HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-06/06/2013 Hearing 1
• 1 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
COUNTY OF SUFFOLK: STATE OF NEW YORK
2 X
azEeEZVE~
3 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 'JUL ~ 2 2013
4
BOARD OF APPEALS
5 X
6 Southold Town Hall
Southold, New York
7
8 June 6, 2013
9:51 A.M.
9
10 Board Members Present:
11
12 LESLIE KANES WEISMAN - Chairperson/Member
• 13 ERIC DANTES - Member
14 GERARD GOEHRINGER - Member
15 GEORGE HORNING - Member (Left at 2:23 P.M.)
16 KENNETH SCHNEIDER - Member
17 JENNIFER ANDALORO - Assistant Town Attorney
18 LUCILLE CAPPABIANCA - Legal Secretary
19
20 VICKI TOTH - Secretary (Excused)
21
22
23 Jessica DiLallo
Court Reporter
24 P.O. Box 984
Holbrook, New York 11741
25 (631)-338-1409
2
1
2 INDEX TO HEARINGS
3
4 Hearing Page
5
6 Nicholas & Mary Antonucci, #6638 3-5
7 Arthur Skelskie & Nan Molofsky, #6653 6-16
8 Fehim & Sevgi Uyanik, #6644 16-26
9 James & Susan Brown, #6652 26-34
10 Leslie Windisch, #6654 35-49
11 Mary Ann Wolczok & John Wolczok
12 & Janice Aloisio, #6656 49-57
• 13 Timothy McManus, #6657 57-86
14 Raymond & Joyce Vastola, #6655 86-95
15 David Turner, #6658 95-113
16 Fork & Anchor, LLC
17 (Tracey Byrnes), #6659 113-161
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
• 25
June 6, 2013 Regular Meeting 3
• 1 HEARING #6638 - NICHOLAS & MARY ANTONUCCI
2 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: We're ready to
3 start the Public Hearing's. The first
4 before us is for Nicholas and Mary
5 Antonucci. This is re-opened, so there is
6 no need to read the legal notice into the
7 record. Please state your name
8 MS. ANTONUCCI: It's Mary Antonucci.
9 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Thank you. I
10 understand that your plans are not ready?
11 MS. ANTONUCCI: No, they're not.
12 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay. Would
• 13 you like us to adjourn this application to
19 another date or adjourn it without a date,
15 so that you can get back to us when you're
16 ready?
17 MS. ANTONUCCI: I guess the second
18 one. So that we don't have to do this
19 again.
20 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay. I am
21 just asking.
22 MS. ANTONUCCI: What would the next
23 stage be?
29 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: We could move
• 25 it to September, if you want? It would
June 6, 2013 Regular Meeting 9
• 1 give you plenty of time. You need to tell
2 us what you
3 MS. ANTONUCCI: Right. We will do it
4 that way then.
5 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: You want to
6 just adjourn it to September? You think
7 that would give you enough time?
8 MS. ANTONUCCI: To September,
9 absolutely. Can we do August?
10 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: We can do
11 August.
12 MS. ANTONUCCI: We should have it by
• 13 August.
19 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: What I would
15 like to ask you though is, if in fact you
16 feel you're not going to be ready for
17 August, just please let us know a month
18 before. So that we don't advertise it.
19 The Board can have a Special Meeting and
20 adjourn it to some other time. That way
21 you don't have to keep going through
22 this
23 MS. ANTONUCCI: Yes. And I apologize
24 for this.
• 25 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: It's fine.
June 6, 2013 Regular Meeting 5
• 1 Is there anyone else in the audience
2 who would like to address this
3 application?
9 (No Response.)
5 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Anything from
6 the Board?
7 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No.
8 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Hearing no
9 further questions or comments, I am going
10 to make a motion to adjourn this to
11 August 8th at 10 o'clock. And please have
12 your documents submitted to the office far
. 13 enough in advance.
14 MS. ANTONUCCI: Yes. I will. Thank
15 you very much.
16 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: So moved.
17 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second.
18 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: All in favor?
19 MEMBER DANTES: Aye.
20 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye.
21 MEMBER HORNING: Aye.
22 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye.
23 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Aye.
24 (See Minutes for Resolution.)
• 25
June 6, 2013 Regular Meeting 6
1 HEARING #6653 - ARTHUR SKELSKIE & NAN
• 2 MOLOFSKY
3 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The next
4 application before the Board is for Arthur
5 Skelskie and Nan Molofsky. That is a
6 request for variances from Article XXII
7 Section 280-116(B) and Article IV, Section
8 280-18 and the Building Inspector's
9 April 3, 2013 Notice of Disapproval based
10 on an application for building permit for
11 additions and alterations to an existing
12 single family dwelling at; 1) less than
• 13 the code required bulkhead setback of
14 75 feet, 2) less that the code required
15 rear yard setback of 50 feet, located at:
16 510 Bayberry Road, adjacent to Wunneweta
17 Pond in Cutchogue.
18 Good morning.
19 MR. HERMANN: Good morning. How are
20 you doing?
21 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Good. Please
22 state your name for the record.
23 MR. HERMANN: Rob Hermann of En
24 Consultants, on behalf of the applicants.
• 25 The Skelskie's are present, along with the
June 6, 2013 Regular Meeting 7
1 architect, Mark Schwartz.
• 2 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay.
3 MR. HERMANN: Leslie, do you have
4 anything or do you want me to just start
5 right in?
6 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Let me just
7 enter into the record that this is for
8 additions and alterations for a
9 single-family dwelling with a bulkhead
10 setback of 45 feet, where the code
11 requires 75 feet. And a rear yard setback
12 of 95 feet, where the code requires in
• 13 that instance, 50 feet. This is basically
19 a corner of an existing garage. The
15 intent is to demolish the existing second
16 floor and build a new one. Adding doors
17 and so on to a raised attached deck, to
18 enclose the storage. The proposed outdoor
19 shower added to the existing garage and a
20 cupola and new roof on the garage. You
21 are going to connect the garage to be
22 enclosed. At grade patio. Driveway made
23 of impervious material. Pond to be
24 removed. Did I leave out anything?
• 25 MR. HERMANN: I think you got
June 6, 2013 Regular Meeting 8
1 everything that you want.
• 2 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: We do our
3 homework.
4 MR. HERMANN: Did you get the porch?
5 There is a porch and a bump-out on the
6 right?
7 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I didn't see it
8 but yes, we did.
9 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The only thing
10 that I wanted to say is that we really
11 didn't want to leave when we already did
12 the inspection.
• 13 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I actually had
14 a question. The outdoor shower as
15 proposed at 24 square feet and a 46 foot
16 bulkhead setback, it is on the street-ward
17 side of a very dramatic slope. How are
18 you going to deal with the drainage?
19 MR. SCHWARTZ: Mark Schwartz,
20 Architect for the project. We're
21 proposing the drywells for the roof
22 drainage. We're also adding drainage to
23 the driveway, and all that goes that
24 slopes down towards the house. The rest
• 25 of the property is all grass.
June 6, 2013 Regular Meeting 9
1 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The drywell for
• 2 the proposed outdoor shower?
3 MR. SCHWARTZ: Yes.
4 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I just want to
5 indicate
6 MEMBER HORNING: You're building
7 drywell's into the new driveway? In
8 addition to other drywell's.
9 MR. HERMANN: Yes. That should be
10 indicated on the survey.
11 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Let's just
12 indicate that the LWRP indicates that it
• 13 is consistent. A11 because probably the
14 construction is within the footprint.
15 MR. HERMANN: Right. Basically, as
16 you have mentioned, the relief that is
17 required for both 280-116(B) and 280-18
18 are really for the same setbacks. It's
19 the existing 45 foot setback from the
20 existing northwest corner of the garage,
21 to the corner of that small section of the
22 bulkhead that runs into the neighborly
23 parcel. So really any additions and
24 alterations here require relief, but what
25 Mark has done with the owners is basically
June 6, 2013 Regular Meeting 10
• 1 to try and design all of the renovations
2 to suite their improvement needs really
3 without stepping outside the footprint.
4 The project will increase lot coverage
5 only by 275 square feet. We're still at
6 less than So lot coverage. Basically with
7 the exception of the 24 square feet
8 outdoor shower that you're talking about
9 and the 76 square foot deck, which
10 together total a square foot of 100 square
11 feet. That is around that location of the
12 garage. That is all of the work that is
• 13 proposed within the required setbacks that
14 will occur in the existing footprint. The
15 work that would occur outside of the
16 existing footprint, although attached to
17 the nonconforming dwelling, and thus still
18 requiring relief is actually all proposed
19 in the 50 foot rear yard setback and the
20 75 bulkhead setback and that would include
21 that 2 foot bump-out and that porch. Both
22 on the road side and the house. So again,
23 they're part of the variance request
24 because they're part of the dwelling but
• 25 they exceed the required setback in both
June 6, 2013 Regular Meeting 11
• 1 cases. We did get a letter a copy of a
2 letter from the adjacent owner to the
3 north, which you should have. They're
4 speaking favorably with respect to the
5 additions. And in terms of the physical
6 conditions or environmental impact, it's
7 noted that the existing wetland and
8 bulkhead setback will not be further
9 encroached upon. The increase in coverage
10 is minimal. It's less than four-tenth's
11 of one percent. And we have an existing
12 cesspool that is located within 50 feet of
• 13 that bulkhead. That will be removed. We
14 would be installing a new sanitary system
15 up on the roadside of the house. And
16 basically by establishing a 10 foot wide
17 buffer along the bulkhead and along the
18 wetlands boundary near the house, and then
19 also incorporating the rest of that
20 peninsula basically establishing a
21 34,000 square feet non-turf buffer on the
22 property. Most of that will remain as a
23 non-disturbed buffer anyway. And as you
24 mentioned, there is drainage designed to
• 25 meet with Chapter 236 of the Town Code,
June 6, 2013 Regular Meeting 12
• 1 and those drywells are shown at the roof
2 runoff at the basin of the driveway, and
3 also most of the asphalt will be converted
4 to impervious stone. By the time this
5 whole thing is over, it would look much
6 like it does now but with various
7 improvements to the condition of the
8 property with very minimal increase in the
9 size of the structure.
10 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Questions from
11 the Board, George?
12 MEMBER HORNING: You mentioned a new
• 13 septic system. Public water, you're
14 getting water piped in from the street?
15 MR. HERMANN: Correct. There is a
16 proposed water line, George, that is shown
17 with the proposed sanitary system coming
18 in from the road.
19 MEMBER HORNING: I see that on the
20 survey, and I also see the approximate
21 well location that is to be abandoned.
22 MR. HERMANN: Yes. The well is
23 currently in use.
24 MEMBER HORNING: Are you going to
• 25 cover over the well? To be abandoned,
June 6, 2013 Regular Meeting 13
• 1 means you're not going to use it anymore
2 for any purpose; is that right?
3 MR. HERMANN: Correct. That is what
4 the Health Department requires.
5 MEMBER HORNING: You will not use it,
6 for let's say lawn irrigation?
7 MR. HERMANN: No. The Health
8 Department objects to that.
9 MEMBER HORNING: The house was built
10 approximately 1960?
11 MR. HERMANN: It was built in the
12 20's. It was added onto continuously.
. 13 MEMBER HORNING: So that setback that
14 we're talking about from the bulkhead,
15 that has been existence since the house
16 was built; correct?
17 MR. HERMANN: I believe so, correct.
18 MEMBER HORNING: And the area where
19 you're talking about a new foundation, can
20 you elaborate on that a little bit?
21 MR. SCHWARTZ: On the east side,
22 we're adding on a porch roof and platform
23 steps to the front. We're doing a two
24 foot bump-out, to give an extension to the
• 25 bedrooms on the same side.
June 6, 2013 Regular Meeting 14
• 1 MEMBER HORNING: That is the only new
2 foundation?
3 MR. SCHWARTZ: Yes.
9 MEMBER HORNING: And one other
5 question then. Variances in the immediate
6 neighborhood. Did you folks do any
7 research for variances issued with
8 bulkhead setbacks?
9 MR. HERMANN: Yes. And I included
10 some of that in the narrative, in the
11 written application. And I will just read
12 from what I wrote in that. In the
• 13 application I noted that Peconic is
19 characterized by numerous structures that
15 are less than 75 feet from the bulkhead,
16 and I have indicated the structures on the
17 attached aerial photographs that is with
18 the application. It was accepted by the
19 Board of Appeals application #6246, Alan
20 Cardinale, Jr. There were accessory
21 structures located within 30 feet of the
22 water. In that case, relief was granted
23 to allow an attached garage to remain with
24 a 31 foot setback from the bulkhead.
• 25 There was a property located on Wunneweta
June 6, 2013 Regular Meeting 15
• 1 Pond that is five properties to the south
2 of the subject property. So basically
3 we're trying to paint a picture that this
9 is a community that is heavily developed
5 and in proximity to the waters. Again,
6 the character of these structures that are
7 relative to the bulkhead are quite common
8 down there.
9 MEMBER HORNING: Okay. You don't
10 have any further details as to what
11 properties that were
12 MR. HERMANN: No. Other than the one
• 13 that was the closest because that was
14 that was five properties away and that was
15 the one that I noted in the application.
16 MEMBER HORNING: Okay. Thank you.
17 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Ken, any
18 questions?
19 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: No questions.
20 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Gerry, any
21 questions?
22 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No questions.
23 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Eric?
24 MEMBER DANTES: No questions.
• 25 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Is there anyone
June 6, 2013 Regular Meeting 16
• 1 in the audience who would like to address
2 this application?
3 (No Response.)
4 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Hearing no
5 further comments or questions, I will make
6 a motion to close this hearing and reserve
7 decision to a later date.
8 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second.
9 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Seconded by
10 Gerry.
11 All in favor?
12 MEMBER DANTES: Aye.
• 13 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye.
14 MEMBER HORNING: Aye.
15 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye.
16 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Aye.
17 (See Minutes for Resolution.)
18
19 HEARING #6644 - FEHIM & SEVGI UYANIK
20 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The next
21 application before the Board is for Fehim
22 & Sevgi Uyanik. This was adjourned from
23 May 2nd. So we will not read the legal
24 notice again into the record. Before we
• 25 get started, we received a copy of a
June 6, 2013 Regular Meeting 17
• 1 recommendation and an analysis from
2 Suffolk County, do you have a copy of
3 that?
9 MS. MOORE: No.
5 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I will just
6 give you a copy of that.
7 Pat, would you like to enter your
8 name into the record?
9 MS. MOORE: I am just reading
10 quickly.
11 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Go ahead. What
12 I will just do is briefly go through this.
• 13 Suffolk County Soil and Water now request
19 or went to inspect the property to look at
15 ways in which to reduce impact from the
16 natural resources. The LWRP had found it
17 inconsistent. They indicate here that
18 erosion is slight to moderate in the areas
19 that are on this property. The bulkhead
20 appears to be in good condition. There is
21 some erosion on the bluff to the west,
22 which I believe we talked about at the
23 last Public Hearing anyway. It appears to
24 be caused by a down-spout from the house,
• 25 which we know now will be corrected with
June 6, 2013 Regular Meeting 18
• 1 gutters and leaders and a drywell. So
2 they just recommend down-spouts from the
3 roof that go into a drywell. Also, a good
4 amount of vegetation to be remained on the
5 bluff. The LWRP had discussed last time,
6 which was re-vegetating part of the bluff
7 to stabilize the soil. And the only other
8 significant thing here is the heavy
9 equipment and building materials should be
10 kept far away from the bluff's edge as
11 possible during construction. Which is a
12 precautional measure that would be taken
• 13 anyway. There is a whole bunch of
19 attachments here indicating how you
15 stabilize the bluff and planting
16 materials. So it's very helpful. I would
17 also like to note, as per our request, the
18 Board received a survey or site plan
19 stamped by an architect increasing the
20 setbacks from the bulkhead to 50 feet.
21 And reducing the patio from the Coastal
22 Erosion Hazard area to 200 square feet as
23 suggested by the LWRP Coordinator.
24 MS. MOORE: And converting it from
• 25 impervious to pervious.
June 6, 2013 Regular Meeting 19
• 1 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Pat, for the
2 record, why don't you just enter your
3 name?
4 MS. MOORE: Patricia Moore on behalf
5 of Mr. & Mrs. Oyanik. They're both here
6 today. Angel Chorno who is the design
7 professional is also here. And what we
8 tried to do because we acknowledged that
9 the survey had a lot shoved on it, so it
10 was very difficult to follow. The plan
11 was placed on this site plan with
12 additional notes to help on the right
• 13 hand side we have notes and provides the
14 setback to the bulkhead. So that it is
15 real clear. The existing house is at 37.
16 The proposed house addition is at 50. The
17 addition being the patio on grade with
18 just a trellis over top. It's not roofed.
19 It's just trellis. Just to provide some
20 shading on the Sound. Anybody who lives
21 near the Sound would know that at times,
22 it difficult to maintain umbrellas because
23 of the wind. So the trellis is more
24 suited to provide that needed sun
. 25 protection. And as you know, a trellis is
June 6, 2013 Regular Meeting 20
• 1 a very minimal soil disturbance. No
2 different then piles for a dock. So the
3 actual construction will be 10 feet beyond
4 that. So it's 50 plus 10, being 60, which
5 is the foundation for the house will go.
6 So the main activity, I would say during
7 the construction, is at 50 feet from the
8 bulkhead. In order to accomplish this
9 change, there was a small filling in of
10 the east side. Angel Chorno shows that at
11 10x26 square on the east side of the house
12 is not be closer but it's just filling in
• 13 that area to accommodate for the loss of
14 square footage that was given up on the
15 seaward size. And he identified it as
16 "added to original primary." So that it
17 would be obvious and noted. I did have in
18 my file, a DEC map, a titled wetland map
19 from 1974, which shows this property. I
20 will submit it for the record. It pretty
21 much correlates with Soil and Water have
22 provided there. It does show how the
23 homes all along this area are similarly
24 located. I would say that back in '79,
• 25 most of the homes had bulkheads by then.
June 6, 2013 Regular Meeting 21
• 1 You can see because of the jetty and the
2 protection on the waterfront, in front of
3 the Uyanik's property is pretty generous
9 as far as the beach goes. It's where the
5 point actually increases before it goes
6 starts to diminish towards the east. So
7 that hasn't changed. It has remained that
8 way till today, and this is a 1974 map.
9 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Thank you.
10 MS. MOORE: That is my only copy. So
11 if I could get a copy back. As you can
12 see from the site plan, the lot coverage
• 13 is 9.8, and which is significantly under
14 what is permitted lot coverage. And we
15 tried to make everything as conforming as
16 possible and still accommodate the wishes
17 of the owner, which is to increase the
18 living space of the existing house.
19 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I had one
20 question. The site plan does not show the
21 location of any drywell.
22 MS. MOORE: No. This was purely for
23 identifying placement of things. I don't
29 seem them actually done by the surveyor
• 25 either but we will have to provide
June 6, 2013 Regular Meeting 22
• 1 drywell's and given the recommendations of
2 Soil & Water, we will make sure it
3 wouldn't make sense anywhere other than
4 further from the bulkhead. So there is
5 room on the east side of the property and
6 in the front of the property. There is
7 room.
8 MEMBER HORNING: Will we need that on
9 the survey before we make our decision?
10 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: They're going
11 to be required to have it. Actually it is
12 part of the recommendation of Soil &
• 13 Water. So that along with re-vegetating
19 the bank.
15 MS. MOORE: That is not a problem.
16 We do have to take out that permanent
17 patio but I don't think that that requires
18 any heavy equipment.
19 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: No. That can
20 be done with small
21 MS. MOORE: Yes.
22 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I don't think
23 it's necessary to have it on the survey.
24 I will enter it into the record that the
• 25 applicants are aware of the fact that
June 6, 2013 Regular Meeting 23
• 1 drywells are required
2 MS. MOORE: Yes. The actual
3 calculation is actually going to be based
9 on the roof.
5 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay. Any
6 other questions from the Board? George?
7 MEMBER HORNING: Yes. I have a
8 couple. I might have asked it before at
9 the last hearing. I will ask it again,
10 the new addition, foundation, tell us a
11 little bit about that? Is it a full
12 basement underneath or is it a crawl
• 13 space?
14 MS. MOORE: Crawl space.
15 MEMBER HORNING: And is it a poured
16 foundation, concrete?
17 MS. MOORE: Yes.
18 MEMBER HORNING: And then taking up
19 on the Soil & Water notes here, that it's
20 important that the lawn is maintained
21 naturally to avoid excess fertilizer from
22 reaching Long Island Sound. Now
23 maintaining naturally means in my mind,
24 no fertilizers or perhaps organic
• 25 fertilizers
June 6, 2013 Regular Meeting 29
• 1 MS. MOORE: Yes.
2 MEMBER HORNING: Is that something
3 that we can put in the condition?
4 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Sure.
5 MS. MOORE: We don't use it anyway.
6 My client doesn't use it.
7 MEMBER HORNING: I guess natural is
8 considered organic. So we will probably
9 have a condition for organic fertilizers.
10 MS. MOORE: That's fine.
11 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Ms. Moore, I
12 understand that you just got the Soil &
• 13 Water Conservation Evaluation, is your
14 client going to agree with this and follow
15 procedures with this?
16 MS. MOORE: She hasn't had the
17 benefit of looking at this, but I will go
18 very quickly through it with her, if you
19 don't mind?
20 I really didn't want to put her on
21 the spot with that, but everything is
22 pretty much common sense.
23 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: That is
24 standard things that any homeowner would
• 25 want to do.
June 6, 2013 Regular Meeting 25
• 1 MS. MOORS: I think they're
2 wonderful. They're very fair.
3 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: And very
9 thorough.
5 Ken, any questions?
6 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: No questions.
7 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Gerry?
8 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No.
9 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: George,
10 anything else?
11 MEMBER HORNING: No.
12 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Anyone else in
• 13 the audience who would like to address
14 this application?
15 (No Response.)
16 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Hearing no
17 further questions or comments, I am going
18 to make a motion to close this hearing and
19 reserve decision to a later date.
20 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second.
21 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Seconded by
22 Gerry.
23 All in favor?
24 MEMBER DANTES: Aye.
• 25 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye.
June 6, 2013 Regular Meeting 26
• 1 MEMBER HORNING: Aye.
2 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye.
3 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Aye.
4 (See Minutes for Resolution.)
5
6 HEARING #6652 - JAMES & SUSAN BROWN
7 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The next
8 application before the Boars is for James
9 and Susan Brown. This was adjourned from
10 the May 2nd Public Hearing. So there is
11 no need to read the legal notice again
12 into the record.
• 13 We do have a new site plan that was
14 submitted by Mark Schwartz. And it shows
15 the 10 foot easement with the easement
16 agreement as requested by the Board. The
17 attached garage in the front yard has been
18 removed. It is now at a 31.1 foot
19 bulkhead setback, at the closest point.
20 And third, 5 foot and 6.7 side yard
21 setback. And 220 lot coverage, which they
22 reduced from the original application,
23 which was 25.1%. So those are I think all
29 the issues that the Board has discussed
• 25 with representatives, agent and the
June 6, 2013 Regular Meeting 27
• 1 applicant.
2 MS. MOORS: Patricia Moore on behalf
3 of Mr. & Mrs. Brown. Mrs. Brown is here
4 today. And Mark Schwartz the architect is
5 here as well. I did pull out from my
6 file, some photographs, which I believe
7 you already have but I wanted to point
8 them out again. The one photograph that I
9 have, it's a side view of the deck and
10 existing structure. It puts into context
11 how far backyard the yard removing
12 because we're removing the higher area
• 13 that is existing that are existing
14 structures. So I am going to submit that
15 to the Board. Also, just to point out,
16 that cement wall is actually a retaining
17 wall, and it holds up the soil. It
18 doesn't it's not intended for holding
19 back the water or tide. And the wetlands
20 are significantly seaward, as they were
21 mapped on the survey. So I am just
22 putting that in your file so that you can
23 see that in fact when we're moving back
24 from that retaining, that we still have a
. 25 great deal of distance to the actual
June 6, 2013 Regular Meeting 28
• 1 wetlands.
2 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Thank you.
3 MS. MOORS: It was built to maintain
4 the grade of the house, which would have
5 otherwise been on an angle to the shore.
6 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Can I just ask
7 Mark something? If you don't have it
B right now, that's fine and you can supply
9 it to us please, just the mean height of
10 the roof?
11 MS. MOORS: I think we have it on the
12 plans.
• 13 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Maybe I missed
14 it.
15 MS. MOORS: Let me just see.
16 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Pat, I do just
17 want to ask you one question. The
18 original LWRP recommendation was a 15 foot
19 landscaped buffer. No, that is not true.
20 Hold on a minute. I know it was
21 considered inconsistent. I just want to
22 double check. Non-disturbance buffer. I
23 do recall
24 MS. MOORS: I think he intended
• 25 seaward of the seawall which is already
i
June 6, 2013 Regular Meeting 29
• 1 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Let me find
2 out.
3 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Site inspection
4 indicated that Rosa Rugosa is located
5 landward of wetland line in the area
6 identified as a non-disturbed buffer.
7 MS. MOORE: Okay.
8 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: In the event that
9 the action is approved, further, it is
10 recommended that the buffer be
11 reestablished as a non-disturbance buffer
12 to the retaining wall to preserve the
• 13 vegetation. It is also recommended that
14 the Board require that the existing tree
15 to the east of the retaining wall be
16 preserved.
17 MS. MOORE: There is a cedar right
18 now in the corner.
19 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Okay. They
20 specified a tree.
21 MS. MOORE: We don't know if it's
22 going to last or not. It was damaged
23 during Sandy.
24 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I think the
• 25 intent here is to not disturb the soil and
June 6, 2013 Regular Meeting 30
• 1 to leave as many in place as you can to
2 retain stable soil.
3 MS. MOORS: Right.
4 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: So if the tree
5 is damaged and diseased, then you would
6 have to take it down but the intent would
7 be to take it down right to the trunk and
8 grind it out and leave the roots in place.
9 The question is that is why I wanted to
10 bring it up and address it in the hearing
11 whether or not he is proposing a (In
12 Audible) buffer landward of the wetland
• 13 line.
14 MS. MOORS: Which would be between
15 the wetlands and the concrete retaining
16 wall. We had it as a non-turf buffer.
17 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Right. That is
18 how it is listed. I think what he is
19 doing is that he wants it to be maintained
20 as a non-turf buffer and planted with
21 he is saying that Rosa Rugosa is there.
22 MS. MOORS: That is what's there.
23 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: To keep the
29 vegetation to protect the wetlands.
• 25 MS. MOORS: I personally don't like
June 6, 2013 Regular Meeting 31
• 1 land non-disturbance buffers because you
2 can't when you initially plant the Rosa
3 Rugosa depending on the size, you do need
4 to do some maintenance in the area. And I
5 don't want to create a violation because
6 non-disturbance means really, don't touch.
7 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: You can go in
8 there to maintain it.
9 MS. MOORE: No. Not according to the
10 Trustees. You leave it alone. I think
11 that is a source of a problem that has
12 been. It's common sense that you would
• 13 want to go in and maintain it. But we
14 have no problem with it.
15 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: As long as it's
16 clear in the conditions, the Building
17 Inspector would be looking for that. And
18 I believe we can mitigate consistency by
19 the setbacks and reduce lot coverage.
20 Is there any other questions from the
21 Board? Gerry?
22 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No.
23 MS. MOORE: I just want to make sure
24 that we don't have any problems with the
• 25 Building Department. Those little two
June 6, 2013 Regular Meeting 32
• 1 foots on the drawings, those are just a
2 little cancel (In Audible) to give the
3 space inside the bedroom access. I am not
4 trying to make an issue out of it. I am
5 just trying to make sure as you can
6 see, we're keeping it to the 6.7, the
7 setback of the foundation, but it allows
8 for a very small (In Audible) within the
9 code. Typical to an "E." That was
10 enabling the house to be shrunk but be
11 allowed to have the bedroom and the living
12 area to be provide for the handicap access
• 13 that my clients are trying to get. It's 2
14 feet, which is all that you are allowed to
15 encroach.
16 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: This is the
17 second floor?
18 MS. MOORE: No, it's the first floor.
19 That's what took some time. Because their
20 concern was trying to make sure it had
21 enough room to be handicap accessible, if
22 one of them ends up in a wheelchair. I
23 just wanted to make sure that it was
24 pointed out so that it could be on the
• 25 record. The code is very specific about
June 6, 2013 Regular Meeting 33
• 1 allowing those kinds of things. We want
2 to make sure that our plans include that
3 in order to have the interior
4 circulation.
5 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Well, if we
6 stamp these drawings, that is going to be
7 that.
8 MR. SCHWARTZ: Mark Schwartz. (In
9 Audible) by the 6 feet with the bump-out
10 there.
11 MEMBER HORNING: Why isn't that a
12 wall with a window in it?
• 13 MS. MOORE: It is a wall with a
14 window in it.
15 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I just want to
16 know what the side yard setback is?
17 MR. SCHWARTZ: About 4.7 feet.
18 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: So in other
19 words, you have 4.7 feet cleared at that
20 point?
21 MR. SCHWARTZ: Yes.
22 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That is the
23 reason why you described the ladder issue
24 to the second floor?
• 25 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Because we said
June 6, 2013 Regular Meeting 34
• 1 5 foot minimum. So we have an actual
2 setback of 4.7.
3 MR. SCHWARTZ: Yes.
4 MS. MOORE: The first floor only so
5 that it doesn't interfere with the ladder.
6 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Any further
7 questions from the Board?
8 (No Response.)
9 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Anyone else in
10 the audience who wishes to address this
11 application?
12 (NO Response.)
• 13 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay. Hearing
14 no further questions or comments from the
15 Board, I am going to make a motion to
16 close the hearing and reserve decision to
17 a later date.
18 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second.
19 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: All in favor?
20 MEMBER DANTES: Aye.
21 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye.
22 MEMBER HORNING: Aye.
23 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye.
24 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Aye.
• 25 (See Minutes for Resolution.)
June 6, 2013 Regular Meeting 35
1
2 HEARING #6654 - LESLIE WINDISCH
3 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The next
4 application before the Board is for Leslie
5 Windisch, #6654. Request for variances
6 from Article XXII Section 280-116(8) and
7 Article III, Section 280-15F and the
8 Building Inspector's April 2, 2013 Notice
9 of Disapproval based on an application for
10 building permit for in-ground swimming
11 pool and "as-built" shed at; 1) proposed
12 in-ground swimming pool at less than the
13 code required bulkhead setback of 75 feet,
14 2) "as-built" shed at less than the code
15 required front yard setback of 50 feet on
16 waterfront property, located at: 1440
17 Kimberly Lane, adjacent to Southold Bay,
18 North Bayview Road in Southold.
19 Good morning. Would you please state
20 your name for the record.
21 MR. BIRKMIER: Bill Birkmier. I am
22 from North Fork Pool Care. I am
23 representing Ms. Windisch.
24 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Do you have a
25 copy of the Local Waterfront
June 6, 2013 Regular Meeting 36
1 Revitalization?
2 MR. BIRKMIER: I do.
3 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: That was faxed.
4 MR. BIRKMIER: Yes.
5 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I just wanted
6 to make sure of that. It would appear
7 that the pool is proposed at a 30 foot
8 bulkhead setback, where the code requires
9 75 feet. The "as-built" shed is at a 64
10 feet bulkhead setback. The code requires
11 75. The shed is 100 square feet in size.
12 And the "as-built" shed is in the front
• 13 yard at 13.3 feet, where the front yard
14 setback shown in a front yard on
15 waterfront property is a 50 foot required
16 front yard setback. The pool as proposed
17 is 35x16 feet. This is a corner lot. And
18 just so you're aware of, all of the Board
19 members have made a personal site
20 inspection. So we're able to see what the
21 property looks like.
22 Is there anything that you would like
23 to tell us about this application?
24 MR. BIRKMIER: I think it's self
• 25 explanatory. We're seeking a variance
June 6, 2013 Regular Meeting 37
• 1 because of the bulkhead not being within
2 the 75 feet.
3 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The LWRP
9 recommendation recommends that it's
5 consistent. Okay. That's the policy.
6 Let's see what questions. Ken, any
7 questions?
8 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Yes. I see the
9 proposed pool is situated perpendicular to
10 the wood bulkhead. Can you look at
11 possibly turning it 90 degrees, which
12 would reduce the required setback to the
• 13 bulkhead?
14 MR. BIRKMIER: Yes. When I went to
15 the Town Board. We would like to have it
16 that way if it worked out. I guess it
17 would be about a 15 foot difference if it
18 was run off the deck, parallel.
19 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: When you say
20 "Town Board," do you mean Trustees?
21 MR. BIRKMIER: I'm sorry, when I went
22 over to the Building Department. Speaking
23 with the Building Department on the
24 original layout of the pool. So I needed
• 25 to come in front of you as it was, so we
June 6, 2013 Regular Meeting 38
• 1 left it the way that Ms. Windisch would
2 like to have the pool. If you say we
3 can't do that and it needs to be
4 perpendicular to the deck, I could also
5 submit
6 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: No. What I mean
7 is, if you could turn the pool 90 feet
8 MR. BIRKMIER: And that would be
9 perpendicular to the deck.
10 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Parallel?
11 MR. BIRKMIER: I'm sorry, parallel to
12 the deck.
• 13 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Yes.
14 MR. BIRKMIER: I looked at that
15 originally, yes.
16 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: And this is just a
17 desire to have it that way?
18 MR. BIRKMIER: Yes. If we could
19 possibly do it that way.
20 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: I see that the
21 house is set back 75 feet from the
22 bulkhead.
23 MR. BIRKMIER: Yes.
29 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: So anything
• 25 proposed between the house and the
June 6, 2013 Regular Meeting 39
• 1 bulkhead is going to require a variance.
2 There are two front yards. Is there
3 access to North Bayview Road from this
4 parcel?
5 MR. BIRKMIER: No, there is not.
6 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Okay. Can you
7 describe the North Bayview Road property
8 line? What's on it?
9 MR. BIRKMIER: There is a fence for
10 the town that runs from the bridge all the
11 way around the corner. And it's the path
12 of his property as well as into the
• 13 neighbor's. His driveway comes off of
14 Kimberly and wraps around the side of the
15 house, and that is where the shed is
16 located. There is no other place proposed
17 on the property where the shed could be
18 moved to other than having to get a
19 variance. So we put the shed somewhere
20 else. The shed has been there for quite
21 some time.
22 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Upon site
23 inspection, it was observed that there was
29 a rather large well established trees
• 25 along North Bayview. Is there any
June 6, 2013 Regular Meeting 40
1 intention on doing anything to those
• 2 trees?
3 MR. BIRKMIER: No, there aren't.
4 Where the pool is proposed to be put in
5 there is no tree removal whatsoever.
6 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Did you have a
7 copy of the LWRP?
8 MR. BIRKMIER: Yes.
9 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Recommendation
10 about a 10 foot wide landscaped buffer
11 along the bulkhead
12 MR. BIRKMIER: Yes.
• 13 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Do you see any
14 problem with installing that?
15 MR. BIRKMIER: I do not. It's grass
16 all the way up to the bulkhead.
17 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: I don't have any
18 more questions right now. I'm good.
19 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Do you have any
20 ideas of whether these clients of yours of
21 what occurred during Hurricane Sandy and
22 how far the water came up over the
23 bulkhead?
24 MR. BIRKMIER: It didn't come over
• 25 the bulkhead.
June 6, 2013 Regular Meeting 41
• 1 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: It did not?
2 MR. BIRKMIER: No. It made the
3 bottom of the bulkhead water lapping up to
4 it. It came to the bulkhead.
5 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Only to the
6 bulkhead but it did not come over to the
7 grass area at a11?
8 MR. BIRKMIER: No. And that's a four
9 foot bulkhead, I believe. It slopes down
10 to the beach.
11 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Okay. Thank you.
12 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: George, any
• 13 questions?
14 MEMBER HORNING: Yes. Along the
15 lines of moving the pool, I did want to
16 comment that we're charged with issuing
17 the least amount of relief that is
18 possible. So certainly, you know, putting
19 the pool parallel to the house produces a
20 greater setback to the bulkhead. We do
21 look for things.
22 MR. BIRKMIER: It would be
23 approximately 15 feet.
24 MEMBER HORNING: That's really
• 25 accommodating in my opinion.
June 6, 2013 Regular Meeting 42
• 1 MR. BIRKMIER: If we brought it to
2 the deck, parallel to the deck
3 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: It would be
4 about 50 feet?
5 MR. BIRKMIER: Well, the pool is 16
6 wide and you still have 9 feet on each
7 side.
8 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Well, wait a
9 minute. The 4 feet on each side is an
10 at-grade patio?
11 MR. BIRKMIER: Correct.
12 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: That doesn't
• 13 count.
19 MR. BIRKMIER: From the waters
15 edge
16 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: So what we want
17 to know is if you turn it parallel to the
18 house, how many feet to the deck?
19 MR. BIRKMIER: 16 feet. You're
20 looking at 35 feet on length and the width
21 would stay the same at 16. So the length
22 would be 16 minus from 32. That is more
23 towards the house itself.
24 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Well right now
• 25 you're proposing 30 feet?
June 6, 2013 Regular Meeting 43
• 1 MR. BIRKMIER: Yes.
2 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: If you turn it,
3 what are you talking about? Add that up?
4 MR. BIRKMIER: 35 feet.
5 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Again, I want
6 to explain that the Board, when
7 reasonable, we grant relief from the code,
8 but the law obligates us to grant the
9 minimal amount of relief. So that is
10 something that the Board will entertain as
11 an alternative to what you're proposing.
12 MR. BIRKMIER: Understood. Would a
• 13 10 foot setback from the bulkhead still
14 apply?
15 MEMBER HORNING: Yes. The adjacent
16 neighbor with the seemingly very large
17 house, is that a way to describe it?
18 MR. BIRKMIER: Yeah. A lot of work
19 being done.
20 MEMBER HORNING: I happened to walk
21 around there too and they have a pool as
22 well.
23 MR. BIRKMIER: Yes.
24 MEMBER HORNING: I thought I saw a
• 25 pool as Z was walking along side that.
June 6, 2013 Regular Meeting 44
• 1 MR. BIRKMIER: I will be opening that
2 next week.
3 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: No variance
4 required.
5 MR. BIRKMIER: To open it.
6 MEMBER HORNING: What is the setback
7 from the bulkhead there? If I might ask.
8 Have you compared this property with
9 neighbors is my question?
10 MR. BIRKMIER: I did not yet. On my
11 last variance, you asked me to do the
12 same. With my work being next door, I
• 13 would do that next time if you ask me to
14 do that.
15 MEMBER HORNING: We do, in recent
16 years, ask for in relation to the
17 character of the neighborhood that we
18 would like information. What other
19 variances? Are they nonconforming pools?
20 MR. BIRKMIER: Okay. There are four
21 pools on that block that I could get the
22 variances for.
23 MEMBER HORNING: If you could, that
24 would be very helpful.
• 25 MR. BIRKMIER: Okay.
June 6, 2013 Regular Meeting 45
1 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I should note
• 2 that the shed is really not visible. It's
3 quite tucked away and I don't see any
4 visual impact or any environmental impact.
5 And I will point out, that any location is
6 going to require a variance. With regards
7 to the swimming pool, in its proposed
8 location, it remains parallel to the
9 bulkhead.
10 Gerry, did you have any questions?
11 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: One of the
12 concerns in turning a pool and giving you
• 13 a greater distance, and I appreciate that
14 information, is that we don't normally (In
15 Audible) the other parcels that are
16 similar in nature. We have had some
17 variances that are three or four houses
18 from this, and it appears that their
19 properties are all higher than this piece
20 of property. That is a great concern that
21 I have about this pool. So I just wanted
22 to state that for the record.
23 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I don't see on
24 the surveys a location for either a
• 25 drywell
June 6, 2013 Regular Meeting 96
1 MR. BIRKMIER: On the side of the
• 2 house. And the pool equipment will go
3 right next to it.
4 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Pool equipment,
5 okay. I see it.
6 MEMBER HORNING: Should we ask for an
7 amended survey to show what we're talking
8 about in movement of the pool
9 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Well, if we
10 grant alternative relief, then you will be
11 required to submit, once the decision is
12 rendered, a final survey showing the
• 13 alternative relief that was granted by
14 this Board and stamped and brought to the
15 Building Department for proof.
16 MR. BIRKMIER: Okay.
17 MEMBER HORNING: If we get a new
18 survey before our decision, would we be
19 granting alternative relief or
20 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Then it would
21 be an amended application. It may or may
22 not require an amended Notice of
23 Disapproval.
24 MR. BIRKMIER: With your wishes, if
• 25 you want it moved that way, we will have
June 6, 2013 Regular Meeting 47
• 1 the surveys redone and show you what it's
2 going to look like and the square footage.
3 I just looked on the old surveys that I
4 had and I had proposed a 20x40 along side
5 the deck, and we made the pool smaller, to
6 meet the wind conditions and make it look
7 better for the Town. The deck that is
8 there, is going to stay there. We're
9 going to be about 40-45 feet from the
10 bulkhead. I will get the exact numbers
11 for you.
12 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Why don't we do
• 13 this, let's see if there is any comments
14 from the audience or questions from the
15 Board, but we can close the hearing
16 subject to receipt of an amended survey
17 showing the conditions that we talked
18 about, and then we can call it an amended
19 application and we can stamp the survey
20 that you submit. Then the clock would
21 start for writing the decision, from the
22 time that we received that updated survey.
23 MR. BIRKMIER: The other variances
24 from the other pools, would you like to
• 25 see that as well?
June 6, 2013 Regular Meeting 98
1 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I think that
• 2 would help.
3 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: And a 10 foot
4 buffer, if you want to show that too. And
5 we meet in two weeks. If you can get it
6 to us in a week or so and maybe we can
7 deliberate on it in two weeks.
8 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: You already
9 have the drywell and the pump equipment
10 located but we will likely add an
11 enclosure for sound deafening for the pool
12 equipment.
• 13 MR. BIRKMIER: Okay.
14 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: That is
15 something that the Board tends to do in
16 general. Okay. Any other comments from
17 the Board?
18 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No.
19 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Is there anyone
20 in the audience that would like to address
21 this application?
22 (No Response.)
23 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Hearing no
24 further questions or comments, I am going
• 25 to make a motion to close this hearing
June 6, 2013 Regular Meeting 49
1 subject to receipt of an amended survey
• 2 showing a 45 foot setback to the bulkhead
3 of the swimming pool and a 10 foot wide
4 landscaped buffer along the bulkhead. I
5 also want to add that you're going to
6 submit other variance applications from
7 the surrounding properties.
8 Is there a second?
9 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second.
10 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: All in favor?
11 MEMBER DANTES: Aye.
12 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye.
• 13 MEMBER HORNING: Aye.
14 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye.
15 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Aye.
16 (See Minutes for Resolution.)
17
18 HEARING #6656 - MARY ANN WOLCZOK &
19 JOHN WOLCZOK & JANICE ALOISIO
20 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The next
21 application before the Board is for Mary
22 Ann Wolczok and John Wolczok and Janice
23 Aloisio, and it is application #6656.
24 This is a request for a Waiver of Merger
• 25 under Article II, Section 280-10A, to
June 6, 2013 Regular Meeting 50
1 un-merge land identified as SCTM#
• 2 1000-144-1-12, based on the Building
3 Inspector's February 5, 2013, Notice of
9 Disapproval which states adjoining
5 conforming and nonconforming lots held in
6 common ownership shall merge until the
7 total lot size conforms to the current
8 bulk schedule (minimum 40,000 square feet
9 in this R-90 Residential Zone District)
10 this lot is merged with lot
11 #1000-144-1-13, located at: 1830 and 1880
12 Sigsbee Road in Mattituck.
• 13 Please state your name for th record,
14 please.
15 MR. GOGGINS: William Goggins. The
16 Law Office of Goggins and Palumbo, for the
17 applicant. Good morning.
18 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Good morning.
19 Okay. As you know, we have all made site
20 inspection. It would appear from my
21 research that these lots merged in 2001.
22 MR. GOGGINS: That's correct.
23 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Now, the
24 question that we have are two-fold. Are
• 25 the two lots held in 2001 till today by
June 6, 2013 Regular Meeting 51
1 the same family?
• 2 MR. GOGGINS: It is the same family
3 but they transferred the deed in 2003, two
4 years. They were merged in 2001 and two
5 years later, they un-merged them once they
6 realized what happened.
7 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: They
8 transferred it to a distant family member?
9 MR. GOGGINS: Yes. That is what they
10 did. In 2003, on Lot #12, there was a
11 transfer from the owners at that time,
12 Mary Ann Wolczok, John G. Wolczok and
• 13 John and Janice Aloisio to Mary Ann
14 Wolczok and John and Janice Aloisio.
15 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: They're
16 related? The Wolczok's and the Aloisio's?
17 MR. GOGGINS: Yes. Janice Aloisio is
18 the Wolczok's daughter. John Aloisio is
19 the son-in-law. That is the relationship.
20 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: So in 2003, it
21 was transferred from say that again?
22 MR. GOGGINS: From Mary Ann Wolczok,
23 a 1/3 owner. John G. Wolczok, a 1/3 owner
24 and John and Janice Aloisio, 1/3 owner.
• 25 They purchased it on January 12, 2001 and
June 6, 2013 Regular Meeting 52
• 1 they transferred it on May 13, 2003 to
2 Mary Ann Wolczok, half owner and John and
3 Janice Aloisio, half owner. So they were
4 merged for that two and a half year
5 period.
6 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: So the two
7 people that are half owners as of now?
8 MR. GOGGINS: No. There was a
9 another transfer on August 20, 2010 where
10 John and Janice Aloisio transferred it to
11 Janice Aloisio, as a result of a divorce
12 case.
• 13 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay. So John
14 and Janice Aloisio transferred it to
15 Janice Aloisio?
16 MR. GOGGINS: Correct. So the
17 current owners to this date are Mary Ann
18 Wolczok, half owner, and her daughter,
19 Janice Aloisio, half owner.
20 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: So Mary Ann
21 Wolczok is the daughter
22 MR. GOGGINS: No. Is the mother of
23 Janice Aloisio.
24 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay. Thank
• 25 you.
June 6, 2013 Regular Meeting 53
• 1 George, do you have questions?
2 MEMBER HORNING: John G. Wolczok, he
3 is?
4 MR. GOGGINS: He is Mary Ann's son.
5 MEMBER HORNING: Mary Ann's son. And
6 Janet is the daughter?
7 MR. GOGGINS: Janice.
g MEMBER HORNING: Janice. And she
9 married John Aloisio?
10 MR. GOGGINS: Correct.
11 MEMBER HORNING: And they got
12 divorced, and as a part of their divorce
• 13 settlement, he got out of the picture and
14 the property in 2010, the one-half went
15 solely to the daughter, Janice, the
16 daughter of Mary Ann Wolczok?
17 MR. GOGGINS: Correct.
18 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: What about the
19 framed garage? Clearly, it has been there
20 for a very long time?
21 MR. GOGGINS: Yes. In 1980. I guess
22 when they bought it in 2001, the fence is
23 already on the lot. The house was on
24 Lot #13. They purchased that on
. 25 October 2, 1987 and at that time, that
June 6, 2013 Regular Meeting 54
• 1 fence was there. That shed was there.
2 Everything was there. And it wasn't until
3 14 years later when that lot with the shed
4 on it became available for purchase. They
5 purchased it then for the purposes of
6 investment in the event that they get
7 older and they need money, they would be
8 able to sell it. And that is kind of
9 where they're at now. It's just gotten to
10 a point where they need to get some money
11 and Social Security is just not doing it
12 anymore. They wanted to sell. So they
• 13 got me to start the process.
14 MEMBER HORNING: Yes. I have another
15 question regarding this whole process, the
16 merger and the attempt to un-merge. You
17 described in 2003, they did a deed
18 transaction, an attempt to un-merge what
19 had been merged.
20 MR. GOGGINS: Correct.
21 MEMBER HORNING: How did it happen
22 that they discovered the merge? And that
23 they should maybe do something, even if
24 it's not necessarily the right thing to
• 25 do? Did they get advice to do this? How
June 6, 2013 Regular Meeting 55
• 1 did they happen to find this out?
2 MR. GOGGINS: Yes. They had spoken
3 to a lawyer at a party somewhere, and he
4 said, "gee you know, they have a merger
5 law in Southold, and I think you need to
6 transfer a deed to un-merge it. And that
7 is what you need to do. And you will be
8 fine." The advice was half right. That
9 was ten years ago. So that is why they
10 did it. They wanted to preserve their
11 investment.
12 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Speaking of
• 13 transferring of deed, just so you're
19 aware, a template for these decisions is
15 not a Waiver of Merger. The condition is
16 based on a recording of the deed. We have
17 actually had experiences, by this Board's
18 decision that lots have been un-merged and
19 then remerged, because they never filed a
20 deed or they transferred it. We just
21 wanted to avoid that problem.
22 MR. GOGGINS: Yes. We would do that
23 immediately.
24 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: So some people,
• 25 and attorneys would be aware to do that
June 6, 2013 Regular Meeting 56
• 1 but there are applicant's that don't
2 realize that that needs to be done. As a
3 way of assisting property owners, we put
4 that right away so that this kind of thing
5 doesn't happen.
6 MR. GOGGINS: That's a great idea.
7 MEMBER HORNING: Counselor, are you
8 saying that these two lots have been held
9 in the same family for a number of years?
10 MR. GOGGINS: Yes. Correct. Since
11 2001 when they purchased the vacant lot
12 for an investment. I don't know if you
• 13 want it but I did a highlighted of all the
14 properties that are similar. This was
15 created by a subdivision on
16 January 12, 1926, as are other
17 subdivisions in our town. And it started
18 out as 8 lots of 1/6 size and they're
19 still that way. Section 94, there are
20 still 29 of these lots that are 1/6 of an
21 acre. There are 9 that are about 1/3 of
22 an acre. There are 6 that are about a 1/4
23 of an acre. And there is 1 that is to of
24 an acre. And then there is one that is
• 25 0.15 of an acre. It's consistent with the
June 6, 2013 Regular Meeting 57
. 1 neighborhood. These are small lots. If
2 you want
3 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Sure. We will
4 take them. We did do the site inspection.
5 Any other questions from the Board?
6 (No Response.)
7 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay. Is there
8 anyone in the audience who would like to
9 address this application?
10 (No Response.)
11 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay. Hearing
12 no further questions from the Board, I
. 13 will make a motion to close this hearing
14 and reserve decision to a later date.
15 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second.
16 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: All in favor?
17 MEMBER DANTES: Aye.
18 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye.
19 MEMBER HORNING: Aye.
20 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye.
21 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Aye.
22 (See Minutes for Resolution.)
23
24 HEARING #6657 - TIMOTHY MCMANUS
• 25 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The next
June 6, 2013 Regular Meeting 58
• 1 application before the Board is for
2 Timothy McManus, #6657. Request for
3 variances from Article XXII Section
4 280-116(B) and Article III, Section
5 280-115 and the Building Inspector's
6 March 21, 2013 Notice of Disapproval based
7 on an application for building permit for
8 demolition and re-construction of a
9 cabana/shower and decking, at: 1) less
10 than the code required bulkhead setback of
11 75 feet, 2) less than the code required 10
12 foot setback for accessory structures, 3)
• 13 the proposed cabana is not a permitted
14 accessory use, located at: 7725 Nassau
15 Point Road, adjacent to Little Peconic Bay
16 in Cuthchogue.
17 Is there someone here to represent?
18 MR. GOGGINS: Good morning.
19 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Good morning,
20 again.
21 MR. GOGGINS: William Goggins. Law
22 Office of Goggins and Palumbo for the
23 applicant Timothy McManus. This is a
24 matter that has already been before the
• 25 Trustees. The Trustees approved the
June 6, 2013 Regular Meeting 59
• 1 structure where it is. Since the
2 application has been submitted, we sent
3 out the mailings to the neighboring
4 property owners. One of the neighboring
5 property owners is here today. I had a
6 meeting with him and Mr. McManus and they
7 were concerned about the height as well as
8 the outdoor shower on the north side of
9 the structure facing the neighbor. So
10 they worked out a plan where they were
11 going to lower the roof onto the structure
12 to make it consistent with what was there
• 13 before. And the neighbor asked to move
14 the outdoor shower from the north side to
15 the south side. My thought about that
16 was, that's a great idea but now it's on
17 the south side facing the other neighbor.
18 The shower was and always has been on the
19 inside of the structure and I am not sure
20 why but the architect designed the
21 structure so that the shower is on the
22 outside. I think in this situation, the
23 outside shower may not be such a great
24 idea and needs to be back on the inside of
• 25 the structure.
June 6, 2013 Regular Meeting 60
• 1 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Do you have a
2 copy of the LWRP recommendation?
3 MR. GOGGINS: Yes, I do.
4 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: According to
5 their recommendation, the Trustees did
6 approve the deck. The cabana was not
7 applied for on the application and not
8 included in their permit. You have to
9 come to microphone and state your name for
10 the record.
11 MR. MCMANUS: Tim McManus, the owner.
12 The deck, we were issued a permit for that
• 13 structure and then after the storm, the
14 Trustees did a separate action and issued
15 an emergency permit to rebuild the cabana.
16 So we have two separate permits. Two
17 separate Trustee permits. One to rebuild
18 the deck and the bulkhead and a separate
19 one to rebuild the cabana that they had
20 permitted the prior summer.
21 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Prior to
22 MR. MCMANUS: Prior to the storm. It
23 was part of the review. When we went to
24 the Trustees they had a question of the
• 25 existing cabana and asked us to make a
June 6, 2013 Regular Meeting 61
• 1 change, which we did and as a result of
2 that change, they issued us a permit for
3 the structure. After it was destroyed by
4 the storm and since it had an existing
5 permit, they were able to issue an
6 emergency permit to rebuild. Both of
7 those are on file with the Town.
8 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: One is for the
9 cabana
10 MR. MCMANUS: The one that you're
11 seeing is for the deck and the bulkhead
12 and then there is an emergency permit to
• 13 rebuild the cabana.
19 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Which was
15 issued when?
16 MR. MCMANUS: I would guess for
17 December, January.
18 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Of last year?
19 MR. MCMANUS: Between December '12
20 and January '13.
21 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Well, we're
22 certainly going to need a copy of that.
23 We have a letter from them dated May 24th,
24 and the only thing that they could find
• 25 with regards to the permit were
June 6, 2013 Regular Meeting 62
• 1 MR. MCMANUS: We can supply that.
2 MEMBER HORNING: There is one prior
3 to this?
4 MR. MCMANUS: There was one issued, I
5 believe in August of last year, which was
6 prior to the storm, which made the cabana.
7 Permitted a structure. Because it was a
8 permitted structure, it fell under the
9 emergency permit procedures, so they
10 issued an emergency permit.
11 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: We need that
12 original August decision from the
• 13 Trustees.
14 MR. MCMANUS: Okay.
15 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Was that a
16 renovation or was that prior to the
17 demolition? Obviously, it was before it
18 was demolished before the storm.
19 MR. MCMANUS: In August, they issued
20 an "as-built" permit. I don't know that
21 exact wording, but they permitted the
22 structure. And then because it was a
23 permitted structure, it qualified for an
24 emergency permit to rebuild it as-is.
• 25 They issued that permit. Tom Samuels was
June 6, 2013 Regular Meeting 63
• 1 the one who did the emergency permit.
2 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: We do actually
3 have a copy of the August 22, 2012 permit
4 from the Town Board of Trustees. Okay. I
5 will read it into the record just so we're
6 clear what it says. "Wetlands permit. To
7 demolish the existing one-story dwelling
8 with attached garage and abandon the
9 sanitary system. To construct a new
10 two-story dwelling with attached garage
11 and stone terrace. And new sanitary
12 system to connect with water pump by a
• 13 pump station sanitary system and for the
14 existing bath house, with the condition to
15 establish and consistently maintain a 10
16 foot buffer that is depicted on the site
17 plan prepared by Samuels and Steelman
18 dated July 25, 2012." Is that what we
19 have here? It looks like it.
20 MR. MCMANUS: I am trying to find the
21 date of the emergency permit.
22 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Now all of
23 these things took place prior to the
24 demolition of the cabana. The assumption
• 25 is, that it's going to be replaced but
June 6, 2013 Regular Meeting 64
1 in-kind of this cabana. Then the storm
• 2 hit and because you had a prior decision,
3 the emergency permit took place. However,
4 the emergency permit would be to rebuild
5 and reconstruct in-kind and was not
6 referred to as a demolition. According to
7 code, once a nonconformity is demolished,
8 any kind of preexisting use is finished.
9 There is our record, a 1997 section by the
10 Building Department that indicated that
11 the stucco cabana was in fact inspected
12 however, in the bottom, with a question
• 13 mark it says DEC, Trustee and ZBA
14 approval. No such approval, according to
15 our research has taken such place. Are
16 you aware of that or do you have any
17 comments on that? In other words, there
18 is no CO of record of this structure?
19 MR. GOGGINS: I believe there is.
20 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: See this is
21 what I am referring to.
22 MR. GOGGINS: Yes. I see that.
23 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: There is a
24 Pre-CO dated September 2, 1997 for
• 25 one-family dwelling with accessory bath
June 6, 2013 Regular Meeting 65
• 1 house. It's a lot of paperwork. I just
2 want to make sure that it's all entered
3 into the record so that we don't get
4 completely confused with the various
5 permits. Okay. Let's address something
6 else.
7 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: That emergency
8 permit was for your bath house and your
9 bulkhead, deck?
10 MR. MCMANUS: The emergency permit
11 only covered the bath house.
12 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Okay.
• 13 MEMBER HORNING: So we still don't
14 have a copy of it. One is dated
15 January 3, 2013 and the other is
16 MR. MCMANUS: January was the date
17 that we got the bulkhead and the deck.
18 MEMBER HORNING: But you stated there
19 was a third one also?
20 MR. MCMANUS: No. In August of last
21 year, prior to the storm, the Trustees
22 permitted the cabana.
23 MEMBER HORNING: With a pump station,
24 which is what we have here. This copy.
• 25 MR. MCMANUS: That it was destroyed
June 6, 2013 Regular Meeting 66
• 1 during the storm. And then November 2012,
2 the Trustees issued a permit for me to
3 rebuild the cabana.
4 MEMBER HORNING: Which we don't have.
5 MR. MCMANUS: That was November,
6 2012.
7 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: So let me try and
8 understand this a little more. Back
9 sometime in August, while you applied for
10 a permit to reconstruct your house, the
11 house here and along with the bath house,
12 and you applied
• 13 MR. MCMANUS: The permit was (In
14 Audible).
15 (Mr. McManus, is not near the
16 microphone.)
17 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I'm sorry, if
18 you want to speak to the Board, you have
19 to speak into the microphone because it's
20 being recorded.
21 MR. MCMANUS: The Trustees when
22 approving our building application, they
23 rased an issue on the cabana.
24 Specifically for the septic. We agreed to
• 25 make that change, and as a result of that,
June 6, 2013 Regular Meeting 67
• 1 they issued a permit for the cabana and
2 approved the overall site plan for the
3 reconstruction. They permitted the cabana
4 and approved our plans for the
5 construction. And the cabana was
6 destroyed in the storm. And because the
7 cabana had a preexisting permit, it
8 qualified for an emergency permit, which
9 we applied for and was approved from the
10 Trustees.
11 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: When this
12 happened, you applied for to reconstruct
• 13 your bulkhead?
14 MR. MCMANUS: No. We have not done
15 anything to the bulkhead. The bulkhead
16 was also destroyed in the storm. In
17 January at the Trustees meeting, we
18 received a permit to rebuild the bulkhead.
19 So we have Trustees permits for all three.
20 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: And with the
21 original house plans, did you have to show
22 on the drawings how you were going to
23 address the bath house cabana septic
24 system issue for the Trustees?
• 25 MR. MCMANUS: Yes. At that time, we
June 6, 2013 Regular Meeting 68
• 1 went to the Building Department and the
2 Health Department and got approvals for
3 that pump station. So that has all been
4 approved and that system is in this set of
5 drawings that we have submitted to you
6 today.
7 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Looks like the
8 reconstructed beach house and cabana house
9 is going to be reduced in size?
10 MR. GOGGINS: Yes.
11 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: And it looks like
12 it's proposed behind the (In Audible).
• 13 And that shows the wood deck, and the
19 bulkhead?
15 MR. GOGGINS: Yes.
16 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: I noticed there
17 were shingles on it?
18 MR. MCMANUS: It's cinder block with
19 shingles on it. We bought the house three
20 years ago.
21 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Previously the
22 shower was inside?
23 MR. MCMANUS: Yes.
24 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: I don't have any
• 25 more questions at this time.
June 6, 2013 Regular Meeting 69
• 1 MEMBER HORNING: In addition to,
2 there is a shower that was inside the
3 original cabana, is that what you're
4 saying?
5 MR. MCMANUS: Yes.
6 MEMBER HORNING: Which discharged
7 water into a cesspool?
8 MR. MCMANUS: There was a small
9 cesspool underneath that deck.
10 MEMBER HORNING: Which is
11 non-functional at this time?
12 MR. MCMANUS: I think so.
• 13 MR. GOGGINS: I have photographs
14 here.
15 MEMBER HORNING: In addition to the
16 shower, what other things were in there
17 that discharged water?
18 MR. MCMANUS: Had a sink and toilet.
19 MEMBER HORNING: And are you
20 intending to have a sink and toilet?
21 MR. MCMANUS: Yes. That is in the
22 plans too.
23 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay. I want
24 to make two distinction here. First of
• 25 all, there is a difference between
June 6, 2013 Regular Meeting 70
• 1 renovating what is already there, which is
2 what we originally discussed on the
3 permits with Trustees. And once a
4 demolition has determined to be the case,
5 the CO is lost. The Certificate of
6 Occupancy can no longer exist because it's
7 a new structure. It's not an old
8 structure that had a CO. It's a new
9 structure. That's important to determine.
10 Secondly, you're proposing to move a
11 structure out of the DE Zone and into a X
12 Zone. The LWRP points out that creating a
• 13 bulkhead, a landward bulkhead is
14 disturbing.
15 MR. MCMANUS: We have already
16 received approval from the Trustees for
17 the cabana, and we're not (In Audible).
18 (Mr. McManus, is not near the
19 microphone.)
20 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The Zoning
21 Board and the Trustees have the same
22 jurisdiction but we look at different
23 things. When you received your permit to
29 rebuild in-place, the plans that they had
• 25 is what they granted that permit on.
June 6, 2013 Regular Meeting 71
• 1 MR. MCMANUS: We agreed to put in a
2 septic system and I never heard anything
3 back from them.
4 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay. Fine.
5 So then the building was pretty much okay
6 the way that it was at the time, and you
7 were going to simply change the septic to
8 make it more environmentally
9 MR. MCMANUS: Right.
10 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: So the point
11 is, that you were they were really
12 looking at the environmental impact of
• 13 drainage and so on, in this application.
14 MR. MCMANUS: There was no proposed
15 runoff onto the beach at that time.
16 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay. So now
17 we're looking at a situation where it is
18 demolished. You're proposing to reduce
19 it. Move it back. Putting in new
20 plumbing. Putting in a new outdoor
21 shower. And putting in a refraining wall
22 at the top of the bank.
23 MR. GOGGINS: Correct.
24 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I just want to
• 25 make sure that it accurate. So would you
June 6, 2013 Regular Meeting 72
. 1 like to address (In Audible). I know you
2 have a copy, but you have to address the
3 concerns of the LWRP by law and the
4 coordinator has indicated that these kinds
5 of actions are inconsistent with various
6 policies. This Board could not do any
7 approval unless there is a finding of
8 consistency. Also, the 4x6 drywell
9 proposed on the bank is on a slope and
10 also compromises the stability of the
11 bluff. I am just looking at this. You
12 will have an opportunity to address it.
• 13 MR. GOGGINS: I would like to reserve
14 to our next meeting, so I can put that
15 together. I don't have that today.
16 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Are you
17 requesting an adjournment to another date?
18 MR. GOGGINS: With regards to that
19 issue, yes.
20 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Let me see if
21 the Board has any other questions. Eric,
22 do you have any comments or questions that
23 you would like to ask?
24 MEMBER DANTES: You said that you're
25 only moving the retaining wall back by one
June 6, 2013 Regular Meeting 73
• 1 foot?
2 MR. MCMANUS: It was prior to the
3 storm prior to the storm, there was no
4 retaining wall behind the fence. I
5 believe we're pushing the cabana back two
6 feet. We're also taking off 7 inches off
7 the cabana. So there will still be a
8 setback from the retaining wall.
9 MEMBER DANTES: So the retaining wall
10 is staying?
11 MR. MCMANUS: The retaining wall is
12 staying.
• 13 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Is that the
19 original location of the retaining wall?
15 MR. MCMANUS: There wasn't. There
16 was a very, very, very small seaward wall.
17 There was nothing behind the cabana.
18 MEMBER HORNING: And your proposal is
19 to demolish what is left of the ruined
20 cabana and rebuild it from scratch in a
21 nonconforming location?
22 MR. GOGGINS: Correct.
23 MEMBER HORNING: With a setback of 0?
24 That is what the Notice of Disapproval
• 25 says. Is that a 0 setback from the
June 6, 2013 Regular Meeting 79
• 1 bulkhead?
2 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: I believe they're
3 referring to the deck.
4 MR. GOGGINS: Right.
5 MEMBER HORNING: Yes. They're
6 including the deck and the cabana.
7 MR. GOGGINS: I went and took some
8 photographs of the cabana so you can see
9 it.
10 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: We all did so a
11 site inspection.
12 MEMBER HORNING: Is the bulkhead
• 13 going to be moved or rebuilt?
14 MR. GOGGINS: It is going to be
15 rebuilt and form a consistent line along
16 the bulkhead.
17 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: So is it the
18 intention to match, with respect to
19 decking and bulkheading, your adjoining
20 properties to the north and south? In
21 other words, since you want to match the
22 bulkhead to the southern property did
23 they require emergency permits to do the
24 new decking?
• 25 MR. GOGGINS: Everybody required new
June 6, 2013 Regular Meeting 75
• 1 permits.
2 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: What is your
3 opinion on the demolition of the bath
4 house?
5 MR. GOGGINS: We11, the application
6 is to demolish and rebuild. They can
7 rebuild what is there, and the floor won't
8 be as consistent. The walls won't be
9 perfectly straight. They could rebuild
10 what is there but it won't be it would
11 be unsightly. Not as functional as a
12 brand new structure.
• 13 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The Building
14 Department has determined it to be a
15 demolition. Because more than 75% of it
16 is considered to be destroyed. If 250 or
17 more remained, then it could be considered
18 rebuilt. This isn't really salvageable.
19 MR. GOGGINS: Also, another one of
20 the reasons when Mr. McManus was building
21 the house, they moved the house back to
22 where it had previously been. So they just
23 kind of a tunnel view going out. They
24 don't have a panoramic view like the
• 25 others in the neighborhood. So they want
June 6, 2013 Regular Meeting 76
• 1 to enjoy the view from this decking and
2 cabana. I have photographs from the cement
3 deck and the first floor of the house.
4 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Do you know if
5 the property, I don't know whether it's
6 north or south at this point, but the
7 little shed that was rebuilt
8 MR. GOGGINS: Yes.
9 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: It looks brand
10 new along with the bulkhead and the deck.
11 Are you aware of whether or not that has a
12 CO on it?
• 13 MR. GOGGINS: I do not.
14 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: It is obviously
15 new construction. The question that I
16 want to know is if it had a CO or a
17 building permit. It certainly didn't have
18 a variance because we would know about it.
19 MR. GOGGINS: We don't know. I don't
20 know. I didn't do that research.
21 MR. MCMANOS: (In Audible).
22 (Mr. McManus, is not near the
23 microphone.)
24 MEMBER HORNING: So the neighbor to
• 25 the south with the very nice looking
June 6, 2013 Regular Meeting 77
• 1 bulkhead and the little shed on that and
2 what you can see from your property, that
3 did not sustain any damage from the
4 storm?
5 MR. MCMANUS: (In Audible). Pretty
6 much everything to the north is like that.
7 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: At this point,
8 I am going to ask if there is anyone in
9 the audience that would like to address
10 this application? Just state your name
11 for the record.
12 MR. CIRRITO: My name is Michael
• 13 Cirrito. I am the owner of the house to
19 the north, 7726 Nassau Point Road. Both I
15 and Mr. McManus had our bulkhead's wiped
16 out as a result of Sandy. And I have been
17 lucky enough to have my bulkhead repaired
18 after getting permits in January 2013. I
19 have a bulkhead that is raised about 1
20 foot to 18 inches and I have a bulkhead
21 behind it. It's actually a two bulkhead
22 system. Much like the house to the south
23 that survived. We saw how well he did and
24 said that is what we're going to do. And
• 25 Mr. McManus planned on doing the exact
June 6, 2013 Regular Meeting 78
• 1 same thing. At one time, we were going to
2 tie the bulkhead together but because of
3 this application, he was delayed in
4 building his bulkhead until he found out
5 what he was doing with the cabana. I just
6 want to point I don't believe that this
7 is a continuation of a nonconformance use
8 because I think just from the eye, there
9 is more than SOo damage to this. It's a
10 demolition job. Not a continuance of a
11 nonconforming use. The first plans that I
12 saw from Mr. McManus were unacceptable to
• 13 us, because it showed a structure that was
14 built (In Audible) it would have blocked
15 my view of the south from my home and from
16 down below on the bulkhead. So I sent an
17 e-mail to Mr. McManus and I told him about
18 my concerns. I did not tell him to move
19 the shower to the neighbors side, because
20 I like the neighbors to the south. I did
21 say to take the shower off of my side or
22 put it inside the house as they did
23 before. I wouldn't have any objections to
24 the shower being put inside the house. I
• 25 just want to make sure that if you're
June 6, 2013 Regular Meeting 79
1 going to grant this variance, that the
• 2 variance is granted upon rebuilding the
3 structure as the plans that are proposed
4 now. I like the structure as they are,
5 the plans now. Better than it was before.
6 It's set back a little more. It's shorter.
7 It's on the X line. It cuts down on the
8 roof problems and gives everyone more
9 space. So I like the proposal that is
10 before you, better than what was before.
11 It would look nicer. I don't know what you
12 have in front of you, but if I could just
• 13 step up and see it?
14 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Sure. It looks
15 like the same plan.
16 MR. GOGGINS: I did bring one set
17 with me. This is an updated plan reducing
18 the roof with the suggestions.
19 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: So you have a
20 revised sheet of what you're building?
21 MR. GOGGINS: Yes.
22 MR. CIRRITO: I just wanted to say
23 that in the winter, I had a problem with
24 his plans, and within 10 days he changed
• 25 his plans. We all went through a lot with
June 6, 2013 Regular Meeting 80
• 1 Sandy. So that should be something that is
2 looked on favorable from the Board. And I
3 support the application.
4 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: I have a question
5 for you, sir?
6 MR. CIRRITO: My wife tells me as
7 long as there is no outside shower towards
8 our side.
9 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: So you redid your
10 bulkhead and you're looking on doing
11 another bulkhead behind that?
12 MR. CIRRITO: It's already done.
13 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: It's already done.
14 Okay.
15 MR. CIRRITO: It's permitted and
16 already done. Since you asked the
17 question, that has been there with that
18 shed. I have been there since 1996. That
19 bulkhead and shed has been there since
20 before I moved in. If that is new
21 construction, I don't know. That shed has
22 been there as far as I know.
23 MEMBER HORNING: This is the property
24 just south
• 25 MR. CIRRITO: South of Mr. McManus'.
June 6, 2013 Regular Meeting 81
1 If I could address a concern that you made
• 2 with respect to the dune being disturbed
3 by the movement of the structure on
4 landward onto the bulkhead. Right now, as
5 I am sure you're aware, there is nothing
6 there. Whatever house is going to be
7 newly constructed will have to be rebuilt
8 there anyway. The Trustees allowed me to
9 build my bank where it is, to the first
10 bulkhead and put sand in between the first
11 bulkhead. You are not going to lose more
12 than more feet, natural material that
• 13 has been there. I don't think you're
14 losing much of anything.
15 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I just had our
16 assistant make copies of what you had just
17 submitted. We will keep the large copy as
18 the updated project.
19 MR. CIRRITO: The outdoor shower that
20 was proposed there is on the outside of
21 the premises, and I don't think that it
22 would disturb the neighbor to the south
23 because there is a set of stairs that goes
24 down. This is sort of placed on the north
• 25 path of the property anyway. It's further
June 6, 2013 Regular Meeting 82
• 1 away from the neighbors to the south. I
2 don't want to speak for them because he is
3 not here. I would not object to the
4 shower being inside.
5 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Showers are
6 always outside of cabanas. So it's not
7 permitted by code. And the Board is
8 certainly not going to set a precedent
9 with that. The fact of an idea of having
10 any kind of plumbing situation that is on
11 a bulkhead, stairs and that close, is
12 something that the Board would rarely
• 13 entertain. We have much more environmental
14 wear. I would like to give you an
15 opportunity to address the fact that over
16 the last couple of years, we have seen a
17 few of these that have been demolished by
18 fire or natural disaster, storm related
19 events. Because there were demolitions,
20 they were not permitted to be rebuilt. So
21 we need to hear some existing arguments as
22 to why it can be distinguished from those
23 circumstances of issues that we can
29 consider.
• 25 MR. GOGGINS: I understand.
June 6, 2013 Regular Meeting 83
• 1 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Is there anyone
2 else in the audience who wants to address
3 this application?
4 (No Response.)
5 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Is there
6 anything else from the Board at this time?
7 I believe Mr. Goggins would like a little
8 more time to do some research. In fact,
9 one of the homes that we just turned down
10 was on Nassau Point Road. The gentleman
11 was given an opportunity to go up and down
12 the road and take pictures of whether
• 13 there were precedents in the area similar
14 to what he was proposing. He couldn't
15 find them. However, that doesn't mean
16 that you won't be able to. You can get in
17 your boat. So we want to give you all the
18 opportunities to present your case to the
19 Board.
20 MR. GOGGINS: Thank you.
21 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: And including all
22 the decisions from the Trustees. That
23 would be helpful.
24 MR. GOGGINS: Yes. I will find all
• 25 the structures that I can find and then I
June 6, 2013 Regular Meeting 84
• 1 will research the approvals.
2 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: It would help.
3 Particularly in that area.
4 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: I have a couple of
5 questions. I see a set of stairs that go
6 down to the beach on the set of plans that
7 are proposed. Do the neighboring
8 properties all have stairs going down
9 towards the beach?
10 MR. GOGGINS: Yes. The bulkhead is
11 so high.
12 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: And you can go
• 13 down to the beach and there is enough
14 beach during high-tide to hang out with a
15 chair or not? Not high. Okay. Are
16 moorings permitted in that area?
17 MR. GOGGINS: I think moorings aren't
18 permitted in that area. It's a very rocky
19 area. It would be pretty far out. I
20 haven't been to Nassau Point in a while
21 and I was shocked out how many rocks there
22 were. I mean, you can even see the sand.
23 MR. CIRRITO: For the years that I
24 have been there, we have lost a foot to
25 two feet every year. You can see at high
June 6, 2013 Regular Meeting 85
• 1 tide, the water was almost on the
2 bulkhead. So there is really no room to
3 sit on the beach. No more. There used to
9 be in 1996, but no more.
5 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: We11, you just
6 made a compelling argument why setbacks
7 are important. Especially to protect your
8 property.
9 MR. GOGGINS: Thank you.
10 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Thank you.
11 Are there any other questions from
12 the Board?
. 13 (No Response.)
14 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I am going to
15 make a motion to adjourn this hearing to
16 July 11th at 10:00 A.M., and if there is
17 any stuff that you can get into us prior
18 so we can digest it, and be prepared.
19 That would be helpful.
20 MR. GOGGINS: We will. Thank you.
21 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: And also by
22 then, can you please get those mailings
23 that we don't have to the office?
24 MR. GOGGINS: Yes.
• 25 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: So I made a
June 6, 2013 Regular Meeting 86
• 1 motion to adjourn this hearing to
2 July 11th at 10:00 a.m.
3 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second.
4 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Seconded by
5 Gerry.
6 All in favor?
7 MEMBER DANTES: Aye.
8 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye.
9 MEMBER HORNING: Aye.
10 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye.
11 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Aye.
12 (See Minutes for Resolution.)
• I3
14 HEARING #6655 - RAYMOND & JOYCE
15 VASTOLA
16 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The next
17 application before the Board is for
18 Raymond and Joyce Vastola, #6655. Request
19 for variance Article XXII Section
20 280-116(B) and the Building Inspector's
21 April 8, 2013 Notice of Disapproval based
22 on an application for building permit to
23 construct an accessory in-ground swimming
24 pool, additions and alterations to an
• 25 existing single family dwelling at; 1)
June 6, 2013 Regular Meeting 87
• 1 less than the code required bulkhead
2 setback of 75 feet, located at: 2795 Wells
3 Avenue, adjacent to Jockey Creek in
4 Southold.
5 Before we get started, do you have a
6 copy of the LWRP?
7 MS. STEELMAN: Yes.
8 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Why don't you
9 state your name for the record?
10 MS. STEELMAN: Nancy Steelman,
11 Samuels & Steelman Architects.
12 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: So this is for
• 13 an in-ground pool with additions and
14 alterations to a bulkhead setback of 36
15 feet, where the code requires 75. These
16 are wraparound bulkheads. It would appear
17 the Trustees approved a 50 foot bulkhead
18 setback. A new second-story on the
19 existing dwelling. Part of the existing
20 attached deck is to be used as enclosed
21 sun heated screened porch. Unheated. The
22 property has been seen by all the Board
23 members. So what would you like to tell
24 us about this?
• 25 MS. STEELMAN: Well, I think you can
June 6, 2013 Regular Meeting 88
• 1 see because of the bulkhead coming into
2 the property on each side, it's increases
3 that setback substantially off the
4 property. The two properties adjacent,
5 the north and south properties the
6 northern property, there is no bulkhead.
7 And on southern property there is a
8 bulkhead about 15 feet away. So it's of a
9 situation where there is mostly property
10 and within that 75 foot setback. If we
11 didn't have the return, we would have been
12 able to do without a variance request.
• 13 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Well, it looks
14 like you're trying to reduce the height of
15 these retaining walls by creating a lower
16 terrace?
17 MS. STEELMAN: Correct.
18 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The lower
19 terrace is 9 foot high?
20 MS. STEELMAN: Correct.
21 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: There is a lot
22 of existing landscaping. Is that going to
23 be removed?
29 MS. STEELMAN: I heard that it will
• 25 be removed but we're going to try to do it
June 6, 2013 Regular Meeting 89
• 1 at a point, (In Audible) most of those
2 plants that are there.
3 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Is it going to
4 be drained?
5 MS. STEELMAN: The drainage as stated
6 in my reasons, it's actually going to be a
7 drywell or as the LWRP suggested, they're
8 calling it de-watering. Any of the pool
9 water would not go into the bay. It would
10 go to a drywell.
11 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I see the pool
12 equipment located here. Is there a drywell
• 13 here?
14 MS. STEELMAN: We haven't located a
15 drywell yet at this point on this drawing.
16 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Gerry, any
17 questions?
18 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Nancy, is there
19 any chance you can give us little more
20 footage to it's closest point of 36.3? I
21 realize it's a nice balance there but if
22 you look at the tax map, you will see that
23 this is really the last lot on the main
24 channel. It appears to be skewed towards
• 25 the end. I realize you have to balance the
June 6, 2013 Regular Meeting 90
• 1 plans, but is there any chance in giving
2 us a little bit more footage?
3 MS. STEELMAN: Along below the
4 terrace? On that southern return?
5 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I have to be
6 honest with you, we have had several
7 applications and we have asked every
8 property owner and architect to give us a
9 couple of more feet. The average number
10 is between 90, 41 and 42.
11 MS. STEELMAN: Okay.
12 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I would live with
• 13 40, but I am not negotiating with you.
19 MS. STEELMAN: I think what we tried
15 to do with that 36.3 is to edge of the
16 retaining wall and on the end of that, you
17 have a planter. We're trying to soften
18 it. We could easily remove that planter
19 and run that retaining wall right along
20 the edge where the stairs are.
21 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: That's going to
22 give you what, about two feet?
23 MS. STEELMAN: Well, probably more
24 than that actually. I would say that is
• 25 right to the edge of that one tier. That
June 6, 2013 Regular Meeting 91
• 1 tier is 24 inches square. So I would say
2 maybe 3 feet. You can slightly narrow the
3 edge that is there. Probably do 4 feet.
4 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Great. You can
5 send us a revised plan?
6 MS. STEELMAN: I can do that.
7 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Nancy, what is
8 the setback from the lower terrace at it's
9 closest point?
10 MS. STEELMAN: We're very close. I
11 would probably say we're at 51. You can
12 see where the 50 foot setback is, that
• 13 dark line. That curb is probably within
19 that line.
15 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I am referring it
16 to a raised deck but it's really a porch.
17 MS. STEELMAN: Right.
18 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: In general, it's
19 a raised deck.
20 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: It doesn't even
21 matter. The part that matters is it's a
22 structure.
23 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: It's a permanent
24 structure.
• 25 MS. STEELMAN: Yes.
June 6, 2013 Regular Meeting 92
• 1 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Is this a gunite
2 pool or
3 MS. STEELMAN: This is gunite.
4 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Eric,
5 questions?
6 MEMBER DANTES: No.
7 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: George?
8 MEMBER HORNING: I just have one
9 question. In your questionnaire for
10 filing for your ZBA application, A, B, C
11 and go the way to D. "Are there any
12 patios, concrete barriers that exist that
• 13 are not shown on the survey that you're
14 submitting?" And you have answered,
15 "yes." And the comment after that shows
16 on the form, "please show the area of the
17 structures on the diagram that preexist or
18 state "none" on the above line." You
19 said, yes, you do have structures that are
20 not shown on the survey that you're
21 submitting. Tell us about that?
22 MS. STEELMAN: The one thing that I
23 believe that you're referring to is fence.
24 There is one thing that runs along to the
• 25 bulkhead that was not on the survey. So I
June 6, 2013 Regular Meeting 93
• 1 think that is what you were referring to.
2 MEMBER HORNING: That is not on the
3 survey?
9 MS. STEELMAN: Correct. That's a
5 chicken wire fence that runs along the
6 bulkhead. So that is the only thing.
7 There is no other structures that I could
8 see that were not on the survey other than
9 that.
10 MEMBER HORNING: You believe that
11 it's referring to a fence? You don't know
12 of any other structures?
• 13 MS. STEELMAN: No. Not that I can
14 see.
15 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Ken, any
16 questions?
17 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: No questions.
18 MS. STEELMAN: There is one other
19 thing. We have received the comments from
20 the LWRP. We have reviewed the two
21 potential conditions that were being
22 suggested. If you wanted a drywell
23 installed, I have no problem with that.
24 We were going to do it anyway. They also
• 25 mentioned providing a 15 foot wide
June 6, 2013 Regular Meeting 94
• 1 landscaped non-fertilized buffer. We
2 don't have a problem with that. We would
3 just like a little more clarification of
9 the word "landscaped." Could we use the
5 existing landscape that we have? Do they
6 want beach grass? We wouldn't have any
7 problems with it.
8 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Well, landscaped
9 is not necessarily there's non-turf and
10 then there is non-disturbance.
11 MS. STEELMAN: Right. Which is don't
12 touch.
• 13 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: When I reviewed
14 the record, I saw it as a non-turf
15 non-fertilizer and that it just be not
16 grass.
17 Is there anyone in the audience that
18 would like to address this application?
19 (No Response.)
20 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Is there
21 anything else from the Board?
22 (No Response.)
23 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I will make a
24 motion to close subject to receipt of a
• 25 new site plan increasing the bulkhead
June 6, 2013 Regular Meeting 95
• 1 setback.
2 Is there a second?
3 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second.
4 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: All in favor?
5 MEMBER DANTES: Aye.
6 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye.
7 MEMBER HORNING: Aye.
8 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye.
9 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Aye.
10 (See Minutes for Resolution.)
11
12 HEARING #6658 - DAVID TURNER
• 13 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The next
14 application before the Board is for David
15 Turner, #6658. Request for variances from
16 Article XXII Section 280-116(B) and
17 Article III, Section 280-15F and the
18 Building Inspector's April 29, 2013 Notice
19 of Disapproval based on an application for
20 building permit to demolish existing
21 single family dwelling, construct new
22 single family dwelling and accessory
23 garage at; 1) proposed construction at
24 less than the code required bulkhead
• 25 setback of 75 feet, 2) accessory garage
June 6, 2013 Regular Meeting 96
• 1 proposed in a location other than code
2 required rear yard or in the case of
3 waterfront property may be located in the
4 front yard provided it meets the principal
5 setback, located at: 640 West Shore
6 Drive, adjacent to Southold Bay, in
7 Southold.
8 Is there anyone here to address this
9 application? Please come to the podium
10 and state your name for the record.
11 MR. TURNER: My name is David Turner.
12 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Good afternoon.
• 13 Now the Board has made personal inspection
19 of the subject property. We're looking at
15 a proposed new single family dwelling with
16 a bulkhead setback of 52 feet, the code
17 requires 75. And an accessory garage
18 partially in a side yard. The code
19 requires a rear yard or a front yard with
20 a setback from the accessory structure.
21 It would appear that you're proposing to
22 keep the existing bulkhead setback and
23 several trees on the property.
24 MR. TURNER: Yes.
• 25 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Before we get
June 6, 2013 Regular Meeting 97
• 1 started. We don't have any green cards.
2 MR. TURNER: I have that stuff right
3 here. Do you want me to bring that up?
4 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Please do. We
5 record these minutes. So we need to have
6 you at a microphone. Do you have the
7 LWRP, showing that it was consistent? You
8 probably do. All right. Now, the Board
9 has seen the property, as I said, and
10 there seems that there is a substantial
11 slope down towards the bottom and that you
12 propose to fill in that rather deep value
• 13 that causes a lot of runoff onto County
14 Road and the property. What would you
15 like us to know about this application
16 from your point of view?
17 MR. TURNER: Well, I did the roof
18 back from away from the property so to
19 reduce the runoff that is going to run
20 towards the front. I also, have a letter.
21 I did some research and found out that
22 certain perennials would stabilize the
23 soils at the top of the embankment. And
24 they're called "storm crops." A blue
• 25 storm crop. A spruce storm crop. These
June 6, 2013 Regular Meeting 98
• 1 are perennials that would sustain during
2 the wintertime even though the plant goes
3 into hibernation. That is what I was
4 proposing.
5 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The LWRP does
6 recommends a 10 foot wide landscaped
~ buffer.
8 MR. TURNER: That is what I would
9 plant in that landscaped buffer.
10 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The Code does
11 define, the definition of a landscaped
12 buffer. 268-2 of our code, and it's
• 13 primarily native vegetation.
14 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: It's described in
15 the LWRP.
16 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Second page,
17 Chapter 268 defines a landscaped buffer
18 as, and it tells you right in there.
19 MR. TURNER: Would these types of
20 plant apply?
21 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I don't know.
22 I would have to look it up. The list is
23 available online. I know Rosa Rugosa and
29 things like that. Native grasses qualify.
• 25 But we can find that out.
June 6, 2013 Regular Meeting 99
• 1 MR. TURNER: I have no problem. I
2 would be glad to do that.
3 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: We can look
9 into it. Suffolk County Soil and Water.
5 It's a long list of plants that fall into
6 that category. They're also available at
7 the Planning Department. They would have
8 a list. The LWRP Coordinator, Mark Terry,
9 who is on that letter can provide you with
10 a list.
11 MR. TURNER: Okay.
12 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Now, it would
• 13 appear that the houses on either side of
14 the subject property, have a slightly
15 further bulkhead setback then what the
16 cottage that is going to be demolished
17 that is in pretty bad shape.
18 MR. TURNER: I think that they are
19 I understand that my cottage was the first
20 one that was ever built on that but if you
21 look at the plans, some of them are built
22 closer.
23 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: You have shown
24 the one's adjacent to the property.
• 25 MR. TURNER: Their bulkhead is
June 6, 2013 Regular Meeting 100
• 1 further.
2 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: We would have
3 to see the distance from here to here.
4 MR. TURNER: I am not proposing to
5 putting any decking. These were all
6 modified. In this case, this is being
7 knocked down.
8 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: In both of
9 these, they were renovated substantially.
10 MR. TURNER: Right. These are
11 originals right there. While we're
12 planning on keeping as many trees as
• 13 possible, but maybe one tree that I might
14 want to take out. The one that is next to
15 the garage. I don't know if that is an
16 issue or not an issue.
17 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Not an issue.
18 Primary concern was soil stability seaward
19 of the property and land disturbance.
20 MR. TURNER: Okay. I wouldn't be
21 building any decks or anything beyond the
22 house. The only other thing I would be
23 doing is putting some loose lay tile.
24 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: That's fine. At
• 25 grade?
June 6, 2013 Regular Meeting 101
• 1 MR. TURNER: At grade.
2 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Pervious.
3 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: I noticed a drain
4 pipe to the bulkhead. That is really not
5 permitted. It's probably the result of
6 some damage, I don't know. Some drainage
7 pipe going through the bulkhead. So that
8 is going to have to be removed. And you
9 have to have roof drainage, a drywell.
IO Are you aware of that?
11 MR. TURNER: No, I am not.
12 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: You said that your
• 13 roofs are slanted
19 MR. TURNER: Away from the water,
15 right.
16 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: You still have to
17 collect that roof water and it still has
18 to be put into a drywell.
19 MR. TURNER: Okay. So we will do
20 that.
21 MEMBER HORNING: And shown on a
22 survey.
23 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Or a site plan.
24 MR. TURNER: Okay. I will locate it.
• 25 I can correct that.
June 6, 2013 Regular Meeting 102
• 1 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Does the Building
2 Department go over that with the
3 applicant?
9 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The Building
5 Department and the Town Engineer are
6 responsible for enforcing Chapter 236.
7 Chapter 236 describes the drainage, which
8 requires applicants to keep drainage all
9 on the sites.
10 MR. TURNER: Not only that, the
11 driveway, I am going to make this gravel.
12 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: And again, just so
• 13 nothing gets drained into the bay.
14 MR. TURNER: I understand that.
15 MEMBER HORNING: Sir, when was the
16 house built?
17 MR. TURNER: The house was built I
18 think in 1938, 1939.
19 MEMBER HORNING: And does it have a
20 CO now?
21 MR. TURNER: No, I don't think it has
22 a CO. Just the information that I sent
23 over to you, as far as a package.
24 MEMBER HORNING: How long has it been
• 25 vacant?
June 6, 2013 Regular Meeting 103
• 1 MR. TURNER: Well, the owner died not
2 quite a year ago. So we bought it from
3 the Estate.
4 MEMBER HORNING: And were they living
5 there year round?
6 MR. TURNER: Yes, sir. I believe he
7 was living there year round.
8 MEMBER HORNING: And when you
9 demolish it, are you going to retain the
10 existing foundation?
11 MR. TURNER: Yes. I am going I
12 want to retain the existing foundation.
• 13 There was an issue when I got the survey
14 done, that the house is not built totally
15 parallel to the lot line. It's built
16 askew. So I showed a modification of the
17 foundation. Now I am getting prices and I
18 found out that it might be easier for me
19 to just keep the front portion of the
20 house exactly on the foundation then to
21 the back porton, because it would offset
22 it would be a little off-square so to
23 speak.
24 MEMBER HORNING: Are you enlarging
• 25 the foundation?
June 6, 2013 Regular Meeting 104
• 1 MR. TURNER: In the front part of the
2 house, the foundation is pretty
3 deteriorated. So we're going to replace
4 that portion of the foundation underneath
5 the porch.
6 MEMBER HORNING: When you say front,
7 is that on the water side?
8 MR. TURNER: Water side, yes. That's
9 right. And there is a garage in the back,
10 and we're going to take that out. We're
11 going to leave the house with the porch,
12 it's a 30x30 foot footprint. I am just
• 13 going to have that as a one-story
14 structure. Then behind that, I am going
15 to put a two-story structure for the
16 bedrooms, and a playroom. And then behind
17 that, a garage.
18 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: So you're going
19 to be stepping back the height towards
20 the
21 MR. TURNER: There would be less
22 height then we have now.
23 MEMBER HORNING: Are you having a new
24 septic system put in?
• 25 MR. TURNER: Yes. I filed for a new
June 6, 2013 Regular Meeting 105
• 1 septic system and I have coordinated with
2 Suffolk County on what they want, what the
3 rules are and what they're looking for.
9 We had the Waterfront go out and mark
5 where the waterlines are. It's in red
6 there. I don't know if you saw that when
7 you were there.
8 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Eric,
9 questions?
10 MEMBER DANTES: The only question
11 that I have is, we talked about the
12 nonconformity. Is there nonconformity?
• 13 MR. TURNER: Well, I originally
14 submitted one design to the Board of
15 Trustees, and then when I had heard
16 that the garage could have a 5 foot
17 setback as a separate structure, I changed
18 it and separated the garage from the
19 house. But apparently because the garage
20 is overlap, between the garage and a
21 portion of that house, that is a non-code
22 compliant from what I understand.
23 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: It's partially
24 in the side yard.
• 25 MR. TDRNER: Side yard, yes.
June 6, 2013 Regular Meeting 106
• 1 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: And that is why
2 it was cited in the Notice of Disapproval.
3 It wasn't the setback.
4 MR. TURNER: Right. It is an
5 accessory structure.
6 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Well, the
7 question is, since you do have room in the
8 front yard, and you haven't located the
9 septic
10 MR. TURNER: It should be in the
11 front.
12 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: It's not on the
• 13 site plan. I don't think that we have it.
14 MEMBER HORNING: Did you explore the
15 idea? You mentioned before cutting down
16 some tree. Did you explore the idea with
17 moving the garage to not need a variance?
18 MR. TURNER: I didn't explore that.
19 If that was in other words, if that is
20 something that I have to do, I have no
21 problems with doing that. I would like to
22 pull the tree down right here. And if we
23 have to shift that garage over for
24 approval, I don't mind doing that.
• 25 MEMBER HORNING: When I look at this,
June 6, 2013 Regular Meeting 107
• 1 it doesn't show the footage of how much
2 over or in the side yard. Whatever that
3 distance was, if you shifted it down here
4 and eliminating you wouldn't need a
5 variance for that.
6 MR. TURNER: I am in agreement with
7 that. In moving it down and removing that
8 tree.
9 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Moving it
10 down
11 MEMBER HORNING: Closer to the
12 street.
• 13 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Closer to the
14 street. In order to do what?
15 MEMBER HORNING: To eliminate the
16 need for a side yard variance.
17 MR. TURNER: I have no problem with
18 that.
19 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The reason why
20 we questioned the use of any existing
21 foundation is because when something is
22 demolished, we're required by law to grant
23 the minimal amount of variance reasonably
29 necessary to do your project, should there
• 25 be justifiable reasons for granting
June 6, 2013 Regular Meeting 108
• 1 relief. That is why we're looking at the
2 elimination of one. The other thing is
3 the use of the existing foundation. If
9 the foundation is deemed to be sturdy and
5 structural conditions and so on, then that
6 makes more for reasonable financial or
7 economic argument that it's even cost
8 effective.
9 MR. TURNER: It's in pretty good
10 condition.
11 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: But what's
12 going to have to happen is, is it going to
• 13 change the side yards in any way that
14 you're proposing by having to add a
15 portion of the foundation moved. You said
16 something was going to be slightly
17 skewed
18 MR. TURNER: Let me show you.
19 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: You can, but
20 just talk into this microphone.
21 MR. TURNER: I can show this here.
22 This is the foundation. This is how I was
23 going to originally modify the foundation.
24 Instead of doing all of this stuff, I am
• 25 going to bring this out. And I am getting
June 6, 2013 Regular Meeting 109
• 1 a hard time with a contractor of doing
2 this here. So what I plan on doing is
3 bringing this out here and replace this
4 foundation here. This portion of the
5 building would be squared with the lot
6 line.
7 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: All right. But
8 the question that I have is where it is no
9 longer parallel to the lot line. My
10 question is, if it's skewed, does it
11 effect the 11 and 14 foot side yard?
12 MR. TURNER: No. 1000 it would not.
• 13 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: They're going to
14 ask for a foundation plan before you
15 really start.
16 MR. TURNER: Absolutely.
17 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: We don't want
18 the Building Department saying, oh, you
19 stamped these plans and that is
20 MR. TURNER: I will maintain the 11
21 feet and the 14 feet.
22 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Fine.
23 MR. TURNER: The reason for the 11
24 feet, it would effect the foundation plan
• 25 right over here. So I want to maintain
June 6, 2013 Regular Meeting 110
1 this line here. This is less than 14
2 here. This is going to be parallel to the
3 lot.
4 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay.
5 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: So you're pulling
6 it back this way?
7 MR. TURNER: Right.
8 MEMBER HORNING: There is not much of
9 a side yard in here.
10 MR. TURNER: Well, we will do
11 whatever we gotta do.
12 MEMBER HORNING: Are we going to ask
• 13 him for a revised site plan, Leslie?
14 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Yes. I think
15 what we would want him to do, what would
16 be helpful for the Board would be for you
17 to revise the site plan and to relocate
18 the remove the tree and relocate in the
19 front yard, and it would still meet the
20 principal setback.
21 MR. TURNER: Right.
22 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: So it would be
23 conforming.
29 MR. TURNER: I will do that and I
• 25 will Fed Ex it to you and you will
June 6, 2013 Regular Meeting 111
• 1 probably have it by Tuesday.
2 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: And it also
3 gives you the two consistent, 11 feet and
9 14 feet side yard.
5 MR. TURNER: Okay.
6 MEMBER HORNING: With the drywell's
7 showing too.
8 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: And the septic.
9 MR. TURNER: I will show the drywell
10 and I will show the septic tank also.
11 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay. Is there
12 anyone else in the audience who would
• 13 like to address this application?
14 Please come forward and state your name
15 for the record?
16 MR. SZMURKOWSKI: My name is
17 Alexander Szmurkowski. I have the property
18 adjacent to the one in question here.
19 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Would you spell
20 your name?
21 MR. SZMURKOWSKI: Spell it?
22 S-Z-M-U-R-K-O-W-S-K-I.
23 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Thank you. And
24 you're the neighbor in which way?
• 25 MR. SZMURKOWSKI: I am the neighbor
June 6, 2013 Regular Meeting 112
• 1 to the west side. I don't have a
2 complaint. I only have a concern and the
3 concern being, which I believed was
4 answered with the drywell's. I have a
5 water property where we get heavy rain and
6 my concern was, if there was any site work
7 or regrading down, that that problem
8 doesn't now become my problem. Other than
9 that, I am in favor of it. If you were
10 there, you saw what is next door to me.
11 So this is a big improvement.
12 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Yes, it is.
• 13 MEMBER HORNING: You have sort of the
14 triangular shaped property?
15 MR. SZMURKOWSKI: Yes, I do. As I
16 said, that was just a concern, but I
17 believe you answered that with the
18 drywell. All right. Thank you.
19 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Thank you.
20 Anybody else?
21 (No Response.)
22 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Any questions
23 from the Board?
24 (No Response.)
• 25 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay. I am
June 6, 2013 Regular Meeting 113
• 1 going to make a motion to close this
2 hearing subject to receipt of a revised
3 survey showing the items that we have just
4 described.
5 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second.
6 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: All in favor?
7 MEMBER DANTES: Aye.
8 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye.
9 MEMBER HORNING: Aye.
10 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye.
11 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Aye.
12 (See Minutes for Resolution.)
• 13 *********r**+**~~+***~********+***+*******
14 HEARING #6659 - FORK & ANCHOR, LLC
15 (TRACEY BYRNES)
16 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The next
17 application before the Board is for
18 Fork & Anchor, LLC, Tracey Byrnes, #6659.
19 This is a request under Section 280-146D
20 for an Interpretation of the Town Code,
21 Article XXIII, Section 280-121,
22 "Nonconforming Uses," appealing the
23 Building Inspector's March 14, 2013 Notice
24 of Disapproval for a permit to convert an
• 25 accessory barn into food preparation for
June 6, 2013 Regular Meeting 114
• 1 existing retail store, located at: 8955
2 Route 25, aka Main Road, in East Marion.
3 MR. CUDDY: Good afternoon.
4 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Good afternoon.
5 MR. CUDDY: Charles Cuddy, 995
6 Griffing Avenue, Riverhead, New York,
7 representing the applicant. I have with
8 me Erin Fitzpatrick, who is one of the
9 partners in the operation of Fork &
10 Anchor. I think everybody is probably
11 aware of where the store is. It's on the
12 north side of 25 in East Marion. It's a
• 13 small store. It's a store that has about
14 1,000 square feet. The rear of the store
15 consist of an area that has food
16 preparation. Has some food lockers,
17 refrigerator, which is very small. What
18 they're seeking to do is have that type
19 of accessory use to the barn or the
20 garage, which is right behind that
21 building. I would point out a few things
22 to you. In 2007, the Town did what's
23 called a "Halo Study" which I think you
24 are all familiar with, and I just handed
• 25 it out. That put this right in the center
June 6, 2013 Regular Meeting 115
• 1 of the hamlet.
2 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: That was the
3 stakeholders study.
9 MR. CUDDY: I have shown this site,
5 which has the little yellow mark on it.
6 As you can see, it's a small lot to start
7 with. This is somewhat remarkable because
8 the property to the east of us, is Hamlet
9 Business, and including the fire
10 department, but we're not. We're the only
11 actual store in the whole entire
12 community. This store has been in
• 13 operation, and I am advised by people for
14 more than 50 years. It was preexisting.
15 I have the owner, who is Tracey Byrnes, an
16 affidavit from her as to her familiarity
17 with the store and the site and the use
18 since the 1970's, and I also hand that up
19 to you. The site is in a R-40 District or
20 an Residential District. So it makes the
21 use, the principal use certainly
22 nonconforming, but that use has been in
23 existence, as I said from the time of
24 zoning to the present. It was upgraded
• 25 slightly by Ms. Byrnes in 2006, for which
June 6, 2013 Regular Meeting 116
• 1 she has a CO, which I put into the file.
2 What I think is happening, they're taking
3 an accessory use from the rear of the
4 store and tracing it into the barn area,
5 just behind it. That barn area has been
6 used, as Tracey Byrnes indicated for
7 storage area for this very building since
8 this inception. What they do with the
9 barn, is that they put all of their dry
10 goods in the back, in the east end of it,
11 and they use that as a supply place. They
12 are conjoined uses. They have never been
• 13 used except together. So to talk about
14 moving part of the accessory use to what
15 is the accessory building, I don't know
16 that there is any coverage in the code
17 that talks about an accessory use moved to
18 another spot, because that is what they're
19 essentially doing. What they need, they
20 need a bigger room to prepare food. The
21 room takes two people. I have been in it
22 several times. You can't fit more than
23 two people inside at a time in their food
24 preparation area.
• 25 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: It's a kitchen
June 6, 2013 Regular Meeting 117
• 1 really.
2 MR. CUDDY: This is a kitchen type of
3 area. It has tables and to prepare things
9 in it, it's virtually impossible if you
5 have a number of people coming in and
6 doing things. What they do now, they work
7 till nine or ten o'clock at night
8 sometimes to try and catch up and prepare
9 in that space. They really can't do it.
10 So they're asking if they can have two
11 tables, two steel-type tables that are
12 preparation tables and a sink, but they
• 13 have to get approval for the sink and the
14 Health Department. And to use them
15 intermittently. They're not going to use
16 them together. They would be using the
17 one area so that they can prepare various
18 things and then they will use the other
19 areas at different times. For the first
20 time since the two of them have been
21 working there, they can have the adequate
22 space to prepare food, to prepare box
23 lunches, which they do in the summer time.
24 Right now, it really does not work. And I
• 25 would hope that the Board would think in
June 6, 2013 Regular Meeting 118
• 1 terms as just an accessory being put in
2 another accessory site to make it better.
3 They are not trying to expand. They are
4 not trying to employ more people. They
5 are not going to employ more people. They
6 want to use it themselves. They want to
7 use it the way that it is. I note that in
8 the code, and I am not sure that the code
9 covers accessory uses, but it does talk
10 about nonconforming uses and nonconforming
11 buildings, and this is what I think the
12 Building Inspector harped on. That same
• 13 section, 280-121, cites that the Board,
14 this Board of Appeals, can change a use.
15 We are not really changing a use. We're
16 keeping a use. We're trying to take the
17 same use that we have, which is move it
18 and trophy it back to the building, so
19 that we can make really some accessory
20 uses meaningful. I note that the Board,
21 under Section C, does have power to commit
22 this to be done, if you were considering
23 it to be a change. As I said, I don't
24 think it's a change. I think it's a
• 25 continuation of a use.
June 6, 2013 Regular Meeting 119
. 1 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Well, for the
2 record, let me read the sections of the
3 code into the transcript. So that we're
4 all clear about the two areas that you
5 have asked us to look at. 280-121.C,
6 states, except as provided hereinafter,
7 nonconforming use of buildings or open
8 land existing on the effective date of
9 this chapter or authorized by a building
10 permit issued prior thereto, regardless of
11 change of title, possession or occupancy
12 or right thereof, may be continued
• 13 indefinitely, except that such building or
14 use: And I will go into Section C: Shall
15 not be changed to another nonconforming
16 use without approval by the Board of
17 Appeals and then only to a use which, in
18 the opinion of the said Board, is of the
19 same or of a more restrictive nature. The
20 second section is 280-122, nonconforming
21 buildings with conforming uses: Nothing
22 in this article shall be deemed to prevent
23 the alteration or enlargement of a
24 nonconforming building containing a
• 25 conforming use, provided that such action
June 6, 2013 Regular Meeting 120
• 1 does not create any new nonconformance or
2 increase the degree of nonconformance with
3 regard to the regulations pertaining to
4 such buildings. It appears from your
5 presentation that we now have a with a CO
6 a nonconforming use in an R-40 Zone that
7 has been legally established in the
8 principal structure and that is for a
9 retail store.
10 MR. CUDDY: That's correct.
11 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Even though
12 it's really a luncheonette. And what you
. 13 are proposing is the expansion of that
14 nonconforming use into the existing
15 accessory structure?
16 MR. CUDDY: Yes and no. I am putting
17 it in there, but I don't know that it's an
18 expansion. I am trying to be very careful
19 as to how I phrase that. I think you're
20 taking the accessory use that is there,
21 which is the back of the store and you're
22 transplanting that to the barn, which has
23 been part of the accessory use for that
24 entire site for the last 50 years and they
• 25 stored all of their goods in that barn.
June 6, 2013 Regular Meeting 121
• 1 The barn is not used for any other
2 purpose.
3 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: We all did a
9 site inspection. So we're familiar with
5 the site and the kitchen and the barn.
6 MR. CUDDY: So I think what they are
7 doing is taking what exist as an accessory
8 use and nonconforming use, and they are
9 putting it into the building behind them,
10 not to use together but to use
11 intermittently. They can use it the
12 part that would be in the barn so they can
• 13 then have things that they can serve to
14 their customers and not be there, as they
15 say, all hours of the day and night. So
16 they're not necessarily being used
17 together.
18 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Two questions
19 then. Your floor plan proposes a kitchen,
20 is that an incorrect term?
21 MR. CUDDY: Yes. That is not correct.
22 I am telling you and I know Erin can
23 confirm it, all they are planning on doing
24 is putting in two tables and at the most a
• 25 sink. There is no stove. There is nothing
June 6, 2013 Regular Meeting 122
• 1 else going on.
2 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: What kind of sink
3 are they planning on putting in?
4 MR. CUDDY: Just a sink that would
5 allow them to wash off vegetables and
6 things as they clean them and put them
7 into containers.
8 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: It's not a
9 three-compartment sink, like the Health
10 Department is requesting?
11 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Well, here is
12 an issue. Obviously restaurants for one
• 13 thing, the accessory building is being
14 used for storage. It's a storage
15 building. The inclusion for the area of
16 prepping food certainly has to be
17 something that the Department of Health
18 considers. That is different then other
19 kinds of activity. The public is being
20 served from food prepared with those
21 conditions.
22 MR. CUDDY: It would be subject to
23 getting that permit.
24 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Are there
• 25 living quarters above the restaurant?
June 6, 2013 Regular Meeting 123
• 1 MR. CUDDY: Above the store, yes.
2 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: There is a
3 tenant.
4 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: What is on the
5 second floor of the barn?
6 MR. CUDDY: I don't think that there
7 is anything. I don't think there is.
8 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Now we're
9 saying that there are two uses on the
10 property.
11 MR. CUDDY: That's the way it has
12 been since it started.
• 13 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Why can't the
14 applicant propose to do a slight
15 enlargement of the existing kitchen?
16 MR. CUDDY: I think the cost would be
17 prohibited. This doesn't make a lot of
18 money until the summer. To try and extend
19 the first of all, if you extended the
20 kitchen out north, you would come very
21 close to the barn. The actual distance
22 between the barn and the back of the
23 building is a few feet. So it's pretty
24 small. So if they added on, let's say
• 25 6 feet or so. They would practically be on
June 6, 2013 Regular Meeting 124
1 top of each other. And I don't think that
• 2 they would be able to use the barn at that
3 point. As you can see it was a conforming
4 use, that is the storage use, then the
5 question becomes, I think, does this
6 increase the degree? I don't think that
7 this does because it's a barn to unpackage
8 food. They do something very similar to
9 what they propose to do here. So I don't
10 know that it changes these. This is an
11 R-90 District, and in an R-40 District, if
12 we use that building in the front as a
• 13 home, we could use that building as an
14 accessory apartment in the barn. We could
15 have all the things that we are talking
16 about. We could have tables. We could have
17 sinks. I don't think that we're doing
18 something outside of the mental process
19 that says that you're adding something
20 that can't be added. I think that all
21 we're doing, as I said, is changing
22 something from one position to another
23 position. We're not trying to do any type
24 of expansion. As I said before, we're
• 25 making better. Not bigger.
June 6, 2013 Regular Meeting 125
1 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Well, you're
• 2 not expanding structure relative to square
3 footage?
4 MR. CUDDY: There is no question
5 about that.
6 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: But the use of
7 a retail store would be in part placed in
8 an accessory structure, according to the
9 proposal.
10 MR. CUDDY: But it already has.
11 That's why I said, it has an accessory use
12 in there right now. It's taking that
• 13 accessory use in part and taking part of
14 it and putting it in what is the accessory
15 barn.
16 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: What is there
17 now? That kitchen that is there, is part
18 of the retail use? That's part of the
19 restaurant?
20 MR. CUDDY: Yes. But I am saying to
21 you, I have asked you to look at it as an
22 accessory to the retail use, because you
23 can have the retail use and have that
24 kitchen. And I think when you have that
• 25 kitchen, that is something that is
June 6, 2013 Regular Meeting 126
• 1 accessory to that type of use. And I think
2 that is significant. And I think that they
3 do have an accessory use that exist, and
4 that is what I am saying. I am saying that
5 an accessory use is there and you're
6 moving that accessory use to the building
7 behind it. That is what they're doing,
8 which is an accessory building. I don't
9 think that the retail use together is
10 encompasses the addition.
11 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Would you
12 define what the retail use is?
• 13 MR. CUDDY: The retail use is a store
14 that sells goods. It also sells things
15 that are considered delicatessen type
16 things. It could exist without the
17 kitchen. It does not exist without it
18 because there are obviously more customers
19 that they can serve. But it doesn't
20 necessarily have to have that.
21 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Well, how would
22 you serve food without a kitchen?
23 MR. CUDDY: I think that they could
24 get food, and places do. Bring food in
• 25 from the outside and serve it. They're not
June 6, 2013 Regular Meeting 127
1 doing it. They're preparing it there.
• 2 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: That is why I
3 said it's more of a breakfast/luncheon
4 restaurant.
5 MR. CUDDY: I think that the part of
6 the kitchen is accessory and that is what
7 I am saying. I would ask you to consider
8 that, and if that is so, then it's an
9 accessory to an accessory. And I believe
10 that it's an accessory use.
11 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: What I am
12 trying to do is distinguish between the
. 13 principal structure, which is the house
14 that has a CO for a retail use, and a
15 barn, which is used as storage. It doesn't
16 matter what the storage is. An accessory
17 structure can be used for storage. Storing
18 anything. At one point on the survey, it
19 was called a garage. We have done a site
20 inspection. We do realize that. They're
21 using it to store dry goods and so on, for
22 the actual restaurant use, for serving
23 customers. Selling deli food products to
24 customers. And I believe it is referred
• 25 to on the CO as a retail building with an
June 6, 2013 Regular Meeting 128
• 1 accessory barn on the CO.
2 MR. CODDY: Yeah. But I don't think
3 necessarily they would then defined it as
4 a retail with an accessory kitchen to it,
5 but I am saying that is what I think that
6 it is and what it has been. And I am
7 asking the Board to consider that is what
8 they're doing. They're talking use, even
9 if it was part of the use and transferring
10 that use to the accessory building and
11 actually do what people think that they're
12 doing, which is prepare food and serve
• 13 food. They're unpacking things from the
14 barn and taking it to the building. So
15 they're doing some sort of preparation
16 right from the barn right now.
17 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Well the
18 difference between unpacking and bringing
19 it into the store, which doesn't require
20 any aspect of cleanliness and hygiene and
21 so on, and chopping vegetables in a barn.
22 I mean, if you were to put in a sink, you
23 then would obviously have to have plumbing
24 in there. What about heat? If you're going
• 25 to use that year round for preparation and
June 6, 2013 Regular Meeting 129
• 1 only use water, which is not easy to do
2 MR. CUDDY: There is electricity in
3 the barn right now.
9 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: They have
5 electricity, what about heat?
6 MR. CUDDY: I think that wouldn't be
7 necessary at that time. I think this is to
8 be used during this type of season. It's
9 not to be used during the winter.
10 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: So it's also
11 being proposed as a seasonal or you're not
12 sure?
• 13 MR. CUDDY: Well, for the most part
19 that is when I think they would use it. I
15 could ask Erin to state that?
16 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay. Let's
17 get that clarified. I guess because this
18 is a code interpretation, you're asking
19 the Board whether or not this is an
20 expansion of a nonconforming use that is
21 legally established by placing some of it
22 into another building?
23 MR. CUDDY: Yes. Completely. Yes.
24 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Mr. Cuddy, what I
• 25 was going to ask you to do is walk us
June 6, 2013 Regular Meeting 130
• 1 through the improvement of what it's going
2 to be?
3 MR. CUDDY: Okay.
4 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: In this
5 particular case, there may be the need of
6 hot water for the preparation. There may
7 be the need of other things basically.
8 MR. CUDDY: My understanding is, that
9 there would be two steel tables, which are
10 preparation tables. The area that we're
11 talking about is probably about 9 feet by
12 11 feet. There would be a sink there. I
• 13 don't know that there would be hot and
14 cold water. It's going to be water to try
15 and wash the things. That is essentially
16 what they would be doing. That's all.
17 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: And that would be
18 hooked up to the present cesspool system?
19 MR. CUDDY: Yes.
20 MEMBER HORNING: Mr. Cuddy, do you
21 really think that the Health Department
22 would grant a permit to carry food that
23 has been partially prepared or fully
24 prepared? I don't know to what extent the
• 25 preparation is. From the building all the
June 6, 2013 Regular Meeting 131
1 times during the year to another building?
• 2 MR. CUDDY: They would be in
3 containers. I mean, it's talking like
4 you're moving through your kitchen
5 practically. You move something and then
6 you go to your refrigerator. That is the
7 same sort of distance that we're talking
8 about essentially.
9 MEMBER HORNING: Prepare or partially
10 prepare in this accessory building and put
11 it in a sealed or covered container and
12 carry it outside and walk the distance
• 13 back inside to the area that
14 MR. CUDDY: To the refrigerator,
15 yeah.
16 MEMBER HORNING: And the preparation
17 would be continued there for the final
18 project?
19 MR. CUDDY: Yes.
20 MEMBER HORNING: Not making the final
21 project in the accessory building and
22 carrying it in.
23 MR. CUDDY: My client just said to me
24 and I don't have a copy, but I would like
• 25 to give the Board, the Agricultural and
June 6, 2013 Regular Meeting 132
1 Markets people came and said to them that
• 2 they were under the Agricultural and
3 Markets Law, and that is something that
4 the County was going to do, and apparently
5 there is a letter, and I don't have it
6 unfortunately, but I will get it to you so
7 you can see that. They inspected it and
8 the site was inspected.
9 MEMBER HORNING: For what pertains to
10 what is the mislabeled drawing of labeling
11 it a "kitchen." We would need something
12 more accurate.
• 13 MR. CUDDY: That was done earlier.
14 It was submitted because it was part of
15 what had been submitted but it was before
16 I was retained and it was done that way. I
17 didn't change it until we were here and
18 explained it to you.
19 MEMBER HORNING: On the issue of the
20 survey submitted, they are showing two
21 structures. The two-story framed
22 garage/barn and a two-story framed house.
23 In other places this is referred to a
24 commercial building. The survey, shouldn't
• 25 that reflect the commercial-ness of the
June 6, 2013 Regular Meeting 133
1 building rather than a two-story frame
• 2 house. If it was a house, it wouldn't even
3 be nonconforming as far as the use.
9 MR. CUDDY: I understand. But I think
5 the surveyors often label things
6 differently then the rest of us would have
7 them labeled. When he looked at it, he saw
8 the building as a house. Looking at the
9 building at all times, and I have been
10 passing it for 30 some odd years, it's
11 been a store. I don't know why Mr. Ehlers
12 did that, but certainly we could get that
• 13 changed.
14 MEMBER HORNING: Okay. With an
15 apartment above it, but it's not a "mom
16 and pop operation" where the owner lives
17 above
18 MR. CUDDY: No, it's not.
19 MEMBER HORNING: And they work in the
20 store and then back up to their residence?
21 It's not
22 MR. CUDDY: No. There is a tenant
23 there that is completely separate.
24 MEMBER HORNING: So it's the rental
• 25 component to the structure as well as a
June 6, 2013 Regular Meeting 134
• 1 retail component?
2 MR. CUDDY: The applicant's just rent
3 the store.
4 MEMBER HORNING: The applicant's rent?
5 MR. CUDDY: The store. And the owner,
6 Tracey Byrnes, and she rents it out as a
7 store. She has consented to this
8 application.
9 MEMBER HORNING: So the owner of the
10 building and/or the property with the
11 building on it, rents the first floor and
12 the accessory building
• 13 MR. CUDDY: Yes.
14 MEMBER HORNING: To the applicant's?
15 MR. CUDDY: Yes.
16 MEMBER HORNING: And they rent for
17 residential purposes an apartment above
18 the store, the owner does, to someone
19 else?
20 MR. CUDDY: Yes. A third party. And
21 that is the way that it has been for years
22 and years.
23 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The 2006 CO was
29 granted to Tracey Byrnes for as-built
• 25 interior alterations to an existing
June 6, 2013 Regular Meeting 135
• 1 commercial building. So we're kind of
2 going back and forth between commercial
3 and residential. We know that it was
4 originally a house. And we know that it
5 was used for a retail building for a very
6 long time, on the bottom of course. At one
7 point, the barn was a garage and now it's
8 certainly being used for the retail store.
9 So they're both being rented; correct? By
10 the applicant?
11 MR. CUDDY: Yes.
12 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: At least I
• 13 think we have the facts straighten out
14 here.
15 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: So it's your
16 desire to use the whole accessory
17 barn/garage for commercial use?
18 Essentially, you want to use the whole
19 thing?
20 MR. CUDDY: We pretty essentially use
21 it for the store right now. The west-end
22 of the barn, we would use for the purpose
23 of a prepping area. This would be used as
24 it is now. We don't have plans to do
25 anything else with it.
June 6, 2013 Regular Meeting 136
• 1 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Did we ever get
2 an accurate answer as to what is on the
3 second floor of the barn?
4 MR. CUDDY: I said, I don't know what
5 is on the second floor.
6 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Just state your
7 name for the record.
8 MS. FITZPATRICK: Erin Fitzpatrick.
9 Upstairs is completely bare. The landlord
10 cleared everything out six months ago.
11 Just old boxes for storage. But the floor
12 boards upstairs are, you know, they are
. 13 older and we don't use that for anything
14 now.
15 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: So it's just
16 cleared open space?
17 MS. FITZPATRICK: Cleared open space.
18 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Unused?
19 MS. FITZPATRICK: Unused.
20 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: You get
21 intrigued when you see stairs going there.
22 MS. FITZPATRICK: Well, it's very
23 cool up there. It's a very intriguing
29 space. That wouldn't be our intention to
• 25 use that.
June 6, 2013 Regular Meeting 137
• 1 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Can I ask you a
2 question? How long is your lease on the
3 building?
4 MS. FITZPATRICK: Ten years with a
5 five year option to extend.
6 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: And how long have
~ you leased this place?
8 MS. FITZPATRICK: This is our second
9 summer. So I just wanted to clarify that
10 we're not under the Department of Health.
11 Suffolk County Ag & Markets, and as
12 Charles said, we can have the letter from
• 13 the Department of Agriculture inspector.
19 He has written something. I already had
15 gone through this with him to show what
16 our intentions were and send that to you
17 as well.
18 MEMBER HORNING: So anything that
19 you're doing, proposing to do, does not
20 change that status?
21 MS. FITZPATRICK: Right. No. No.
22 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Gerry, has just
23 made a motion that we take five minutes to
24 consult in Executive Session with our
• 25 attorney. I will second that motion.
June 6, 2013 Regular Meeting 138
1 All in favor?
• 2 MEMBER DANTES: Aye.
3 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye.
4 MEMBER HORNING: Aye.
5 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye.
6 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Aye.
7
8 (Whereupon, the Board entered
9 Executive Session.)
10
11 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay. While
12 we're still here, the Board just wants a
• 13 little bit more specifications on the
14 exact nature of the retail use. So
15 perhaps the applicant can come forward and
16 answer some questions on this? Exactly,
17 what food do you prepare and what food do
18 you serve on your menu? Is it eat-in or
19 take-out? Let's start with that.
20 MS. FITZPATRICK: It's take-out. We
21 have two tables under the awning during
22 the summertime. Other than that, we have
23 storage at the window, a gentleman's rail,
24 just for people to have coffee and a quick
• 25 bite. We are definitely not a restaurant,
June 6, 2013 Regular Meeting 139
1 nor have any intention to be a restaurant.
• 2 The retail store itself serves everything
3 from groceries, beverages, beer,
4 cigarettes, newspapers, snacks. Coffee is
5 one of our biggest movers. It could exist
6 on its own without having additional
7 storage to the menu, but the drive behind
8 our vision is more free focused. We want
9 to be a place where people come to have
10 sandwiches and lunch sandwiches, as well
11 as sliced meats, cheeses, prepared salads
12 to eat at a winery or to bring to your
• 13 home. The full circle store in terms of a
14 general store, where we could sell
15 everything. If we did not have that
16 kitchen there, we could still have
17 existing business with just the retail
18 offerings now. With the food, we do have
19 a grill. We do have breakfast sandwiches.
20 We have buttered rolls in the morning.
21 And during the lunch hour, deli
22 sandwiches. The thing that is not working
23 in the kitchen for us is counter space.
24 Right now, in order to prepare we make
• 25 all our spreads, chutney, pestos that go
June 6, 2013 Regular Meeting 140
1 on our sandwiches from scratch, and right
• 2 now, in order to do that, we're cutting
3 over the sink in order to do any chopping
9 or to plug in an induction stove to boil
5 any water. So it's a bit precarious. In
6 terms of the use of the barn as a prep
7 space, it would be primarily for something
8 like slicing carrots to celery. Things
9 that are condiments that go along with the
10 deli offerings. In terms of the
11 seasonality, obviously our volume in the
12 summer, you know, tri-folds. So we have
• 13 more people in the store then we would in
14 the winter time. Thus it makes it harder
15 to work with more bodies in that space. So
16 the idea of having external space in the
17 barn, as an accessory to just allow
18 efficiency. You know, we have picnic boxes
19 where people can call in ahead and order
20 them but we have no where to actually fill
21 them. The beverage, chips package and
22 dessert and everything and then the
23 sandwich that is made in the kitchen. To
24 actually know where to sort of line them
• 25 up, and you know, add everything into
June 6, 2013 Regular Meeting 141
1 those boxes before they were filled. That
• 2 would sort of be additional space of
3 counter space for us. Stainless steel
4 tables and that's primarily it in the
5 barn.
6 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: So cooked
7 foods. What do you cook?
8 MS. FITZPATRICK: In the kitchen
9 itself, we have a countertop fryer. So we
10 make chicken cutlets. They're cooked in
11 the fryer. Cooked foods. Things that are
12 either boiled in water. Potatoes for
• 13 potato salad or pasta for pasta salad,
14 which goes in the deli case. Those are
15 the only cooked food items that we're
16 doing.
17 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: What kind of
18 cooked sandwiches?
19 MS. FITZPATRICK: We have a grill. We
20 don't do burgers. We only do egg
21 sandwiches and hot sandwiches for lunch.
22 Like a roast beef hot sandwich on the
23 grill. In the barn, there would be no
24 grill. There would be no venting system.
• 25 There would be nothing in terms of a full
June 6, 2013 Regular Meeting 142
• 1 fledge kitchen then what we're
2 proposing.
3 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: So you would
9 prepping primarily condiments?
5 MS. FITZPATRICK: Yes. Plus tuna
6 salads and carrots and celery and onions
7 that go into that tuna salad. There is
8 space in the barn that could be used to
9 chop those things. They get put into
10 containers and then they could get mixed
11 back into the kitchen in a one step, as
12 opposed to trying to do everything in that
• 13 kitchen at the same time.
19 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Is there any
15 place in that kitchen, in the footprint of
16 the retail store where you could put in a
17 counter? What would be sacrificed if you
18 did that?
19 MS. FITZPATRICK: Well, we do have an
20 additional space that has a small 2 foot
21 table next to a freezer that is in the
22 actual store itself, behind our deli cue,
23 which we are it is our intention to use
29 that, to slice meat or slice cheeses.
• 25 It's almost like a butcher block that you
June 6, 2013 Regular Meeting 143
• 1 can then wrap things up. So that is
2 happening in front of the customers as
3 opposed to, okay, let me take your sliced
4 meat to the kitchen and come back out and
5 then wrap it. It should happen all there.
6 There is a 2 foot table there now, we
7 would need an additional 4 feet there in
8 order to do that. So that is part of the
9 plans. It would not be enough.
10 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: It's really not
11 a sit down?
12 MS. FITZPATRICK: No.
• 13 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Except for
14 coffee?
15 MS. FITZPATRICK: Yeah, I mean,
16 people sit on those stools but it's not a
17 it's a casual style eatery to have a
18 sandwich, and people sit outside during
19 the summer. Other then that, there are no
20 tables.
21 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: So it's primarily
22 take-out?
23 MS. FITZPATRICK: Yeah.
24 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: So would you
• 25 classify yourself as a delicatessen?
June 6, 2013 Regular Meeting 144
• 1 MS. FITZPATRICK: A delicatessen,
2 general store.
3 MEMBER DANTES: Do you do any kind of
4 catering type services?
5 MS. FITZPATRICK: Yes. Like we do
6 catering services in the sense that if
7 people want to do a party for 30 people
8 and they want 5 pounds of potato salad, 5
9 pounds of cole slaw, and things like that,
10 we sell it by pound. So anything that we
11 have in our deli case we multiply for
12 those clients. We're trying to promote
• 13 the picnic boxes because it's a nice
14 option for people to take with them to go.
15 So those would need to be filled from a
16 particular place. Sort of an assembly
17 situation, that we don't have at the
18 moment. So we're trying to be crafty in
19 order to get those filled.
20 MEMBER DANTES: Have you decided on
21 an alternative other than the barn?
22 MS. FITZPATRICK: We would have to
23 look into getting a shared kitchen space
24 in Greenport in order to do what we want
• 25 to do. Is that what you're asking?
June 6, 2013 Regular Meeting 145
1 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: You mean, off
• 2 premises?
3 MS. FITZPATRICK: Yeah. So if we
4 needed to go that route, we would try and
5 find someone with a shared kitchen space
6 for "x" amount of hours during the day.
7 MEMBER DANTES: And would that be a
8 significant cost to you?
9 MS. FITZPATRICK: To be frank, we're
10 already paying for that barn for storage.
11 It's we're trying to maximize what we
12 can do at that location, since we're
• 13 already tied into a lease and paying for
14 both stores for rent, and that barn rent.
15 So it's another rental cost, which you
16 know, definitely takes a bit of a hit.
17 Maybe it's something that can develop down
18 the road but we're trying to use our
19 resources at hand right now.
20 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: So the difficulty
21 is space?
22 MS. FITZPATRICK: Yeah.
23 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: And to add the
24 additional space to the existing house,
• 25 why is that not feasible?
June 6, 2013 Regular Meeting 146
• 1 MS. FITZPATRICK: Well, one, we don't
2 own the place. So that would be something
3 that the landlord would have to approve.
4 I think that we don't have the capital to
5 do that. That's a significant expense.
6 Probably over a hundred thousand dollars
7 to do that expansion. So that would be the
8 first two reasons. If we owned the
9 building, I think that we would want to
10 invest more in what we could do, but that
11 doesn't really make sense for us at the
12 moment.
• 13 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Right now you're
14 renting that whole barn and only being
15 able to use a portion of it?
16 MS. FITZPATRICK: We go into that
17 barn no less than 50 times a day. Running
18 back and forth. There is coffee cups in
19 there. There is plates. There is paper
20 bags, plastic bags, paper towels, napkins.
21 All the beer, all Gatorade, Snapple. There
22 is a refrigerator in there. Another
23 freezer in there for back-up needs. Things
29 like that. So it's very much in use
• 25 already.
June 6, 2013 Regular Meeting 147
• 1 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Sounds like it's
2 being intensely used already.
3 MS. FITZPATRICK: Yeah.
4 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: So going back to
5 this same question and not to be
6 redundant, the proposed use as Mr. Cuddy
7 said, is very simply basically green and
8 orange things that you would be cutting?
9 MS. FITZPATRICK: Yeah.
10 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: What I am trying
11 to say and I apologize for cutting into
12 you, Erin, things that really don't need
• 13 to be refrigerated
14 MS. FITZPATRICK: Right. So if we
15 had a stainless steel table with a
16 cutting board on it, you know, slice
17 potatoes in there, slice cabbage for our
18 cole slaw. Things like that. That takes
19 counter space, which we don't have right
20 now. So what we have been doing like at
21 five o'clock, once things come down,
22 getting someone in there and prepping
23 those things at night. We open at 5:30 in
29 the morning. It's an extremely long day.
• 25 Right now to try and get everything that
June 6, 2013 Regular Meeting 148
• 1 we're trying to do, we certainly set our
2 expectations high but to fulfill them, it
3 would just be helpful to have the
4 additional space to do that.
5 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Thank you.
6 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Can you just
7 explain what your participation is with
8 Deep Roots Farm and CSA?
9 MS. FITZPATRICK: Sure. Deep Roots
10 Farm is located in Orient. Behind the
11 Orient Inn. It's a sustainable farm that
12 grows vegetables, grows herbs, raises
• 13 livestock, such as sheep and chickens.
14 Started as CSA, which is Community Support
15 Agriculture with the farmer named Tom
16 Hart, and our first season was last year.
17 And members sign up for a share at the
18 beginning of the growing season. So they
19 got a box of vegetables every week for 20
20 weeks during the growing season. And Tom
21 harvests the vegetables every week on a
22 Friday and brings vegetables to our barn
23 whereby the members of the CSA pick-up the
24 boxes every week. So they sort of
• 25 participate in the risk and rewards of the
June 6, 2013 Regular Meeting 149
• 1 farms. The CSA needs a distribution
2 center. They can't have members come
3 directly to them. And we have customers
4 coming every day to the store and we have
5 partnered with Tom, who is a young farmer
6 to just develop business together with
7 ours because it's complimentary. So many
8 of our customers who are interested in
9 getting greens on a weekly basis during
10 the summer season, coming into the store
11 to maybe get some groceries on the weekend
12 as well. For them it's very convenient.
• 13 They can come in on a weeknight at
14 five o'clock when all the farm stands have
15 closed and come to us to pick up their
16 box of vegetables and any other provisions
17 that they need for the weekend. So we're
18 trying to make that feasible. So that is a
19 little bit about the CSA.
20 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I was wondering
21 what it was with your business.
22 MS. FITZPATRICK: We're the
23 distribution center.
24 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: What is the
• 25 traffic impact? What does that do with
June 6, 2013 Regular Meeting 150
• 1 parking because obviously there is no
2 parking on your site?
3 MS. FITZPATRICK: Right.
4 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: You don't have
5 any site plan approval or anything like
6 that.
7 MS. FITZPATRICK: To be honest, our
8 CSA is quite small. There are only 12
9 members last year and there are only 10
10 members this year. So he is a small farm
11 as well. So for him to be able to multiply
12 and get hundreds of members, it would be
• 13 years and years down the road. He is only
14 interested in doing a small CSA and it
15 hasn't so far impacted any traffic on a
16 Friday night. I will note that that area
17 is heavily congested. We have experienced
18 problems with people parking in the
19 driveway all the time because that is
20 where our employees park. Getting in and
21 out of parking. They block driveways. Our
22 intention is to put up a sign respectfully
23 asking them to not park in front of those
24 driveways. We're not expecting for what
• 25 we're asking today that it's going to
June 6, 2013 Regular Meeting 151
. 1 impact the situation at all. It's going to
2 help us to be more efficient in what we're
3 doing and it's not going to have people
4 come up to the barn and get anything from
5 us directly. So you know, it's something
6 that hasn't been a problem yet. The
7 highest traffic for us is 12:00 p.m. and
8 7:00 a.m.
9 MEMBER DANTES: So your intention is
10 to work more efficiently so you don't have
11 to work as many hours?
12 MS. FITZPATRICK: Oh, I think we will
13 be putting in the same amount of hours. I
14 mean, that is the idea. The idea is that
15 it would be more efficient use of our
16 time. We can be doing other things to
17 promote what our business is as opposed to
18 be there until ten o'clock at night. It
19 would help that if we were more organized
20 with our space.
21 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: If you were to
22 expand the table top space, what would you
23 use?
29 MS. FITZPATRICK: There is a freezer
• 25 there right now, and the freezer can be
I
June 6, 2013 Regular Meeting 152
• 1 relocated. It's chest freezer. It can be
2 relocated to the barn. There is 4 feet
3 there and that would be the additional
4 counter that we can use. It's a little
5 nook. We are still planning on getting a
6 4 foot stainless steel table there as
7 well.
8 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: So you have
9 some option within the existing building.
10 Not necessarily ideal, but some option.
11 The Board is always cognizant of any
12 particular precedent that they set by
• 13 looking at these very code interpretations
14 and maybe Mr. Cuddy can do this, I am not
15 sure, but the Board has to think about how
16 we can distinguish this situation, bearing
17 in mind that the variances run with the
18 land, but certainly code interpretations
19 or variances can not be personalized. You
20 have a particular operation. We can't
21 specifically look at you as an applicant
22 without looking at a larger picture of
23 what this may mean for other retailers in
24 the Town. So I just want you to be aware
• 25 of the fact that the Board has to consider
June 6, 2013 Regular Meeting 153
• 1 all of those things.
2 MS. FITZPATRICK: Yes. I understand
3 that.
4 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: So if there is
5 anything more that Mr. Cuddy wants to say,
6 I mean, one of the things that we think
7 about and it's not really relevant to code
8 interpretation but maybe relevant to just
9 the applicant, is an application for a
10 change of zone. I mean, you're right smack
11 and next to Hamlet Business. It wouldn't
12 be you. It would have to be the owner. An
• 13 application for Hamlet Business would
14 certainly solve a whole lot of problems
15 and for anyone else that would be renting
16 that retail use, and I don't know if you
17 can answer that?
18 MS. FITZPATRICK: No, not at this
19 time.
20 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: And maybe even
21 Mr. Cuddy. That is something that the
22 owner has to do and be considering. But
23 we're trying to explore feasible
24 alternatives.
• 25 MS. FITZPATRICK: Well, we appreciate
June 6, 2013 Regular Meeting 154
• 1 that.
2 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Is there anyone
3 on the Board that would like to say
4 anything else?
5 (No Response.)
6 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Is there anyone
7 else in the audience that would like to
8 address this application? That would be
9 you, sir, being that you're the only other
10 person in this audience.
11 MR. JOSEPH: Hello. My name is
12 Wilfred Joseph, and I live across the
• 13 street at 8900 Main Road, East Marion and
19 I own the Bed & Breakfast. First I want to
15 say that I totally support what these
16 young women are doing. We have found the
17 store to be very convenient for our guest
18 and guest items, you know convenience
19 items. We have been there well the
20 family has been there for over 20 years,
21 and when we first moved there, this store
22 was run by Angel. As we understood it,
23 the store has been a store for over 100
24 years. And based on what you told us, it
• 25 was used as a livery station for people
June 6, 2013 Regular Meeting 155
• 1 with horses. The barn was for taking care
2 of the horses. And I have one concern and
3 I just wanted to get it in the record and
4 it probably has no relevance to this
5 application, but I have been waiting for
6 an opportunity to say this. That area is
7 also the bus stop right adjacent to the
8 store. So both sides of the street, the
9 Hampton Jitney and the Suffolk County bus
10 stop. Those are heavy items and there is
11 really no preparation (In Audible)
12 shoulder. It collects mud and debris and
• 13 it makes the whole area look terrible.
14 Both sides of the street. The other thing
15 is, just our neighbors, that is the people
16 that use the store, tend to be careless,
17 leaving garbage, cigarette butts and cans.
18 I have spoken to both Erin and Lucy about
19 this and they offered to put a sign in the
20 store and I am sure that it would help,
21 but I am sure that it won't stop because,
22 you know, they're transients that come
23 through once and a while and don't care.
24 If the Town could provide us a garage
• 25 container as they have done in the past, I
June 6, 2013 Regular Meeting 156
• 1 am not sure due to the budget
2 restrictions, they had one there and it
3 has been removed. It would help. Also,
4 whether we have to make an application to
5 the State or somebody else about providing
6 proper repair because the repaired it last
7 year and it lasted one week. It was a very
8 slip-slop job. They just put some stuff on
9 top of the mud and the first truck that
10 stopped, destroyed it. The shoulder is
11 fairly wide on both sides of the street.
12 The property adjacent to me is owned by
• 13 the County, and as a result, there is sort
14 of an entrance there and of course, that
15 has been abused because that is not
16 hardened. So my request and I am not sure
17 that you're the right people but I just
18 wanted to get it in the record, if we
19 could get those two things taken care of.
20 One is the garbage container, that the
21 Town be responsible for servicing. The
22 second would be a proper place for the
23 buses to stop. The buses are very
24 important, both the Jitney and the bus.
• 25 It's wonderful. They stop right in front
June 6, 2013 Regular Meeting 157
• 1 of our property but it's not wonderful
2 when they drive right up on the grass and
3 walk on the flower beds and things like
4 that. So I am not sure what can be done,
5 whether you have the power to effect it.
6 But I wanted to get my chance in.
7 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I appreciate
8 your concerns very much. Two things with
9 regards to a garage can, that can probably
10 be taken care of through the Town. I think
11 if you call the supervisor's office, they
12 can address your concern. (In Audible) I
• 13 don't think that a garage can should be
14 that difficult. The Main Road is a State
15 road. You're dealing with the State. For
16 repairs, you contact the Superintendent of
17 Highways, they should be able to advise
18 you. You can call them, or call the
19 Jitney. The bus company, Suffolk County
20 Transit, they may be able to assist you.
21 This Board has no jurisdiction over any of
22 those things but we certainly appreciate
23 your concerns. We can't really do
29 anything about that, but certainly we can
• 25 encourage the existing business to have a
June 6, 2013 Regular Meeting 158
• 1 set of trash receptacles in some place,
2 where they have control and encourage
3 people to use them. But I would call the
4 supervisors office.
5 MR. JOSEPH: Okay. The end of the
6 road of Rocky Point Road, there is no
7 garbage can. I bring home garage. There
8 is a need for one there also. Thank
9 you.
10 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Thank you. Is
11 there anything else that you would like to
12 say Mr. Cuddy?
• 13 MR. CUDDY: I think that Erin was
14 trying to point out that her alternatives
15 are very small. There really isn't a lot
16 of room to do much in that store. And I
17 don't think an alternative would be to
18 change the zone. To change a zone, even
19 after the State code is recommended,
20 obviously it wasn't done. It's a big
21 process to go through and it's also an
22 expensive process. And I don't see
23 somebody, being the owner and even the
24 applicants trying to undertake that. It
• 25 would take a lot of time to do. I have
June 6, 2013 Regular Meeting 159
• 1 done several of them. It's sometimes a
2 difficult process to do. So I hope that
3 wouldn't be something that the Board wants
4 to be done.
5 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: No, I don't
6 think that we are.
7 MR. CUDDY: I initially looked at
8 that and I explained it to them.
9 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: It's an option to
10 the owner. It could be an advantage.
11 MR. CUDDY: If that could be done,
12 possibly. Certainly I would think that
• 13 the limitations of the uses for expansion
19 of that beyond that area, because we're
15 talking about a very small use in the
16 barn. So I think that we could draft
17 something that would indicate, that we
18 could not expand under
19 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: For any area
20 variance, you can certainly do exactly
21 that. Since this is a Code
22 Interpretation, case law has informed us
23 the conditions on Code Interpretations are
24 not something that you can do.
• 25 MR. CUDDY: I would think that at
June 6, 2013 Regular Meeting 160
. 1 least, there would be something for people
2 to do and say this is what this unique
3 situation is and this is what we're doing
4 and we're not doing it any more. I think
5 there are very few people that would be
6 expanding in any way for this. Again, I
7 don't think it should be viewed as a
8 particular expansion. I would also say to
9 you, if we could, we would like to give
10 you the Agricultural letter that we got
11 from the State and will update our plan
12 that was originally put in with the file
. 13 of the building permit, and we also would
14 give you the survey corrected with the
15 building as it is.
16 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: A11 right.
17 MR. CUDDY: And I thank you for
18 taking all of this time.
19 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: It's our job.
20 MR. CUDDY: I appreciate all you guys
21 do. Thank you.
22 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Thank you. So
23 if there are no further comments and
24 questions, I am going to make a motion to
• 25 close this hearing, subject to receipt of
June 6, 2013 Regular Meeting 161
• 1 an updated floor plan, and survey and a
2 letter from Ag & Market.
3 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second.
9 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: All in favor?
5 MEMBER DANTES: Aye.
6 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye.
7 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye.
8 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Aye.
9 (See Minutes for Resolution.)
10 +++*******~+*++*****~**~~+a*****+~*+*+****
11
12 (Whereupon, the June 6, 2013,
• 13 Regular Meeting of the Zoning Board of
14 Appeals concluded at 3:00 P.M.)
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
• 25
June 6, 2013 Regular Meeting 162
. 1 C E R T I F I C A T I O N
2
3
4 I, Jessica DiLallo, certify that the
5 foregoing transcript of tape recorded Public
6 Hearings was prepared using required electronic
7 transcription equipment and is a true and accurate
8 record of the Hearings.
9
10 Signature• _
11 ssica o
12
• 13
14 Jessica DiLallo
Court Reporter
15 PO Box 984
Holbrook, New York 11741
16
17 Date: June 28, 2013
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
• 25