable
piece of property. We not only flooded
during Super Storm Sandy but Irene, we had
water come up to basically where the garage
was. So there is
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I forgot to ask
the minutes of
you for the transcript and
the hearing, we have to ask you for your
name for the record.
MS. FINORA: Oh. Deana Finora.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Ken, questions?
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Yes. Was your
house damaged at all during the flooding?
MS. FINORA: Luckily, no. We don't
have a basement. That is why we need a
storage shed. So the water came up to the
bottom floor boards, like within a half an
inch. Minor electrical damage. Nothing
significant like trees through the garage.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Is there any way
you can move this garage more towards the
back towards the street?
April 4, 2013 Regular Meeting 151
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
FINORA: There really isn't. I
floods. I guess the slope of the
that is the highest point. And
MS.
mean, it
property,
then I am sure we're going to still get
water coming up to that point as well. That
is why we showed the specific shed that my
husband showed, so that if it floods, it
won't get damaged.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Gravel?
MS. FINORA: I believe so. I am not
really an expert.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: What is the
distance between your property
edge of the pavement on
other words, you have a
there?
MS. FINORA: There
the street?
wood picket
line and the
In
fence
is a wood picket
fence there and probably, I don't know, a
foot of two of grass, and then the street
starts right there with the sidewalk. It's
close. And the garage is set back from the
picket fence.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: I would like to see
it set back more. I don't know how the
Board feels about that. To make it a little
April 4, 2013 Regular Meeting 152
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
bit more conforming.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER:
want to ask her what
elevate the building
is the question.
flood, she would
MS. FINORA:
background here.
New Suffolk, it
I think you might
it might cost to
more, back more. That
If she doesn't want it to
have to elevate it more.
I mean, just a little
We purchased this home in
was charming little
on-cloud.
We new about the condition of the
purchased the property with the structure
right there. And if we would have just
removed the tree and built around the shed,
we wouldn't have this issue, but because of
the safety of our neighbors and because of
that access road and because of the school,
mean, shed is to store everything, a lot of
our belongings in there throughout the
summer. This is the place that we intend on
retiring to. We spend a lot of our summers
out here. To have to elevate it or move the
shed back, just seems a little bit excessive
at this point. Because like I said, we
house and its location to the wetlands.
It's a tiny little house. This garage -- I
April 4, 2013 Regular Meeting 153
1
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 had a jack-knife tree in the middle of
this shed. So we demolished it as soon as
possible. We have received letters from our
neighbors as such, to please remove it as
soon as possible. We're very kindly in that
way in removing the hazards. And at this
point, to elevate the land there, I don't
know if that is going to solve our issue.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The garage was
there with a CO previously. New Suffolk has
an incredible amount of nonconformities. To
put it mildly --
MS. FINORA: Yes. We have a neighbor
with his couch on his front lawn. So
hopefully the barn in front of our house
will be a
little bit more appealing.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Are you aware of
other accessory structures or sheds in front
yards?
MS. FINORA: I have
barns close. The street
of -- that you get to go
last street.
Where those
There
seen sheds and
that is right off
to the beach, the
I am forgetting the name.
three beautiful houses are.
is one that has a barn-like structure,
April 4, 2013 Regular Meeting 154
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
which is where we got the idea for ours.
That is right in the front or the back of
their house. Very close to the street.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: You think you
can drive around the neighborhood and maybe
photograph some of those accessory
structures, because one of the things that
we need to address in our determination, is
the character of the neighborhood, and we
have some documentation showing that this
not atypical structure of that sort in the
front yard that would help the
application.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: To give us the
is
idea of where the pavement actually starts,
okay, from where the shed is going to start.
In other words, if you come up here, I can
show it to you.
MS. FINORA: (In Audible).
(Stepped away from the microphone.)
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: We want to know
where the street starts. I suspect, he
wants to know if you can actually open the
doors,
would
if you were putting something in it,
you be in the street doing that? That
April 4, 2013 Regular Meeting 155
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
is one of the aspects. No. 2, it actually
shows that it exist and that is why he is
asking that question.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Like a survey of
the setback, like a real world buffer. The
difficulty --
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: It is going to
appear that the setback is farther from --
hold on. If you are going to -- please come
forward and state your name for the record.
MR. FINORA: Hi. My name is Bob
Finora. I am the father-in-law. The
existing structure has two doors on it, and
when you open them, they didn't come near
the street at all.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The fact that you
can actually back into it without
obstructing any traffic, and still get into
the structure itself. These are certain
issues that we ask all the time in these
small communities.
MS. FINORA: We're putting up -- we're
matching the exact same -- two doors with
the same exact swing open on the existing
footprint. It was never an issue before.
April 4, 2013 Regular Meeting 156
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Like, we have a CO.
property with a CO for
We're putting the exact same
the exact same location. If
why do we have to go through
We purchased the
this structure.
structure in
we got a CO,
this again?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Let me explain
why. Once a structure is demolished, it
loses its preexisting CO, because it's gone.
It's distinguished. The code requires --
the variance relief that the Board, State
statute states what we're required to do by
law, is to grant the minimum variance
reasonably possible, once the argument is
compelling. So the reason why we're asking
for these setbacks and trying to tweak them
a little bit, is because we want to show in
our determination that we have explored
other options. That the setback is what it
must be and it cannot be increased for
specific reasons. In other words, it needs
to remain the way that it was for a series
of reasons. That is why I asked you if you
can go and show us --
MS. FINORA: I only know
would that change the Board's
of one, and
decision, if I
April 4, 2013 Regular Meeting 157
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
showed you other homes with garages --
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: It's not
changing our decision, it's about having
documentation that's saying, yes, there is
another structure in the front yard or there
are dwellings that are set back from the
road, very, very, close to the road. Please
don't misunderstand that we're not
attempting to undo what you are proposing.
We're trying to amplify the argument for
justification of approving it. Vicki just
mentioned, you can do a Google Earth, and
see what is in the surrounding streets and
submit that to the Board. It's very simple
to do. If you're having trouble to do it, I
am sure our Board assistant will help you
and explain to you on how you can go about
doing it.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Just one more thing
that I would like to address. The location
of the proposed garage, at that corner,
inhibits a little distance from people
coming out of that right-of-way. To make
that turn into Orchard. So that is
something --
April 4, 2013 Regular Meeting 158
1
2
3
4
5
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MS. FINORA: It is set back enough
that when you make that turn -- I mean, my
kids ride their bikes on dirt path. There
is no danger there.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: If you stop at
the intersection, you have at least
proposed --
MS. FINORA: Perhaps a stop sign would
assist in that. I mean it's not even a
road. It's a dirt path. I am just saying,
it's not a road.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: It's a
right-of-way.
MS. FINORA: I'm sorry, that becomes
my issue as a homeowner, because people are
using that dirt path as a road.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: No. I am just
saying if we have an opportunity to make the
road a little safer. If you can move your
garage back another 5 feet or something,
would give people more sight distance to
see, or even the kids on the bike. You can
see cars coming.
MS. FINORA: Like I said before, we
would be happy to move the garage if we
April 4, 2013 Regular Meeting 159
1
2
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
didn't flood. We were
storms. Both of which,
front of our property.
the crux of my argument
existing structure here.
there for two major
water came to the
That is pretty much
here. I have an
I bought this four
years ago -- five years ago. We bought it
with a CO for this structure. Technically,
we wouldn't have removed the structure if we
knew that we were going to run into these
problems. We would have just removed the
trees and fixed it, which in hindsight,
would have been a better path, but I am now
at the point, where we made a decision for
the community to remove the structure which
was hazardous, and remove the tree, which
our neighbors has asked us. Even after the
tree was removed, we received letters from
neighbor citing, please, what are you going
That is
want to
goes with
to do about this? You can see that we
removed it in January. That is not far off.
We did -- we're concerned about the
aesthetics and the safety of the community.
exactly why we bought there and we
put up a barn-like structure that
the aesthetics. So from our
April 4, 2013 Regular Meeting 160
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
standpoint, I guess that is my argument
here. We did the right thing by removing a
hazardous situation post storm. Ail we want
to do is be able to put our kids bikes and
some sun-fish in there for the summer. So if
we could --
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: I am just not to
keen on the location.
MS. FINORA: Trust me. So are we. I
am not keen about the location too. If I
could move that garage to the back corner of
our property, I would be more than happy to
do it. It would be better for everybody
involved. We would be able to get into our
garage without going through the front of
house to get to the garage. That is where
the garage was when we bought the house.
And we realize why it was put there because
of the flooding.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: So that is a
hardship?
MS. FINORA: It is a hardship because
to now raise the elevation and to go around
and take pictures, we don't even live
locally. I mean, you're talking about
April 4, 2013 Regular Meeting 161
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
another project here. We want to be able
to move in by the end of June, even. And the
house is too small and we don't have enough
storage to do so without this structure.
You know, this was the result of the storm.
It was hazardous. The tree was there. If we
would have known this, by all means, we
would have removed the tree and built around
the shed. And we probably would have had it
done by now. So we tried to do the right
thing. We got new of the land and
we played by the
CHAIRPERSON
that your neighbors
this? Do you think
supportive?
MS. FINORA: Well, they are sent back
right away. We know all of our neighbors.
We speak to them all the time. Our
neighbors across the street, we're very
surveys
rules.
WEISMAN: How do you
are going to feel
they will all be
friendly with. Everyone sent back
green cards right away, except for
because that is the wetlands
some sort of an estate.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Do
their
one,
behind us,
you think
think
about
and
April 4, 2013 Regular Meeting 162
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1t
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
that you can ask your neighbors, if they can
even scribble two sentences on a piece of
paper and fax it over to our office, a
letter of support for the new
construction?
MS. FINORA: Absolutely. I know that
Michelle will do it, who lives across the
way and probably our neighbors as well. I
know all those three. Our closest three
properties.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: That is why we
sent green cards to the closest neighbors
and --
MS. FINORA: And nobody is here.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: It would be
helpful for the record if you had some
letters of support from your neighbors.
MS. FINORA: Sure. I will get that.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Again, it
doesn't have to be formal or long. It can be
e-mails.
MS. FINORA: Okay. Thank you, Vicki.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Is there anyone
else in the audience who wishes to address
this application?
April 4, 2013 Regular Meeting 163
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
(No Response.)
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Hearing no
further questions or comments, I am going to
make a motion to close this hearing subject
to receipt of letters from neighbors and any
other visual documents that the applicant
will provide.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Ail in favor?
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Aye.
(See Minutes for Resolution.)
HEARING %6636 - JOHN SPIRO
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The last hearing
of the day is for John Spiro, #6636.
Request for variances from Article XXIII
Section 280-124 and Article III Section
280-15 and the Building Inspector's
February 14, 2013 Notice of Disapproval
based on an application for building permit
for additions and alterations to existing
single family dwelling and to construct an
accessory shed: 1) less than the code
April 4, 2013 Regular Meeting 164
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
required rear yard setback of 50 feet for
single family dwelling, 2) accessory shed
proposed in location other than the code
required rear yard, located at: 340
Glenwood Road in Cutchogue. State your name
for the record.
MS. INDELMAN: I am Alta Indelman,
architect for John Spiro. And if I may --
received late, after the green cards were
sent back, this is from the other adjacent
property owner who neglected to send back
her card, but sent a supportive e-mail. If
I could give you --
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Sure. May I
enter into the record, a letter from
Maryanne William-Pittman indicates unable
to
be at
luck
have
the hearing. I am happy to wish you
on your new project and say that we
no objection to your proposed plans.
MS. INDELMAN: What happened is, John
had not received the green card back and
reached our by e-mail to his neighbor and
said, did you receive it and so on and she
didn't know that she was supposed to send it
back.
April 4, 2013 Regular Meeting 165
1
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: Let's just look
at what is before the Board. We're looking
at a rear yard setback for additions and
alterations to the existing single family
dwelling 7.1 feet where the code requires
15 feet. And the shed is proposed in a side
yard where the code requires a rear yard.
The lot is 26, 149 square feet. The
existing garage is at 2.6 feet from the rear
yard setback and that is to be demolished.
And the existing house is 7.1 feet from the
rear yard setback, which is to be retained.
We're looking at a new two-story addition
with a 14 foot rear yard setback and a
one-story porch at 8.5. And the deck is at
10 feet from the rear yard setback?
MS. INDELMAN: No. The one-story is
10 feet. The deck is basically 7.1. The
property slopes a little bit. That aligns
with the rear of the existing house.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: So the deck is
at 7.1 feet; is that correct?
MS. INDELMAN: That is correct. The
property line slopes slightly. So the 7.1
is probably our best dimension and that
April 4, 2013 Regular Meeting 166
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
location is close to that.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay. The record
should reflect the fact that all of the new
construction is to be more conforming that
the existing garage, and to be no less than
the existing house at 7.1 feet. The shed is
proposed at a 9 x 18.6 feet. And that is in
a side yard?
MS. INDELMAN: This is in a side yard;
however, I later learned that your, Southold
Town calculation yard is actually what is
behind the house, as opposed from the
property forward. So at first, I was
compliant with the shed and the Building
Department explained to me that even though
the setbacks of the shed would be compliant,
the house were not there creating the rear
yard to be -- I thought that the rear yard
was defined by 50 feet. I said, "oh, good.
My shed is compliant." However, the facts --
it's in the place that it would be if that
were the yard. But by the technicality of
the Town's definition of rear yard, we're
now in a side yard.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: There are a
April 4, 2013 Regular Meeting 167
1
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 issues. At one point, lots were
merged. They were owned by the same family.
Then they were unmerged in 1998 by ZBA
Waiver of Lot Merger. Explained in the
reasons because the family continues to
that property
Obviously, if
you wouldn't
that is undeveloped.
the property's were merged,
have an issue whatsoever.
own
However, they were unmerged. Can you
address that a little bit?
MS. INDELMAN: I will address that
briefly and then I may ask my client to
discuss it. They know more about the
subject. It's my understanding that the
lots were always separate, and that there
was an application filed and approved to
define that. To have better clarity and
differential circumstances of ownership,
that I am not well versed in but it's my
understanding and my clients will
corroborate this, it was never a merged
but rather a definition of a non-merged
in 1998.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Well, I think
they were merged by virtue of the code.
lot
lot
April 4, 2013 Regular Meeting 168
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Many
WEISMAN: The only reason
people were very confused about that.
MS. INDELMAN: I guess I am not up to
date on that terminology. I do have -- if
that's the --
CHAIRPERSON
why I bring it up is because the Board has
to explore all options of nonconformity. We
like the record to reflect the unmerger and
the subsequent consequences of the rear yard
setback.
MS. INDELMAN: Understood.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The other thing
that I would like you to do is, you give a
rather elaborate explanation, why you could
not reasonable add additions to the front
yard to avoid additional nonconformities in
the rear yard. And I would just like you to
review that with the Board so that it is
reflected in the minutes. But lets take a
look --
that.
MS. INDELMAN: I would be happy to do
MS. SPIRO: So when my parents bought
the house -- well, actually my mother bought
that lot. The house and the land as a
April 4, 2013 Regular Meeting 169
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
single and separate lot. In the early 80's,
it was an {In Audible) one acre lot. My
parents at that time bought that lot. So it
was bought at a different time, decades
later actually. It was to be held as a
single and separate lot. Sometime in the
80's we -- the Town created the lot merger
recognition and the lots became merged
because of the way that they were in
ownership. We did go before the Zoning
Board and have that unmerged. And to be
held as two single and separate lots. My
sisters and I would like to keep that as
single and separate lots. So the house in
1968 was on that almost zero lot line, at
that corner.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The code changed
and caused a great deal of havoc because
people still continued to get separate tax
bills and may have appeared to be separate.
Only when someone wanted to go and do
something, did they then find out that they
had been merged by virtue of this code
change, which they then had to come back
before us. If someone died, a spouse died,
April 4, 2013 Regular Meeting 170
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
let's say, it went to one person, it was
then held in the same name, then that
changed. If you would please tell us why
you find it troublesome to create the
addition in the front yard?
MS. INDELMAN: I would be happy to do
that. I assume that you are familiar with
the materials that I have submitted, actual
diagrams that show some of the elevations of
it.
let
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Yes. I should
you know, everyone on the Board and
George who lives on Fisher's Island who has
to leave at a certain time to catch two
ferry's to get home. So that is why he is
not here. Ail of us have made site
inspection. Every one
site. We look
and so forth.
MS. INDELMAN:
of us. We visit the
around the property and so on
Go ahead.
We took a look quite
seriously at siting the addition in various
different ways. With the exception of the
deck, which is somewhat sort of a connective
piece, because it steps out any way and it's
rather small. I have taken a bunch of great
April 4, 2013 Regular Meeting 171
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
tl
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
lengths to (In Audible) the house,
particularly the two-story component of the
house. Progressively back from the property
line as much as I could without encroaching
some of the rather large trees that are on
the property. I believe that you are
familiar with those. We have three major
trees on the north side of the house on
various locations, that for environmental
reasons, practical reasons, for beauty
reasons, for every reason we can think of
and financial reasons, not to leave them,
the Spiro Family would like to retain. And
it becomes a curious chess game to try and
avoid them. To be moved to the north.
There are also a few other factors that are
not insignificant. We have Town water and
Town gas coming into the house on the north
side and it's -- logistically, financially
and construction purposes, it is our desire
to keep those things without disrupting
them. And the electricity and the phones are
also coming into the house, where in the
cellar is the boiler and the front,
utilities of the house. And you know, just
April 4, 2013 Regular Meeting 172
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
to retain all of that. One of the issues
that's particularly important is keeping
existing basically as it is. We're doing
the
leaving it intact, we're able to leave the
front windows. We're able to leave the
fireplace. We're able to leave the chimney.
The living room, everything where it is,
house for
loves the
their house.
very little work on the existing
several reasons. One, the family
house. It's charming. It's
Secondly, the house is old. It has had some
structural work done on it in the past. Not
necessarily anything that any one of us
would have done now in that way, but I would
leave it alone and start structuring again
and changing the roof. It was a dormer
popped up in 1985 to effectively legalize
became a sleeping quarters for the kids and
the family. It just now, legal bedrooms. The
roof was changed. It is now gables and
pitches and down in the cellar there are (In
Audible) brought down on it's own. I kind of
don't want to touch that. So leaving the
house intact, and for financial reasons, not
to wreck it, is greatly beneficial. And by
April 4, 2013 Regular Meeting 173
1
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 a couple of exceptions. One is to open
up one opening between the living room and
the current dining room to make a larger
living room and that is as easy structural
removal. There is a line of structure
there. There are posts down below. It's
quite direct. It's not creating what I call
and you're probably quite aware, "a basket
case" where you don't know what anything is
being held up. Upstairs we're making two
very small bedrooms into one usable bedroom.
We're making some relatively minor revisions
to create a bedroom suite for the eldest
Spiro's to use without having to climb the
stairs. So by leaving the existing house in
tact and the trees and the roads and the
chimney and the fireplace, we're saving a
structural problem. We're saving a utility
problem. We're saving some trees and saving
the house as it is and saving a lot of
money, basically.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: (In Audible) and
that total is how much?
MS. INDELMAN: We have an estimate for
the total construction of the house for
April 4, 2013 Regular Meeting 174
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
close to $430,000.00 and we estimate -- I
had a contractor and I had our landscaped
architect and civil engineer identify the
tree types and what it cost to replace and
remove and apparently, there is an option to
relocate trees but they don't recommend
because of the size and the age of the
trees, that one could move them, basically.
You would be paying twice. Paying to
relocate it and paying to place it. So that
didn't look like that was such a good idea.
So we came up with a tally of approximately
$170,000.00 and of course the extra expenses
that would be incurred for the trees --
something with the trees. Placing it to the
north is extremely awkward because of the
nature of the house. It's messy and
awkward. But that issue aside, the cost
factors that came into effect is that we
have to redo the utilities in the house,
both the gas and the water. We would have
to redo sone of the storm drainage. And
just as a side, we're in the process of
working out the septic system and working
out the appropriate information about that,
April 4, 2013 Regular Meeting 175
1
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 we will be going to the Health
Department and so forth. We did our testing
and so on. But there are some drywell's
that are there, that can be reused for
stormwater drainage. So we would like to be
able to retain those. Telephone service,
electrical service, there is a secondary
egress and access to the existing cellar
under the house, through a cellar door and
steps that go down. And there are some
utilities in that area. There is some stuff
in that area would have to be redone and
cost money and some foundation work that
would have to be done there. And the roof,
I guess the upstairs bedrooms on the second
floor of the existing house, the windows
that are the only ones that are large enough
that are considered to be emergency egress
are on the north side. These are real iow
on the east side of the house. So we can't
get those. Those are old and part of the
1920's architecture. They're old windows
and tiny. So we would be sort creating some
sort of a noncompliance if we had to redo
the roof there and compromise those on the
April 4, 2013 Regular Meeting 176
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
where we would have to connect
That would really compromise.
to do something new with the
skylight or whatever. So
reflected in here. And
rather substantial brick
north side,
to the house.
We would have
roof and dormer and
the cost of that is
then the fireplace,
fireplace and accompanied chimney. The
chimney is structurally integral to the
exiting house and we can't take that away.
That is staying no matter what. The
fireplace is visible in its location, if we
are using that north side of the passage way
to get in. It basically blows out the
existing living room and completely redo.
Consequentially add another fireplace in
another room to have the same benefit as the
fireplace that currently exist as a focal
point in the family room, and they like
very, very much. I think that is-pretty much
the list. There are some minor other
reconfigurations of roof lines. There is
some complicated roof lines and connections
that would cause additional framing and
costs. And that also went into that cost
analysis.
April 4, 2013 Regular Meeting 177
1
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
your proposed site plan, that
of the additions that are closest to
rear yard setback of one-story --
noticed on
the two parts
MS. INDELMAN: That is correct.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: So you can go
around the nonconformance of making it
one-story instead of two-story. And the new
two-story addition is set back at 14 feet
from the rear yard property line.
MS. INDELMAN: Actually, it's 14 feet
for one of them and the other is 18 feet.
So we have to be able to -- I have to be
able to connect to the existing house to get
in. There is -- we pushed back that one
story link, that becomes part of the
kitchen, as far as I could go. And then I
am stepping back from there in plan and as
you mentioned from the elevation.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Is there
anything else that you would like to tell us
before I ask my colleagues if they have any
questions?
MS. INDELMAN: I think my presentation
has all the information in it. I feel
the
April 4, 2013 Regular Meeting 178
1
2
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
comfortable that I have presented it with
everything that I had but I would be happy
to answer questions.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay. I do want
to commend you on a very thorough
application. We are very pleased to see
such details. Let me turn it over to Ken,
and see what questions he has.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Yes. I have a
question on Sheet #2, proposed site plan.
am seeing where the existing house is, there
is a one-story and then it looks like (In
Audible) from the property line?
MS. INDELMAN: That is an existing.
If you look at the existing site plan,
will see that the existing house is
identical on both site plans.
little thing sticking out on
is part of what is there.
changing that.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER:
rear yard setback is 5.8
is
you
It has a
the house. It
So we're not
Right. But that
feet?
MS. INDELMAN: That is existing
5.8 feet. That is correct.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: And then your new
and it
April 4, 2013 Regular Meeting 179
1
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 for the deck, with all the new
work, you require 7.17
MS. INDELMAN: 7.1 is where the best
-- the furthest away from the property line
the existing house is. I need to come in --
I am coming in about 3 1/2 - 4 feet to get
my one-story link. If you look at my first
plan, I think, it clarifies that. Let's get
a good look at that. That is A.101. It's
the actual floor plan of the house. So if
you look at the -- you want to look at the
proposed deck plan --
MEMBER SCHNEIDER:
piece of deck.
MS. INDELMAN:
french doors, we're
from the existing
There is a little
Where I put those
actually taking them
living room, that is where
my opportunity is in terms of structural
framing. If I go down to the cellar, I have
posts there and that is a good spot for me
to come in. And so I pushed that to get to
that point and then stepped back from there.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Now that deck
continues which way, I guess to the west?
MS. INDELMAN: It goes to the west,
April 4, 2013 Regular Meeting 180
1
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.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: It looks like it's
going to be a little less than 7.1.
MS. INDELMAN: That's correct.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Do you know what
that is going to be?
MS. INDELMAN: I would have to scale
it.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: The issue for the
rear yard setback would be to that corner,
no? Do you see what I am talking about,
Leslie?
MS. INDELMAN: 8.5 is the porch. I
have accessed the porch at 8.5 back. That
piece of deck is what it is and I could
scale that for you. I know exactly what you
are looking for. I would have to scale it
off the survey. It's probably, I am going
to guess it's 6 feet. 6 something. I would
have to scale that for you but if you look
at my A.101 I have a line that I am just
pulling across.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: I don't have a
problem with it, it's just that we can --
MS. INDELMAN: I guess I need a tiny
April 4, 2013 Regular Meeting 181
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
scale for that. Let's call it 6.6 or
somewhere in that ballpark.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The Notice of
Disapproval, I just looked at the dimensions
that you just called out and it was cited at
7.1. They are just probably taking the
average.
MS. INDELMAN: You know what the
problem is, when Mr. Ehlers did our survey,
that is the point that he gave on our
survey. They probably looked at the survey,
which you have a copy of, the land survey.
I can have someone calculate it in my
office.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: That would be the
actual setback variance that you would need.
MS. INDELMAN: I can get you that
answer in like 10 minutes. I can call my
office and have someone scale it off the cab
drawing. So yes, I can get that for you.
It's probably at 6 feet. I would say that's
a probably accurate estimate.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: It's closer.
It's not for the whole property line. It's
for X number of feet.
April 4, 2013 Regular Meeting 182
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1t
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
MS. INDELMAN: That number of feet I
can tell you right away and that is 14.8, is
the length of the deck.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: But at one
corner it's 10 feet?
MS. INDELMAN: No. I'm sorry, the 10
feet is to the one-story addition. There is
sort of a blurry line there. That's right.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Yes. Okay. We
just want to make sure that when we write or
determination that the numbers are accurate.
MS. INDELMAN: Of course. And I have
people in my office who are sitting there at
their computers that can get us that
information, but I will give them a call.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: That would be what
I am requesting, to the corner of that deck.
MS. INDELMAN: Understood.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: And then we have
8.5 feet to that porch. Is that a screened
porch?
MS. INDELMAN: That is a one-story
screened porch.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: The proposed
second-story would have a 14 foot setback?
April 4, 2013 Regular Meeting 183
1
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. INDELMAN: Yes, a 14 foot. And
then there is an 18 foot that steps back.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Yes. And you're
maintaining the existing nonconforming
setback to the two-story of the existing
home, at 5.8 feet?
MS. INDELMAN: The two-story is 7.1
setback and the one-story is at
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Gotcha.
what I am going to need and I
further questions.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
let's take a look at just
side yard for a minute.
5.8. Right.
That is
have no more
why they are calling
MS. INDELMAN:
say that I was somewhat surprised. I
interpreted that the house was in the
yard and not that it starts behind the
All right. So
the shed in the
Now you understand
it a side yard.
I do. I would have to
house. I get it.
CHAIRPERSON
bottom line
proposed at
MS. INDELMAN:
doing is following
rear
WEISMAN: Okay. But the
is, a fraction of its size is
a 15 foot side yard.
Basically, what I was
the regulations as if I
April 4, 2013 Regular Meeting 184
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
was in a rear yard. Figuring that I --
understanding that I was not in a rear yard,
but if that was the clearance that was
desirable between the property line and the
neighbors, I would certainly try to honor
that. So that is what I did. It's pretty
straight forward.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: It's not going t
be used as a garage?
MS. INDELMAN: No. It's certainly not
large enough to be used as a garage. We
have made provision for parking
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
you're going to propose to
driveway?
MS. INDELMAN: No.
flipped to the other side
outside.
Out of curiosity
use the same
The driveway is
of the property.
The current driveway is very narrow and in
strange proximity to the intersection and we
believe that the other location is far
better than various reasons.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: For one thing,
you're not going to hit the tree --
MS. INDELMAN: It's a very abrupt turn
and it's right at the intersection of
April 4, 2013 Regular Meeting 185
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Hamilton Avenue, and you have to back out.
So we're correcting that. It does not
require the removal of any trees. It's
very minor landscaping. And
the old opening with plants.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
you have any questions?
MEMBER GOEHRINGER:
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
anyone in the audience that
address this application?
(No Response.}
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
we will in
Okay. Gerry do
No, I don't.
Okay. Is
wishes to
Hearing no
further comments, I am going to make a
motion to close this hearing and reserve
decision, subject to receipt of more
a
fill
there
information now, if you want to enter it
into the record. I mean, I can literally
call them and tell them to pick it off the
computer, and tell you what it is?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I suppose we can
wait a few minutes or the other thing that
information regarding the specific points of
setbacks from the rear property line.
MS. INDELMAN: Now, I can get you that
April 4, 2013 Regular Meeting 186
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
we can do, is -- we have to have it in
writing. You know, let's wait a minute.
MS. INDELMAN: Let me give it a try
and if for any reason, it becomes
complicated, I will sketch it and write it
and fax it to you tomorrow.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: You can fax it
tomorrow. Really. It's not going to delay
anything.
MS.
INDELMAN: Then
That makes sense. I don't want
panic in my office. That's
to be scrupulous here, that
of an average because it's
at one end and then slightly
feet on the other. So what
pick the exact corner point of
and get you that, so that it's
clear.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
else that the Board wants?
(No Response.)
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay.
no further comments or questions,
to make a motion to close this
I will do that.
to cause a
fine. And just
14 feet is sort
more than 14 feet
less than 14
I could do is
the pieces
totally
Okay. Anything
Hearing
I am going
hearing and
April 4, 2013 Regular Meeting 187
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
reserve
receipt
decision to a later date subject to
of the information requested.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Ail in
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye.
favor?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Aye.
(See Minutes for Resolution.)
*******************************************
(Whereupon, the April 4, 2013,
Regular Meeting of the Zoning Board of
Appeals concluded at 3:38 P.M.)
April 4, 2013 Regular Meeting 188
1
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, 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.
Signatur~~~~__
Jessica DiLa o
Jessica DiLallo
Court Reporter
PO Box 984
Holbrook, New York 11741
Date: April 20, 2013