HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-05/02/2013 Hearing1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
COUNTY OF SUFFOLK: STATE OF NEW YORK
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
Southold Town Hall
Southold, New York
May 2, 2013
9:40 A.M.
Board Members Present:
LESLIE KANES WEISMAN - Chairperson/Member
ERIC DANTES - Member
GERARD GOEHRINGER - Member
GEORGE HORNING - Member (Left at
KENNETH SCHNEIDER - Member (Left
VICKI TOTH - Secretary
JENNIFER ANDALORO - Assistant Town Attorney
2:00 P.M.)
at 2:44
Jessica DiLallo
Court Reporter
P.O. Box 984
Holbrook, New York
(631)-338-1409
11741
X
X
RECEIVED
BOARD OF APPEALS
P.M.)
May 2, 2013 Board Meeting 2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
INDEX TO HEARINGS
Hearing
Kimogenor Point, Inc.
{Bingham), #6550
Mattituck Plaza, Plaza %6635
Fehim and Sevgi Uyanik, %6644
Richard Zahra, #6647
Roman Catholic Church of the
Sacred Heart, #6645
Ralph and Carmelo Constantino,
Nick Palumbo, #6646
James Scully, #6650
Michael Mantikas, #6641
David Schiff, #6649,
BABS Corporation, #6651
James and Susan Brown, #6652
Steve Condos, #6648
#6643
Page
3-10
10-40
40-70
70-80
80-89
89-93
93-101
101-110
110-124
124-126
126-146
146-171
171-175
May 2, 2013 Board Meeting 3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
HEARING %6550 KIMOGENOR POINT,
INC. (BINGHAM)
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The first
application before the Board is for
Kimogenor Point, Bingham, #6550. This
was adjourned from the April 4, 2013
Public Hearing. This was an application
that was re-opened by Board Resolution,
based on the Building Inspector's
March 5, 2013 Notice of Disapproval based
on the work performed was beyond the
scope of the ZBA decision, 1) deemed a
demolition and construction of new single
family dwelling, located at: 60 Jackson
Street, adjacent to Great Peconic Bay in
New Suffolk.
What I would like to do is read into
the record, the findings of fact that the
Zoning Board gathered from the Public
Hearing process, and to the scheduled
site inspection that we asked to have
done. This is the third amended
application on this particular property.
And on February 28th, a verbal Stop Work
Order was issued by the Building
May 2, 2013 Board Meeting 4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Inspector to the applicant. On
March 5, 2013, a new Notice of
Disapproval was issued stating the
proposed demolition and construction on
this nonconforming lot is not permitted.
The work performed is beyond the scope of
the ZBA decision #6550. By Resolution
dated February 28, 2013, the Zoning Board
voted unanimously, to reopen the Public
Hearing for the sole purpose of
determining if the demolition had taken
place, and if the application had
therefore exceeded the scope of the
relief granted in the decision #6550.
The Public Hearing was scheduled for
April 4, 2013, at which time additional
testimony was taken from the applicant's
builder and architect, and photographic
documentation of the demolition
construction and reconstruction process
just to show the method use to preserve
at least 25% of the original structure as
required in the original instructions of
the code and ZBA decision #6550. The
Board requested the builder to submit
May 2, 2013 Board 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
construction photographs, time dated and
submit it to the Board, which we did
receive. A calculation of the exact
percentage of the remaining original
dwelling by the applicant's licensed
architect be completed and submitted,
which we did receive, and that an
interior inspection be scheduled for the
purpose of inspection by the Members of
the Board, which did take place. In
addition to both, Pat Conklin and Mike
Verity, also participated independently
in that inspection. The Public Hearing
was adjourned until May 2nd, which is
today. On April 15th, a requested site
inspection took place and the
photographic documentation was received.
On April 17th, the ZBA received a written
information from Tom Samuels, architect,
showing plans for the first floor and
roof of the original structure of the
Bingham Residence, and confirming that
26.2% of the original structure remained
in place. Ail right. So based upon all
of those facts, which we have gathered, I
May 2, 2013 Board Meeting 6
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
am going to read to you what the Board
has found. Evidence was submitted by the
applicants architect, that indicated that
the renovations project left 26.2% of the
original structure in tact. A figure
that the Building Department does not
refute. I met with them personally to
discuss this
course, always
professionals,
surveyors, architects,
and they are as a matter of
accept calculations from
whether they are
or engineers.
applicant maintains that the project
should not be
The
considered constructional
demolition as defined by Town Code 280-4,
which states that any removal of a
structure or portion thereof that exceeds
75% of the total square footage of the
existing structure before the start of
removal. Based upon
members of the Board,
photographic evidence
site inspection by
which confirmed the
of the portions of
the original structure remained and the
applicant's license architect
calculations, that 26.2% of the original
structure remained. The Board of Appeals
May 2, 2013 Board 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
determined that a demolition as defined
as 280-4 has not occurred and that the
applicant's project continues to be
within the scope of the work as in
decisions #6550. As I said that, we are
prepared to listen to anyone who wishes
to make additional comments, at which
time we will close the Public Hearing and
we are prepared to deliberate on this
application based upon the facts as
described to you.
MS.
Board,
-- I'm
MOORE: Madam Chairman and
thank you very much. We do want
sorry, Patricia Moore on behalf of
the applicants and everyone else there
is, contractors. We want to thank the
Board for your review and for the
diligence that you have taken. We really
have no comment. I think the facts speak
for them self and we appreciate your
willingness
could continue. So we to
extend our thanks.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Ail right. I
have neglected to do something, which I
to move this along so they
do really want
May 2, 2013 Board Meeting 8
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
should have done for any of you who are
not familiar with the Zoning Board. We
do have a new member, which we would like
to welcome, Eric Dantes who has been
appointed by the Town Board. We welcome
him to his first Public Hearing. One of
many, I am sure.
Ail right. Is there anyone else in
the audience who wishes to comment on
this application?
(No Response.)
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Hearing no
further comments, the Board has already
made a comment by entering this into the
public record. I am going to make a
motion to close this hearing and reserve
decision.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Ail in favor?
MEMBER DANTES: Aye.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye.
MEMBER HORNING: Aye.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
(See Minutes
Aye.
for Resolution.)
May 2, 2013 Board Meeting 9
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: So
I am now
going to amend my agenda here, and I am
going to ask the Board -- we all have
copies of the draft, which I have read
into the record, and I am prepared to
bring this to a vote now so this
original decision based upon our
determination that this is not a
demolition. One should note that the
difference between 25% and 26.2% is
extremely small. And so we were very
close there. We wanted to let everyone
know that this Board was aware and told
the Building Department that this was a
judgement call, without calculation but
was very close to what actually is
permitted by the Town Code.
MEMBER HORNING: I second that. And
applicant can proceed with their work on
this project. Every one has read this,
it is an old decision. It was amended.
So I am going to make a motion to grant
the applicant the right to proceed with
their project as described in their
May 2, 2013 Board Meeting 10
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Leslie, it's 26.2 --
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: 26.2, not
26.4. Sorry.
Ail in favor?
MEMBER DANTES: Abstain.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye.
MEMBER HORNING: Aye.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Aye.
The motion is carried, unanimously
with one abstention. I will sign this
tomorrow and then it will be filed with
the Town Clerk and then become an
official document.
{See Minutes for Resolution.)
HEARING #6635 - MATTITUCK PLAZA, LLC.
The next application before the
Board is for Mattituck Plaza, LLC, #6635.
Request for variances from Article III
Code Section 280-15 and
Inspector's December 17,
Disapproval based on an
the Building
2012 Notice of
application for
building permit for an as-built accessory
building, at 1) located at less than the
May 2, 2013 Board Meeting 11
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
code required 25 feet from any property
line, 2) more than the permitted lot
coverage of 30%; located at: 10095 Main
Road, a/k/a New York State 25, corner of
Factory Avenue in Mattituck.
Is someone here to represent this
application?
MR. GOGGINS: Yes. Good morning.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Good morning.
MR. GOGGINS: William Goggins. Law
Office of Goggins and Palumbo, 13235 Main
Road, Mattituck, New York. For the
applicant Mattituck Plaza.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay. Let me
just indicate for the record that
specifically the as-built construction of
an accessory is partially completed on
the property line, where the code
requires 25 feet. And 36.01% lot
coverage, where the code permits a
maximum of 30% lot coverage. The
Planning Board in their 1971 Site Plan
approval, required a 40 foot buffer on
this approved Site Plan, and on the
northern property line that was to be
May 2, 2013 Board 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
made of
adverse
property, and have lots of
The as-built property from
property line eliminates this
of that buffer. We did get a
Did you get a letter from the
Board's Memorandum from March,
MR. GOGGINS: I did.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
a letter from -- this is
from Suffolk County for
grass and planting to mitigate
impact from adjacent residential
feet of that buffer.
that Code Enforcement
complaint in September,
Other comment was
responded to a
2012 in regards
to type of discharging liquids that went
to the property to the north. It would
appear that has been eliminated, but I
would like you to address that. There
no amended Site Plan from the Planning
determination. So let me just enter into
the record some of the concerns so you
can address them. The first that I
indicated was the as-built construction
and the property line eliminating 38.6
Okay. We have
just a letter
local
questions.
the rear
38.6 feet
letter.
Planning
20137
May 2, 2013 Board Meeting 13
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
Board as to date. And the Site Plan that
we have in our packet is a Site Plan that
is by a design firm that does not have on
it a stamp by a licensed professional, be
it an architect, engineer or surveyor.
And so we're probably going to need
something that is more official on it
just to -- how we can interpret exactly
what things are on the property line,
buffers and parking spaces are and so on.
I think I should stop at this point. I
think there will be questions that I am
sure you will answer. So why don't we
let you go ahead at this point and
proceed with however you like to the
Board.
MR. GOGGINS: Ail right. This
shopping center was built sometime in
1971-1972. It is part of the two major
areas of Commerce that are in Mattituck.
We have the Love Lane area and we have
this shopping center. A little over 40
years, this shopping center has developed
from mostly empty stores to what it is
today. It has fully rented. The parking
May 2, 2013 Board Meeting 14
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
lot is full all the time. There is a lot
of commerce happening at that location.
As far as the Site Plan back from 1971,
they required a water tower, and to
provide water for the facility. It used
to be that (In Audible) in Greenport and
the theory was, you had to have a water
tower because it creates 23-24 feet of
size (In Audible) elevated from
sea-level. That would create the
pressure. As time went on, residential
homes had their own wells and pumps.
the commercial setting in the 70's or
early before, they would build these
large water towers in conjunction with
the commercial property to make sure
there would be water supply to commercial
property. So what they would do is, they
would have a giant pump -- pump house,
and then that pump would pump the water
from the ground into the tower.
tower always has water and the
would supply water. Now in 2013,
public water throughout the Town.
site has public water. There was
So the
tower
we have
The
no need
May 2, 2013 Board Meeting 15
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 water tower any more. If I could
back up for a moment, the reason why I
believe, and I wasn't there, I was
ten-years-old at the time. But when they
put this water tower in and the giant
pump to supply it, they put in it the
east-end corner of the property away from
the residential and put it close to the
cemetery, where it would be away -- the
the
this tower that
they put in the back. It was kind of
unsightly from the road. Because of the
public water,
anymore. So
removed the pump.
noise would be away from
neighborhood. So we had
they didn't need it
they knocked it down. They
So there is no more
noise. There is no unsightly tower.
Since the 70's it had become crowded.
Parking areas are needed. They can't
have storage anymore. So now they want
to use the same exact location of the
pump and tower was located, for a storage
area. So put their storage items away
for the shopping center. So -- and that
was their idea. So what they did, in
May 2, 2013 Board 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
that exact area, they had built the walls
and now they want to put a roof on it and
have a full storage facility for the
complex. So they didn't comply with the
proper at the time of the Site Plan. And
so there is really no change. The rest
of the property does comply on the north
side. So I think it is about a 42-43
foot buffer as exist, along the whole
north side of the property except where
the water tank was. It was the idea of
the owners of Mattituck Plaza to more
effectively use it for the shopping
center and keep it clean. To put the
equipment that they need in that area, so
they could have a more effective way of
running the plaza. So the thought
process is really not changing anything
because the same setback as the tower and
the pump. Ail we are doing is removing a
noisy pump or an unsightly tower and
putting in basically some walls and a
roof for storage. So I hope that kind of
answers your first question about the
buffer. The second question as to some
May 2, 2013 Board Meeting 17
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
2I
22
23
24
25
of the violations. On the east side
along the cemetery, near the main road,
they had parking spaces. ?hey do violate
the buffer on that side, but apparently
25 years ago, the Building Inspector came
and said there wasn't enough parking
spaces. So they discussed it with the
owner and told them to go and put parking
spaces in this area, which is what they
did. They put parking spaces on that
eastern side of the property.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: May I just ask
a question?
MR. GOGGINS: Sure.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: If there was a
need for storage building, and certainly
understand that once a nonconforming
structure is demolished, that's the end
of it. The preexisting nonconformity is
gone. There is no as-of-right ability to
reconstruct a nonconforming other
structure in its place. Why that was
necessary, was to assume that it was a
necessary use determined by the shopping
center, did you not -- why your client
May 2, 2013 Board Meeting 18
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
did not come before the Zoning Board
or/and the Planning Board to seek
whatever updates on that Site Plan is
necessary. Parking spaces, surely anyone
understands that Site Plan approval
requires. We have no evidence of anyone
ever approaching the Planning Board or
coming to the Zoning Board. So
construction was clearly designed, and I
would like to know is how is it that you
came before this Board? When was a Stop
Work Order issued?
MR. GOGGINS: I don't know, but I do
know they thought they didn't need
approval to replace the water tower and
the pump, until such there was a Stop
Work Order. I think they knew they
couldn't put a roof structure over the
walls. I think they knew that, and that
don't know
Work
is why that wasn't done, but I
at what point there was a Stop
Order. But I can answer that
hearing.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay. Well,
Planning Board is going to request
the
at the next
May 2, 2013 Board 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
it, and so are we, a concordance
application to them for Site Plan Review.
So that any adverse impacts can be
addressed by both Boards.
MR. GOGGINS: Yes. I spoke with
Brian Cummings from the Planning Board
and
any
your client applied
he indicated to me that there wasn't
Site Plans -- updated Site Plan.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Right. Has
for a building
permit? We don't --
MR. GOGGINS: I don't
into this late. I don't know.
on
know. I came
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: There is none
record. So we would all understand
that any new construction would require a
building permit.
MR. GOGGINS: Sure. Sure. They put
up walls to be deemed a fence. They
didn't do construction. They put in
concrete walls.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: At this point,
I would suggest that it is a massive
retaining wall. And a retaining wall is
visible from the cemetery property. By
May 2, 2013 Board Meeting 20
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
the way, which all of us made personal
inspection of. And that retaining wall
is shooting into the buffer wall that
existed. And you are saying that it is
going to be used for storage purposes?
MR. GOGGINS: Cold storage purposes.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay.
MEMBER HORNING: You said, cold
storage?
MR. GOGGINS: Yes, sir.
MEMBER HORNING: Such as what?
MR. GOGGINS: No heat. No running
water.
MEMBER HORNING: Crates of things?
Boxes?
MR. GOGGINS: I think it's more like
lawn mower equipment. Stuff like that.
MEMBER HORNING: For what would the
equipment purpose be?
MR. GOGGINS: Well, they would need
to remove snow from the parking lot,
sidewalks. Lawn mower to cut the grass.
They need clippers and so forth, to clean
the property.
MEMBER HORNING: Storage of
May 2, 2013 Board Meeting 21
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
maintenance equipment?
MR. GOGGINS: Right. Everything
that is related to keep it looking as
beautiful for the Town.
MEMBER HORNING: I just have a
couple of more questions. The parcel,
under different owners, I guess, has
applied for different variances at
various different times in the past,
which the current owners I am sure is
aware of, and yourself, as their
representative; is that correct?
MR. GOGGINS: Right.
MEMBER HORNING: There is three or
four of them. I don't have the exact
number but there has been at least three
or four variances granted to the
property. We have a stack of probably
45 Certificate of Occupancy statements.
So it appears as though the various
owners have been trying to comply with
Town Code over the years. By applying
for variances when necessary. Applying
for Certificate of Occupancy when they
needed to get them. Then we look at
May 2, 2013 Board Meeting 22
1
2
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
this, we have a survey that is not
stamped. We don't have a building
permit. We have this as-built thing. We
don't have any dimensions on the Site
Plan building. There is no footage.
There is no setbacks given. It's really
insufficient. So it is sort of
astounding in a way that you would have
owners of the property who have a history
of doing things to be compliant and then
all of a sudden out of the blue, they are
doing something that is totally not
compliant. And they must have really
known it wasn't compliant. I can't
really imagine that what they were doing
wasn't compliant. In fact, they are
probably encroaching on the other
property. That is where we're at. We're
trying to figure out what are the facts?
We have a statement from the cemetery
saying that there is an encroachment.
MR. GOGGINS: Well, I hope that
there isn't. If there is, I am sure they
will take care of it. If they have a
survey showing that there is an
May 2, 2013 Board 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
encroachment, then I am sure that it
could be taken care of. If the applicant
wasn't diligent in doing what they should
have done in this application, then they
need to be diligent and they need to find
the proper information and proper
setbacks and proper surveys, and get an
architect to stamp it. I agree. We have
to go through the process and we have to
make sure that what we're looking at is
accurate. To make sure that they comply
with all Site Plan approvals. There is
no question about it. And you're right,
they have always complied. There was a
time when they said they needed to have
sprinkler systems in this whole complex
and they went ahead and did it. They
have always been compliant. Everything
they did to make sure they have a safe
shopping center. And why they did this
in the back, I don't know. Maybe they
had a manager that thought that they
could do it. Who knows. It has been
owned by the Cardinale Family since
1972-73 and they have always done what
May 2, 2013 Board Meeting 24
6
7
8
9
10
tl
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
1
2
3
4
5
they needed to do. They have always
opened up themselves and said, what do
you need and we will do it. They have
always done that. Every time. When
there indicated that there was a
violation, water coming out. Apparently,
there was a failure in their drywell.
They didn't know about it. They only
found out about it because neighbors
complained about it and immediately
complied. You know, they put in a new
drywell and re-graded the property. And
they solved the problem. That is what
they do. They are not here to play games
and to hide and to sneak around. You
know, they have always been compliant.
And I am not sure why this application is
the way that it is. You know, I got it
half way through.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Well, I am
sure that you will tell or advise your
client on how to proceed legally.
MR. GOGGINS: Right.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Good. At
least we're on the same page, and we
have
May 2, 2013 Board Meeting 25
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
the facts in the record, and what
happened here and what is deficient. The
Board is not able to make a determination
given the lack of specificity and the
fact that there would have to be an
application made to the Planning Board
and there you would be required, of
course, to have a proper -- a complete
updated survey of the entire property.
And that way we can determine what
encroachment, if any does exist, and what
to do about it. I have already seen, the
so-called answer to the drainage problem
and what appears to be some timberland.
In the buffer zone by the way. There is
a grassy area that is on top of the
retaining wall. I am not an engineer but
I think you need to have an
interpretation from the Town Engineer as
to whether or not this complies with 236
of the Drainage Code. It doesn't look to
me as though it is proper and complete.
MR. GOGGINS: That's fine.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I mean, it's a
very important active shopping center in
May 2, 2013 Board Meeting 26
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
our community. We want to make sure that
it is legal and safe and that it complies
with all the Town Code.
MR. GOGGINS: Of course. They are
also concerned with the cemetery and they
understand that there needs to be
screening, and they understand that.
They have always tried to be open and
friendly and let them know what they have
been doing, but the cemetery has never
really responded to them. I don't think
that they like the fact that it is there.
There really is no lines of communication
from the site. There have been attempts
by the Cardinale Family to try and work
out any issues that arises from the
property. They have always been
disappointed because of it.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Ken?
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: At the location
of where this structure is, there once
was a water tower and a pump to service
the water tower?
MR. GOGGINS:
MEMBER
Correct.
SCHNEIDER: I have no
further
May 2, 2013 Board 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
questions but I would like to see a
stamped survey showing the location of
this structure with respect to the
property lines and owners and all of
that.
MR. GOGGINS: I agree.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Gerry?
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Nothing at this
point.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Eric?
MEMBER DANTES: I don't have any
questions at this time.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Is there
anyone in the audience that would like to
speak to this application? Please come
forward and state your name for the
record and spell your last name.
MR. ROSE: Sure. John Rose,
R-O-S-E. And I am member of the Cemetery
Board. And I would just like to make a
couple of comments, especially the last
one that Mr. Goggins made, with lines of
communication made between Mr. Cardinale
and the Cemetery Association. Probably a
year and a half ago, we invited
May 2, 2013 Board 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
Mr. Cardinale or a representative. On
several occasions we met with the Town
Board, supervisors, Mr. Ruland was there.
Mr. Cardinale never showed up or a
representative. And he has never
responded to any of communications that
we have had with him. It's like we don't
exist. In view of that, I would like to,
one, ask the Zoning Board, do you have
any record for a demo permit for that
water tower?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: No. We
checked.
MR. ROSE: The proposed building
that they are putting up, the one that
has the foundation up, is an extremely
larger than what the water tank was.
It's further to east and it's tucked
right into the corner, as you can see, on
the property line. There is no two ways
about that. So they made a larger
structure and they have also moved the
location. It's not even on the
footprint. So there are a lot of
concerns that need to be addressed by the
May 2, 2013 Board 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
Zoning Board and a lot of paperwork that
they need revised, I feel. I thank you
for your time. If you have any questions
about the packet that was submitted to
you, Bob Johnson and myself would be more
than happy to answer any questions you
might have. Thank you.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Did you say that
you were going to have a meeting with
Mr. Cardinale?
MR. ROSE: We asked a year and a
half ago.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: What was the
subject of that?
MR. ROSE: We wanted to address the
pipes that were out in the cemetery
property. The drainage pipes, and also
when they started -- they paved the front
parking lot to make it safer. I don't
think it was 25 years ago. It was more
like 15, but they encroached on the front
of our property. We never had any
communication.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Where was this
encroachment?
May 2, 2013 Board Meeting 30
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. ROSE: On the front southeast
corner of the Plaza property. They kind
of squared off to get more parking spaces
as Mr. Goggins was talked about. But
they probably paved three or four feet
onto our property to get those parking
spots.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Does that still
exist?
MR. ROSE: This still exist, right.
So if they had a survey of their
property, it would certainly show the
front parking lot and the back corner,
where their proposed building is
extremely close, it not, on our property.
We certainly would be -- it would appear
that they have. If appears that it
stands on our property right now.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Do you remember
the water tower?
MR. ROSE: Yes.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: And there was a
pump there too?
MR. ROSE: There was a pump out that
was probably, half the size of that area
May 2, 2013 Board Meeting 31
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
~4
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
that you are in. Might have been
-- adjacent to the water tower.
12 by
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Was there a
retaining wall there to hold back the
soil?
MR. ROSE: There was a concrete
block wall. The property slopes down
and
what they did, they brought the
foundation walls up and back filled to
it. I think one of the pictures that you
might have, might show the water tower
and the landscape around it.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: That whole
operation was in the location that it is
in now?
MR. ROSE: Probably within 20-30
feet, yes. But the tower itself was a
little bit further to the west.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Was the pump very
noisy?
MR. ROSE: We never noticed it but
it hasn't been in operation for at
least --
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Right. No
further questions.
May 2, 2013 Board Meeting 32
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
have
MEMBER HORNING: Does the cemetery
a survey of their property?
MR. ROSE: We do.
MEMBER HORNING: Can we use that?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: We can't use
it. It's not going to show their parking
spaces on their property. A proper Site
Plan will be required from the Planning
Board. Just so everyone has the same
information. I would like to provide a
copy of what you submitted to us to
Mr. Goggins --
MR. ROSE: Certainly. He should be
made aware of it.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: We are going
to make a copy for you.
MEMBER HORNING: Might I ask that I
be allowed to ask this fellow to go
through these photos very quickly and
orientate us to them? Some of them are
kind of blurry. I talked about a
monument --
MR. ROSE: Sure. What photo would
you like to start with? This one? This
is their retaining wall. This shows
May 2, 2013 Board 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
their retaining wall and their excavation
on our property. They didn't get a
permit to do it.
MEMBER HORNING: How do you know
it's their property?
MR. ROSE: Their property marker on
the back would be -- on the northeast
corner of the Plaza property, there is a
cement monument in the ground. We had
our property surveyed two years ago. So
you can clearly
line goes right
the property.
see that that property
along the back side of
MEMBER HORNING: Photo B, can you
tell us briefly about that?
MR. ROSE: Can I just make one
comment, briefly about -- Photo B, shows
the cement block poured on top of the
poured concrete foundation with a rebar
going right through it.
MEMBER HORNING: Looking at Photo B,
is there any place where you can say the
old water tower or building was?
MR. ROSE: If you take a look at
where that, I guess, tracker is, in the
May 2, 2013 Board Meeting 34
1
2
3
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
front corner, that area
probably be the area of
tower was.
MEMBER HORNING:
MR. ROSE: That
tower itself. As I said,
really see too much of a
The pump house structure
falling down where that
The next photo,
was cleared out.
tower down, and
to excavate for
would be --
where the water
Photo C?
shows the water
you can't
retaining wall.
is -- probably
cement block was.
I guess when everything
When they took the
they were getting
their back wall.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Let me
question.
ready
ask you
At this time when there was
clearance and removal, were any trees
removed from that area? Or was that
part --
MR. ROSE: The trees that may have
been removed may have been on their
property. I don't think that they
removed any trees on our property but I
can't be certain.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I don't
existing retaining wall in this
see an
May 2, 2013 Board 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
photograph. I am assuming that there is
a retaining wall that is there now?
MR. ROSE: The retaining wall is
part of that foundation.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: What I am
saying is, if you were in the foreground
looking at this, back there would be
where the retaining wall --
MR. ROSE: Right. Through that
excavator you can see that white area
here, that is probably the part of the
retaining wall that went a certain
distance on the property. I don't know
if there was a retaining wall all the way
around that water tower or not. The next
photograph shows the rebar coming out.
You can see the top of the piers on that
particular photo.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The next one
is the drainage pipe?
MR. ROSE: The next one is the
drainage pipe that goes to our property.
That has been removed. The next photo is
taken from the east side of their
property line looking toward that area
May 2, 2013 Board 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
that they have for a recharge basin
for their parking lot overflow, and you
can see the retaining wall that was built
on top of
that area in.
you the rain.
or whatever -- but they filled
The next photo will show
There is one manhole cover
that didn't have anything on top of it.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The Planning
Board is going to have to take careful
look at this because this is all within
the 40 foot buffer that was required in
1971.
MR. ROSE: There were odors of
almost sewage, and you can see where that
puddle is. It almost looks to appear
that it was a sewage overflow but I can't
be certain of that. I am not an expert
of that. And then the last photo shows
the front corner of the parking lot. I
believe our property -- the Suffolk
County monument that is mentioned there.
That is not their property line. Our
property line is to the left of that
Suffolk County marker. Approximately
about three to five feet and goes back
to
May 2, 2013 Board 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
an angle. You can start to see that when
the parking lot starts to angle and takes
a shot to that monument. This line right
here -- if you take off that corner, it
will probably come off into this area
right here. I think a survey would show
that.
MEMBER HORNING: Thank you.
MR. ROSE: Thank you very much.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Is there
anyone else in the audience who wishes to
address this application? Not that we
don't know your name, but please state
your name for the record.
MR. RULAND: My name is William
Ruland and I live in Mattituck. In the
interest of disclosure, many of my family
members are residence of the Cemetery.
And I suppose I will be some day. Two, I
am the Deputy Supervisor of the Town of
Southold. My remarks are more concern
for the residents of the cemetery, both
pass, present and future. That is, we
did hear from Mr. Goggins presentation,
that how the shopping center has grown.
May 2, 2013 Board 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
I am old enough to remember prior to when
it was a shopping center and how it has
grown but we have to remember that
cemetery goes back 150 years more.
certainly it was laid out in a
provided for, as it turns out,
of years of availability for the
community. And we have seen the
the
And
way that
hundreds
cemetery
grow in population. We have seen the
cemetery deal with expansion. And what
many people didn't know and what is being
discussed today, is how the property
actually curves around and goes around to
Factory Avenue, and that someday, in the
future, will be used. My comments are
merely to the Board, on an official
point, several of the Town Board members
have received numerous complaints over
the years, which we have deferred to the
agencies
Building
Department
Certainly,
the Board,
of the
and Code Enforcement, the
Department, and the Planning
about the issue at hand.
what I would like and ask of
for consideration, is that all
issues that have come up that have
May 2, 2013 Board 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
been defined in the documents that have
been presented to you, be addressed
either by your Board or by the Planning
Board. So that when the process is
complete, there will be assurances not
only to the Cemetery Association but also
the entire community that the shopping
center will be a good neighbor, not only
in 2013 but 50 years from now, as it has
been successful in the last. Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Thank you.
Thank you for your comments. Okay.
Anyone who wishes to address this
application?
(No Response.)
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Any other
questions from the Board?
(No Response.)
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Hearing none.
I am going to make a motion to adjourn
this hearing without a date subject to
receipt of the following, you are going
to need a complete survey of the entire
shopping center. We are going to need an
application to the Planning Board and we
May 2, 2013 Board Meeting 40
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
are going to need comments from the
Planning Board so that we can address all
these issues. Working in collaboration
with both authorized Boards. So moved.
Is there a second?
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Ail in favor?
MEMBER DANTES: Aye.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye.
MEMBER HORNING: Aye.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Aye.
Thank you very much.
(See Minutes for Resolution.)
HEARING #6644 FEHIM & SEVGI UYANIK
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: With apologies
if I have butchered the name. The next
application before the Board is for Fehim
and Sevgi Uyanik. Request for variance
from Article XXII Section 280-116 and the
Building Inspector's February 27, 2013
Notice of Disapproval based on an
application for building permit for
additions and alterations to a single
May 2, 2013 Board 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
family dwelling at: Less than the code
permitted setback of 100 feet from the
top of the bluff, located at: 54875 CR
48, a/k/a North Road, adjacent to Long
Island Sound in Greenport.
Pat, before we get started, do you
have a copy of the LWRP?
MS. MOORE: I do. Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay. Would
you like to state your name for the
record?
MS. MOORE: Patricia Moore on behalf
of Mr. & Mrs. Uyanik. And who are here.
And they are both here today. I also
have Angel Chorno who is the architect on
this project and is here as well. As I
go through the standards, I do want to
address the development of this property.
There will be no undesirable change in
the character of this neighborhood. This
property is three merged lots from the
subdivision from W. Young, which is a
1929 map. The property, as I said, is
three subdivision lots that have been
merged together. The original house was
May 2, 2013 Board Meeting 42
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
built on the westerly lot and this
proposed addition is actually making the
house more centered on the property.
Visually, that is the logical location
for the addition. The house is staying
in place. The Uyanik's want to make this
a very year round house and more
comfortable. So they are taking the
existing house and just relocating a
bedroom over to the addition. And extend
-- expanding the living space. You have
the floor plans there. We are connecting
the addition to the existing house and
the layout of the existing house. So to
a certain extent, we have moved the
addition back as far as it is practical,
where the living space, and the plumbing
and all the infrastructure of the house.
The proposed -- well the existing house
is certainly not moving. The concrete
patio is close to what the Board would
consider top of the bank, and about 20
feet -- 15 feet from the bulkhead. The
proposed addition is actually 54 feet
from the bulkhead. It is a lesser
May 2, 2013 Board 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
distance to the bank. I would point out
-- with respect to measuring from the
bank, I think there is a -- I want to say
an error in the interpretation of the
bank and I wilt put that on the record.
There is really no difference in the
sense that we can't move the addition.
The house is in place, but with respect
to taking our measurements and the
setbacks, the accurate setback will be
from the bulkhead rather than the bank.
And I will give you the sections of the
code that I would rely on. And it's one
of those code provisions that is referred
to all the time, but you have to actually
read the code and see what specifically
it says in order to come to a conclusion
with respect to the bank. So I will give
you the sections of the code.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Before you
proceed, I want to clear up. We have a
survey and we have a Notice of
Disapproval.
MS. MOORE: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: And things are
May 2, 2013 Board Meeting 44
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
not adding up here. The amended Notice
of Disapproval dated February 27th, that
says that the proposed construction will
be setback 27 feet from the top of the
bluff.
MS. MOORE: I understand that. That
amended application really did not it
never came from the applicant. It came
through Zoning and the Building
Department. And that is why I would just
place this on the record, because I think
this issue -- that interpretation may not
be correct.
MS. ANDALORO: It sounds like you
just applied for a variance (In Audible)
and appeal the Notice of Disapproval.
That is a different story. Do you know
what I am saying, Pat?
MS. MOORE: I understand that. I am
not trying to prolong this. I am just
trying to establish a factually and by
law what the code says. So that when
youTre reviewing it, whether it's a
variance or reading the code and saying,
well, that is not really what the code
May 2, 2013 Board Meeting 45
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
I1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
says, it should be from the bulkhead.
But the Board always has the right to
interpret whether or not -- you know --
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Right now what
I want to do is a simple thing. We have
a variance before us. And the Notice of
Disapproval says 27 feet from the top of
the bluff, okay. The survey that we have
shows 54 feet to the bulkhead. And 30
feet to the top of the bluff, and a
Coastal Erosion Hazard Line showing the
existing dwelling and all proposed
structures/additions, landward of that.
MS. MOORE: Correct.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: But the
existing concrete patio is in the Coastal
Erosion Hazard Line area.
MS. MOORE: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: So the first
thing that we're going to need to do is
sort out this variance and what in the
world the correct setbacks are.
MEMBER HORNING: So the difference
in the two Notice of Disapproval's -- the
first one talked about 54 feet from the
May 2, 2013 Board Meeting 46
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
top of the bluff --
MS. MOORE: No, the
MEMBER HORNING: It
bluff." I am reading it.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
bulkhead.
says "top of
the
Initially,
applicants
came
I reviewed those prior to
applying. The survey that
originally did not show the bank,
the bluff. Whatever it is labeled on
there. So I am looking at this and
somebody put it on here. This was an old
survey. So I asked for clarification.
We received a new survey and we used top
of the bluff or bank, that there was no
receive a copy of the Notice of
Disapproval and associated documents that
we receive from the Building Department.
One second,
George. Because I believe Vicki was
involved in this process with the
Building Department, she is going to be
in a good position to help us understand
it a little better. So I am going to ask
her to enter that information into the
record.
MS. TOTH: The Board Members do not
May 2, 2013 Board 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
direct notation of the exact setback to
that bluff. So the Building Department
put in there what they kind of scaled
off, 27 feet. That's where it came from.
Prior to the submittal from the
applicant, I required a survey that
showed the exact setback because that is
what we need in order to proceed and have
surveys to stamp and send back to
Building.
MEMBER HORNING: So let me ask my
questions. So I am looking at a
February 21st Notice of Disapproval that
says the setback 54 feet from, as it
says, "top of the bluff." And a week
later or six days later there is an
amended Notice of Disapproval that says
the setback is 27 feet from the top of
the bluff. I am asking what changed?
Where did this information come from that
changed from the Notice of Disapproval?
MS. TOTH: What happened was,
George, let me show you the original.
George, this is the original survey that
we submitted to obtain a Notice of
May 2, 2013 Board Meeting 48
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Disapproval. This pencil stuff was done
by Building. Okay? When he came to me
this showed -- he took it to a bulkhead.
Meaning the Building Inspector's. I
believe he inadvertently put bluff where
he meant bulkhead, because there is your
54. When I looked at this and saw the
survey, "TOB." "TOB" means to me, top of
the bluff. So I requested an updated
survey which we received here.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Let the
audience understand and --
MS. TOTH: This is what we have now.
As you can see, we have to take this
corner to the top of the bluff, which is
30 and not the 27. The approximate that
they put in because they determined that
it was farther away.
MEMBER HORNING: So you are saying
it's actually 30?
MS. TOTH: Right. This is only what
he put in that he had available.
MEMBER HORNING: So the original
Notice of Disapproval dated
February 21st, he was talking about 54
May 2, 2013 Board 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
feet from the bulkhead?
MS. TOTH: From the bulkhead.
MEMBER HORNING: That makes sense.
Okay. The attorney is just maintaining
the fact that they missed -- that they
should be taking the reading from the
bulkhead and not the top of the bluff?
MS. MOORE: That is all I am
addressing.
MEMBER HORNING: Understood.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Now that we
have that sorted out. Now, we don't have
the updated survey in our packet.
MS. TOTH: Yes, you do. The one
that says, 30.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay. I
didn't see 30 because that is probably
where the bank shifts. They took the
measurement from the center. From the
center of the new construction. Ail
right. I just want the record to reflect
the fact that Vicki had the authority to
review and approve applications as
complete. That is where she got involved
and that is why she understands and just
May 2, 2013 Board Meeting 50
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
informed the
working with
to how those
Board of the process in
the Building Department as
setbacks were determined and
where the amended Notice of Disapproval
came from. The Board does not get that
information until this is determined that
the application is complete and jives
with the Notice of Disapproval. That is
-- after that point, the application goes
forward. Okay. So we now are looking at
a bluff setback of 27 feet. Okay. From
the bank.
MS. MOORE: I think he said, 30? I
am confused.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Well, 27 is
what he scaled off, from the Building
Department for the new construction,
because the bank goes to angle.
MS. MOORE: That's fine.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The 30 foot
mark is accurate for the existing
structure. Ail right. And it's 27 feet
to the top of the bluff. The code
requires 100 feet from the top of the
bluff. Just so we're clear on that.
May 2, 2013 Board Meeting 51
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
Okay. Now, at least we know what we're
looking at. Just for the record, the
LWRP indicates consistency in the case
that the lot is 430 foot deep and
therefore has the capacity to site
additions further away than the Coastal
Erosion Hazard area. And it is also
arguing that the existing concrete patio,
which is not permeable, should be located
outside any of those kinds of --
non-permeable structure should be located
outside the Coastal Erosion Hazard area.
Pat, where are you with the Trustees?
Have you applied?
MS. MOORE: No. It didn't make
sense. May I proceed?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Yes, please
do.
MS. MOORE: Sorry about the
confusion. That was the only record that
I have. So thank you, George, for
clarifying. You know, I have provided
you with the law with respect to that
definition. With respect to the LWRP
recommendation, we recognize that the
May 2, 2013 Board Meeting 52
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
house where it is, is considered
inconsistent with its placement.
However, typically, existing structures
are not -- they are not sounding
consistent because they're
structures. That is
we have here. This
house. The existing
It's a
and my
preexisting
the whole point that
is an addition to the
house is remaining.
significant value of the addition
clients are not proposing a
demolition or
They are taking their
making it all part of
existing
that the
and down the
map, you can see
are in this area,
reconstruction in any way.
existing house and
the new combined
and the addition. So the fact
lot is very deep, if you look up
photographs and the Google
that all the homes that
are in fact very close
to the shoreline. One, because they are
preexisting. Secondly, being on Route
48, most of the houses want to stay away
from the home because of the noise and
activity of County Route 48. So this
proposal is in fact consistent with the
character and the development along this
May 2, 2013 Board 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
stretch of County Route 48.
MEMBER HORNING: Pat, may I ask --
MS. MOORE: Go ahead.
MEMBER HORNING: There is a Pre-CO;
correct?
date
MS. MOORE: There is a CO. Yes.
MEMBER HORNING: Can you give us a
when --
MS. MOORE: Oh, gosh. 1949 or so.
It's 40's vintage. It's solid house.
The basement is made out of -- the poured
foundation, we're remembering
it is
block. This is a two-story house.
the most part it is -- it is staying
For
intact. I have the architect here. So
if you want to go through the plans with
respect to the renovation of the existing
house, we can look at that
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
would like to ask a couple
specifically?
Actually, I
of specific
questions. So
to the podium?
MS. MOORE:
if Mr.
state
Chorno would come
Okay.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Would you
your name for the record, please?
May 2, 2013 Board Meeting 54
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. CHORNO: Angel Chorno.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Thank
You indicate on your floor plan,
first floor of the existing
to be remodeled? Okay?
MR. CHORNO: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
anything, is going to be
existing exterior walls?
extent of --
MR. CHORNO: The exterior walls are
only -- we are going to modify. Just the
exterior on the west side, is just
different.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Different kind
of what?
MR. CHORNO: Of siding. Inside
obviously, we are putting the addition in
yOU.
the
dwelling is
What, if
done to the
And what is the
already?
modified.
But the
as-built or modified
MR. CHORNO: This is
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
exterior --
and everything will have to be modified.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: And is that
what you are showing us? Is that
May 2, 2013 Board Meeting 55
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. CHORNO: That was a bedroom
before. And that bedroom was eliminated
and we put the new bedroom in the
addition.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay. We
don't have as-built. So I just wanted to
clarify what kind of renovation you were
doing in there.
MR. CHORNO: We are putting in -- in
a different location is a new stair. The
kitchen has changed location and the
master bedroom is left on the front. And
they are working business people and they
really need a den for business purposes.
MS. MOORE: Just for the record,
they run the Southold Beach Motel. They
are local business people.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Ail right.
What about the expansion of the existing
basement?
MR. CHORNO: No, we are not
expanding the existing basement.
CHAIRPERSON
you are going to
foundation
WEISMAN: Ail right.
leave the existing
in place?
So
May 2, 2013 Board Meeting 56
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. CHORNO: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: And the
of the addition will be on slab?
MR. CHORNO: Crawl space.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Crawl
rest
space.
Questions from the Board?
MEMBER HORNING: I will ask a
couple. Given the statement from the
LWRP coordinator that there is an ability
to site the additions further away from
the Coastal Erosion Hazard area and
minimize the potential of
structure loss, given the
the property, 430 feet.
future
large depth of
And given the
to issue the
as possible, how
it 9 feet
fact that it is our job
least amount of variance
far is that setback? Is
landward the addition existing building?
What is that dimension?
MR. CHORNO: 18 and 4 inches
MEMBER HORNING: Patios and
umbrellas?
foot
back.
MR. CHORNO: The center would be
4.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Further
18
May 2, 2013 Board Meeting 57
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
landward?
MR. CHORNO: Further from where the
house is.
MEMBER HORNING: Now, they're
setting the setback not from that
particular area.
MR. CHORNO: Well, yes. I don't
know.
they
MS. MOORE: The measurement -- what
did is, architecturally, the bedroom
as such is to the far east side. That is
identified as Bedroom %2, extends out to
create a courtyard effect of the patio.
That area there we have talked, that is
the optimum, but if you want us to look
at it, there is -- I am going to call
polygon portion, which it could be
brought back by the 5 feet, which is
equivalent of that polygon. That is
area that could be
proposed
house. Architecturally, you
to create this straight line.
not architecturally desired.
it's the way that this house
-- the whole plan
further back then the existing
don't want
the
an
was
One, it's
Secondly,
would be set
May 2, 2013 Board Meeting 58
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
up; however, there is a little bit of
room. After seeing the LWR?'s
recommendation, there really is no place
to move the great room. Pushing that
back is very difficult because of it's
proximity. However, the bedroom we have
about 5 feet that is discretionary. Can
be pushed back.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: You're talking
about Bedroom #2?
MS. MOORE: Bedroom #2. I am only
talking about Bedroom #2.
MEMBER HORNING: That is on the east
side?
MS. MOORE: That is on the east side
of the house. What we would then do is
fill in by -- where we're taking out some
of the bedroom, we could fill in, if it
would be permissible, the east side.
There is about the equivalent dimension
that could be filled in. It's not going
any closer to the water than what the
polygon was cut off. And it's moving on
the side yard. We have plenty of room.
We have an existing setback proposed of
May 2, 2013 Board Meeting 59
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
48.6 feet. So taking that and filling up
and extending it towards the water,
diagonally -- horizontally going back to
the west.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: It's a little
difficult for most people to follow
the --
MS. MOORE:
show it on the
Yes. Do you want me to
survey?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I am looking
at the floor plan now. The new landward
entry is kind of tucked between the new
garage and the master bedroom as you have
now proposed.
MR. CHORNO: Correct.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Is there any
reason why that entire great room and
entry could not be pushed more landward
so that the door, the front door into the
great room, is parallel and continuos
width, the existing or the proposed
Master Bedroom #17
MR. CHORNO: When you see the
existing house and Master Bedroom #1,
that has two large windows. The owner
May 2, 2013 Board Meeting 60
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
very much would like to keep. So I began
the great room at the edge of that one
window. That is existing. If I push
that landward, I will be covering that
window that they wanted to preserve.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I understand
that, but one of the things that we're
trying to do is protect property from
loss. I guess since this is not a
demolition you don't have to worry about
being in compliance with foundation and
so on, and you're not in the AE Zone.
And this is all being pushed landward,
but it is still very close to the top of
the bank or bluff. So what we're trying
to do is to see how this new addition can
still make architectural sense. You
know, I understand and have a great deal
of empathy trying to make structures that
are aesthetically pleasing and logical
and layout as any architect would expect.
However, I do appreciate the desire to
have that, the other ones -- they would
only have windows on the front
elevation --
May 2, 2013 Board Meeting 61
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. CHORNO: They would like to
preserve.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Understand.
You know, again as George pointed out,
our job is to grant the least amount of
variance as possible. And I don't see
anything, other than the window, any
normal compromise, from the circulation
that you're proposing taking place than
moving that entire new addition closer to
-- more landward. I am looking at --
MS. MOORE: Let me say -- the
owner --
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: You have to
state your name for the record, please.
MS. UYANIK: My name is Fehim
Uyanik.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Speak up as
loudly as possible because we're
recording.
MS. UYANIK: I will. The reason
that we did like an "H" to the front, if
we take it back, then we're losing the
connection to the kitchen. Do you see
it? There is a Great Room that should be
May 2, 2013 Board Meeting 62
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
connected with the house. If we pull it
up to the front to the level of existing,
then the kitchen will be all the way at
the other end of the living room or Great
Room, and I don't think that it is
practical because mainly -- I want in the
center. It will look ugly.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
move that,
The Great
MS. UYANIK:
end.
CHAIRPERSON
necessarily.
feet landward
MS. UYANIK:
CHAIRPERSON
at what you have
Well, if you
you would still be connected.
Room would be connected --
But all the way at the
WEISMAN: Well, not
It depends on how many more
the whole thing
Well --
WEISMAN:
here and
I am looking
the character
side. We are not going to count the
steps. What is the distance -- it looks
like it is almost the same.
MR. CHORNO: Maybe just a little
more under 15.
MS. MOORE: You would actually lose
the -- is this open or is this a wall?
May 2, 2013 Board Meeting 63
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
She doesn't like it.
MR. CHORNO: Wall.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The job of
this Board is not to redesign things.
What we're trying to do is find out
either by moving more landward or by
cutting back the size of the Great Room
by another 5 feet. Your choice. The
point is, you cut the Great Room back you
still have a bedroom to be not moved
back. You really need to move that whole
portion landward. You are proposing 27
feet. The Notice of Disapproval says a
new construction with proposal of 27 feet
bank.
MEMBER HORNING: And another foot is
required.
MS. MOORE: And I keep raising the
issue it's not -- if you look at the
code, the bank is not a perceptive slope.
It's the -- this particular bank is 16%
slope.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: As a matter of
fact -- some part of that slope is well
vegetated. There is another part of the
May 2, 2013 Board Meeting 64
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
slope
that is in fact, to the east of the
septic, it's pretty bald. The rest of
the existing steps, it's pretty well
vegetated, but there is probably going
be
Is it measured to
because that is a
proposed area --
MS. MOORE: That
structure. Actually,
to
a little vegetation --
MS. MOORE: Certainly that is not a
problem. We are prepared to improve the
property. Also between the bulkhead and
the jetty, they would not be building if
they thought that this addition would be
compromised in any way. They have
this property for how many years?
than 20 years. So they do know --
as what risk development entails.
MEMBER HORNING: Can I ask a
question then? The proposed patio is
that at grade or above grade?
MS. MOORE: At grade.
MEMBER HORNING: I am trying to
figure out where this 27% is measured to.
the front of the patio
new construction or is
owned
More
as far
would be considered
I will tell you the
May 2, 2013 Board Meeting 65
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
1
2
3
4
5
closest measurement is actually Bedroom
#2 is. So everything else is further
back. So we have given you the closest
point. The existing house is closer.
MEMBER HORNING: Looking at what we
have. The survey says 30 feet to the
corner -- I would call it the northeast
corner of the existing house.
MS. MOORE: Hold on. I have to pull
up the right survey.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Look the
easiest thing that we can do, is we can
close subject to receipt or we can grant
alternative relief for the setback or you
can redesign it and submit, slightly more
landward. That's all. Doesn't change
the architecture very much. You can
figure out that dimension. We are going
to have to sort out some of these
numbers.
MS. MOORE: I do understand. The
Great Room where it is, and it's
relationship to the bedroom is important.
It seems that we're measuring -- the
closer point being the bedroom, and it's
May 2, 2013 Board Meeting 66
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
that bedroom -- the east side of the
house, which is the bedroom and the
garage that we have more flexibility to
move back or cut off some of the square
footage of the bedroom. That is where we
thought the most flexibility of the
bedroom would be in the design. The
Great Room, there has been a lot of
thought for the Great Room. Quite
frankly, we designed this in such a way
that right from the beginning we designed
this so that we would be out of the
Coastal Erosion area. That was a must.
We designed so that it was further back
than the existing structure. So they
came here with what they thought was a
reasonable application
process.
house. It
as an addition to
should -- they're
an existing
trying --
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I respect all
of that and I do respect the design
And understand that there is a
lot of thought that goes into it.
However, I think in fairness, all the way
around, the best thing to do is to
May 2, 2013 Board 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
adjourn
this to next month and let you
have an opportunity to think it through
and come back to us. That way, you
understand what our concerns are.
Certainly we want to have the patio
the Coastal Erosion Hazard
It should not be a burden at all
you already have another terrace
you're proposing anyway.
That would not
MS.
problem.
MOORE:
area removed.
because
that
be a
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: That would
take care of one of the concerns of the
LWRP recommendation.
MS. MOORE: You are allowed a 200
square feet --
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: You are.
than 200 square foot.
but certainly, if you
small patio there, it
and not just solid concrete.
Less
You can do that
want to have a
should be pervious
MS. MOORE: Okay.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Let
what other questions the Board
might have and see if there is
me see
members
anyone in
May 2, 2013 Board Meeting 68
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
the audience.
MEMBER HORNING: I just want to
point out, I had asked a question earlier
about how far set back from the original
structure were you proposing new
construction, and I got an answer of
about 18 feet or something. But yet,
Notice of Disapproval is citing you for
27 foot setback, which is even more
nonconforming than the existing setback
the
a
and it appears as though the proposed
patio and trellis area is a part of the
new construction and it is not at grade.
So the 27 foot setback kind of includes
that area. So I don't see that the
proposed construction is set back from
the top of the bluff any greater distance
than the original
all I really want
MS. MOORE:
trying to say.
reading the numbers
west side, because
-- is not
west side,
construction.
to say.
I understand what
I don't think that
correctly. On
remember the bank
a straight line. So on the
the closest point
That is
you're
you're
the
is
was given,
May 2, 2013 Board Meeting 69
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
which is 30 feet. Then the addition is
set back behind the closest point of the
house, the farthest --
MEMBER HORNING: The proposed
patio --
MS. MOORE: The patio will be on
grade.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: We will solve
this. Have a licensed professional, he
can do a Site Plan and with his stamp on
it and verify the as-built's bluff and
the bulkhead, based upon the survey and
where the proposed construction is going
to be, and including the Coastal Erosion
Hazard Line. Ail right. I would request
that we adjourn until next month. And
then have you provide either an updated
survey by a licensed surveyor or at the
very least, a readable large enough Site
Plan.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Perhaps you might
want to obtain the idea of the proposed
Bedroom %2 also.
MS. MOORE: Okay. Yes. As the
alternative relief, yes.
May 2, 2013 Board Meeting 70
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Yes. You might
be able to do something with that storage
area. So maybe show us something along
those lines also.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Are there any
other comments from the audience?
(No Response.)
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Ail right.
Hearing no further comments, I am going
to make a motion to adjourn this hearing
to June 6th at 10:00 A.M.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Seconded by
Gerry.
Ail in
MEMBER
favor?
DANTES: Aye.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye.
MEMBER HORNING: Aye.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Aye.
(See Minutes for Resolution.)
HEARING #6647 RICHARD ZAHRA
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The next
application before the Board is for
May 2, 2013 Board 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
Richard Zahra, #6647. Request for
variances from Article XXIII Section
280-124 and the Building Inspector's
January 23, 2013 Notice of Disapproval
based on an application for building
permit for as-built deck and raised patio
addition to existing single family
dwelling, at 1) less than the code
required minimum rear yard setback of 35
feet, 2) more than the code permitted
maximum lot coverage of 20%, located at:
445 Marlene Lane in Mattituck.
Is there someone here to represent
that application? Please come forward
and state your name for the record and
spell it.
MR. ZAHRA: I am Richard Zahra. I
don't know if you --
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Yes. We need
those green cards. And Mr. Zahra from
neighbors that I would like to give you a
copy of. This is for you. This is an
application for an as-built deck and
raised patio addition to a family
dwelling, with a rear yard setback of
May 2, 2013 Board Meeting 72
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
12.3 feet, where the code is 35 feet.
The lot coverage is 26.51%, where the
code permits a maximum of 20%. Okay.
The lot is less than 20,000 square
We have letters of support from
neighbors. And you have submitted
feet.
documentation of property's
with excessive lot coverage
setback variances in this neighborhood.
What would you like to tell us?
MR. ZAHRA: I am repeating what you
just said, if you would bear with me for
a minute. I would like to give the Board
some things for the Board to take into
consideration when making your decision.
two
I am applying for
for lot coverage of
in the area
and rear yard
As you know,
variances. One
23.5%, which is
12 feet. The
patio that is
grade. And no
3.5 over. And a set of
setback is for a cement
14 inches and that is to
structure is going to be
built on that patio. That is just simply
a patio. I checked into past variances
that were approved in my area. I came up
with about four of them. File %5995, lot
May 2, 2013 Board Meeting 73
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
coverage 24.2%. File #6239, lot coverage
28.6%. File #5961, lot coverage 21.29%.
And File #5843, lot coverage 21.5% and a
rear yard setback of 15 feet. I don't
have a file for a neighbor of mine,
Mr. Collins,
Marlene Lane,
whose house is at 225
but he has a small piece
of property with an extended garage,
which is approximately 5 feet off the
back of the property line. The other
point that I would like to mention is,
is that the only one who would be able to
see my deck and patio is my neighbors to
the left, Ms. Rose Fioro and to the
right, Mr.
plus three
stating no
Tim McGowan. These neighbors,
others submitted the letters
objections to my project. As
to my neighbor to the rear of my
property, Mr. Gerald Flynn, his property
is 519 feet front to back. And then there
is about 300 feet of wooded property that
is between me and him, which means that
even in the winter time when there is no
leaves on the trees, you can't see his
house and he can't see mine.
May 2, 2013 Board Meeting 74
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1
2
3
4
5
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: How big of
buffer of vegetation is there?
MR. ZAHRA: About 250 feet, I
believe. This shows it basically now
with some leaves on it.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Mr. Zahra, can I
just ask you on one of your exhibits that
you gave to us? You said one of them was
28.66% in lot coverage. Which one --
MR. ZAHRA: That was File #6239.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Thank you.
MEMBER HORNING: While we're asking
a little bit of questions. With these
letters of support from your neighbors
and using this very good information that
you submitted about neighborhood
variances, and your property showing on
there, could you just quickly go through
these letters of support and identify
where these people live. Val Azara?
MR. ZAHRA: Val Azara is right
across the street from my house.
MEMBER HORNING: Ail right. 445
Marlene --
MR. ZAHRA: That is my house. Val
May 2, 2013 Board 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
Azara is one of the people that I needed
to send the notice to. And I never got a
return back from him.
MEMBER HORNING: Richards?
MR. ZAHRA: Richards is the house
across from mine. Again, right next door
to Val Azara's house. And I did receive
a response back from him.
MEMBER HORNING: And Tim McGowan?
MR. ZAHRA: Tim McGowan, facing my
house, he is the neighbor to the right.
MEMBER HORNING: Okay. Is there a
tiny right-of-way?
MR. ZAHRA: Yes. That is the Town
-- that is the runoff for the water. You
know, because there is no water for
sewage. It's about a 25 foot wide piece
of property.
MEMBER HORNING: And Ms. Urist?
MR. ZAHRA: Yeah. I believe -- I
think that is the people next -- They are
in the back. Because my property is 100
feet wide and the property immediately to
my rear is 75. So this other people. I
think there property comes in there too.
May 2, 2013 Board 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
MEMBER HORNING: It says 300
Marlene, wouldn't that be across the
street?
MR. ZAHRA: What is the name again,
sir?
MEMBER HORNING: U-R-I-S-T.
MR. ZAHRA: Oh, Urist. That is
across the street. Yes. Right.
MEMBER HORNING: We have Rose --
MR. ZAHRA: Right. She is my
neighbor to the left of me.
MEMBER HORNING: Immediately to the
left?
MR. ZAHRA: Yes.
MEMBER HORNING: Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I should just
point out for the record that you are
putting in a -- it's all framed out, a
wooden deck as well with a conforming
setback. A portion of the poured masonry
deck, is about only 12 foot in width.
MR. ZAHRA: Right.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: So what we're
talking about is a nonconformance of a
rear yard setback of 12 feet?
May 2, 2013 Board Meeting 77
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. ZAHRA: Right.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Does the Board
have any other questions?
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: What is the
height of that concrete patio?
MR. ZAHRA: When the final grade, 14
inches. There is two steps down and the
steps are 7
MEMBER
to
inches each.
SCHNEIDER:
put something on top
MR. ZAHRA: Some patio
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: And
would the height be?
MR. ZAHRA: I would
probably another inch and
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: So
inches?
MR. ZAHRA: Oh, yes.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Do
fence around that?
MR. ZAHRA: A fence?
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Yes.
MR. ZAHRA:
of the height, I
required.
And you're going
of that?
blocks.
then what
say it's
a quarter.
less than 18
you propose a
No, we weren't, because
don't think that it was
May 2, 2013 Board Meeting 78
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: You don't have
to.
MEMBER HORNING: Couple of other
questions. How were you cited for the
Notice of Disapproval as-built? What
happened?
MR. ZAHRA: Somebody on my block. I
am the president of the block association
over there. And when you're the
president of the association, not
everybody is a friend. They don't go
along with everything that you say, and I
had somebody call up on me. I think I
know who the person is because he's
friends with other people on the block.
MEMBER HORNING: Right. People
shouldn't be constructing things without
a building permit.
MR. ZAHRA: Right.
MEMBER HORNING: On your
questionnaire that you filed with your
application. It's A through F and on
Question F, you say that -- the question
is, "Do you have any construction taking
place at this time concerning your
May 2, 2013 Board 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
premises?" And you answered "no." So I
am curious on --
MR. ZAHRA: Because the construction
was held up.
MEMBER HORNING: That is the reason
you're saying, no?
MR. ZAHRA: Right. I'm sorry, I
can't make up his name. He came to the
house yesterday. When he came to the
house he observed that the work was done
quite a while ago. You can see that it's
starting to get aged and everything.
MR.
recall.
year.
MEMBER HORNING: When
ZAHRA: Oh, boy.
It had to be last
did you stop?
I can't
summer. Last
MEMBER HORNING: Thank you.
MR. ZAHRA: Which means I can't walk
out my kitchen door. My wife can't walk
out the kitchen door. It was her idea.
Let me tell you, it wasn't my idea.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: There is never
any intention of putting any structure
over this concrete patio?
MR. ZAHRA: Oh, definitely not. No.
May 2, 2013 Board 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
No. I have enough.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Is there
anyone else in the audience who wishes to
address this application?
(No Response.)
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Hearing no
further comments, I am going to make a
motion to close this hearing and reserve
decision to a later date.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Ail in favor?
MEMBER DANTES: Aye.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye.
MEMBER HORNING: Aye.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Aye.
(See Minutes for Resolution.)
HEARING #6645 - ROMAN CATHOLIC
CHURCH OF THE SACRED HEART
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The next
application before the Board is for
Catholic Church of the Sacred Heart,
#6645. Request for variance under
Roman
May 2, 2013 Board Meeting 81
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Article IV Section 280-14 and the
Building Inspector's January 28, 2013
Notice of Disapproval based on an
application for building permit for a lot
line change, at: Proposed Lot #10 1)
less than the code required minimum lot
size of 80,000 square feet, located at:
3400 Depot Lane and 4200
Cutchogue.
Again, for the record,
Depot Lane in
the subject
Lot, %12 will remain conforming at
1,546.4 feet. Lot #10 will become more
conforming from 75,664 to -- more
nonconforming to 54,129 square feet,
which will also require Planning Board
approval. And we have our memorandum
from the Planning Board. Did you get a
copy?
MR.
GOGGINS: No, I did not.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: We will get
you a copy. Basically they support the
variance. They have the same concerns
that I believe this Board will -- I
certainly will. I would like some
consideration for potential adverse
May 2, 2013 Board Meeting 82
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
impact on the property -- the residential
property that will be adjoining the rear
yard. Their rear yard will adjoin a
portion of the property for a grave site.
If you take out the survey you will know
what I am talking about. It's Lot # --
there is no lot number. There is just a
tax number. Isaac and Isaac property,
which is adjacent to the subject parcel.
And that property will have part of their
rear yard lined impacted. So let's see
what you have to tell us.
MR. GOGGINS: Okay. William
Goggins. Law Office of Goggins and
Palumbo, 13235 Main Road, Mattituck, New
York for the applicant. Yes, we have
submitted a Site Plan to the Planning
Board. They do support the application.
Let me just give you a little history of
why we're doing this. When the cemetery
was laid out, it was probably unbeknownst
setting up the lot,
right on the
the area. The
to the supervisor in
the grave sites were
property line behind
shaded area. So that the tombstones
were
May 2, 2013 Board 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
right on the property line. We're not
sure if the (In Audible) are right there
as well. It might even traverse the
property lines in some areas. So we
found out about that because people were
visiting grave sites in the area and they
were finding golf balls around the grave
site. Mr. Boliardi (phonetic) owns the
property behind it. His golf balls were
occasionally going into the cemetery.
Then people were visiting the cemetery
visiting their deceased loved ones.
There was an animal. There were animals
going into Mr. Boliardi's property and so
there was a little bit of an issue. As
the church went through the process of
trying to work things out, they realized
that the grave sites were right on the
property line. So they came up with what
they call a "reasonable solution" that
they do a lot line change. And along the
eastern part, they wanted to make it six
feet wide so they could ensure that all
grave sites are in the cemetery area. And
they could also put a screen there. And
May 2, 2013 Board 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
then they also wanted to purchase that
additional property. It really didn't
make sense for the church just to buy the
six feet, and the owner, did not want to
sell the six feet. He wanted to sell more
and wanted the money for it. So we had
worked out -- I can give you a signed
real estate written contract where the
church is buying the shaded area from
Mr. Boliardi and part of the contract,
the parties agreed to put a buffer of
of the history of where
So we have a contract.
church paying $110 or
arborvitae's or Leland Cyprus trees along
the eastern boundary line. That is kind
we got to today.
I believe the
$115,000.00 --
$110,000.00 for this property,
the approval. The concern that
the Isaac's property.
the property any mere. The owners are
here. No. Isaac owns it. I understand
that concern. The church doesn't have any
problems to any restrictions that the
Board wants. Their main concern is that
eastern area of the grave sites.
subject to
you had to
Isaac doesn't own
May 2, 2013 Board Meeting 85
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: It's 234.99
square feet, but what is the actual
length?
MR. GOGGINS: We have 82 along
way.
that
Okay. Ken, questions?
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Yes.
Mr. Goggins, would the church be in favor
of putting screening along that whole
property line?
MR. GOGGINS:
Board wanted, yeah,
problem with that.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER:
agreement would be to the existing
property owner that you are buying this
parcel from, you're placing it on the
east side?
MR. GOGGINS: Correct.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: What about along
that southern section of the property?
Is he requiring that also?
MR. GOGGINS: No, he is not.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: And then on what
If that is what the
they would have no
Right now, the
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: 234.9. Okay.
May 2, 2013 Board 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
we will call
think that is
concern was,
that 82 foot
Leslie?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
MR. GOGGINS:
screening there.
appropriate.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER:
the Isaac's property, I
what the Chairperson's
along their eastern side,
section. Is that correct,
Yes.
The church would add
Whatever is
Right now,
looking back at the Isaac's property
there is southern property line of 170
feet, is there any screening there now?
MR. GOGGINS: No.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: But there are
grave sites to the south of that
property?
MR. GOGGINS: No. There are grave
sites there but there aren't any that
being used at this time.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Ail right.
further questions.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: George?
MEMBER HORNING: I don't have
questions.
are
No
any
May 2, 2013 Board Meeting 87
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
CHAIRPERSON
MEMBER GOEHRINGER:
MEMBER DANTES: No
WEISMAN: Gerry?
No questions.
questions.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Is there
anyone else in the audience who would
like to address this application?
MS. MCCAFFERY: I am Virginia
McCaffery. M-C-C-A-F-F-E-R-Y. I am 4405
Depot Lane. I am across the street from
the cemetery. As a person who has lived
there all my life. We have no objections
to the way that the cemetery looks as it
is now. And I don't believe that
Mrs. Isaac does either. And even if she
did, she would have put something up of
her own. My only concern was how this
property was going to be used. I have
been reassured that it's probably going
to be used more as a cremation garden,
where the cremated people will be placed,
and the stones will be extremely iow or
on the ground. My concern is was more
about mausoleum being built there and
that would really upset me. I am also
not too crazy about the way the diocese
May 2, 2013 Board 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
is now putting in the stones in straight
lines. So I was glad to be reassured
that they were thinking about the
cremation gardens and that would be more
important to me. I have no objections to
that as long as it isn't changed that
much. Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Thank you for
your testimony.
Is there anyone else?
(No Response.)
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Anything else
from the Board?
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Nope.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Hearing no
further questions or comments, I will
make a motion to close this hearing and
reserve decision to a
MEMBER HORNING:
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
MEMBER DANTES: Aye.
later date.
Second.
Ail in
favor?
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye.
MEMBER HORNING: Aye.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Aye.
May 2, 2013 Board Meeting 89
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
(See Minutes for Resolution.)
HEARING #6643
CONSTANTINO
CHAIRPERSON
application
and Carmelo
for variance
280-18 (Bulk
Inspector's
Disapproval
RALPH & CARMELO
WEISMAN: The next
before the Board is for Ralph
Constantino, #6643. Request
from Article IV Section
Schedule) and the Building
February 13, 2013 Notice of
based on an application for
building permit
alterations to
dwelling, at: 1) less
required minimum rear
feet, located at: 2105
Road, corner North View
View Drive in Orient.
Please just state
record.
for
additions
single
MR. BROWN: Robert
the Constantino's.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
and alterations
for additions and
existing single family
than the code
yard setback of
Brown's Hill
50
Drive and South
your name for the
Brown, architect
family dwelling
This is for
to an existing
with a rear yard
May 2, 2013 Board Meeting 90
6
7
8
9'
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
setback of 22.6 feet, where the code
requires 50 feet. We have all been out
there to inspect the site. The property
is on a very substantial curve and has
what looks like (In Audible) --
MR. BROWN:
we're here.
CHAIRPERSON
That is
exactly why
WEISMAN: There
second floor addition with a new
What would you like to tell us?
MR. BROWN: Well, you pretty
covered my talking points. It is
is a
pergola.
much
an
unusual property and back yard and front
yard, which what would normally be a side
yard is the
an existing
single-story. Single
with two bedrooms.
building permit to
rear yard technically.
structure. It was a
as-of-right. But in order
the project, we're
It's
to build something
over the existing first floor
is preexisting nonconforming,
the unusual conditions of the
family residence
And we have a
build a second floor
to complete
asking for a variance
from the second floor
area, which
because of
property.
May 2, 2013 Board Meeting 91
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
Very little of any of the footprint can
be seen from outside the (In Audible)
vegetation surrounding it. And if you
have any questions, I would be more than
happy to answer them.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The current
setback of the preexisting nonconforming
dwelling is 22.6 feet. And you are
proposing a second floor addition at 24.6
feet?
MR. BROWN: We are setting it back
two feet.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: From the
property line?
MR. BROWN: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: This is the
neighbor, David and Judith Miller, are
they the ones that are
rear property --
MR. BROWN: Yes.
most impacted neighbor.
adjoining that
They would be the
Everyone
across. If you would like, I can get
letter from the Miller's if you would
prefer --
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: This is an
else is
a
May 2, 2013 Board 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
e-mail addressed to the architect,
Mr. Brown. We live at 270 Sound View
Drive in Orient Point. Right next to
Ralph and Cam Constantino. I understand
that (In Audible) obtain a variance. Let
me make it clearly, that I have no
objections to the improvements that they
are making to their home. We have
carefully reviewed the plans and have no
objection whatsoever to those
improvements. If you have any questions
they left a phone number. Very Truly
Yours, David and Judith Miller.
Gerry?
MEMBER
this entire
GOEHRINGER: At the end of
construction, you are going
to have 22.6 feet clean that you can get
around this house; is that correct?
MR. BROWN: Absolutely.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Okay. For fire
and emergency purposes.
MR. BROWN: We are not coming any
closer than the existing.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: George?
May 2, 2013 Board Meeting 93
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MEMBER HORNING: No. I have no
questions.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Ken?
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: No questions.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Eric?
MEMBER DANTES: No questions.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Is there
anyone in the audience that would
address this application?
(No Response.)
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
like to
Hearing no
further comments or questions, I am going
to make a motion to close the hearing and
reserve decision to a later date.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER:
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
MEMBER DANTES: Aye.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye.
MEMBER HORNING: Aye.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye.
Second.
Ail in favor?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Aye.
(See Minutes for Resolution.)
*****************************************
HEARING %6646 NICK PALUMBO
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The next
May 2, 2013 Board 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
application before the Board is for Nick
Palumbo, %6646. Request for variance
from Article III, Section 280-15 and the
Building Inspector's March 7, 2013 Notice
of Disapproval based on an application
for building permit for construction of
accessory in-ground swimming pool, at
1) accessory in-ground swimming pool is
proposed in a location other than the
code required rear yard; located at:
1245 Gillette Drive and East Gillette
Drive in East Marion.
MR. BIRKMIER: Hello, how are you?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Good morning.
Good almost-afternoon. Please state your
name for the record.
Fork
MR. BIRKMIER:
Pool Care.
Bill Birkmier, North
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
have -- do you have any
MR. BIRKMIER: No,
everything into the Town.
Building Department.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
four.
Okay. What
Green Cards?
I brought
To the
we
We're missing
May 2, 2013 Board Meeting 95
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
i
2
3
4
5
MR. BIRKMIER: I didn't
back. Two, four -- actually
mail receipt and one refused.
was brought in signed.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
MR. BIRKMIER: Seven.
get anything
one with no
The rest
property line. And you have included a
proposed drywell and pump equipment on
your survey. So let's see who has any
questions. Gerry?
Okay.
I brought in
four or five. And the no mail receipt
and one refused. But I brought them into
the Town.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: So we have a
situation that we have seen a number of
times in that neighborhood because a lot
of those lots are -- have two front
yards. One on Gillette and one East
Gillette. We have all done a visual
inspection of the subject property. The
proposed pool, we sometimes refer to as a
architectural rear yard. It serves as
the backyard of the house though it
fronts a street. Just for the record,
it's (In Audible) landscaping along that
May 2, 2013 Board Meeting 96
1
2
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: What kind of
pool is this, sir?
MR. BIRKMIER: It's a vinyl pool.
Concrete with sand bottom.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The proposed
drywell that you're showing, is that for
the house or is that for the pool and the
house?
MR. BIRKMIER: It's for both. He
asked for both. It's a very tight area.
That whole community. So he proposed
that we also do it for the gutters as
well. If the Board didn't want us to, we
would do whatever you need. I know we
have one dedicated for the pool, but I am
going to put in a cartridge filter.
There is no backwashing in that pool, but
I would run -- for the future, if anyone
wanted to use it. The way that the pool
is proposed now, we wouldn't need it.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Except when
you're going to change the liner, you're
going to have to take water out of the
pool. What is the average life of a
liner?
May 2, 2013 Board Meeting 97
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. BIRKMIER: Ten years.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Okay. Does that
mean that the system that you're using
will not require any noise or where the
individual pool filter will be?
MR. BIRKMIER: It will be on the
side of the house.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Is there any
need to put any noise fixture around it
for any reason?
MR. BIRKMIER: Not in my opinion.
The motor that I am using is the quietest
motor there is right now. Every pool
within this situation, I have never had
to put any sound barrier in. You know,
they're quiet motors. You can speak over
the motor running, and have a
conversation.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: You may put that
in anyway because these lots can be kind
of small and that's the typical treatment
that we do and probably have done for the
last eight years or so. In my particular
opinion. The other issue is the
Evergreen screening that exist on East
May 2, 2013 Board 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
Drive, are they planning to keep
Gillette
that?
MR. BIRKMIER: Yes. The chain link
fence that is going to run on the inside
of that.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Ken?
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: No questions.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Eric, do you
have any questions?
MEMBER DANTES: No, I don't have any
questions.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: George?
MEMBER HORNING: Not really. Other
than the fact that the lot is small.
Would you agree that you don't really
have a significant area to consider
placing the pool other than the area --
MR. BIRKMIER: That is considered
the backyard. There is no other place
put it. It's right off the deck.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: He has a
conforming setback anyway.
MR. BIRKMIER: I am in position
because of the two roads. I felt like
to
it
May 2, 2013 Board Meeting 99
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
was a matter of the variances going
through the checks and balances of the
Town.
MEMBER HORNING:
difficult for you to
of the other pools?
MR. BIRKMIER: On
I can get that for you.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER:
Would it be
get us the location
that block? Sure.
What is unique
-- it would have much more room back
there. It's still fine.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: I would just like
to see an analysis of other property's
that are similar to this with pools.
MR. BIRKMIER: Sure.
MEMBER HORNING: And variances for
that were granted.
other pools
what it appears to be anyway. The house
-- the center of the lot, which places
the pool, definitely, on the other side
about this piece and I failed to mention
that to you, is that it has a conforming
front yard setback. Many of them, the
older houses, do not. So it's more than
conforming of the 53.5 feet, or that is
May 2, 2013 Board 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
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Anyone else
wish to address this application?
(No Response.)
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Hearing no
further questions or comments, I am going
to close this hearing subject to receipt
of information regarding other pools in
that neighborhood, and variances that may
have been approved for those pools. And
what that means is, as soon as we get it,
the clock starts running. We have 62
days to make a decisions. We generally
do it very quickly. If you get that into
us within the next couple of days, then
we should be able to deliberate, the
earliest, two weeks from today at our
Special Meeting.
So I have made a motion to close
subject to receipt.
Is there a second?
MEMBER DANTES: Second.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Ail in favor?
MEMBER DANTES: Aye.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye.
MEMBER HORNING: Aye.
May 2, 2013 Board 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
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Aye.
(See Minutes for Resolution.)
*****************************************
HEARING %6650 JAMES SCULLY
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The next
application before the Board is for James
Scully, #6650. Request for variances
from Article III Code Section 280-15 and
Article XXIII Section 280-124 and the
Building Inspector's March 19, 2013
Notice of Disapproval based on an
application for building permit to
construct accessory in-ground swimming
pool, at: 1) accessory pool is proposed
in a location other than the code
required rear yard, 2) lot coverage at
more than the maximum code permitted 20%,
located at: 615 Brown Street, corner of
Seventh Street in Greenport.
Please state your name for the
record?
MS. ROMANELLI: LeeAnn Romanelli.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Thank you. So
we have the property with two front
May 2, 2013 Board Meeting 102
1
2
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
yards, and the in-ground
deck is considered to be
yard. The code requires
Lot coverage -- actually says
pool and sun
in the front
a rear yard.
22% on the
Notice of Disapproval and the application
says 21.7%, so perhaps, LeeAnn you can
clarify that for us?
MS. ROMANELLI:
we
12
21.7%.
CHAIRPERSON
The surveyor, when
scaled back the pool taking off that
foot bump-out, our lot coverage was
WEISMAN: Do we have the
right survey then? Yes, it's on here.
We have one saying March 12, 2013 and
the --
MS. ROMANELLI: Yes. A rectangular
16x32 pool?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Yes. Okay.
So the Notice of Disapproval is not up to
Notice of Disapproval
they must have done it
date, is it? The
is March 19th. So
off the March 6th.
MS. ROMANELLI:
forth with the lot
know.
We went back and
coverage. That I do
May 2, 2013 Board 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
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: So we have a
licensed surveyor showing a 16x32
swimming pool, with setbacks from the
property line, and the total lot coverage
proposed is 21.7%. Okay. What else
would you like to tell us?
MS. ROMANELLI: Well, he did scale
it back quite a bit. He didn't want to
make the pool any smaller, the lot
requirement coverage of 20%. We kind of
figured we go consistency and go with
that small amount of lot coverage of
21.7%. He really doesn't have any where
else to put the pool except on the Brown
Street side in he side yard, which is
really the front yard. If you put it in
the back, he really doesn't have enough
room back there. And he wants to keep it
on the side because he thinks it sets it
off for safety reasons, secured. He
wants to completely fence it off. He
doesn't want to just have it off the back
of the house.
a
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Let me ask you
question about privacy. Because this
May 2, 2013 Board Meeting 104
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1 is close to Brown Street
2 to the adjacent neighbor
3 Street. Has your client
4 sort of visual screening,
5 any kind?
MS. ROMANELLI:
me. Right now,
the back yard.
CHAIRPERSON
if we have the
certainly seen
site inspection.
and pretty close
along Brown
considered any
landscaping of
He is.
he has solid
WEISMAN:
picture but
it. Everyone
He did ask
fencing for
I don't know
we have
has done
MS. ROMANELLI: (In Audible).
(Stepped away from the microphone.)
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Four feet and
that is the maximum in the front yard
anyway. But four foot is what is
required. They will determine if this is
suffice. This is more of a decorative
fence. And then there is a sort of a
lock on the gate that you have to have.
So does he have any objection to us
stating that they have to include a few
evergreen screening?
MS. ROMANELLI: No, because as I
May 2, 2013 Board 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
said, he's already planning on doing
that. He already did make mention of the
lattice fence, because he was willing to
change that.
MEMBER HORNING: Are you talking
along the property line to the adjacent
neighbor?
MS. ROMANELLI: Yeah.
MEMBER HORNING: Or both?
MS. ROMANELLI: Both. He is going
to do both.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: And the
plantings are going to have to be on the
property. If the fencing remains on the
property line --
MS. ROMANELLI: So inside.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Then the
evergreens will have to go inside.
MS. ROMANELLI: I will tell him
that.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: There are no
cesspools there?
MS. ROMANELLI: No.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: He is on the
sewer system?
May 2, 2013 Board 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
MS. ROMANELLI: Yeah. Sewer.
Otherwise, we would really have a party.
MEMBER HORNING: Can you tell us
about -- Gerry might ask about this too,
he did it the last time, about sound
defining or any pool equipment and a
drywell for back-flushing?
MS. ROMANELLI: He is going to have
a drywell.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: It doesn't
show it on the survey.
MS. ROMANELLI: The drywell I will
have to find out where that is going to
go. He is going to put the pool
equipment in his shed, I believe. So
that will be enclosed.
MEMBER HORNING:
of the property?
MS. ROMANELLI:
Either he is moving
In the other corner
I believe so.
that shed -- I will
I will
have to clarify that with him.
have to find that out.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: This
pool?
MS. ROMANELLI: Yes.
is a liner
May 2, 2013 Board Meeting 107
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Could the
applicant consider turning the pool
90 degrees and having it 10 feet along
the adjoining property line?
ROMANELLI: No. No we didn't
make any different plans on changing the
location. Do you mean, like angling it?
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: No. Just turning
it 90 degrees. Counter clockwise. And
still have 10 feet off the property off
Brown Street. You would have 10 feet of
the adjoining property line. Then you
would have 10 feet off the house instead
of 8 feet off the house.
MS. ROMANELLI: This is the way that
he has always wanted it. We can always
go to him and ask him if he would be
willing to turn it that way.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Well, I was just
asking if there was a reason why he was
using that location. I guess it's just
preference.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The impact --
MS. ROMANELLI: The 16 feet is still
going to be on the Brown side if we turn
MS.
May 2, 2013 Board 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
it.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: They would
same side yard if they turn it.
MS. ROMANELLI: We didn't
play around with it that way.
have
would have to go through another gate.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: So he wants to
put a fence from the southwest corner
the house?
MS. ROMANELLI: Yes.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Perpendicular to
the stockade? Is that what you mean?
MS. ROMANELLI: Yes.
MEMBER HORNING: We do need to know
of
really
I know
that he wanted to keep a fence. To keep
that backyard fenced off.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: He wants to
use it for kids?
MS. ROMANELLI: Yeah, he has a
little kid. He is going to make a fence
from the back stockade fence to the
house.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Okay. Along the
north-side --
MS. ROMANELLI: From the back. You
May 2, 2013 Board Meeting 109
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
where the pool equipment would be,
whether or not -- we would probably
require a drywell or whenever you had to
drain the pool.
MS. ROMANELLI: Okay. Ail right.
So the drywetl, pool equipment.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: And the
fencing.
MS. ROMANELLI: Okay.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Well, we have
an arraignment at 12:30, so I am going to
see if there is anyone in the audience
who wishes to address this application?
(No Response.)
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: So I think the
best thing to do is close subject to
receipt to an updated survey showing the
proposed fencing.
MS. ROMANELLI:
Okay.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Showing the
proposed Evergreen screening along the
shared property line, the neighbor and
along Brown Street. And the location of
the drywell.
MS. ROMANELLI: And pool equipment.
May 2, 2013 Board 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
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Then we will
have everything as proposed. Then we
could stamp. So I am going to make that
motion that we close subject to receipt
of an updated survey.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Seconded by
Gerry.
Ail in favor?
MEMBER DANTES: Aye.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye.
MEMBER HORNING: Aye.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Aye.
(See Minutes for Resolution.)
HEARING #6641 - MICHAEL MANTIKAS
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The next
application before the Board is for
Michael Mantikas, %6641. Request for
variance from Article XXIII Section
280-124 and the Building Inspector's
March 11, 2013 Notice of Disapproval
based on an application for building
permit to demolish and re-construct an
May 2, 2013 Board 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
existing single family dwelling, at 1)
less than the code required minimum side
yard setback of 10 feet, 2) less than the
total combined side yards of 25 feet,
located at: 80 Oak Court, a.k.a. South
Lane, adjacent to Gardiners Bay in East
Marion.
MS. SANTORA: I am Eileen Santora,
Residential Designer. I am representing
Michael Mantikas.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Let's take a
look at what the Notice of Disapproval
says. This is a proposed second-story at
5 foot side yard setback, where the code
requires 10 feet. Two, a combined side
yard setback of -- it looks like 10.9
feet total. The code requires 25 feet.
And I think that is it. Okay. We just
received a letter from a neighbor that I
would like to give you a copy of. This
is a letter that is essentially objecting
to this application. So I would like you
to take a look at it in case there is
anything that you would like to address.
MS. SANTORA: If you look -- perhaps
May 2, 2013 Board Meeting 112
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
photographs of both houses that are on
either side, and -- if I am reading this
correctly, is Cynthia Thorp and I have
her house right here. That is a
two-family house. We have the Wolf house
that is on the west side. That is
two-story house and that has been
re-done.
know
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Ms. Santora, we
all about Wolf's.
MS. SANTORA: The part of the house
that is closest to the water is not a
two-story. It will be -- as you can see
on the Site Plan that I have given you.
This is Cynthia Thorp's house. Now that
is a two-story house and it is much
closer to the water than Mr. Mantikas
house. If you look at the property, you
can see that there is a house and
Cynthia's is over -- I don't know why
there would be an objection because their
house is here. In fact, there is a
house, bungalow closer to the street that
is in between --
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: We know all
May 2, 2013 Board Meeting 113
1
2
3
4
5
7
8
9
I0
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
about that.
CHAIRPERSON
that we all do a
MS. SANTORA:
CHAIRPERSON
surrounding area.
MS. SANTORA:
Mantikas' house
Cynthia Thorp's.
cottage that my
another Thorp.
CHAIRPERSON
a question about
WEISMAN: You do realize
site inspection?
Okay.
WEISMAN: So we know the
Okay. So Mr.
will not be as massive as
And it was a Thorp's
client had purchased from
WEISMAN: Let me ask you
the foundation. I know
this
on site inspection indicates that
house is not in very good shape.
MS. SANTORA: Exactly.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: So
going to demolish and rebuild
says additions and alterations but
this
you're
another
house parallel to the property line and
make a better side yard condition?
house?
MS. SANTORA: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: So since this
is a demolition, why not just make the
May 2, 2013 Board Meeting 114
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
with
have
out?
MS. SANTORA: Well, we have to deal
cesspools also.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: What does that
to do with straightening the house
MS.
straighten the
But
and
property is so
still won't meet
CHAIRPERSON
you can
improve
MS.
narrow.
anything
house is
SANTORA: I guess, we could
house out, but the
narrow, the side yard
the zoning.
WEISMAN: No, it won't.
also make a narrower house
the side yard.
SANTORA: The house is very
I mean, we're not adding
to the width of the house.
26.5 wide.
The
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Proposed. Okay.
MS. SANTORA: That is what it is now
and that's what it's going to be.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: The width of the
property of that location is?
MS. SANTORA: The house is the --
the width of the property is 47.44 feet.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: So if you
subtract
the width of your proposed house
May 2, 2013 Board Meeting 115
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
from the width of the property, what do
you have remaining?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Approximately
21 feet.
MS. SANTORA: The 26.4 feet, that is
going to be only one-story. The second
in the back is only 22 feet. That is
going to be a two-story section.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: So we're talking
about approximately 21 feet of wiggle
room?
MS. SANTORA: Right. 10 feet on
each side.
a
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: If you could make
conforming side yard of 10 feet, that
would eliminate one of
variances, in which case,
only need a variance for
yard.
the need for
you would then
a combined side
MS. SANTORA: Okay.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Would
something that is acceptable?
MS. SANTORA: That would
that be
be very
acceptable. The only reason we kept the
footprint is because we thought that was
May 2, 2013 Board 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
more appealing to the Town. We can
definitely straighten it out on the
property. That would be no problem.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: And are there any
other issues of nonconformities, except
the single side yard?
MS. SANTORA: Well, maybe. The
original house had four bedrooms and
we're only putting three bedrooms in the
house.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Okay. Would you
like to submit another set of plans
indicated --
MS. SANTORA: You mean a Site Plan?
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: A Site Plan
indicating the location?
MS. SANTORA: That would be no
problem.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Ms. Santora by
doing what Ken wants you to do, would
allow a person to put a ladder against
the house. It's a positive thing.
Without being on your neighbors property.
It particularly obscures --
MS. SANTORA: Right.
May 2, 2013 Board 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
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: So that is a
good thing. Now you're telling us that
the second-story of the house is only
going to be -- from the mid-section to
the rear portion of the home?
MS. SANTORA: Yes. If you look
the floor plan --
at
that if you have to get
house --
MS. SANTORA: I
MEMBER GOEHRINGER:
purposes, that is number
around the
understand.
For emergency
one. Number
two, to just makes everything flow better
MEMBER HORNING: Is that the 20 foot
area right above that?
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: So in other
words, you will have a cathedral ceiling
in the front of the house? Is that what
you're doing?
MS. SANTORA: Yes. And the living
room. The house -- if we straighten the
house out, it will be closer towards the
street end, to Cynthia's House.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I am interested
in the ability to have proper yard, so
May 2, 2013 Board 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
by having close to --
MS. SANTORA: I think my client
would be very happy.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: It would give
you a combined side yard of 21. And the
code is 25. So you're a lot closer to a
conforming side yard.
MS. SANTORA: That sounds great.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Gerry, any
other comments?
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Well, the only
other thing that we need is to site the
house in it's present location --
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: That is what
we have on the survey. So what we need
is an updated survey. Showing the house
and the 10 foot
a combined 21.
MS. SANTORA:
or 11 foot side yard for
Okay. That would just
straighten the house out and make it
parallel to the property line. That is
no problem.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: You're not
placing it closer to the buff?
MS. SANTORA: No. That is why we
May 2, 2013 Board Meeting 119
1 were leaving it where it is.
2 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: And what is
3 that setback? It's not on the survey.
4 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Well, there is
5 no bulkhead there. That's the thing. We
6 are just calling it a bluff.
7 MEMBER HORNING: So ma'am, when
8 you're demolishing the existing building,
9 that includes the foundation and
10 everything?
11 MS. SANTORA: Yes. The foundation,
12 well just some foundation and some
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
concrete blocks that are on the
It's not structurally sound.
be re-built.
MEMBER HORNING: What kind of
foundation will you put in?
MS. SANTORA:
concrete.
MEMBER HORNING:
basement?
MS. SANTORA: No.
crawl.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER:
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
grade.
It has to
With a full
No. Just a
Okay.
Does the Board
Concrete. It's poured
May 2, 2013 Board 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
think that they will have any additional
questions? You're going to leave the
house plans as they are --
MS. SANTORA: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
change the
discussion
engineer if he made up a Site Plan?
Would that be acceptable?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: If it is
stamped and sealed, then we can accept
that.
MS. SANTORA: Back logged. Would it
be possible if Joe Fischetti, the
And just
survey to reflect what our
has been. I don't think that
I would have any additional questions. I
still want to see the survey. Here is
what we can do. Let's leave this open to
the Special Meeting, which is in two
weeks. That gives you time to submit the
survey. If we get the survey and have no
questions, we will close it at the
Special Meeting.
MS. SANTORA: I am hoping that I can
get the survey in two weeks.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Back logged?
May 2, 2013 Board Meeting 121
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
MS. SANTORA: Okay.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: But it's just
going to have to look very close. I
don't think that we're going to have to
get an amended Notice
MS. SANTORA: Because
Young & Young in Riverhead,
of Disapproval.
dealing with
they are very
difficult
surveyors to work with. I
would like to bring to a local survey in
Town.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: We will leave
that to you. As long as it shows what
the Board has requested. We always ask
the applicant to provide greater
conformity to the code, and you
survey eliminating one of those
variances and a greater side yard.
showed a
side yard
MS. SANTORA: Is there anything
on the survey that you need to have,
except the drywell for the runoff?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: You want
septic in there or it doesn't matter?
is going to do that
else
Department of Health
anyway.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER:
They're going to
May 2, 2013 Board 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
do it anyway.
MS. SANTORA: Right. I have already
checked out the system and I know it has
to be replaced. So that is what I am
about to get taken care of.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: As long as it
shows some drywell's on here. They are
not labeled.
MS. SANTORA:
Okay.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
you know, you will
Section 236 of the
MS. SANTORA:
the drywell's on the Site
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
MEMBER SCHNEIDER:
remember, you have a 10
And of course,
have to comply with
Town's Stormwater --
Yes. Yes. We will put
Plan.
Anybody else?
That's all. Just
foot side yard
that you have to maintain.
MS. SANTORA: Right now, we have a
10.9 on one side and it gets bigger on
one end in the back. So as we straighten
out the house --
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: It's going to
be about a 10 foot on the side that is a
6.9 and about -- just shy of 11, as it is
May 2, 2013 Board 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
now. If that makes more sense to just
rotate the corner, so that it is
parallel --
MS. SANTORA: Yes.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: That reduces
significance of the variance that is
being requested.
MS. SANTORA: That sounds great.
the
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The other
thing that the neighbor objects to
construction, is that there is not enough
room on either side to actually undertake
demolition and construction, without
having to have adverse impact on their
property. With having equipment on their
property, debris on their property and so
on. The fact that you will have wider
side yards.
MS. SANTORA: My crews work very
neat. I never let it go too high. It
would be a clean site. I will make sure
everyone cleans up after their day is
done.
that
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay. Being
there is no one in the audience, I
May 2, 2013 Board Meeting 124
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
t0
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
am going to assume that there are no more
comments from the audience. So I am
going to make a motion to adjourn this
to the Special Meeting, subject to
receipt of a revised survey or Site Plan,
by a licensed professional describing the
changes that this Board has discussed.
MEMBER HORNING: Second.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Seconded by
George.
Ail in favor?
MEMBER DANTES: Aye.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye.
MEMBER HORNING: Aye.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Aye.
(See Minutes for Resolution.)
*****************************************
HEARING %6649 DAVID SCHIFF
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I am going to
open David Schiff, #6649. We will read
the legal notice for the record, and then
we have a letter for an adjournment
requesting an open date. Request for
variances from Article IV Section 280-18,
May 2, 2013 Board 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
Article XXII
Article III Section
Building Inspector's
amended March 14,
Disapproval based
Section 280-116(B) and
280-13C and the
March 6, 2013,
2013 Notice of
on an application
for
building permit for additions and
alterations to an existing single-family
dwelling and construction of a new
accessory garage with guest quarters, at
1) less than the minimum code required
side yard setback of 15 feet, 2) less
than the code required bulkhead setback
of 75 feet for additions and alterations
to the dwelling, 3) guest quarters are
not a permitted accessory use, located
at: 8425 Nassau Point Road, adjacent to
Little Peconic Bay in Cutchogue.
As I said, we have a letter
requesting an adjournment that came from
Eric Carrington who is the architect for
the applicant, David Schiff, requesting
an adjournment without a date. So they
didn't explain what they have in mind or
anything else. I certainly have no
objection to that. There is no one here
May 2, 2013 Board Meeting 126
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
in the audience to
that is the case.
So I am going
let the record show
to make a motion
we
date.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Ail in
MEMBER DANTES: Aye.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye.
adjourn this application without
MEMBER HORNING: Aye.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye.
that
a
favor?
variances from Article III Code Section
280-15 and the Building Inspector's
March
based
permit
14, 2013 Notice of Disapproval
on an application for building
for two as-built existing
himself, for the following application.
BABS Corporation, #6651, request for
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Aye.
(See Minutes for Resolution.)
HEARING ~6651 - BABS CORPORATION
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The Board has
reconvened, and let the record reflect
that Member Goehringer is recusing
May 2, 2013 Board Meeting 127
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
reconstructed
one accessory
than the code
rear yard
accessory
than the code
setback of
Main Road,
accessory building, at: 1)
building is located at less
required minimum side and
setbacks of 10 feet, 2) second
building is located at less
required minimum rear yard
10 feet, located at: 13105
State Route 25 in Mattituck.
Please come forward and enter into
the record, the agent for the applicant.
MR. CUDDY: Good afternoon. Charles
Cuddy, 445 Griffing Avenue, Riverhead,
New York. I am the agent for the
applicant. I understand that Mr. Horning
will participate by reading the minutes?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Yes, he will.
MR. CUDDY: If I may, I would like
to hand up some tax maps and also a
couple of letters that I have.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: While you're
doing that, I will just indicate that the
Notice of Disapproval says that one
accessory building has a 0 foot setback
from the side and rear property line,
where the code requires 10 feet, and a
May 2, 2013 Board 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
second accessory building has a 0 foot
setback from the rear property line. And
the rear yard states as Mattituck Park
District property, which is at the
moment, a parking lot. So that should
save some time.
MR. CUDDY: Initially, I have handed
up some tax maps, which I believe will be
important to you. It is important that
you take a look at the tax maps because I
want to take a short tour of Mattituck.
Mattituck Central District is the HB
District, which is the district that
we're in here. And I have outlined on
these two maps, some yellow sites. The
first map, if you would look at, is
Section 140. The one that has the yellow
mid point, which is our building by the
way. That is Lot #39. The reason why I
am doing this is because I want to show
you in the HB District, how the principal
buildings as well as the accessory
buildings are laid out. If you would
start at the corner, which is Wickham
Avenue and Main Road, I have checked Tax
May 2, 2013 Board 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
Lot #34. The reason I checked that Tax
Lot is because there is a building there.
That building next to the smaller lot is
within 3 feet. This is a principal
building in an HB District. The next lot
over is a very small lot. That small lot
is 45 feet wide. The building was built
out 41 feet. That means on each side of
it, there is a 2 foot separation with the
next lot, which is contrary to code.
These buildings were built prior in time
to 1960. The next building over is Tax
Lot #38.5. That is a building that was
rehabbed recently by Mr. Goggins and
Mr. Palumbo. It's a law office. Next to
that building on the right hand side, Tax
Lot #36, is a small shed. An accessory
shed. It's right on the line. It's not
close to it. It's on the line. I would
also like you to look on what is called
Railroad Avenue, and Railroad Avenue is
-- that corner is Love Lane. The lot
that I have there, 3.4, that is the
Orlowski Hardware Store. In 1970's
was here at that time, that store
and I
May 2, 2013 Board Meeting 130
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
extended back on the line. On the line
in the HB District. Not off the line.
On the line. I will point out that all
of those buildings are wall-to-wall
buildings. There is no extension between
them. So in the HB District, and I think
it is historical, the buildings are
built. So they are virtually on the line
or on the line. Last year, in 2012, the
building on the west side of Love Lane
was rebuilt. The difference between the
wall of the wine tasting store and the
building next to it, is less than 3 feet.
And the reason I am taking on this short
tour of Mattituck, is -- the HB District
covers all of that area and the principal
buildings are built on the line or right
next to the line. Just not the
accessory. There are very few
accessories because the buildings
cover
most of the lots. The one I could find,
as I said to you, right next to the
Goggins and Palumbo building, is a small
shed and it's absolutely on the line. I
also gave you a second map because I
May 2, 2013 Board 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
wanted you to look at the stores that are
on the corner of Main Road and opposite
Love Lane. Ail of those stores and
they're preexisting stores, are built
together. There is no separation between
them whatsoever. So the principal
buildings in the HB District, are all one
on top of the other. So we're here about
an accessory building that is close to
the line. A foot of the line. And I say
to you, that historically, this area,
this District has buildings on the line
and is part of what it is. The buildings
that we're talking about here, they are
over a 100 years ago. I get that
information from people telling me that.
One of those buildings is the old
Blacksmith shop. The building was
acquired by BABS Corporation. Albert
Brayson is here. He is the principal of
that corporation. Two years ago, when he
acquired the main building, he repaired
part of each of those buildings. He
didn't enlarge them. He didn't alter
them. He reconstructed them. And to do
May 2, 2013 Board 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
otherwise, to try and move them, not just
difficult, but virtually impossible. I
will put in some evidence into trying to
move those buildings. But I would also
like to bring to your attention, Abigail
Wickham who owns the property immediately
to the west of ours, has written a letter
on behalf of the applicant, indicating
she has absolutely no objection and is
happy that he was able to repair the
buildings. I also gave you a letter,
which was somewhat surprising today based
on the letter that you got from the Park
District, but in 2009 the Park District
attorney wrote a letter in favor of this
application. Just the opposite of what
we have received today. So I don't know
which group is to be heard from.
Certainly, the Park District at one time
did not find a problem with this
application. If I may, I would also like
to hand up to you an estimate of the
moving of the buildings, which shows that
the combine figures to remove the
building is --
May 2, 2013 Board 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
(Stepped away from the microphone.)
MR. CUDDY: There is virtually no
alternative in keeping the buildings
where they are at this point. We have
gotten a letter, which I will give to you
in a minute, the engineer, who did work
on the buildings. Indicating that it was
done just to keep them structurally sound
and safe. The costs as I said to move
them is enormous, and we also have a
statement from a cesspool person who has
located the
will see that the
any movement of a
would move them right
other.
CHAIRPERSON
two cesspools located
accessory structures,
the one to the east?
east.
cesspools. On the map, you
cesspools would prevent
building because you
on top of each
WEISMAN: So there are
in between the
and this would be
MR. CUDDY: That's right, to the
By the way, if you would move these
buildings essentially a few feet, you
would be blocking the walkway that goes
from the buildings that has apartments,
May 2, 2013 Board Meeting 134
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
as well as offices. So you would be
blocking that area. Because there is not
a lot of room to move anything.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Mr. Cuddy, can
I ask you what are these two buildings
being used for currently?
MR. CUDDY: They're used to store
the westerly large building lawn mowers,
seasonal supplies and furniture. And the
east building, the smaller one, has tools
and equipment that -- paint and that type
of thing. Building repair materials.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Are one of these
buildings your workshop?
MR. CUDDY: Not a workshop. The
maintenance manager goes into that
building and takes tools and things from
that building. It's not a workshop.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: There's not like
a bench there?
MR. CUDDY: I think there is a bench
there that he keeps tools on it. It's
for the main building.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Is there any type
of commercial use out of that?
May 2, 2013 Board 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
MR. CUDDY: No. It's used entirely
-- and has been used for years. It's
storage for the main building.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: And the main
building is a rental unit?
MR. CUDDY: The main building is --
there is two parts to it. One of it is an
office area. The bottom floor and the top
floor is used as apartments.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: So there is a
need for a maintenance?
MR. CUDDY: Yes, there is.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Are they
rental apartments?
MR. CUDDY: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: And they're
accessed through the rear?
MR. CUDDY: They're accessed through
the front and rear. Mr. Brayson would
know better than I. I think there are
stairs in the rear that you can go up and
down. I would also indicate to you that
the storage does not impact
environmentally to any one. There is no
hazardous waste there. So I don't think
May 2, 2013 Board 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
the environmental impact is anything to
be concerned about. And I would say that
the character of the community, not only
based upon the letter from -- the old
letter from the Park District, but the
fact that all of the buildings are very
similar. That is the principal
buildings. Not just the accessory
buildings. The principal buildings are
located right on the lot. Not next to
it. On it. I think that is pretty
uniform. I said I have a letter from the
engineer I just want to hand that up.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Was that the one
from James Cherkowski?
MR. CUDDY: Yes.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: It is dated
September 11, 2008?
MR. CUDDY: Yes. I think that
everybody would agree that this is not a
self created situation. This has been
there. Before Mr. Brayson was here or any
of us was here. That building was located
there. I was told by various amount of
people in the community that it has been
May 2, 2013 Board Meeting 137
1
2
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
there for years. So that is where it has
been. And I think the reason for that is
very simple, if you move it any other
way, you either block the walk. You
block the cesspools.
my point of view, it
anybody. It is something
there for 100 years.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
It doesn't -- from
doesn't impact
that has been
Let me ask you
this Board in 2009 with an application to
do repairs in-place and in-kind. The
application before the determination was
withdrawn, I am told by the applicant.
Subsequent it would appear that repairs
were made on these existing structures.
When those repairs took place, how were
those structures accessed? Could it be
done on the subject property or did it
have to be done on the adjacent property
by Abigail Wickham or the Parks District?
It is a zero setback. So I am trying to
figure out how anybody could make repairs
without stepping on someone else's
property.
a question. The applicant went before
May 2, 2013 Board Meeting 138
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. CUDDY: I don't think that I can
answer it. I think that Mr. Brayson can.
I will say one thing. Our surveyor says
that they are one foot from the property
line.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
So you have to
be one skinny person.
MR. BRAYSON: I actually did not
observe --
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I'm sorry,
please just state your name?
MR. BRAYSON: My name is Albert
Brayson. I didn't observe the guys
working it in general. As Mr. Cuddy
pointed out, at least on the west side on
the Wickham's property, there is actual
room to get there. I believe it is on
the property line and not much more than
that. To the best of my knowledge, they
didn't erect scaffolding or things like
that on the property in order to do the
repairs.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Do either of
the accessory structures have gutters on
them?
May 2, 2013 Board 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
MR. BRAYSON: No.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
to consider some drainage
the property.
MR. CUDDY: May
sewer?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
So we may have
remediation on
I be heard on the
Yes. Go
ahead.
MR. CUDDY: I was trying to figure
out how the Building Department rejected
the application. And in the code you
have to (In Audible) Section 44, 280-44.
Then you go back and you go back to
Section 15, which is the Ag District and
then you go to 13C for the accessory
uses. And I believe, I believe that all
of that is predicated on one assumption.
And I just want to bring it to the
Board's attention. I think the
assumption was that it's two
nonconforming buildings with two
nonconforming uses. I think that is not
correct. I am saying to you, is that,
this use is a conforming use which goes
to the very sections that I am talking
May 2, 2013 Board 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
about. I think you will see under
Section 13-4, that you can have a storage
building that is related to a residential
use. This is a residential use. I think
that the section that applies is
Section 122. I wanted to bring this to
the Board's attention because I think a
mistake was made.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
The Notice of
Disapproval cites Section 280-15. So
it's strictly to accessory structures.
Ail they are referring to there is the
required distance from a property line.
MR. CUDDY: I think that won't occur,
if it's a nonconforming building with a
conforming use. You go through a
different section. The section that she
must have assumed is Section 123. I think
it's Section 122. And if it's Section
122, you can reconstruct the building and
you don't have to have a variance
application.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: That is
correct but that refers to principal
structures.
May 2, 2013 Board 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
MR. CUDDY: Well, it's hard to say
what it refers to because it doesn't say
what it is referring to, principal or
accessory structure.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: When something
is referred to a building, it is a
physical building. 123
commercial buildings.
MR. CUDDY:
there some how.
saying that 122
addresses
I think she had to get
I think that you're
doesn't apply to
it.
to principal
accessory and only applies
use. It doesn't --
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
correct. And if in fact, you
strongly about this, you can
for a code interpretation to
That is not what is before us.
MR. CUDDY: I am telling you this
because I think that has some meaning to
You're saying that it doesn't.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I think
That's
feel
then apply
this Board.
probably it doesn't to your situation.
MR. CUDDY: Okay. I understand.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Shall we hear
May 2, 2013 Board Meeting 142
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
like
from anyone, Ken? Are you finished
Mr. Cuddy at the moment?
MR. CUDDY: Yes, I am.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Who else would
to be heard on this application?
Please state your name for the record?
MR. PROKOP: It's David Prokop.
Representing the Mattituck Parks
District. With respect to the
application, there is really three
primary concerns, which are outlined in
the letter. Three of which are outlined.
One has to do with the water collection
issue. The drainage that we have been
working with that in that parking lot.
To do some type of gutter improvements.
Whether there is the need for a drywell
or not. So that would be number one.
Number two would be, on that property
line of the Park District, on the
accessory structure. There are some
trees that are dying, I would just need
to confirm the status of those, and to
the extent that they be removed, stumps
included, we're not stepping on someone's
May 2, 2013 Board 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
toes as far as a protected status for
these trees. It would like to be
conditioned that the stumps be removed as
well.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: These trees
are on the subject property?
MR. PROKOP: They are on the line.
There is three of them. There is two by
the east building and there is one on te
west side.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: You believe
that they are shared by the two
properties?
MR. PROKOP: Yes. And lastly, we
just wanted it to be conditioned on
either usage or improvements or any other
permits that are granted for the
structures, meaning compliance with the
setbacks of the accessory.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: You're
basically saying no further usage other
than storage.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Are the trees
limited to three trees?
MR. PROKOP: I have a survey that
May 2, 2013 Board Meeting 144
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
locates the trees. They were not
the application. There is three.
part of
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: I think that is
an issue that can probably be resolved
with the applicant easily.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: They're on the
Park District. There are two that are on
the property line, and then a third one.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Mr. Cuddy, there
seems to be a request for some removal of
some trees?
MR. CUDDY: We don't have an
objection to Mr. Prokop's request. Ail
three of them. We don't have a problem
with the drainage. We don't have a
problem with the trees, and don't have a
problem with just keeping it as storage.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I have a
question for Mr. Prokop. In your letter,
it would appear that someone has
indicated that the Park District must
somehow use the subject parking lot, that
you currently own as park land or it has
to be developed by the Park District. He
said that you have to --
May 2, 2013 Board 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
MR. PROKOP: There has been
counseling advice and I have done my own
research, as to whether or not, this
constitutes as park land. I don't
believe that it does. It's not adjacent
to any kind of Mattituck Park District.
So we have been exploring as to what we
should do with the property and that is
where we are right now.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay. I was
just curious as to where that decision
came from. Okay. Just out of curiosity.
MR. PROKOP: Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay. Any
other questions at the moment from the
Board?
(No Response.)
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Is there
anyone else in the audience that would
like to address this application?
(No Response.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I don't have
any other questions. Ken?
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Mr. Cuddy says
the applicant would be in favor of
May 2, 2013 Board 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
removing the trees
gutters and leaders
storage conditions.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
three conditions
Hamlet Business.
comments from
make a motion to
reserve decision
Second?
MEMBER SCHNEIDER:
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
MEMBER DANTES: Aye.
that are outlined,
and just maintain the
Okay. So the
that discussed. It is
Hearing no further
the Board, I am going to
close this hearing and
to a later date.
Second.
Ail in favor?
MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Aye.
(See Minutes for Resolution.)
HEARING %6652 JAMES & SUSAN BROWN
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The next
application before the Board is for James
and Susan Brown, ~6652. Request for
variances from Article XXII Code Section
280-116B and Article XXIII Code Section
280-124 and the Building Inspector's
April 10, 2012, revised March 20, 2013
May 2, 2013 Board 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
Notice of Disapproval based on an
application for building permit for
demolition and reconstruction and
additions and alterations to an existing
seasonal cottage at; 1) bulkhead setback
of less than the code required 75 feet,
2) less than the code required minimum d
setback of 10 feet, 3) less than the
total combined side yards of 25 feet, 4)
more than the maximum code permitted lot
coverage of 20%, located at: 170 Oak
Creek, adjacent to Eugene's Creek in
Cutchogue. We have a bulkhead setback of
25.8 feet, where the code requires 75
feet. This is a demolition and
reconstruction of a seasonal cottage with
additions and alterations. We secondly,
have something with a similar side yard
setback of 4.9 feet, where the code
requires 10. We have a combined side
yard setback 9.9 feet, where the code
requires 25 feet. We have lot coverage
at 25.1%, where the code permits a
maximum of 20%.
Pat, do you want to --
May 2, 2013 Board 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
MS. MOORE: Patricia Moore on
behalf of the Brown's. I have Mr. &
Mrs. Brown here. I also have Mark
Schwartz. He is the architect on this
project. They are all here to address
any questions to the Board, if they come
up. What I have given to you, I did
receive the LWRP report. You didn't ask
me, but I did receive it. The LWRP
raised an issue which I strongly disagree
with, which is they felt this was -- this
project did not conform with the
character of the area. I don't believe
that is an accurate conclusion. What I
have done is given you a packet that is
bound together. What I did is, I went to
the code and reviewed how many properties
on Oak Street, within proximity to my
clients property has variances or have
received variance. And it is a very
prolific area for variance. The reason is
obvious that this is a subdivision of
Eugene's Heights, which is a subdivision
developed in the 50's -- 40's and 50's.
They are very nonconforming. Actually in
May 2, 2013 Board 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
the deliberations and decisions that are
all attached to the packets, that is the
general consensus on all of the
variances that have been issued with
respect to setbacks, whether it's front
yards, side yards, garages. Many of the
garages on the street required variances.
The law has changed. One of the
difficulties in using -- meeting the code
on a property as this one, we have 30
feet -- 30.49 along Oak Street. The
property then spans out to 50.08 along --
if that is not hard enough, the Town
adopted regulations that define buildable
area, which is that area that is landward
of a retaining wall or concrete retaining
wall. And so it's for many of these
property's and this one included, if you
took the acreage of the property, in fact
which the Board considered when they did
a previous lot line change for the
adjacent property. There was a previous
lot line change that is listed here.
It's 2011 or 10. That -- when the Board
granted that variance, they actually
May 2, 2013 Board 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
looked at -- here it is. Excuse me, '01.
In 2001, Joyce Monk, the adjacent
property owner and this property had a
lot line change, and area variances with
respect to the properties to allow the
additional land to be transferred from
the Monk property to the south to the
Brown property. So this property through
your variance included the acreage that
goes out to the filed map, the water
mark. Now the code, what it essentially
did is cut off half of this property.
The lot coverage has become substantial.
Whereas if we were to use the dimensions
that the rest of the community has
enjoyed and used prior to the change to
the code, our lot coverage would be more
in line with the 14%, under the 20%.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I do want to
say something here. I know that you
brought this up, and with regard to other
applications. The code changed for a
reason, and I don't think that we can
revisit what was there. We have to go by
what the code says now. There are many
May 2, 2013 Board 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
properties with different buildable areas
that define very differently when land
and underwater was included, and there
was a reason for that code change. I
actually have a question about the use of
that easement. We do -- we do have in
our packet that the property owner has
changed by Zoning Board resolution. What
is that easement actually doing?
MS. MOORE: The Brown's had been in
negotiations with the Monk's with another
lot line change to allow for greater
conforming setbacks because this was the
proposed plan. When I met with them, I
said, wow, a lot line change is such a
long tedious process and expensive
process, would the owner next door
consider rather --
with certainly getting
variances but with an easement that would
be binding on both parties. Especially
with the Monk's that that would be left
out for emergency purposes access. So
they would be prepared to keep the land
as part of their ownership. So that
there won't be structures made on it and
May 2, 2013 Board 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
strictly be used for access. In a sense,
creating in practice, the setback -- the
greater setback from the south side. So
that is something that the owner was
willing to do with us. They were willing
to do a lot line change. As you know,
the lot line process is a very time
consuming process that would have
required variances again to the Zoning
Board, Planning Board and Health
Department. And the Health Department is
usually the most cumbersome process. So
we still needed the variances because
obviously we don't own the property. But
as far as the granting of the variances,
it could be with a condition that the
southerly portion of the property be
restricted in the sense of development.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: So let me get
this straight because we don't have
anything in a deed.
MS. MOORE: Obviously it is all
contingent on a variance because we're
they were ready to sell and do all the
transactions but it wouldn't make sense
May 2, 2013 Board 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
if the variances are denied. It's a lot
of effort and a lot of expense for
nothing.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: It's a
proposed easement?
MS. MOORE: It's a proposed
easement.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: That clears
that up.
MS. MOORE: I would also clarify the
seasonal nature of the house. This house
is actually a year round house.
Brown's
is,
in.
The
-- the lineage of this property
in the 40's, the house was brought
It was floating over. Put on
foundation and one of the -- a priest was
living there. Then Mr. Brown's father and
mother purchased the property in the
70's. And this was their parents year
round residence. When their parents died,
the property went to both, Mr. Brown and
his sister. And he more recently
purchased his sisters interest and this
house will become -- or the new house
will become the retirement home for
May 2, 2013 Board 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
Mr. And Mrs. Brown who are here today. So
that -- so as far as, I heard somebody
asking about a Pre-CO. I asked my client
and because the house was built in the
40's, they never bothered getting a
Pre-CO. Their answer was if it still
prior to a certain date, it doesn't have
a CO. I explained that the Pre-CO's are
evidence that it was built prior to a
certain date. Since this house is being
proposed for demolition, again, we could
certainly go through the process of
getting it. This particular house, if my
clients wanted to make alterations and
construction to make it comfortable for
them in retirement, we risk the chances
of having issues on 25% demolition issues
that plague applicants and Boards. So
they thought they were doing the right
thing about having a demolition of the
existing house. Building back from the
existing footprint of the existing house.
Placing new house more centered on the
property, and further back from the
retaining wall. So as you can see from
May 2, 2013 Board Meeting 155
1
2
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
the plans, the retaining wall, the
setback of the existing deck, is 11.6.
The proposed covered porch is at 25.8.
So it was a significant improvement to
the property.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Pat, I see
that you have submitted plans, that this
Board reviewed more recently --
MS. MOORE: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I would like
to point out something. Indeed there was
a bulkhead setback variance obtained for
this property from this Board, but that
property was considerably larger in size
than the subject property is. And the
setback is 49 feet from the bulkhead,
which is almost double of what you are
proposing here as a setback. It has only
one nonconformity. Ail the side yards,
lot coverage, front yard, those were all
conforming. So I can certainly
distinguish those two applications
dramatically in
It is certainly
neighborhood there
fact. One from the other.
fair to say that in this
are a number of
May 2, 2013 Board 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
nonconforming lots and a number of
nonconforming setbacks. I feel that those
two lots don't really have much to do
with each other in comparison. I will
give great prudence to the other ones
that you have submitted. Particularly
look at other bulkhead setbacks. There
are wetlands involved here. There are
serious environmental impacts, and this
is a large proposal on a tiny little
sliver of a lot. It's not large.
MS. MOORE: It's actually a small
modest house. I would actually point you
to the research that I did do that is in
your packet. The third sheet, which is
the tax map.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Hold on one
second.
MS. MOORE: Sure. The first page is
the Google Earth. Since Google doesn't
give me tax lot numbers. I with
highlighter and pen, I was able to
identify the tax lot numbers. So you can
see how they relate with the Google. The
second comes from the Town records, all
May 2, 2013 Board 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
the listing of the variances on this
particular block. The third page is where
we kind of get done to the specific
individual property. And in particular,
if you look at Tax Lot #44, that one and
Tax Lot #46, both of those dealt with
very small properties. Very small -- the
properties were even before the code
change with the buildable area. And with
respect to %44, the lot coverage is 42.8.
And with respect to Lot #46, it is 24%.
So there has been a recognition of the
degree of lot coverage that is necessary
on some of these smaller parcels. I would
say that they are comparable in the sense
that my clients property is narrow, but
long. And the other properties are both
narrow and short.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Can I ask
you --
MS. MOORE: Sure.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: In the case of
the one that is 42.8, and the other one
is 24. I want to ask you, were those
demolitions or additions and alterations?
May 2, 2013 Board Meeting 158
1
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: I don't think you had a
lot of demolition here. I think they
have mostly been additions. Deck
additions, alterations. Most of the new
construction has been in the garages that
they have built. They are two-story, two
car garages. Those tend to be the
structures that are built on this block.
Overall, it seems that the new house is
more confirming that the existing house,
the existing house if they were forced to
renovate the existing house. That was
certainly, I believe a very strong page
for granting the variances that are being
proposed.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I am going to
look at all these things very carefully
for the variances that you have
submitted. Certainly, I will not be
considering accessory structures,
particularly a garage in the front yard.
It is nearly not the same scrutiny that a
demolition would warrant.
MS. MOORE: I think for lot coverage
that is actually not correct because lot
May 2, 2013 Board Meeting 159
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
coverage regardless of how it is being
brought together, whether it's an
existing house or modified with a
or a new house, the lot
property if you look at
footages, the footprint
thousand-one-hundred -- it's
It's on Mark's plans, 1,197.
it's not a large house. The
house total -- Mark, do you want
sure that I am reading the right
here.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Please just
state your name for the record.
MR. SCHWARTZ: Mark Schwartz,
for the project. The house
1197. The garage is 290.
It's a one-car garage.
asking for a very large
architect
itself is
MS. MOORE:
So they are not
garage.
MR. SCHWARTZ:
porch of 167. So a
1687. The house
CHAIRPERSON
square
the
garage
coverage on this
the actual square
itself is only a
on his plan.
Certainly
proposed
to make
numbers
There is a covered
total footprint is
itself is 1197.
WEISMAN: And what is
footage of the second floor?
May 2, 2013 Board 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
MR. SCHWARTZ:
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
total house is 1197 plus
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
Second floor is 819.
Okay. So the
8197
Did you ever
consider the elimination of the
and moving this more landward?
MS.
form of
MR.
owner.
older,
would be
garage
I think they need some
MOORE:
storage.
BROWN: Jay Brown, property
The real thoughts are, as we get
a covered structure for a car
much easier, as opposed to
having to deal with out in the weather.
Any additional storage would be much of
help.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
attempting --
new house, on
than anybody is a
piece of property to work with.
Well, we're
a
You have to come to the podium.
MS. BROWN: I am Susan Brown,
homeowner. Having had family live in this
house for almost 40 years, we're very
trying to have a reasonable
what I am sure we know more
an extreme difficult
May 2, 2013 Board Meeting 161
1
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 aware of
lot. And the
that small.
older, the
tremendous
the limitations of that
limitations of the house
Essentially as people get
house that exist creates a
challenge for
someone with
home health
like to be able to
he could live in
disabilities and getting
people in. We would
address that so that
this house.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
number of these dwellings
Okay. A
have accessory
sheds in the front yard and accessory
garages in the front yards that are not
attached. I am not suggesting that you
eliminate that. You eliminate some of
the lot coverage problem. You are able
to create a greater setback from the
wetlands and the issues with the LWRP
coordinator has some concerns with. It's
just a suggestion.
MS. BROWN: As the lot narrows, we
went into additional difficulties with
the side setback. We thought we had
pushed it back as far as we could. The
current house actually hits the property
May 2, 2013 Board Meeting 162
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
line on one side. We were hoping to
improve that. We were hoping to maintain
5 feet and then we thought perhaps with
the variance, to allow for emergency
access and so forth. That it wold be
something that would be acceptable.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Mrs. Brown, we
have sworn testimony to this Board from
an engineer in Mattituck, that says you
need 6 feet to put a ladder up on your
property to get to the second-story of
the house. The max you have is 5. That is
on the northerly property line. It's too
tight. Something has to go. And it has to
be something. You have to come up with
abetter plan, in my particular opinion. I
am not speaking for the Board. The garage
has to go. Possibly, if you reconstruct
this house, you can be given a permit to
do so, but we have to do something. It's
just too tight.
MS. BROWN: So we need 6 feet?
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: In order to put
a ladder up on your side yard to work the
house, I have been a fireman for 45
May 2, 2013 Board 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
years. I am going into my 46 year. Let's
just assume we couldn't get to the other
side of your house based upon the winds
blowing to get up to the second-story or
to even to do maintenance on the house,
you need 6 feet to put a ladder on your
property to get to the second-story.
MS. BROWN: Does it have to be at
every point of the house?
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No. You need a
minimum of 6 feet. Okay. That was
Mr. Notaro on a piece of property down
the side, where the neighbors were
extremely concerned that he ws going to
go on their property with having to work
on the proposed demolition and
reconstruction of a home.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: We want to make
sure, as wetre obligated to do, when
variance relief is appropriate, as the
law requires us, the minimum that we can
on
reasonably grant. Not the maximum.
Everybody wants the maximum. The minimum.
That is what we're obligated to do. We
are exploring with you ways in which
May 2, 2013 Board 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
you're proposing for more conformance to
the code to the maximum extent that is
possible.
MS. BROWN: Are you telling us that
we need to find 6 feet on both sides?
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: 6 feet on the
northerly side. On the southerly side, if
the 6 feet exist, you may have a little
more wiggle room. Also the setback from
the retaining wall is entirely too close.
That would have to go in my particular
opinion. This is my opinion only. The
porch should be on the ground level with
pavers. Go with either these very, very
nice decorative seasonal types of screen
houses that you would put on the pavers.
It would give us more lot coverage. More
additional setback
retaining wall.
CHAIRPERSON
from the concrete
WEISMAN: The point is,
it would cover.
structure --
No. No. Just an
A soffit overhang
This is the way that you
even if it were at grade,
It would be considered a
MEMBER GOEHRINGER:
overhang of the house.
straight across.
May 2, 2013 Board 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
have to construct on these small pieces
of property. I can see why the LWRP
Coordinator did that in reference to his
evaluation, because it's 25.8 feet to the
retaining wall. This is like
unbelievable.
MS. MOORE: It's 11 feet now.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Now, we have a
very small seasonal cottage. Whether
it's year round or not.
MS. MOORE: It's a
it's not seasonal.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay. Fine.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: We need you to
reorganize it. That is what we need you
to do.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The two
drywell's that are being proposed are
entirely within the Zone X Flood Zone and
those drywell's, they should not be in a
flood zone.
small cottage but
MS. MOORE: I have read that and
that makes absolute sense. The drywell's
can go in the back or sides.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: And certainly
May 2, 2013 Board 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
we're going to have a non-disturbance
buffer.
MS. MOORE: Well, vegetated buffer.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: No.
Non-disturbance means you don't touch
MS. MOORE: Yeah --
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
buffer means you plant
that is non-turf.
MS. MOORE: I understand that,
when you have such small properties,
non-disturbance, quite frankly starts
looking really bad. We already have
non-disturbance area that is seaward
the concrete retaining wall. That
Vegetated
native plantings
and hasn't
Making it
properties
but
a
of
whole
been
it.
area is non-disturbance
made but practically is.
non-disturbance leaves
looking --
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN:
what Mark was referring to
non-disturbance buffer
the retaining wall --
MS. MOORE: Oh. That's fine.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: A vegetated
Well, I think
here is a
remain seaward of
May 2, 2013 Board Meeting 167
1
2
3
4
5
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
buffer on the landward side be
established.
MS. MOORE: That's fine. That I
would expect through the Trustees.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The Trustees
are going to make that happen anyway. I
think we have talked about a number of
issues and I would like to allow Mark to
meet with his clients and see what
alternatives we can come up with. If
that is agreeable to all, I think we
should adjourn this and offer the other
Board members -- we should adjourn this
to the June meeting.
MS. BROWN: Can I ask one more
question?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Yes. Please
just state your name again --
MS. BROWN: Susan Denise Brown. If
we remove the garage and push the house
as close to the street as the side
setbacks would allow us to do with the
6 feet, would we be able to maybe save
the front porch?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Yes. I would
May 2, 2013 Board 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
say that you may be able to. Sure. That
is something -- you heard everything that
we said.
MS. BROWN: I just wanted to get a
feel.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The Board,
there is five of us. There is three of
us sitting here. I can't speak for any
other person other than myself because we
each have one vote. I would simply take
into consideration everything that we
have said and come back with what you
believe to be the most conforming you can
make it without compromising what you
feel worth something to investing in.
That is a fair way to put it.
MS. BROWN: Thank you.
MR. SCHWARTZ: I realize that the
(In Audible) are much larger than the
setbacks. Just to show that. That is
just another example of it.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: They're very
distinguishable. We all have seen other
dwellings. That as you well know more
than anybody, did not start out as a
May 2, 2013 Board Meeting 169
1
2
3
4
5
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
demolition. Only when, you know, Sandy
did her magic work that you became aware
of the fact that the -- that they needed
to keep it elevated and at that point,
proposed to build under other
circumstances.
MR. SCHWARTZ: Right.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: But again,
it's a much more bigger property.
MR. SCHWARTZ: Right.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: So if you want
to compare a new structure to a new
structure, they are pretty far apart.
Ail right.
MS. MOORE: I think he has --
MR. BROWN: Just one more quick
point again. Jay Brown. Before you
mentioned when you were talking about
eliminating the garage, you were -- and I
just want to clarify so I understand, an
auxiliary structure in the front?
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Accessory.
MR. BROWN: Accessory. What did you
mean?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Anything that
May 2, 2013 Board 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
is detached is considered an accessory.
If it's attached, it's part of the
principal structure. Like what you have
now. You will see all up and down your
neighborhood, decks and --
MR. BROWN: Garages.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Full garages.
We're not suggesting anything that
creates greater nonconformity. If you
need a storage shed at some point or the
other in the front yard, that is
certainly a reasonable thing to do for
gardening tools and you know --
MS. MOORE: I would have to
Notice of Disapproval amended if
going to add, because I think we
variance for a front yard
have my
we're
need a
setback.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Right. If you
can live without it or you can attach a
small storage area to the house rather
than a garage, that is an option that
you
can pursue with your architect.
MR. BROWN: Understood. Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay. I am
going to make a motion to adjourn this
May 2, 2013 Board Meeting 171
1
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 to June 6th at 10:20.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Ail in
MEMBER DANTES: Aye.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Aye.
favor?
(See Minutes for Resolution.)
*****************************************
HEARING #6648 - STEVE CONDOS
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The last
application before the Board is Steve
Condo, #6648. The request for variance
from Article XXIII and
the Building
February 27, Disapproval
based on an building
permit for as-built deck addition to
exiting single family dwelling: 1) more
Section 280-I24
Inspector's
2013 Notice of
application for
than the code permitted maximum lot
coverage of 20%, located at: 1350
Bayview Avenue in Greenport.
So we have an as-built deck at 22%
lot coverage and the code permits a
maximum of 20%. The lot size is 2,250
square feet. 75x150 long. The deck was
May 2, 2013 Board Meeting 172
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
built about 20 years ago without a
permit and now is in contract to a new
owner who wants to retain it. So there
you are?
MS. MOORE: Yes. Here we are. My
client tells me the neighborhood got
together and built a deck with his
neighbors on a weekend. So it has the
support of his neighbors at the time.
And certainly they're still supporting
it. They have no problem with it. As
you have already stated, the house is in
contract. The buyers would like to keep
the deck. It is as a summer part and an
integral part of the seasonal enjoyment
of the house. It is a year-round house
but for the buyers, it's going to be a
second home for them. So the property,
the adjacent property to the northeast is
14 acre property. That is actually in
the process of being subdivided. It is a
subdivision of -- I think at least five
homes. I am going by my memory. The
land adjacent to all of these small
homes, the subdivision will have a buffer
May 2, 2013 Board Meeting 173
1
2
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
area, an open space area that is going to
be abutting these areas. So I hope the
other property won't bother the other.
So it won't
to the rear.
take it back,
coverage. It's
of the property.
CHAIRPERSON
happen to know
that deck is?
MS. MOORE:
-- well, it's 26
have my --
CHAIRPERSON
impact the property directly
The variance that is -- I
the variance with lot
moving towards the back
WEISMAN: Pat, do you
what the square footage
Yes. Well, the surveys
by -- 20x26. I don't
WEISMAN: 20x26.
of
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: 520 square feet.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay. That is
pretty much it.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That is going to
be open to the sky?
MS. MOORE: That's fine. Open to
the sky.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: It would
appear that there was a small storage
building there. If that were proposed to
May 2, 2013 Board Meeting 174
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
be removed to reduce lot coverage, it
would be leaving a good amount of storage
for the house.
MS. MOORE: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay. I don't
have any further questions.
Gerry?
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Eric?
MEMBER DANTES: No.
MS. MOORE: Did you get the letter
from Mr. Simikas (phonetic)? It's a
letter in support? I will just give it
to the Board.
CHAIRPERSON
that we did.
MS. MOORE:
it to me.
CHAIRPERSON
note of that.
MS. MOORE:
WEISMAN: I don't think
He went as far as giving
WEISMAN: We will make a
The survey didn't have
the adjacent neighbor.
MS. TOTH: 1350 -- no.
MS. MOORE: It should
notices.
be on the
May 2, 2013 Board 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
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: A letter from
the neighbor in support. Ail right.
There is nobody else in the audience. So
I am going to make a motion to close this
hearing and reserve decision to a later
date.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Ail in favor?
MEMBER DANTES: Aye.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Aye.
(See Minutes for Resolution.)
(Whereupon, the May 2, 2013,
Regular Meeting of the Zoning Board
Appeals concluded at 3:30 P.M.)
of
May 2, 2013 Board 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
C E R T I F I C A T I O N
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.
Jessica DiLallo
Court Reporter
PO Box 984
Holbrook, New York
11741
Date: May 17, 2013