Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-07/11/2013 Hearing 1 1 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS COUNTY OF SUFFOLK: STATE OF NEW YORK 2 X 3 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 4 5 X 6 Southold Town Hall Southold, New York 7 RECEIVE© 8 July 11, 2013 AUG ] 2 2013 10:03 A.M. 9 BOARD OF APPEALS 10 Board Members Present: 11 12 • 13 GERARD GOEHRINGER - Member 14 ERIC DANTES - Member 15 GEORGE HORNING - Member 16 KENNETH SCHNEIDER - Member 17 JENNIFER ANDALORO - Assistant Town Attorney 18 VICKI TOTH - Secretary 19 20 LESLIE KANES WEISMAN - Chairperson/Member (Excused) 21 22 Jessica DiLallo Court Reporter 23 P.O. Box 989 Holbrook, New York 11741 24 (631)-338-1409 25 2 . 1 INDEX TO HEARINGS 2 3 Hearing Page 4 5 Timothy McManus, #6657 3-8 6 Ido Mizrahy (Breezy Shores #25), #6660 8-26 7 Graham Willoughby (Breezy 8 Shores #13), #6661 26-36 9 Ralph M. Carbone, #6664 36-67 10 Dina Masso, #6665 67-74 11 Kevin Gallagher & Dorothy 12 Gallagher, #6662 74-103 • 13 RATSO, LLC, #6666 103-111 14 John Abbott, #6663 111-140 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 • 25 _ - July 11, 2013 Regular Meeting 3 . 1 HEARING #6657 - TIMOTHY MCMANUS 2 MR. GOGGINS: And we're still doing 3 that. It appears that probably Well, 4 the research that I did, I had gone around 5 to Nassau Point and other areas, and the 6 Chairman of the Board had asked if there 7 were other structures similar to this and 8 that had gotten variances, and clearly 9 there was none as far as we could see. 10 Other than, we did see a lot of structures 11 that were renovated or rebuilt or built 12 that were had no permits, and they • 13 exist. So the McManus' are going through 14 the right process by applying for a 15 building permit and trying to, you know, 16 save their structure that was damaged 17 during the hurricane. Yet, there are 18 several other homeowners that have built 19 new structures and never got permits. So 20 it's kind of an unequitable situation. But 21 be it as it may, we would like to adjourn 22 it today what is probably going to 23 happen, we had an engineer look at the 29 structure. It appears that they can • 25 it's not a full demolition, that they would July 11, 2013 Regular Meeting 9 • 1 be able to save a substantial part of it, 2 depending upon what they want to do and how 3 they want to build it. They can certainly 4 save 30o of the structure and maybe more 5 depending upon how they want to renovate 6 it. We're exploring that right now. If 7 we're able to do that, we might withdraw 8 this appeal and do a new Notice of 9 Disapproval for a rebuild as opposed to a 10 total demolition. And I think if we do 11 that, I am hoping that the Board would be 12 more acceptable to allowing this cabana to • 13 exist. Is my reasoning correct? Would 14 this Board consider if it's not a total 15 demolition and it's a rebuild, more than 16 the 25o required? 17 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Should I wait 18 before I answer that? 19 MS. ANDALORO: You should wait until 20 you see the application. 21 MR. GOGGINS: Okay. As I said, as a 22 general sense, if the application shows 23 that they're renovating 60~ of it, there is 24 precedent here, that the Board has 25 permitted those types of renovations. I July 11, 2013 Regular Meeting 5 • 1 just don't want the McManus' spending a lot 2 of money going through a process that 3 yes, sir? 9 MEMBER HORNING: That one has a C0; 5 correct? 6 MR. GOGGINS: Correct. 7 MEMBER HORNING: And the one in the 8 neighborhood that you looked into, you 9 didn't find any other with a CO; is that 10 correct? 11 MR. GOGGINS: There are some others 12 that do not have CO's, correct. • 13 MEMBER HORNING: Some of them? 14 MR. GOGGINS: Yes. 15 MEMBER HORNING: Did you find any 16 others with CO's? 17 MR. GOGGINS: Yes. There are some 18 that were preexisting. 19 MEMBER HORNING: Preexisting? 20 MR. GOGGINS: Yes. There were some 21 others. They have a preexisting CO here 22 that they received back in, I think 1990 23 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: '96-'97? 24 MR. GOGGINS: 1992. We have pictures. • 25 We submitted them in the photo packet. So July 11, 2013 Regular Meeting 6 • 1 this is a preexisting building. 2 MEMBER HORNING: And so in our logic, 3 when you demolish something, the 4 preexisting condition vanishes. 5 MR. GOGGINS: Yes. 6 MEMBER HORNING: If you renovate 7 something, correct me if I am wrong, folks, 8 you're in a different status? 9 MR. GOGGINS: Right. Yep. Okay. 10 That is exactly. 11 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Let me just ask a 12 question. Are you just going to start with • 13 the bulkhead or are you going to wait to 19 see 15 MR. GOGGINS: Well, I think they're 16 going to try and wait but depending upon 17 the time, they may need to build the 18 bulkhead before this work. They're hoping 19 to do it at the same time. We have Samuels 20 & Steelman working on plans right now. And 21 you know, hopefully, we're going to take 22 this process, we're going to withdraw this 23 appeal and file a new Notice of Disapproval 24 and go forward again. 25 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: So you're going to July 11, 2013 Regular Meeting 7 • 1 withdraw it now or you're going to wait? 2 MR. GOGGINS: I am going to wait. I 3 am going to do it in writing that I 4 withdraw it. So there is no question that 5 we withdrew it. And then we will proceed 6 that way. Thank you for your time and I 7 appreciate it. Have a good day. 8 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Thank you. So are 9 we adjourning this? 10 MS. ANDALORO: Yes. 11 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: We're adjourning 12 this to when? • 13 MR. GOGGINS: To the next meeting. 14 Whenever that is. We will adjourn it to 15 August but I anticipate sending a letter 16 next week withdrawing. Thank you. 17 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: We're going to 18 give you a generic time. Hold on. 19 August 8th at 2:30. 20 MR. GOGGINS: Thank you. 21 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I will make the 22 motion to adjourn this. 23 MEMBER HORNING: Second. 24 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: All in favor? • 25 MEMBER DANTES: Aye. July 11, 2013 Regular Meeting 8 • 1 MEMBER HORNING: Aye. 2 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye. 3 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye. 9 (See Minutes for Resolution.) 6 HEARING #6660 - IDO MIZRAHY (BREEZY 7 SHORES #25) 8 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: This is Appeal 9 No. 2 of the day. This is Ido Mizrahy, and 10 our illustrious clerk will read the legal 11 notice. 12 MS. TOTH: This is a request for • 13 variance from Article XXIII Code Section 14 280-123A and the Building Inspector's March 15 7, 2013 Notice of Disapproval based on an 16 application for building permit for 17 additions and alterations to an existing 18 seasonal cottage at; 1) a nonconforming 19 building containing a nonconforming use 20 shall not be enlarged, reconstructed, 21 structurally altered or moved, unless such 22 building is changed to a conforming use, 23 located at: #25 Breezy Shores Community 24 Incorporated, 65490 Main Road, also known • 25 as Route 25 and Sage Boulevard, adjacent to July 11, 2013 Regular Meeting 9 • 1 Shelter Island Sound in Greenport, New 2 York. 3 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Proceed. 4 Mr. Uellendahl. Can you please state your 5 appearance? 6 MR. UELLENDAHL: I am Frank Uellendahl. 7 I am representing Ido Mizrahy. You asked me 8 to contact all adjacent neighbors and they 9 were 39 of them. I did receive 31 back, 10 which I gave to Vicki. I picked up 3 that 11 were not deliverable and I am still waiting 12 for 5, which I will submit. • 13 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Thank you. 14 MR. UELLENDAHL: You're familiar with 15 Breezy Shores, mostly you have dealt with 16 two cases. I think Cottage No. 5, Otano and 17 this year you dealt with the Mullman. That 18 is Cottage No. 11. Our cottage is the last 19 cottage on the landward side of the 20 community. It is on the left-hand side. 21 It's a two bedroom cottage and we're 22 probably doing something very similar to 23 what the Mullman's were asking for, but 24 we're not going to put in a new foundation . 25 with a crawl space. Mr. Mizrahy likes the July 11, 2013 Regular Meeting 10 • 1 cottage actually the way that it is. He 2 would like to change the inside with the 3 exposed rafters, floor boards and the 4 studs. There is no insulation. We 5 probably will put some minimal insulation 6 on top of the roof and the siding, because 7 we're going to reside and new roof. But 8 the one problem that we have with this 9 cottage, in particular the porch areas. 10 The entrance door is 5'8, so the headroom 11 in these areas are 5'9. I am 6'4. I am 12 crawling. So I had to be careful to not • 13 bang my head. So that is why we would like 14 to raise the ceiling by approximately 16 15 inches. So we could get a 6'8 door in with 16 a header. So that actually raises the 17 structure by 6 inches. I am planning to do 18 this, not at the top because I like the 19 appearance of the interior, but I would 20 like to install a 16 inch high perimeter 21 beam along the footprint. The footprint 22 itself stays the same. We're not 23 increasing the actual living space. Most 24 of the changes are really interior. We • 25 would like to put in new windows. Better July 11, 2013 Regular Meeting 11 • 1 windows. The site plan says additions. We 2 would like to relocate the water tank to 3 the outside, so that the for square 4 feet. And we have a couple of entry wooden 5 decks that the Building Department requires 6 a 3 foot minimum 3 foot deep landing. 7 And so, basically most of the changes 8 are on the inside. We would like to open up 9 the floor plan to recreate an open kitchen. 10 Living, dining situation. And then one of 11 the front porches can become a guest room. 12 That is basically the extent of it. If you • 13 have any questions, I would be happy to 14 answer them. 15 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I just want to ask 16 you one question. I forget, is the shower 17 deck the outside shower 18 MR. UELLENDAHL: Right. 19 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I was over there 20 twice and I forgot and it just didn't dawn 21 on me, is that there? 22 MR. UELLENDAHL: Yes. This is there 23 and we're going to keep it. We're going to 24 redo the floor. There was a bend, and we're • 25 going to make it a little bit smaller. July 11, 2013 Regular Meeting 12 • 1 There is no room to actually take a shower. 2 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: How large is that? 3 MR. UELLENDAHL: This is I think 4 the plan shows let me just check. There 5 is an existing "as-built" floor plan, it's 6 about 3 x 9.7 no. It's about let's 7 call it 4.6 x 4.6. 8 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: 4.6 x 9.6? 9 MR. UELLENDAHL: Correct. 10 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: So that exists? 11 MR. UELLENDAHL: That exists, and 12 we're not increasing the shower. We're • 13 replacing possibly the floor. 14 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Okay. The front 15 porch, I see you have two of them. One out 16 of the bedroom? 17 MR. UELLENDAHL: Yes. The bedroom will 18 become if you turn to the proposed floor 19 plan, you will see that becomes the dining 20 area. Right now, there are two small 21 windows up high. So the cottage really 22 doesn't have a great view of the water. 23 This is like what the people bought it for. 24 So we would like to take this off and put • 25 in a double door, 6'8 and that requires a July 11, 2013 Regular Meeting 13 1 wood deck. So this is basically this 2 will probably become the new entrance. 3 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Okay. And that is 4 how large? 5 MR. UELLENDAHL: The deck again is 3' 6 x 6' wide. 7 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: And that does not 8 exist? 9 MR. UELLENDAHL: That does not exist. 10 That's proposed. 11 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: So is the 12 situation when you're referring to the • 13 existing steps in Bedroom #2, does that 14 exist? I am aware of the situation but I 15 am just putting it on the record. 16 MR. UELLENDAHL: Correct. This is a 17 new entrance and deck. 18 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: And how wide is 19 that? 20 MR. UELLENDAHL: You're talking about 21 the sun room; right? 22 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I am talking about 23 Bedroom #2. 24 MR. UELLENDAHL: In the existing • 25 there is nothing right now. This becomes a July 11, 2013 Regular Meeting 19 • 1 dining room. In the proposed plan, it 2 shows a wood deck, 3 feet deep and 6 foot 3 wide. 4 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Can I have that 5 again? 6 MR. UELLENDAHL: 3 feet deep and 6 7 feet wide. 8 MEMBER HORNING: What is the one next 9 to that in the sitting room? 10 MR. UELLENDAHL: Right now, there is a 11 couple of steps, as you can see. Again, 12 the Building Department will ask me to • 13 enlarge the landing, the top step, to 3 14 feet. So this becomes a little bit 15 MEMBER HORNING: There are no 16 dimensions on that. 17 MR. UELLENDAHL: Okay. I can give you 18 dimensions. They are the existing width 19 is 5 feet wide and 3 feet deep. 20 MEMBER HORNING: Was that just an 21 omission that the dimensions are not on 22 the 23 MR. UELLENDAHL: Yes, I guess. 24 MEMBER HORNING: So that is an • 25 additional. You're asking for basically July 11, 2013 Regular Meeting 15 • 1 four additional landings, let's say. 2 MR. UELLENDAHL: Only three. 3 MEMBER HORNING: You're asking for a 4 hot water heater 5 MR. UELLENDAHL: Yes. 6 MEMBER HORNING: And three landings? 7 MR. UELLENDAHL: Yes. Three small 8 little decks. Always in relation to an 9 exit or an entrance door. 10 MEMBER HORNING: I mean, is there any 11 reason you need to have two entries, one in 12 the dining room and one in the sitting • 13 room? 14 MR. UELLENDAHL: No, not really. I 15 could certainly leave the sitting room 16 situation the way that it is, and not 17 enlarge it. 18 MEMBER HORNING: What is the code 19 requirement, you told us this, for landing 20 and code entrance steps? 21 MR. UELLENDAHL: Three feet. The 22 Building Department keeps asking me when I 23 present a two foot little step out of a 24 room, to make it three feet, because that • 25 is the code. July 11, 2013 Regular Meeting 16 • 1 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: To make it what? 2 MR. UELLENDAHL: Three feet. 3 x 3. 3 MEMBER HORNING: That is the 4 minimum? 5 MR. UELLENDAHL: Yes. 6 MEMBER HORNING: The code requires a 7 minimum 3 x 3? 8 MR. UELLENDAHL: Yes. The width is 9 usually, the width of an entrance door and 10 then you have a 3 foot wide length. 11 MEMBER HORNING: And the one that is 12 there now does not meet code? • 13 MR. UELLENDAHL: No. Well, nothing 14 really meets code there. The ceiling 15 heights are below seven feet. That is the 16 minimum residential clear ceiling height. 17 So by raising the roof, I am proposing 7'3" 18 to get the structural header in there, we 19 actually have a minimum of 7'3". That is 20 code compliant. 21 MEMBER HORNING: I think the Board's 22 major concern is the actual degree of 23 increase of nonconformities. And we have 24 tried to limit any increases in any of the • 25 degree of nonconformities, which is why I July 11, 2013 Regular Meeting 17 • 1 was asking you about the three feet landing 2 and the sitting room, which increases the 3 degree of the nonconformity, as well as the 4 other proposed structures too. 5 MR. UELLENDAHL: Right. 6 MEMBER HORNING: Back up a moment. 7 The 16" beam that you're proposing on top 8 of the foundation, is that the only 9 foundation work? 10 MR. UELLENDAHL: We do need, I think 11 in the elevations, you will see we're 12 replacing the foundation, which partially • 13 consist of concrete blocks, just put on the 14 grade and a partially locust posts. Some 15 of those locust posts are rotten. So we do 16 need to replace individual footings. I am 17 not suggesting I don't like the look 18 really o£ a continuance across the 19 foundation. I would like to actually see 20 the individual footings and raising this up 21 a little bit more above grade to really 22 make it look like it used to be, as the 23 case before. 24 MEMBER HORNING: Will you put skirting • 25 or July 11, 2013 Regular Meeting 18 • 1 MR. UELLENDAHL: Well, there is no 2 need really for skirting because it's still 3 relatively close to grade. 4 MEMBER HORNING: I thought I saw 5 reference to something on the foundation 6 being damaged, is 7 MR. UELLENDAHL: Yes. Some of the 8 locusts posts are in really bad shape. I 9 noticed this when you walk through the 10 cottage, it's very spongy. Very soft. 11 MEMBER HORNING: So the damage is 12 through the longevity • 13 MR. UELLENDAHL: Correct. 14 MEMBER HORNING: Of the existence? 15 MR. UELLENDAHL: I don't think this 16 cottage has been really touched. No 17 renovations. 18 MEMBER HORNING: No damage? 19 MR. UELLENDAHL: No. 20 MEMBER HORNING: No recent damage? 21 MR. UELLENDAHL: No. Even during 22 Sandy, I was surprised. This cottage 23 didn't have any damage. 24 MEMBER HORNING: So are you going to • 25 raise, lift the building off July 11, 2013 Regular Meeting 19 • 1 MR. UELLENDAHL: Yes. Unless we find 2 a way to do it individually, but by 3 installing, call it the "grade beam," the 4 16" beam, I think we will have to actually 5 lift it up to install the footings and then 6 the beam, and then bring this down again, 7 and install the floor. Now, I can actually 8 see the grade through the floor boards. 9 The gaps are you know, half an inch 10 wide. 11 MEMBER HORNING: That would be 12 pressure treated timber ridge • 13 MR. UELLENDAHL: Yes. It has to be as 14 proposed. 15 MEMBER HORNING: So there is no intent 16 to move the building, other than lift it 17 up? 18 MR. UELLENDAHL: Correct, and bring it 19 down again. 20 MEMBER HORNING: So no moving of the 21 structure. You're not demolishing the 22 structure to any degree? 23 MR. UELLENDAHL: No, we would like to 24 hold onto the existing roof, which we like, . 25 and also the walls. So basically the July 11, 2013 Regular Meeting 20 • 1 cottage itself. We may have to there 2 are two porches, in the sun-room and the 3 enclosed porch. Since we're replacing the 4 windows, we're probably going to end up to 5 reframe the walls of the porch, because I 6 don't think anything will stay in place. 7 MEMBER HORNING: Couple of more 8 questions for me. But you do intend to 9 altar and enlarge the structure; correct? 10 MR. UELLENDAHL: Correct. 11 MEMBER HORNING: Can you actually 12 provide the actual square footage of the • 13 structure including the shower? Anything 19 the Building Department will consider part 15 of the structure 16 MR. UELLENDAHL: Absolutely. 17 MEMBER HORNING: And give us the 18 square footage, total square footage of all 19 the proposed additions? Add that up for us 20 and give us a rough percentage of the 21 increase that you're proposing? 22 MR. UELLENDAHL: Yes, I will do that. 23 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: And Frank, 24 anything that you would consider to be • 25 exempt, you may want to run it by the July 11, 2013 Regular Meeting 21 • 1 Building Department and find out what 2 they're going to consider exempt as opposed 3 to 4 MEMBER HORNING: In other words, I 5 think what Gerry is saying, if you had a 6 3 x 3 entry way, that is exempt. Is that 7 correct, guys? 8 MR. UELLENDAHL: Right. 9 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: There may be one 10 exemption. 11 MR. UELLENDAHL: Right, and not two. 12 Right. Okay. Yes, I will check with the • 13 Building Department. 14 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: And I can't tell 15 you how important this is, because as you 16 know, we only grant a 3s increase on 17 MR. UELLENDAHL: Yes. 18 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: So that is the 19 issue. 20 MR. UELLENDAHL: Very well. Will do. 21 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Any questions? 22 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Yes, I have a 23 question. What condition is the septic 29 system in? • 25 MR. UELLENDAHL: I do not know the July 11, 2013 Regular Meeting 22 • 1 condition of the septic system in this 2 case, but I was told, he's not sharing a 3 septic system with another cottage, which 4 is the case in some of those adjacent 5 cottages. The existing bathroom, there is 6 a toilet and wash basin. We're adding an 7 interior shower. So there is an interior 8 change as you can see on the drawing, but 9 it's in the same place. So there is no 10 problem in hooking up to the exiting waste 11 line. 12 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: And you feel that • 13 this structure can be lifted without any 19 major detriment? 15 MR. UELLENDAHL: Yes. I spoke to a 16 house mover or lifter, and it's amazing 17 what they can do. I mean, I have a very 18 old large barn in Orient, one of my 19 clients, and I was there yesterday and they 20 lifted it up four feet. You know, they have 21 the privings. They have the support, the 22 steel beams. And they can do this, you 23 know, exactly, half an inch, a quarter of 24 an inch. . 25 MEMBER HORNING: Very good. So you July 11, 2013 Regular Meeting 23 • 1 feel confident that you won't destroy the 2 cottage? 3 MR. UELLENDAHL: Yes. Yes. 4 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: How high do you 5 think that you're going to lift it? 6 MR. UELLENDAHL: Well, in my 7 application, I had mentioned the total 8 would be 23-24 inches. 16, should go on 9 the inside and I would like to bring this 10 up a little bit more. I don't know if you 11 saw the situation on the north side of the 12 cottage. The grade is much higher. So • 13 that would alleviate a little bit. That is 14 one reason why I don't want a crawl space 15 and a continuous foundation. In case there 16 is a flood, the water would just rush right 17 through. 18 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: And you plan on 19 installing gutters and leaders and 20 drywell's? 21 MR. UELLENDAHL: Yes. Absolutely. 22 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: I have no other 23 questions. 24 MEMBER HORNING: There was a reference • 25 to a recent ZBA decision, Mullman, and I July 11, 2013 Regular Meeting 24 • 1 want to take note that there are a couple 2 of conditions in that decision. Indicating 3 that the structure should only be used as 9 an unheated seasonal cottage. Your client 5 is aware that there might be a condition 6 like that? 7 MR. UELLENDAHL: Absolutely. And it's 8 stated, this has to remain a seasonal 9 cottage. It is unheated. And the Mullman's 10 as I saw on their application, they're 11 going to insulate the building. They're not 12 going to use it in the winter time, because • 13 most of the cottages are really closed up 14 during the winter. 15 MEMBER HORNING: Okay. Thank you. 16 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I just wanted to 17 give this to you. This is from the County 18 of Suffolk regarding yes. 19 Okay. Eric? 20 MEMBER DANTES: No questions. 21 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Okay. Hearing no 22 further comments from the Board. Is there 23 anyone in the audience that would like to 24 speak for or against this application? • 25 Kindly state your name for the July 11, 2013 Regular Meeting 25 • 1 record. 2 MS. SZARKA: My name is Helen Szarka. 3 I am on the Board of Breezy Shores. The 9 Board wants you to know that we approve of 5 the application and I think that you all 6 know that all the cottages at Breezy can 7 use a little extra love. They really need 8 a lot of support and upgrading of them. 9 We're very happy to see this and we hope 10 that it will go forward as presented. 11 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Could you spell 12 your last name? • 13 MS. SZARKA: Sure. It's "S" as in Sam. 14 "Z" as in zebra, A-R-K-A. 15 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Thank you. 16 MS. SZARKA: Thank you. 17 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Is there anybody 18 else that would like to speak? 19 (NO Response.) 20 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Seeing none. I 21 will make a motion closing the hearing 22 pending the acceptance of the following 23 information that we needed from the 29 architect, with the percentage of increase, • 25 and that portion of it that are the July 11, 2013 Regular Meeting 26 • 1 additions that we had been discussing. 2 MEMBER HORNING: Second. 3 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: All in favor? 4 MEMBER DANTES: Aye. 5 MEMBER HORNING: Aye. 6 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye. 7 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye. 8 (See Minutes for Resolution.) 10 HEARING #6661 - GRAHAM WILLOUGHBY 11 (BREEZY SHORES #13) 12 MS. TOTH: The next application is for • 13 Graham Willoughby at Breezy Shores, #6661. 19 Request for variance from Article XXIII 15 Code Section 280-123A and the Building 16 Inspector's March 7, 2013, amended May 2, 17 2013 Notice of Disapproval based on an 18 application for building permit for 19 additions and alterations to an existing 20 seasonal cottage at; 1) a nonconforming 21 building containing a nonconforming use 22 shall not be enlarged, reconstructed, 23 structurally altered or moved, unless such 24 building is changed to a conforming use, • 25 located at: #13 Breezy Shores Community, July 11, 2013 Regular Meeting 27 • 1 Incorporated, 65490 Main Road, also known 2 as State route 25 and Sage Boulevard, 3 adjacent to Shelter Island Sound in 4 Greenport, New York. 5 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Thank you. 6 Frank, can you give us your 7 appearance, please. 8 MR. UELLENDAHL: My name is Frank 9 Uellendahl representing Graham Willoughby. 10 His wife, Annmarie Williams is present. 11 And I, again, have three 12 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Thank you. . 13 MR. UELLENDAHL: This cottage is on 14 the water side, but they proposed activity 15 is beyond the 75 foot wetlands setback. 16 It's landward of the cottage. There is 17 apparently, a small mud-room addition and 18 entrance into the existing kitchen. And on 19 the other side, there is a small bathroom. 20 What the owners would like to do is 21 increase the size of the bathroom, so that 22 we could have a code compliant situation 23 there. And switch the entrance basically 24 with the bathroom. This will allow us to • 25 have a much nicer usable kitchen. Right July 11, 2013 Regular Meeting 28 • 1 now, it's all in pieces. The sink is 2 sitting by itself. The refrigerator and 3 the stove. There is basically a kitchen 9 table in the center, which is only space. 5 In order to achieve this, we're basically 6 suggesting the push out the exterior 7 wall by a few inches and bring this all the 8 way across. Basically filling in that gap. 9 And this is basically a 27 square foot 10 enlargement of the existing cottage. This 11 is the only two-story structure. So there 12 are bedrooms upstairs. As far as the • 13 septic system is concerned, there are no 14 changes to the bathroom. The waste line 15 status is the same and will be hooked-up to 16 the existing waste line. It's a relatively 17 small project but I need to ask for a 18 variance because it's and enlargement of a 19 nonconforming structure. 20 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: What is the 21 existing square footage of the structure? 22 The footprint? So I can get that number, 23 so we can see the percentages? 24 MR. UELLENDAHL: I think I mentioned • 25 the percentage in the application. July 11, 2013 Regular Meeting 29 • 1 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Yep. I saw that, 2 3°s. I would just like to know the square 3 percentage. 4 MR. UELLENDAHL: I will submit it to 5 your office. Absolutely. I did this. You 6 would like the existing footprint? 7 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Yes. The existing 8 footprint square footage. 9 MR. UELLENDAHL: But only the first 10 floor? Not the living space? 11 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Yes. The first 12 floor footprint. • 13 MR. UELLENDAHL: Yes. 14 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Are there any other 15 structurals? 16 MR. UELLENDAHL: I propose, since 17 we're pushing this out a little bit, I feel 18 we should do something similar to what 19 we're doing to Cottage #25. I just need 20 three concrete footings. A beam up on top 21 and then reframe the bathroom and the 22 entrance area accordingly. The existing 23 roof there are two slightly different 24 pitches. We're going to let the pitch that • 25 we have on the water side, almost symmetric July 11, 2013 Regular Meeting 30 • 1 to the side elevation that will run all the 2 way across. But I would like to propose a 3 deck from the corner of the two structures, 4 for architectural reasons. 5 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Of course. 6 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: But there are no 7 other construction? 8 MR. UELLENDAHL: No. Well, at one 9 point, there will be a new kitchen but that 10 will all be in this area. 11 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Okay. That's it for 12 me. • 13 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I just wanted to 14 refer you back to the LWRP Coordinator's 15 evaluation that this is a consistent 16 action. Do you have a copy of that? 17 MR. UELLENDAHL: Yes. 18 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: His only 19 recommendation is that you adhere to 20 Chapter 236 of the Stormwater Management, 21 and that is of course, leaders and gutters 22 into proper drains. 23 MR. UELLENDAHL: Right. 24 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Do you have any • 25 problem with that? July 11, 2013 Regular Meeting 31 • 1 MR. UELLENDAHL: No. If you would 2 like, I can ask the owner, would you like 3 us to install a small drywell? 4 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That is what 5 you're going to have to do, yes. 6 MR. UELLENDAHL: Let me ask Emily. 7 We're only focusing on the activity in the 8 front or are we talking about the entire 9 structure? We may need a couple of 10 drywell's on each end. 11 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The Building 12 Department will tell you that. When we • 13 discuss any type of cesspool systems in 14 this area, I would suspect, except for the 15 ones that have been upgraded, they're all 16 brick. 17 MR. UELLENDAHL: Yes. 18 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That is what this 19 was. 20 MR. UELLENDAHL: Round, brick. We 21 will do this and I will actually show this 22 on the site plan when we submit the 23 percentage of the footprint. 24 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Thank you. • 25 MEMBER HORNING: Do your clients have July 11, 2013 Regular Meeting 32 • 1 to have their septic containers pumped out 2 seasonally or every two years? 3 MR. UELLENDAHL: This is usually not 4 required seasonally, because they are only 5 there a few months out of the year or maybe 6 a weekend, but due to the (In Audible) of 7 the existing systems, it's advisable to do 8 it and not wait six, seven or eight years. 9 Since some do. I can find out but it is 10 not necessary to do it once a year. 11 MEMBER HORNING: Every few years? 12 MR. UELLENDAHL: Correct. • 13 MEMBER HORNING: And in your research, 14 did you find out how this second story was 15 put on there? 16 MR. UELLENDAHL: Well, Emily the 17 variety of footprint's of these cottages, 18 some of them are identical but there are a 19 lot of different floor plans. I can only 20 guess that the second floor was required 21 because a larger family was living there. 22 These were all workers that would leave 23 during the winter time because they 24 couldn't produce brick. • 25 MEMBER HORNING: Well, I am asking, July 11, 2013 Regular Meeting 33 • 1 could it be roughly dated? Was it prior to 2 the introduction of code? 3 MR. UELLENDAHL: Oh, yes. There were 4 no code requirements when the cottages were 5 built. 6 MEMBER HORNING: Can you guess? 7 MR. UELLENDAHL: I would guess that it 8 was built around the same time maybe 9 they improved upon it when they were making 10 bricks. This is the 30's. We all know in 11 the 1938 hurricane, the brick company had 12 to close. It was all flooded with salt • 13 water. 14 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Is this single 15 construction all throughout the house? 16 MR. UELLENDAHL: Yes. Well, are you 17 talking about the materials? 18 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Are there walls 19 inside the house or are there studs 20 showing? 21 MR. UELLENDAHL: No. There is 22 wainscoting. 23 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Okay. 24 MR. UELLENDAHL: So I assume that • 25 there is some insulation but it's minimal. July 11, 2013 Regular Meeting 34 1 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Okay. Thank you. 2 Eric? 3 MEMBER DANTES: No questions at this 4 time. 5 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Okay. Is there 6 anyone in the audience who would like to 7 speak in favor or against this application? 8 MR. UELLENDAHL: Thank you. 9 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Hi, how are you? 10 MS. SZARKA: I am doing well. Thank 11 you. 12 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Can you just state • 13 your name again? 14 MS. SZARKA: Helen Szarka. I am on the 15 Board of Breezy Shores. Again, we approve 16 of the project that is being done. We're 17 happy that work is being done and that 18 improvements are being made to the property 19 and we hope that you will approve it as it 20 was presented to you. Thank you. 21 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Thank you. 22 Is there anyone else that would like 23 to speak? 24 Could you please just state your name • 25 for the record. July 11, 2013 Regular Meeting 35 • 1 MS. HEIDENRY: Martha Heidenry. I am 2 in #29 in Breezy Shores. 3 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Can you spell your 4 name? 5 MS. HEIDENRY: Yes. Sorry. H-E-I, "D" 6 like David. E, "N" like Nancy, R-Y. I am a 7 neighbor of Sam and Emily and I am in favor 8 of them doing this work. 9 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Thank you very 10 much. 11 MS. HEIDENRY: Thank you. 12 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Anyone else? • 13 (No Response.) 14 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Okay. Seeing no 15 hands, I will make a motion to close this 16 hearing pending the receipt of the 17 information that was requested, and that is 18 the square footage of the site plan of 19 the structure and the site plan to include 20 Chapter 236 of Stormwater Runoff from the 21 overall roof of the structure. 22 Anything else? 23 (No Response.) 24 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Okay. I will offer • 25 that as a resolution. July 11, 2013 Regular Meeting 36 • 1 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Second. 2 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: All in favor? 3 MEMBER DANTES: Aye. 4 MEMBER HORNING: Aye. 5 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye. 6 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye. 7 (See Minutes for Resolution.) 9 HEARING #6664 - RALPH M. CARBONE, JR. 10 MS. TOTH: The next hearing is for 11 Ralph M. Carbone, Jr. No. 6664. Request 12 for variances from Article XXII Code • 13 Section 280-116 and Article III Code 14 Section 280-14 and the Building Inspector's 15 April 16, 2013, amended May 13, 2013 Notice 16 of Disapproval based on an application for 17 building permit for additions and 18 alterations to a single family dwelling, 19 at; 1)less than the code required 100 foot 20 setback from top of the bluff, 2) more than 21 the code limit number of stories (2 1/2) 22 with a height more than the code limit of 23 35 feet, located at: East End Road, also 24 known as Castle Road, adjacent to Block • 25 Island Sound on Fishers Island, New York. July 11, 2013 Regular Meeting 37 • 1 MR. HAM: Stephen Ham, 38 Nugent 2 Street, Southampton, for the applicant. 3 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: What would you 4 like to tell us, Mr. Ham? 5 MR. HAM: I would like to give you 6 some things. 7 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Mr. Ham, before 8 you start, I just wanted to mention to you, 9 it is a possibility that we might adjourn 10 this hearing so that members could look at 11 this, within the next three weeks when 12 you're over there. And that is really the • 13 only reason why we would be adjourning it, 14 unless there is further information that we 15 would need to get. 16 MR. HAM: Okay. We will see. 17 As you can see from that photo, there 18 is substantial damage to the bluff o£ this 19 property from Hurricane Sandy and my 20 clients engaged Coastal Engineers to 21 prepare a plan to restore and stabilize the 22 bluff. That was approved by the Town 23 Trustees and the State DEC, and they 24 restorations have commenced. Although it • 25 has been in abeyance during the summer. At July 11, 2013 Regular Meeting 38 • 1 the same time, they received a permit to do 2 interior renovations to the property and 3 are proposing a very modest increase to the 4 existing building, which will add a few 5 decks. Demolish some portions of the 6 existing deck and add a few decks. The lot 7 coverage will increase minimally. The lot 8 coverage has been approved by the Town 9 Trustees and out of jurisdiction for the 10 State DEC. I have attached a memorandum, a 11 letter of non-jurisdiction from the DEC. 12 The Trustees permit I did not have. It was • 13 handed to me this morning. So this work 14 that is before you, has now been approved 15 by the jurisdictions. I was handed a LWRP 16 report just now. Haven't had time to 17 digest that. 18 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: And you did 19 receive a Soil & water Report? 20 MR. HAM: Yes. And the Soil & Water 21 Report I received a week or two ago. I 22 gave that to Dick Straus, who is an 23 engineer and he has responded to that. By 24 enlarge, you will see in his letter to me, • 25 which addresses that report. It's attached July 11, 2013 Regular Meeting 39 • 1 as Exhibit B to my memorandum that I 2 distributed to you. By enlarge, he is 3 saying that my clients are acting 4 consistently with the recommendations. (In 5 Audible) interpreted the site plan. There 6 is room for a silk fence. It won't be on 7 the side of the bluff. It will be on the 8 top of the bluff. The site plan that was 9 submitted with our application shows 10 conditions that will exist following the 11 bluff restoration. Existing conditions are 12 shown on Page 3 of that OCC Report, which I • 13 distributed with a photograph. So there 14 will be room at the top of the bluff with a 15 silk fence. I believe that was the only 16 difference between what my clients were 17 proposing and what was recommended and that 18 Soil & Water report. 19 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I don't normally 20 act as Chairperson here. I have been asked 21 to refer to those recommendations that you 22 had just eluded to and basically make you 23 aware from Pages 7, 8 and 9 of that report, 24 which are the recommendations from POLY, 25 that they be made part of the report. And July 11, 2013 Regular Meeting 40 • 1 that we ask you that, whatever 2 recommendation, as you just mentioned, so 3 inclined to deal with. Basically from this 4 information or inadvertently thought of 5 something different. I haven't read this 6 information to date but at the end of this 7 hearing I will ask you if you are and again 8 reaffirm, that you're aware of these and 9 that you're pretty much dealing with the 10 major portion. 11 MR. HAM: Absolutely. 12 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: And you will • 13 reflect that the swimming pool does not 14 have a CO on it, and what you're doing with 15 that and how you're going to obtain it and 16 so on and so forth. And for that 17 particular situation, I will let you 18 continue your presentation. 19 MR. HAM: I did not represent the 20 Carbone's when they purchased the property. 21 I was not aware of the lack of the CO for 22 the swimming pool. So that is a new one. 23 We would need to apply, presume for a 24 variance given its location for that. I • 25 have set forth the legal criteria in the July 11, 2013 Regular Meeting 91 • 1 memorandum. I just wanted to point out, the 2 whole property, the house is nonconforming. 3 The only area that we can work to allow the 4 lot coverage to increasing that only 5 slightly is only in a nonconforming area 6 and less nonconforming. As I pointed out 7 in the memorandum, as you can see, and from 8 the existing conditions, which are in the 9 OCC report, it is a setback now with minus 10 about four or five feet. The worse setback 11 of the the closest after the bluff is 12 stabilized in the paperwork, would be 13 • 13 feet. And no new structure, in effect is 14 there, 23 feet. So in absolute terms, it 15 may be considered a substantial variance 16 but in realistic terms, we're becoming more 17 nonconforming and it's not particularly 18 substantial. Also we have no alternatives 19 given the fact that the property, the house 20 itself, is within 100 feet of the bluff. 21 Insofar as the other variances are 22 concerned, third story for Captain's Walk 23 which would be changed. That is more or 24 less a decorative feature. It's not really • 25 functional living space. You can walk to July 11, 2013 Regular Meeting 42 • 1 it. There might be a bench in it. It will 2 be used for observation purposes. It's 3 about the size of two pieces of plywood. 4 So technically it may be a story but it's 5 more in the nature of a cupola or an item 6 under the Zoning Code that would normally 7 be exempt from the height requirement. As 8 far as the height itself, which the Notice 9 of Disapproval indicated was 39 feet, that 10 could be somewhat arbitrary depending on 11 where you measure it from. We think it's 12 less than that. But again, it's something • 13 that is not going to be visible from the 14 neighbors. It's not visible from the 15 house, as I understand it, when you stand 16 in front of it. So as far as the issues 17 that you need to address for a area 18 variance, I think that this qualifies. I 19 understand that there are concerns for 20 erosion and measurements and so forth. The 21 plans for both the stabilization of the 22 bluff and for the construction and 23 activities around the house, in terms of 24 runoff and so forth, we believe address • 25 this in a logical and effective way. July 11, 2013 Regular Meeting 43 • 1 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I will make a 2 general statement. Your appearance before 3 this Board has always been very 4 constructive, and anything that we're, I am 5 referring to, as well as members of this 6 Board are referring to, are viewed to be 7 constructive. We're not here in any way to 8 be de-constructive. And I am speaking 9 actually for the entire Board. There are 10 issues from other agencies that we need to 11 discuss. And more in particular, as you 12 touched on the Widow's Walk and so on and • 13 so forth, is that an enclosed structure? 14 MR. HAM: Yes. 15 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: So therefore, if 16 it's enclosed, it's a third-story 17 individual evaluation of that. It needs to 18 be sprinklered. It needs to be part of the 19 system. I realize that this is an extremely 20 large house. On the North Fork of this 21 wonderful island as well as Fisher's 22 Island, once a house meets a certain square 23 footage, it has to be mandatory sprinklered 24 anyway. . 25 MR. HAM: Yes. And my client July 11, 2013 Regular Meeting 44 • 1 understands that, and there are avenues to 2 variances for that requirement as well. 3 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: You're going to 4 take those avenues or basically that you 5 will sprinkler? We have to know that 6 sometime during the hearing. So we need 7 you to use the mic, Mr. Carbone? g MR. CARBONE: I am Ralph Carbone, the 9 owner. The sprinklers for the third floor, 10 is that the area for the sprinkler head 11 there, and then there is a stairway so 12 doing the third floor, I have no issues. • 13 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: As long as the 19 third floor goes to a sprinkler system all 15 the way down. You're sprinklering the 16 entire house or no? 17 MR. CARBONE: I am planning to not 18 sprinkler the whole entire house. 19 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Okay. So that has 20 to go down to a second floor stairway, to a 21 first floor stairway to an outside door. 22 MR. CARBONE: You want me to carry the 23 sprinkler system from the third floor to 24 the walkway in the hallway, down the • 25 stairway, to the exit? July 11, 2013 Regular Meeting 45 • 1 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That is my take on 2 that. I am not an engineer. 3 MEMBER DANTES: There is a New York 4 State Code. 5 MR. CARBONS: If that is what it is, I 6 will take that into consideration. I am 7 not going to sprinkler the whole entire 8 house. It's too massive of a project. 9 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: What your 10 insurance company tells you is fine with 11 me. I am just telling you what we require 12 up to this particular date. As I eluded • 13 to, if the house exceeds on the North Fork, 14 a maximum square footage of more than 5,000 15 square feet, the insurance companies on the 16 North Fork have been requiring all owners 17 to sprinkler the entire the house. They do 18 on Fisher's Island. It's what they're 19 doing here at this point. Again, this is 20 my take. I am not an engineer. I am just 21 referring this to you. 22 MR. CARBONS: I appreciate it. 23 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I consider this 24 attorney to be one of the most • 25 straightforward attorneys that we have ever July 11, 2013 Regular Meeting 46 • 1 dealt with. 2 MR. CARBONE: Thank you. Appreciate 3 it. 4 MEMBER DANTES: (In Audible). 5 MR. HAM: 7x10, meaning, if you put two 6 pieces of plywood together, it's 64. It's 7 in the memorandum. 8 MEMBER DANTES: The other question 9 that I have, I am looking at the pool. Is 10 there a fence around the pool? 11 MR. CARBONS: There is a fence from 12 the let's see. From the driveway, the • 13 fence goes all the way around to the end of 14 the bluff. So there is no fence around the 15 bluff line. If there was, it would have 16 been gone with the storm now. There is 17 hedges there that has been lost. 18 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Just for your 19 edification, on the Widow's Walk, we have 20 had major requests for situations like this 21 on the North Fork, and all of them are 22 non-habitable. This means that you can't 23 habit there in any way. So this is the 24 situation that we have been dealing with. • 25 MR. CARBONS: Okay. Thank you. July 11, 2013 Regular Meeting 47 • 1 MR. HAM: If you require the 2 sprinklering, he can still apply for a 3 variance through the State. 4 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I have to tell you 5 that it's a Building Department issue. You 6 can certainly they have included it. 7 It's what we consider to be a third story. 8 And I can't answer that question. g MR. HAM: If you were to grant a 10 variance with that as a condition, would he 11 be in violation of that of not doing it as 12 long as he • 13 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: He wouldn't get a 14 CO on it, to my knowledge. Everybody that 15 has done it, has found it to be a positive 16 thing. That you're going down two or three 17 stairwells down. Again, I am just making 18 you aware of it. 19 MR. HAM: If you have questions, why 20 don't we do that, while we have my client 21 and the architect here. I also have my 22 memorandum, I can read it, but I don't 23 think that you want me to do that. 24 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Counsel has • 25 questions. July 11, 2013 Regular Meeting 48 • 1 MS. ANDALORO: And I normally don't do 2 this. Please bear with me. I want to 3 clarify a couple of things for the record. 4 MR. HAM: Sure. 5 MS. ANDALORO: You stated that you had 6 approval from the Trustees and the DEC, 7 what was that approval for? g MR. HAM: It was two approvals. Well, 9 one non-jurisdiction. The DEC approved the 10 bluff stabilization project, prepared by 11 Ocean Coastal Consultants, and the Town 12 Trustees approved that. The restoration of • 13 the bluff. Insofar as the work that is 14 before you, the Trustees approved the 15 demolition and construction activities that 16 are subject to this application. The DEC 17 issued a letter of non-jurisdiction. I was 18 just informed of that approval. We got it 19 yesterday. So this work is now permitted by 20 the Trustees and is out of jurisdiction of 21 the State. 22 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: You're referring to 23 the work that is depicted in the OCC 24 plans? • 25 MR. HAM: Both. That was approved in July 11, 2013 Regular Meeting 49 • 1 the winter, the bluff stabilization. The 2 work that is outlines of the surface of the 3 capital bluff, that we're here before you, 4 the demolition and construction activities, 5 are out of jurisdiction of the State. And I 6 think the Trustees 7 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: We have a copy. 8 MR. HAM: And I just got a copy. 9 MS. ANDALORO: I see you have a 10 Wetlands Permit for the existing dwelling, 11 but I note on the plans that a portion of 12 the deck goes beyond the Coastal Erosion • 13 Hazard line, and I don't believe that you 14 have gotten Trustee approval for that. You 15 may have to go back to the Trustees for a 16 Coastal Erosion permit. Not for the work on 17 the bluff, but for the deck going beyond 18 the hazard line. 19 MR. HAM: I haven't seen that and I 20 haven't handled that permit. 21 MS. ANDALORO: Just take a look at it. 22 The other thing is, the LWRP recommends 23 that you cut back the deck and bring it 24 beyond Coastal Erosion Hazard line. You may • 25 be able to avoid going back to the Trustees July 11, 2013 Regular Meeting 50 • 1 if you can bring that deck back beyond that 2 line. And then it would comply with the 3 recommendation of the LWRP. So you have to 4 think about that. 5 MR. HAM: Right. 6 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: For the record, 7 they're reviewing the plans on a table on 8 the floor and we will back. That is 9 counsel, the engineer, the applicant and 10 the attorney. 11 Counsel, you're going to have to state 12 this on the record for us. • 13 MS. ANDALORO: Okay. I was just 14 pointing out to the applicant that there 15 may be an issue and an additional permit 16 required by the Trustees because a portion 17 of the deck appears to be over the Coastal 18 Erosion Hazard area. However, what the 19 applicant had stated or the architect had 20 stated, was that there may be an existing 21 foundation there and the building over and 22 it may be a problem to remove it or it may 23 be architecturally un-savvy to just leave a 24 foundation over there with nothing over it • 25 or unsafe. So they're going to look into July 11, 2013 Regular Meeting 51 • 1 that issue and provide information to the 2 Board. We just identified it as an issue. 3 MEMBER HORNING: Counsel, just one 4 question on that particular item. Didn't 5 the LWRP recommend that it stay there? 6 MS. ANDALORO: They did. And I think 7 that if this Board wants to acquire I 8 don't know how difficult it would be to cut 9 down that foundation. They have an 10 existing foundation. So that is something 11 that they would have to address with the 12 Board and they would have to confirm with • 13 the Trustees whether or not if you want to 14 keep the foundation as it is. If they get a 15 permit from the Trustees, I think that 16 would cover us, to say that it was 17 consistent. 18 MR. HAM: And further, the County, the 19 technician recommended that it not be 20 disturbed. 21 MEMBER HORNING: Thdt is why. 22 MS. ANDALORO: And if she did say 23 that, it may be very easy for you to get an 24 additional permit or at least a letter from . 25 the Trustees to say that they don't want July 11, 2013 Regular Meeting 52 • 1 you to get a permit. They consider it like 2 maintenance or a minor alteration. That 3 kind of thing. I think there is an 4 exception in Chapter 111 that talks about 5 that. 6 MR. HAM: Right. 7 MS. ANDALORO: But we would need 8 confirmation from the Trustees. Even if 9 it's just a letter. 10 MR. HAM: I will talk to Mr. Carbone's 11 agent who handled that. 12 MEMBER HORNING: Can you give an • 13 estimate of what percentage of the DEC 14 approved work was the rip-rap? 15 MR. CARBONE: I would say we're about 16 300. We were planning to continue through 17 the summer but we had gotten a call from 18 Citco, to kind of slow it down and stop it 19 for the summer season. But I spoke to Mark 20 Garmond yesterday. He allows us in August 21 to restart that project. 22 MEMBER HORNING: Early August or 23 late 24 MR. CARBONE: No. I don't want to do • 25 early August. Mid August is where we want July 11, 2013 Regular Meeting 53 • 1 to go. 2 MEMBER HORNING: Mid August. 3 MR. CARBONS: Mark said we can't stop 4 you. We want to be a totally good neighbor 5 and agree. I understand the high season. I 6 also understand that we have about three 7 solid months of work to finish that 8 project. I mean, that is a lot going on 9 there. That is why I figured mid August. 10 The days are starting to get shorter. 11 Obviously it's critical. 12 MEMBER HORNING: And you're estimating • 13 30~ is done? 14 MR. CARBONS: Yes. What they have 15 done. On the east side, they did the stones 16 back there. The reason why it has gotten 17 quicker, because we were waiting for 18 additional granite to come in and be 19 manufactured. And that was the delay. 20 MEMBER HORNING: The DEC work 21 continues landward of the stone rip-rap up 22 onto the slope? 23 MR. CARBONS: Absolutely. 29 MEMBER HORNING: To the vegetated • 25 bluff? July 11, 2013 Regular Meeting 54 • 1 MR. CARBONE: Yes. That is all the 2 vegetated lifts. 3 MEMBER HORNING: Is the distance from 4 the house from the top of the bluff, those 5 measurements, are they going to be effected 6 by this work that hasn't been finished? 7 MR. CARBONE: What work are we talking 8 about? 9 MEMBER HORNING: The restoration of 10 the bluff. 11 MR. CARBONE: And is that going to 12 effect what? • 13 MEMBER HORNING: The distance from the 14 house to the top of the bluff? 15 MR. HAM: The site plan shows what the 16 setbacks should be based on the project 17 itself. 18 MEMBER HORNING: That is what I am 19 asking. 20 MR. CARBONE: Sorry. 21 MR. HAM: The site plans shows what it 22 will look like once the project is 23 completed. 24 MEMBER HORNING: Okay. • 25 MR. HAM: And that is a setback of 13 July 11, 2013 Regular Meeting 55 • 1 feet from the closest to the bluff. 2 MEMBER HORNING: And that process is 3 not finished yet? 4 MR. CARBONE: Right. The deck is still 5 hanging off the bluff. He hasn't gotten to 6 that piece of the process yet. 7 MEMBER HORNING: They don't have a 8 pile of soil 9 MR. CARBONE: The soil has been 10 removed. 11 MEMBER HORNING: We have other 12 questions here. • 13 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Are you adding 14 material to the top of the bluff? 15 MR. CARBONE: The way the construction 16 of the bluff is, you're building up and 17 going to about, I think it's either 18 feet 1B or 19 feet above sea level with the stone. 19 Then you have the granite. Then it's going 20 to be vegetated lifts bringing it up to 38 21 feet or 39 feet, and it's going to 22 reestablish what we lost before Sandy. 23 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: But is there going 29 to be any soil that is going to be placed • 25 in that? Basically, the planting is going July 11, 2013 Regular Meeting 56 • 1 to be imposed on the existing face of the 2 bluff? 3 MR. CARBONS: Well, I think it's maybe 4 I am not an expert here. They're doing a 5 gabion system above it, with all the fabric 6 behind it. So I am sure it's going to be 7 some type of mixed stone. And then the 8 planting is going to be on the face of 9 that. I don't know if that answers your 10 question? 11 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: If you don't mind 12 showing us that? • 13 MR. CARBONS: Oh, I would love to show 14 you that. 15 MEMBER HORNING: And the steps going 16 down? 17 MR. CARBONS: That is being replaced 18 by granite steps. 19 MEMBER HORNING: And those are 20 approved in the site plan? 21 MR. CARBONS: Yes. That is in the 22 site. 23 MEMBER HORNING: And approved by the 24 DEC? • 25 MR. CARBONS: Yes. July 11, 2013 Regular Meeting 57 • 1 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Very good. 2 Any other questions? George? 3 MEMBER HORNING: The pool does not 4 have a CO? 5 MR. HAM: That is the first that I 6 have heard of it. I think that that pool 7 is was accepted with another property. g MEMBER HORNING: I did research 9 there was a ZBA application for the removal 10 of a fence or the maybe 11 MR. HAM: That is what it was and it 12 was denied. Perhaps, it's preexisting. • 13 MEMBER HORNING: Let me establish a 14 couple of facts for the record then. 15 Mr. Carbone purchased the property in 16 June of 2012. Can you give us that exact 17 date? Was it June 12th? 18 MR. CARBONE: I think so. 19 MEMBER HORNING: June 12, 2012, Lus 20 (phonetic) Carbone, does that sound right? 21 MR. CARBONS: Correct. 22 MEMBER HORNING: Then the storm hit of 23 course, a couple or so months later. 24 MR. CARBONS: Correct. • 25 MEMBER HORNING: On the property card, July 11, 2013 Regular Meeting 58 1 it really doesn't show a building permit 2 for the pool. So I think that is part of 3 the problem. The previous owner to the Lus' 4 was a McDonald. McDonnell. I pronounced it 5 wrong. The question comes who put the pool 6 in? 7 MR. CARBONS: I thought it was the 8 Lus'. I think that was in the '70s. g MEMBER HORNING: And there is no CO 10 for that? 11 MR. CARBONS: The first that I have 12 heard of it. • 13 MEMBER HORNING: And they did not want 14 to have a fence and then they were denied 15 by the ZBA to not have a fence around the 16 pool. 17 MR. CARBONS: Since I have known the 18 property for years, there has always been a 19 fence there. The bluff side. 20 MEMBER HORNING: Then there is a 21 question of drainage for the pool. When 22 you empty the pool, if it's ever emptied, 23 is there some sort of a drainage 24 containment for that? • 25 MR. CARBONS: I couldn't tell you. It July 11, 2013 Regular Meeting 59 • 1 hasn't been emptied. So I don't know. 2 MEMBER HORNING: If it has to be 3 emptied, where would it go? 9 MR. CARBONS: I would probably put it 5 in the front lawn, to water the lawn. 6 MEMBER HORNING: Because we have an 7 issue for other pools. Maybe the 8 Chairperson could speak. 9 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: What we're saying 10 is, if you need a variance, we will 11 probably ask you to apply for a variance so 12 we can take care of it. This is not a • 13 sarcastic statement. Ask you to apply for 14 the variance and then we can take care of 15 the whole procedure at one time. All of 16 the pools that we grant, have to have 17 dewatering system and the dewatering system 18 requires to have a certain diameter 19 drywell. In a very slow methodic way. More 20 importantly, the position of this pool, 21 would be very important to do that. 22 MR. CARBONS: I understand. 23 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: We appreciate your 29 approach. • 25 MEMBER DANTES: Can I ask a question? July 11, 2013 Regular Meeting 60 • 1 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Sure. 2 MEMBER DANTES: Is the pool gunite or 3 vinyl? 4 MR. CARBONS: It's gunite. 5 MEMBER HORNING: (In Audible). 6 MR. CARBONS: Sure. If I have to do a 7 drywell system for the pool, I haven't dug 6 up the ground to see what the soil 9 consistency is. 10 MEMBER HORNING: We're curious to see 11 if you can get a CO or permit for the pool? 12 MR. CARBONS: I don't know. • 13 MR. HAM: He is entitled to a pool. 14 It's a residential structure. It's the 15 location that would be problematic in this 16 case and we would need to come before your 17 Board to secure a variance. 18 MEMBER HORNING: Right. 19 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Anything else, 20 George? 21 MEMBER HORNING: No. We have a large 22 volume of material, including stuff that we 23 got today. So we're on an ongoing process 24 in doing that. 25 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Sure. And you July 11, 2013 Regular Meeting 61 • 1 can't do it all today? 2 MEMBER HORNING: Right. 3 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Ken, questions? 4 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: No. 5 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Eric, any further 6 questions? 7 MEMBER DANTES: No. 8 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: So we go back to 9 the recommendations of Soil & Water. And 10 you told us that you're working with those 11 recommendations and that you agree with 12 most of them. And the ones that you don't • 13 agree with, you will let us know? 14 MR. HAM: Yeah. As I said, attached to 15 my memorandum is a response. In fact, it's 16 a letter from Dick Strauss, a letter from 17 him to me addressing that report. 18 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Okay. The reason 19 why I mention that, I have been on this 20 Board for 32 years, and I never seen any 21 recommendation from that of a driveway. And 22 that was interesting to me. 23 MR. HAM: Was that for construction 24 vehicles? 25 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No, I think that July 11, 2013 Regular Meeting 62 • 1 you were going to elongate the driving 2 area. I don't know if she was referring to 3 the pitch towards the road or the pitch in 4 general of the property itself. If it was 5 going to go over the bluff area 6 MR. HAM: Well, we would address in 7 terms of, she is talking about permeable 8 pavers. When I spoke to Dick Strauss about 9 that, there will be drains so that 10 everything runs away from the bluff into 11 drywell's. And I thought there was 12 something about matting. I vaguely • 13 remember that. 14 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Yes. I remember 15 that too. 16 MR. HAM: And I think that had to do 17 with during construction. 18 MR. CARBONS: I think she was talking 19 about matting when she is doing the bluff. 20 Matting in the Hanley's property. 21 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: We will look that 22 up and address it at the final hearing. 23 MR. CARBONS: Sure. You have large 24 excavators. So you have to have vehicles • 25 now they're not there, but they do put July 11, 2013 Regular Meeting 63 • 1 track mats down to reduce the erosion. I 2 think that is where they're trying to go. 3 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Okay. 4 MR. HAM: I will go through this again 5 and address any more detail. 6 MR. CARBONS: I think she checked out 7 the property the track mats weren't there 8 because they weren't doing any work. 9 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: In any case that 10 is where we're at this juncture. 11 MEMBER HORNING: Can I just mention 12 one thing? The letter from the LWRP, we • 13 would like you to help us make that be 14 consistent. Right now, he cites that as 15 inconsistent. And we have to come up with 16 consistent to give an approval. 17 MR. HAM: Okay. And when is your day 18 over on Fisher's? 19 MS. TOTH: August 7th. 20 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: You have a copy of 21 the LWRP? 22 MR. HAM: I just got it this morning. 23 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: So I appreciate 24 George mentioning that. And that of 25 course, referred to the discussion that you July 11, 2013 Regular Meeting 64 1 had with counsel on the additions. • 2 So we will continue to refer to that. 3 That was an issue on July 2, 2013. 4 MEMBER HORNING: I found a location 5 where the Soil & Water Conservation, it's 6 basically on the last page of their 7 recommendations, the drywell's for the 8 house and shower and pool needs to be 9 installed to a depth below the clay layer 10 identified on the bluff base. That is 11 where I got that from. 12 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Okay. So we're • 13 going to adjourn the hearing. I don't know 14 if you want to adjourn it to August or 15 September. I am not trying to hold this 16 project up. 17 MR. CARBONE: We have been working on 18 the home with the first permit. Our plan 19 was to try and have an enclosed envelope by 20 the time the weather starts to come in. So 21 we wanted to remove the room and rebuild 22 it. That smaller room. That was a big 23 push of ours. 24 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: So what we will do • 25 is adjourn it to August. Based upon our July 11, 2013 Regular Meeting 65 • 1 evaluation, I guess it's possible for 2 people to go look at this lovely house that 3 you have on this magnificent piece of 4 property, they will get back to us at the 5 hearing. We're not going to see them until 6 that morning. So we will do it in August 7 and we will see what the Chairperson has to 8 say about it. 9 MEMBER HORNING: And the Town's 10 meeting is the day before. 11 MR. HAM: Will you need the architect 12 present at that meeting? • 13 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: To be perfectly 14 honest with you, as you know, the 15 Chairperson is 16 MR. HAM: Is an architect. 17 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: And so one really 18 never knows what she is 19 MR. HAM: That is a good point. 20 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: All we can say is 21 that we don't know. I apologize. This is 22 why one of the reasons why I was pushing 23 for September. I understand your problem. 24 I am just sorry I am not going to be there. • 25 At this particular point, I will make July 11, 2013 Regular Meeting 66 • 1 a motion of adjourning this hearing for 2 the sole purpose of our members going to 3 visit this property and see this gentleman, 4 and we will read the correspondence. At 5 this particular point, we're not in a 6 confirmation with the Trustees with the 7 Coastal Hazard Line and what permits may be B required, based upon the conversation that 9 you had. 10 MR. HAM: Right. I will follow-up on 11 that. 12 MEMBER HORNING: And the applicant's • 13 response to the LWRP and Soil & Water. 14 MR. HAM: Yes. Those three items. 15 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: And the pool 16 conditions and the dewatering aspect and 17 the possible variance for the pool. Those 18 are the four or five major things that 19 we're looking for. We thank you very much. 20 MR. HAM: Thank you. 21 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Hearing no further 22 comment, I make a motion to close the 23 hearing till August 8th at 10:20. 24 MEMBER HORNING: Second. • 25 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: All in favor? July 11, 2013 Regular Meeting 67 • 1 MEMBER DANTES: Aye. 2 MEMBER HORNING: Aye. 3 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye. 4 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye. 5 (See Minutes for Resolution.) 7 HEARING #6665 - DINA MASSO 8 MS. TOTH: The next hearing is for 9 Dina Masso, #6665. Request for variance 10 from Article XXIII Section 260-124 and the 11 Building Inspector's May 3, 2013, amended 12 May 16, 2013 Notice of Disapproval based on • 13 an application for building permit for 14 additions and alterations to an existing 15 single family dwelling, at; 1) less than 16 the code required side yard setbacks of 35 17 feet, located at: 5705 Nassau Point Road, 18 adjacent to Little Peconic Bay in 19 Cutchogue, New York. 20 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Ms. Kramer, how 21 are you today? Would you just state your 22 name for the record. 23 MS. KRAMER: Meryl Kramer. I am 24 great, how are you? • 25 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: As you can see, we July 11, 2013 Regular Meeting 68 • 1 had a rather complex situation going on 2 prior to this. 3 MS. KRAMER: So this should be a rather 9 welcome 5 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Well, we can't 6 say that. We need green receipts. Do you 7 have them? 8 MS. TOTH: You didn't give me any. 9 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Any time you're 10 ready, you can give us your presentation. 11 MS. KRAMER: Basically, what we're 12 doing is removing an existing noncompliant • 13 deck on the side of the house. It has a 14 Certificate of Occupancy from 1983, but 15 there was never a variance issued. So it 16 was a little bit of a surprise to me to 17 find that out. But we're actually 18 encroaching on the side yard. We're 19 expanding a kitchen and a family room, 20 because the Masso's have moved out here 21 full-time. And we have made the addition as 22 small as we can. It's very much in keeping 23 with the rest of the house. We're using 24 the same materials. Following the same • 25 roof line. Basically just extending it to July 11, 2013 Regular Meeting 69 • 1 the minimum amount required to get the 2 state of what they need. 3 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: We were all to 9 the site and we are aware of .what you're 5 doing. We will start with Ken. Do you have 6 any questions? 7 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: I did at first 8 about the existing deck. I am looking into 9 some research right now, but at the time of 10 that deck, that may have been conforming at 11 that time. We're just doing some research 12 as to what was the code at that time. I • 13 have some research here that it might be 14 built back into 1978 or sometime like that, 15 and the code may have changed since then, 16 and requires a 35 foot combined side yard 17 now. 18 MS. KRAMER: Right. 19 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: So you're reducing 20 that nonconformity on the side yard by 21 increasing the side yard to 19 something? 22 MS. KRAMER: I am looking through here. 23 Sorry about that. 19.7. 24 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: 19.7. Where now it • 25 exist at 15 for the deck? July 11, 2013 Regular Meeting 70 • 1 MS. KRAMER: Correct. 2 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Then the combined 3 would be? 4 MS. KRAMER: 19.7, plus 10.2, 29.9. 5 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: 29.9. Okay. I have 6 no further questions. It seems 7 straightforward. 8 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: George? 9 MEMBER HORNING: Is there a CO for the 10 existing deck? 11 MS. KRAMER: Yes. I have it here. I 12 have included in my original application • 13 packet. 1983. 14 MEMBER HORNING: Okay. What is the 15 status on on a different topic on the 16 same property. What is the status on all 17 of the structures at the bottoms of the 18 stairs? 19 MS. KRAMER: They're storage 20 structures completely. No electricity. No 21 water. We actually had gone to Trustees 22 first because at the time, I wasn't aware 23 that I was going to need to come to your 24 board, because I thought that the deck had • 25 a CO and it had a variance along with it. July 11, 2013 Regular Meeting 71 • 1 So the storm destroyed the bulkhead and the 2 stairs. So Trustees investigated and we 3 provided them with information about those 9 buildings. That they were in fact 5 compliant and just storage buildings. 6 MEMBER HORNING: So you have a 7 Trustees 8 MS. KRAMER: For the repair to the 9 bulkhead and repair to the deck down by the 10 water, as well as for this work that you're 11 approving well, reviewing now. 12 MEMBER HORNING: It's all included in . 13 the same permit? 14 MS. KRAMER: Yes. 15 MEMBER HORNING: We had an application 16 that had two Trustee permits. 17 MS. KRAMER: We tried to avoid that. 18 MEMBER HORNING: So would you need a 19 variance from anything below the stairs 20 down? 21 MS. KRAMER: They got a permit. Rob 22 Hermann was handling the paperwork for 23 that, and I made the application jointly 29 with the work that you're reviewing today. • 25 All I know is that it was all approved. July 11, 2013 Regular Meeting 72 • 1 MEMBER HORNING: By the Trustees? 2 MS. KRAMER: By the Trustees and 3 DEC. 4 MEMBER HORNING: And I am questioning 5 whether you need a variance for 6 MS. KRAMER: Oh, the structures down 7 there? 8 MEMBER HORNING: Yes. 9 MS. KRAMER: Those structures 10 MEMBER HORNING: Those structures are 11 not a part of your application now? 12 MS. KRAMER: No. And I think I saw • 13 some reference to them. 14 MEMBER HORNING: We have had a lot of 15 applications dealing with what we refer to 16 stair activities. 17 MS. KRAMER: Okay. They aren't doing 18 any work to those buildings because they 19 were somehow not harmed. 20 MEMBER HORNING: But you're 21 reconstructing the bulkhead and all the 22 decks? 23 MS. KRAMER: The bulkhead. Very little 24 bit of deck. There is a Certificate of • 25 Occupancy Just so you know, 1989, I am July 11, 2013 Regular Meeting 73 • 1 looking an accessory structure, boat house, 2 which is what that was called. As I said, 3 I am not all the familiar with that because 4 that is not my involvement in this project. 5 There is a Certificate of Occupancy for 6 those structures in '89. 7 MEMBER HORNING: Okay. 8 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Thank you. In my 9 particular evaluation, I just wanted you to 10 be aware, in the LWRP Coordinator did 11 determine this action as exempt. It's 12 significantly landward of the bluff. • 13 MS. KRAMER: Yes, I got that 14 notification. 15 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: You of course have 16 to deal with Chapter 236 17 MS. KRAMER: Yes. There is an 18 existing drywell's that we will be tieing 19 into. 20 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: All right. Eric? 21 MEMBER DANTES: I have no questions. 22 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Is there anybody 23 else in the audience that would have any 24 questions on this application? • 25 (No Response.) July 11, 2013 Regular Meeting 74 • 1 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Seeing no hands. 2 I will make a motion to close this hearing 3 and reserve decision until later. 9 MEMBER HORNING: Second. 5 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: All in favor? 6 MEMBER DANTES: Aye. 7 MEMBER HORNING: Aye. 8 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye. 9 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye. 10 (See Minutes for Resolution.) 12 HEARING #6662 - KEVIN GALLAGHER & • 13 DOROTHY GALLAGHER 14 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The next appeal 15 that we have is for Kevin Gallagher and 16 Dorothy Gallagher. That is Appeal #6662. 17 MS. TOTH: This is a request for a 18 Waiver of Merger under Article II, Section 19 280-10A, to unmerge land identified as 20 SCTM #1000-70-10-61.1, based on the 21 Building Inspector's January 9, 2013, 22 updated March 21, 2013 Notice of 23 Disapproval, which states adjoining or 24 nonconforming lots held in common • 25 ownership shall merge until the total July 11, 2013 Regular Meeting 75 • 1 lot size conforms to the current bulk 2 schedule, minimum 90,000 square feet in 3 this R-40 Residential Zone District, this 4 lot is merged with Lot #1000-70-10-62.1, 5 located at: 1800 Park Way and 40 6 Beachwood, adjacent to Goose Creek, in 7 Southold, New York. 8 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Would you kindly 9 give us your appearance, please? 10 MS. MOORE: Yes. Patricia Moore on 11 behalf of the Gallagher's. I have 12 Mr. Gallagher and Mrs. Gallagher here with • 13 the support of a friend and neighbor. 14 The history here I have set forth in 15 writing to outline for you. These are two 16 lots in the subdivision. It's a 1962 17 subdivision map that was approved by the 16 Town Board and filed with the Suffolk 19 County Clerks. On the map itself, it 20 actually had notations because there was 21 additional land that was conveyed to for 22 three or four of the parcels. The one 23 parcel here that we're unmerging 24 requested to unmerge, was enlarged as part • 25 of the subdivision approval. So the July 11, 2013 Regular Meeting 76 1 overall lot does show up on the tax map as • 2 a combination of two parcels. It is in fact 3 one parcel, and the lot size is in fact 4 22,192 square feet. And that is the parcel 5 that is 1800 Park Way. As you can see from 6 the records, the two parcels have two 7 different addresses. One is on Park Way and 8 the other is on Beachwood. My clients 9 purchased their house in 1994. That was 10 the 40 Beachwood Lane. They placed the 11 house in both their names for estate 12 planning but in 2004, the house was placed • 13 only in Dorothy's name, again for estate 14 planning. Just prior to that in 2000, so 15 there was a period of merging between 2000 16 and 2004, just because the way the titles 17 were held. The vacant lot, which had been 16 purchased in 2000 from Mary Mayer, 19 M-A-Y-E-R, that lot had remained single and 20 separate. And only because of the 21 overlapping period when the Gallagher's 22 owned it, was it considered merged when the 23 single and separate was submitted to the 24 Building Department as part of the building • 25 permit process. And also the lot was being July 11, 2013 Regular Meeting 1 sold to the neighbors who happened to be 2 here. And that was brought out by Deborah 3 Dorothy who is a local attorney, single and 9 separate search and that issue came up. 5 Mr. Gallagher, as I pointed out, he cashed 6 out his pension and thought that this was a 7 good investment, holding this property 8 until he needed the money. Well, the time 9 came when he and his wife needed the money 10 and all of a sudden this merger of a four 11 year period popped up. Since I would 12 also put on the record, and I don't believe • 13 that you had it at the time that I 14 submitted the application or it wasn't part 15 of my original application, the Town 16 Trustees had in fact issued permits in 1998 17 for George Mayer. You saw that the survey 18 had full development. Plans showing on 19 that vacant lot survey. All the setbacks 20 were shown. It was done by Mayer, 21 anticipating either he was going to build 22 his house or sell the lot with showing 23 that permits could be obtained. 24 Mr. & Mrs. Gallagher had that information • 25 and purchased the property. So I am going July 11, 2013 Regular Meeting 78 1 to put in your file the Town Trustees • 2 approval issued in 1998 and it shows 3 approval and CAC approval and the house. 4 All of the structures that are being shown 5 on the survey. 6 MEMBER HORNING: Are they valid today? 7 MS. MOORS: They expired by now. 8 MEMBER HORNING: Pat, while you're 9 doing that, are both of these two parcels 10 with the original subdivision map or just 11 one? 12 MS. MOORS: I attached to the • 13 application a subdivision map itself. And 14 it shows the southward map. If you refer 15 to that, it's right after the written 16 submission. 17 MEMBER HORNING: I don't see it right 18 now. 19 MS. MOORS: Okay. Good. It looks 20 like 21 MEMBER HORNING: Just a simple 22 question, were both of the parcels expanded 23 from the original subdivision? 24 MS. MOORS: It's kind of confusing. I • 25 am just going to double check that. It's July 11, 2013 Regular Meeting 79 1 because the subdivision map refers to Lot • 2 10, 11, 12 and 13, are to be sold with 3 their sidelines extended to ordinary 4 high water marks. It's very small print, 5 but it is printed on the map. I believe 6 it's both lots including the property to 7 the northeast, because that appears to be 8 Lot #10. I have to look at the survey. 9 MEMBER HORNING: So my basic question 10 is, were both lots expanded from the 11 original subdivision map at that time? You 12 mention some were expanded. . 13 MS. MOORE: Yes. I am looking at the 14 survey done by Joseph Ingegno, and it shows 15 that the vacant lot is Lot #11. And that 16 shows on the subdivision map, it shows 17 Lot #11, 12 and 13 were all expanded to be 18 made more conforming lots. Do you see 19 MEMBER HORNING: I don't have a copy 20 of that map, but Lot's #11, 12 and 13 were 21 expanded. So several lots were expanded? 22 MS. MOORE: Right. And these are two 23 of the four lots that were expanded as part 24 of the subdivision of 1953. • 25 MEMBER HORNING: All right. Thank you. July 11, 2013 Regular Meeting 80 1 MS. MOORS: Essentially what the Town • 2 Board did, and I think, from the records, 3 the family the family owned to the south 4 and to the north and they must have gotten 5 together as part of the subdivision of this 6 area. And there was additional land 7 contributed to the subdivision lots. So 8 the end result of the lot that was created 9 was the oversized lot the size lot that 10 you see today on the survey. 11 MEMBER HORNING: That was my question. 12 What was the original size of these two • 13 lots and as a result of the activity that 14 you mentioned, does that result in a size 15 that is allowed today? Can you give us, 16 for our references, the difference of the 17 lots? Is that possible? 18 MS. MOORS: I don't know. It's on the 19 on the filed map. I might be able to 20 give it to the surveyor and he might be 21 able to calculate it. 22 MEMBER HORNING: The map did not give 23 the square footage? 24 MS. MOORS: No. But we know that the • 25 lots are deeded lots, meats and bounds July 11, 2013 Regular Meeting 81 1 parcels. So the survey actually shows the • 2 ownership based on the deeds. 3 MEMBER HORNING: I am curious to know 4 whether there was a small increase in the 5 size of these parcels or was it something 6 more substantial than just a few square 7 foot? 8 MS. MOORE: Well, can you see that 9 map? 10 MEMBER HORNING: I have it now. 11 MS. MOORE: I am trying to read the 12 number. It's a real challenge. I might be • 13 able to blow it up on the computer. It's 14 from the Town records. It looks maybe 15 the same width along the road. That didn't 16 change, but the setbacks I want to say 17 it's more than 90 feet. 18 MEMBER HORNING: If you can give us 19 the actual information? 20 MS. MOORE: I will do the best that I 21 can. I am looking at very small print. I 22 can get that to you right away. That is not 23 a problem. Did you want me to continue? 24 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Yes. • 25 MS. MOORE: Sorry. So the lots right July 11, 2013 Regular Meeting 82 1 now do have public water. The house is • 2 connected to public water and there is 3 public water in the streets. The house has 4 all CO's and I provided you with copies of 5 the Certificates of Occupancy's. The 6 surrounding community is developed with 7 similar sized 20,000 square foot lots. The 8 vacant lot, as I said, 22,000 plus in size. 9 So it's actually the larger of the two 10 parcels. I believe that that covers all 11 the issues that I think you would need for 12 your file, and I would be happy to try and • 13 answer any additional questions. 14 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Eric? 15 MEMBER DANTES: Sure. The only 16 question that I have, as I look at the 17 survey here, it looks like the 40 Beachwood 18 Lane survey, (In Audible) illustrated in 19 2008 and Super Storm Sandy. Is the 20 property the same size or any erosion due 21 to the storm? Do you have any (In 22 Audible)? 23 MS. MOORE: I don't have the current 24 flood map because that would entail • 25 certainly asking the surveyor to update his July 11, 2013 Regular Meeting 83 1 map. I can give you just testimony from the • 2 owner. The property looks identical. It 3 doesn't look like it's effected at all. 4 It's vegetated and I can see from the 5 Gallagher's property looking over that it's 6 there are no issues. 7 MEMBER DANTES: It looks like the 8 survey was last updated in 1997. 9 MS. MOORS: You were asking me about 10 the house? 11 MEMBER DANTES: I was asking about 12 Beachwood Lane first. • 13 MS. MOORS: I'm sorry, I was looking at 14 the vacant lot first. I apologize. Well, 15 Beachwood Lane is the house. As far as the 16 flood zone map, the property has been 17 completely developed and if you have been 18 to the back of the property, you can see 19 that there is a landscaped feature and then 20 the pool fence. So everything is somewhat 21 elevated. So I don't believe the flood map 22 changed the improved property in any way. 23 MEMBER DANTES: And then the other 24 question that I have is on the unimproved • 25 property July 11, 2013 Regular Meeting 84 1 MS. MOORS: The vacant parcel, I would • 2 have to ask the surveyor to give me 3 where the flood elevation is presently. 4 We know that 5 MEMBER DANTES: Pat, can we have an 6 updated survey? 7 MS. MOORS: Honestly that is a very 8 expensive request. This is a very 9 expensive survey that was done and would 10 actually be approved it would be 11 accepted by all the agencies. The only 12 difference being the to verify where the • 13 flood line is and to make sure the house is 14 maintaining or confined from the flood 15 zone, because it's showing the flood zone 16 plane down by the wetlands and across. 17 MEMBER DANTES: My legal counsel is 18 asking for it. 19 MS. MOORS: Your legal counsel is 20 asking for it? 21 MS. ANDALORO: I am not asking for it. 22 I am telling them they have a right to ask 23 for it. 24 MS. MOORS: Of course, I understand. • 25 Okay. That's fine, they're just asking for July 11, 2013 Regular Meeting 85 1 that's a lot for a homeowner to do • 2 that. Assuming that we're going to get the 3 Waiver of Merger, yes, I don't have a 4 problem with that. The buyer is getting an 5 updated survey. We don't have an updated 6 survey at present because it's merged. So I 7 have this vicious survey. 8 MS. ANDALORO: I understand that, but 9 the Board needs it. 10 MS. MOORE: Well, if the Board wants 11 it. 12 MEMBER DANTES: The other issues, the • 13 shed 14 MS. MOORE: That would be removed. 15 That shed is being dealt with. 16 MEMBER DANTES: I'm just saying, it 17 would have to be on the Beachwood 18 MS. MOORS: Well, we would have to 19 move it before the surveyor went back out 20 there. In good faith, I hope that we're 21 getting this Waiver of Merger because it's 22 a very expensive process for my clients to 23 go through. 29 MEMBER DANTES: I understand. The • 25 other question that I wanted was just to July 11, 2013 Regular Meeting 86 1 walk through the law. • 2 MS. MOORE: Okay. Let me just go 3 through the items that you wanted. You 4 wanted the shed relocated. So it's not 5 showing on the vacant survey. Two, you 6 want an updated survey, which you don't 7 need to have all the sanitary how do you 8 want it? It's vacant. 9 MEMBER DANTES: It's a vacant lot. 10 (In Audible). 11 MS. MOORE: Well, that should be a lot 12 less expensive. The flood zone • 13 designation. I will ask the surveyor, when 14 he goes out there, he's going to update it 15 anyway. You want me to discount the 16 buildable and unbuildable just to give you 17 the dimensions? 18 MEMBER DANTES: I think so. 19 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: We're also 20 concerned about how much building you're 21 going to do. 22 MS. MOORE: Well, the Trustees permit 23 I think it was only in the area let 24 me look. The reason for submission, why my • 25 clients bought it with a permit in place. July 11, 2013 Regular Meeting 87 1 The condition was to buy a property that • 2 was buildable. So the 98' permit was still 3 in effect or could have been continued. 4 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Just give me one 5 second? 6 MS. MOORS: Sure. 7 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: We need to know 8 how much fill is going to be required for 9 construction of a home? If the surveyor 10 could tell us, that would be great. 11 MS. MOORS: Maybe if you could give me 12 the LWRP report that would help me try and • 13 answer it? Thank you. The thing with the 14 fill, it really depends on the house that 15 you're building and the we don't have a 16 plan. 17 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Just an average. I 18 don't think that we're asking for a high or 19 a low. 20 MS. MOORS: Okay. I can tell you what 21 is proposed? Okay. I am adding it to my 22 list. 23 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: I think what we're 24 looking for is a reflection of the • 25 property. July 11, 2013 Regular Meeting 88 • 1 MS. MOORS: The existing conditions. 2 Okay. 3 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: There is a catch 4 basin that the LWRP refers to. 5 MS. MOORS: Let me see. 6 MEMBER HORNING: The second page 7 MS. MOORS: I am looking at the 8 survey. 9 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: It's not on there. 10 MS. MOORS: It's a town catch basin. 11 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: It's a town road. 12 MS. MOORS: That's fine. I will do • 13 this. 14 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The proverbial 15 question, how long? 16 MS. MOORS: We're going to try and get 17 this to you right away. 18 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Okay. 19 MS. MOORS: Nate Corwin, I hope he can 20 just go out and update. 21 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: By August? 22 MS. MOORS: I don't know how fast I 23 can do it, I hope by August. There are - 24 did you want me to come back or just submit • 25 it? July 11, 2013 Regular Meeting 89 • 1 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: We still have to 2 go over the law itself. 3 MS. MOORS: Okay. Let's go over the 4 law. We will go from there. 5 MEMBER HORNING: One final question 6 before we do that. How many other vacant 7 parcels is in the adjacent neighborhood? 8 MS. MOORS: I think this is the very 9 last lot in the entire development. 10 MEMBER HORNING: Can you just provide 11 a statement? 12 MS. MOORS: Well, on the record. How • 13 about that? Come on up, because he lives in 14 the neighborhood. 15 MR. GALLAGHER: Good morning. I am 16 Kevin Gallagher. I am the owner of the 17 property that you're discussing. I would 18 like to add a little color to the question 19 that you're asking. First of all, I 20 purchased the lot as an investment because 21 my retirement funding became part of that 22 lot. In other words, could use the money 23 in the lot to keep my retirement going. So 24 my thought was to sell it. Not publicly. • 25 Sell it to my next door neighbor. The gal July 11, 2013 Regular Meeting 90 • 1 that is sitting here now. We bought the 2 lot because we never intended to build on 3 it but the idea that it was a buildable 9 lot, because (In Audible) community 5 designed with the lots in those days. To 6 further clarify what you were asking before 7 about the expanded property, I believe the 8 major dredging of Smith Drive North now, 9 that's that whatever was placed on a 10 bunch of our properties. That is the 11 standard 12 MEMBER HORNING: Can you give us the • 13 date? 14 MR. GALLAGHER: Before my time. I 15 don't have a date on that. I believe it was 16 before the construction of the new Goose 17 Creek Bridge, to bring a dredge in and do 18 that kind of thing. That is the best that 19 I could do on that one. But anyway, my next 20 door neighbor here, Nancy, has agreed to 21 buy the property from me as long as it is 22 on the existing maps, a buildable lot. The 23 grade is below our expanded lot level. And 24 it would have to be if it as built upon. • 25 It would have to be brought up about 4 July 11, 2013 Regular Meeting 91 • 1 feet. To level with my neighbors property 2 and mine. My neighbor was consenting to buy 3 the property from me as long as it was 4 still a buildable lot and she was going to 5 put it in a name that would not be merged 6 with her property. Neither of us ever have 7 any intention on building on it. It was 8 there for protection. Now I would like to 9 get that over to Nancy. Out of my hands. 10 And, you know, have a reimbursement from 11 her. 12 MEMBER HORNING: What is Nancy's last • 13 name? 14 MR. GALLAGHER: She is right here. 15 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: We're trying to do 16 that. We're just trying to let you know 17 that there is a process by which you do 18 that. While you're there Mr. Gallagher, 19 there was a transfer from Kevin Gallagher 20 to Dorothy Gallagher, Dorothy Gallagher. 21 And then Dorothy Gallagher to 22 Kevin E. Gallagher. Who is Kevin E. 23 Gallagher? 24 MR. GALLAGHER: I am. My drivers • 25 license, they dropped the "E" out and I July 11, 2013 Regular Meeting 92 • 1 can't get it back in. When we did 2 transfer it, and that sounds odd, we had it 3 in two different names. And it was on two 4 different streets, and we were told by an 5 attorney, Jay Quadarro, who was doing a 6 trust for us and planning our future 7 estate, put the properties in the same 8 name, which we did. It was not more than a 9 couple of months later, we separated it 10 again with his legal work was satisfied. 11 All of a sudden we go back to sell it and 12 we find out that it is merged. So we're • 13 stuck between a rock and a hard place with 14 a piece of property that we never moved and 15 we never changed. Incidentally, while I 16 have the floor, if you will, that so-called 17 shed, the shed is a few feet over onto that 18 property, which is in material to me or 19 Nancy, as long as it's in our hands. She 20 wouldn't mind if it was on that property. 21 We both have been neighbors for 20 years. 22 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: We just can't 23 allow it. We apologize for that. Anything 24 you can do to skid it over would be greatly • 25 appreciated. July 11, 2013 Regular Meeting 93 • 1 MR. GALLAGHER: We will move it for 2 sure. That is not a problem. It was done 3 that way for aesthetic purposes. So that 4 can be moved. So I never asked for this 5 merger. Another thing, for your 6 information, I bought it. It was a second 7 piece of property from a separate person. 8 It was an investment. To this day, I get a 9 separate tax bill. No one in the Town had 10 ever come to me either by letter or mouth, 11 and said, "Hey, we're merging your 12 property." I had no idea of this. And I am • 13 going to use my words, it was done in 19 secret, and I was never told anything about 15 it. That is why I never had a question 16 with the tax bills. It was two separate 17 parcels. 18 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: We hear this all 19 the time, and we understand. We understand 20 the problem you're going through. 21 MR. GALLAGHER: Yeah. I am grateful 22 you understand it. From the landowners 23 point of view, homeowners point of view, 24 it's costing me money to undo something I • 25 never wanted to do in the first place. You July 11, 2013 Regular Meeting 94 • 1 know 2 MEMBER HORNING: When did you find 3 out? What date? 4 MR. GALLAGHER: It was this year. It 5 was probably in January or maybe March, but 6 we found out through our neighbors lawyer, 7 Deborah. She didn't trust the Town and 8 said, Kevin, she said we think it could be 9 a merged property with the Town and you 10 need to go and look. So when I got to that 11 stage, I didn't know, with the lawyers that 12 I was using back west, they didn't know • 13 what I was talking about, property merger. 14 So I came out to out here, and she was 15 very well lawed on that type of situations. 16 MEMBER HORNING: If we can back track 17 for a minute. You want to sell the 18 property to the neighbor? 19 MR. GALLAGHER: That's correct. 20 MS. MOORE: She's not interested 21 MEMBER HORNING: The whole thing? 22 MS. MOORE: It's a future retirement. 23 MEMBER HORNING: And is this neighbor 24 on the other side of the vacant parcel? • 25 MS. MOORE: Yes. She is on the west. July 11, 2013 Regular Meeting 95 • 1 She is right here. 2 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Please come to the 3 mic. 4 MS. HEISNER: I am at 1700 Park Way. 5 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Thank you. What is 6 your name? 7 MS. HEISNER: Nancy Heisner. And I 8 have no intention of building on it. 9 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Ms. Heisner, you 10 need to spell your last name for us? 11 MS. HEISNER: H-E-I-S-N-E-R. 12 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Thank you. We just • 13 need to move this along, George. 14 MEMBER HORNING: You say you don't 15 intend to build on it? 16 MS. HEISNER: No. 17 MEMBER HORNING: But you will only buy 18 it, if it was a buildable lot? 19 MS. HEISNER: Because I, as Kevin did, 20 am buying it as an investment. 21 MEMBER HORNING: Understood. 22 MS. HEISNER: So some day down the 23 road if I need money, I would be able to 24 sell it. • 25 MEMBER HORNING: How much space needs July 11, 2013 Regular Meeting 96 • 1 to be placed onto this property to make it 2 buildable? We don't know? 3 MS. HEISNER: The house would have to 4 be built on the road. It's wetlands below 5 that is perfectly the water comes up 6 only 7 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Ms. Heisner, we did 8 not raise that issue. It was raised by 9 another agency. There are a whole different 10 impressive things that we have to do today, 11 and it's only a question. It's a process 12 and we appreciate your assistance. It's • 13 No. 3 on the list of the criteria and that 14 is basically where we are. And if it was a 15 non-waterfront lot and based upon 16 Mr. Gallagher's testimony, we could stop 17 the process right now, but we can't, 18 because of the environmental aspects of 19 this waiver. That is where we are. 20 MS. HEISNER: Okay. 21 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: We thank you for 22 your assistance. Thank you, sir. 23 Eric, do you have more questions? 24 MEMBER DANTES: Yes. Can we just run • 25 though the law? July 11, 2013 Regular Meeting 97 • 1 MS. MOORE: Sure. 2 MEMBER DANTES: (In Audible). 3 MS. MOORE: It stayed in Dorothy and 4 Kevin Gallagher's ownership and it was 5 transferred within the family, within the 6 two owners. So it met that criteria. I 7 think he has already put on the record that 8 Kevin and Kevin E, are the same individual. 9 MEMBER DANTES: And the last, the lots 10 (In Audible). 11 MS. MOORE: Yes. The subdivision 12 consisted of lots 20,000 square feet more • 13 or less, and this parcel according to the 14 survey, 22,192, which is the deeded parcel. 15 I will give you the buildable and 16 non-buildable provisions. Only as more 17 recently, applied for the development 18 portion to establish lot coverage for the 19 properties. Otherwise, it is considered to 20 be a buildable lot. 21 MEMBER DANTES: And then the lot is 22 obviously vacant? 23 MS. MOORE: Yes. It's still vacant. 24 It's treated as you go when you • 25 started from the street, it looks like an July 11, 2013 Regular Meeting 98 • 1 unimproved wooded lot that anybody might 2 own. 3 MEMBER DANTES: And then there would 4 be no adverse impact on the 5 environmental 6 MS. MOORS: Our position is that it 7 will not impact the environment. Certainly 8 the '98 survey and the permits that were 9 issued at that time, which followed the law 10 of '98 obviously, had all of the 11 environmental criteria considered. More 12 recently, we would have to get a possible • 13 Trustees permit, because you would be 100 19 feet from wetlands. So the Trustees would 15 consider the design and the placement of 16 the house, but we don't suspect to be any 17 problems. Since both sides of the homes 18 have are certainly closer to the road 19 then what is here on this property. 20 Mr. Gallagher has a pool in the backyard 21 and landscaping. He has it very nice. He 22 then keeps the rest of the property very 23 natural and I want to call it the 24 non-disturbance area, the grasses are • 25 maintained and left natural for Stormwater July 11, 2013 Regular Meeting 99 • 1 collection. On the other side, the other 2 property owner is fully developed as well. 3 You can see from the Google and from the 4 road that it is a fully developed property 5 as well. So the plans in '98 provided for 6 adequate setbacks for everything. That was 7 not a problem. And since there is public 8 water, in '98, I don't think the public 9 water was in place because they had permits 10 for a well. Now the public water is in the 11 street. So it has resolved that issue very 12 easily. So it has resolved the issue of the • 13 sanitary. This subdivision map itself when 14 it was approved by the Health Department, 15 showed that there was a notation on the 16 map, that wells and sanitary's would be a 17 minimum of five feet apart. Certainly not 18 the code now, but the Health Department 19 does recognize their file and approved map. 20 So this lot is recognized by the Health 21 Department without any difficulty 22 whatsoever. 23 MEMBER HORNING: We're asking for 24 updated surveys. • 25 MS. MOORE: Yes you are. Are you July 11, 2013 Regular Meeting 100 • 1 verifying that I heard that? 2 MEMBER HORNING: Yes. And I am thinking 3 in the back of my mind, the impact is still 4 going to be on the environment. And that 5 goes for the Core #3 statement of the 6 approval of such a waiver. 7 MS. MOORS: Well, as we said, the 8 amount of fill, if any, would at this 9 particular plan, had fill that was being 10 proposed more than 50 feet from wetlands. 11 As you can see, it said proposed clearing, 12 so they had 50 foot clearing limits on the • 13 proposed plan. This plan was pretty well 19 planned out. Suffolk Environmental had 15 been the Mayer's consultants on it, and 16 it's a well thought out plan, with a 17 sanitary along the street. So the well 18 location is no longer it's a moot point. 19 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: We're done. Is 20 there anybody else that would like to speak 21 for or against this application? 22 (No Response.) 23 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Okay. 24 MS. MOORS: Just very quickly. The • 25 fill, as I said, would depend on the house. July 11, 2013 Regular Meeting 101 • 1 The house that someone constructs doesn't 2 necessarily require fill. The fill is only 3 when you try and build the grade up from 4 the floor. It can be built with a higher 5 I'm sorry, basement. A somewhat exposed 6 basement. The newer houses may not have 7 fill. So as far as the newer houses, the 8 agency at the time, when we're doing to the 9 development process that is why at this 10 time, it's a little difficult to determine 11 this. I can try and get it from the 12 surveyor but he might respond that it • 13 depends on the buyer. 14 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Maybe you 15 misunderstood what we said. The new lines 16 that were changed will tell where the fill 17 can start. And that is basically what he 18 is looking for. If the lines have changed 19 drastically in the last 20 years. 20 MS. MOORE: Okay. I will ask him 21 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The 2008 data, that 22 is when it went out for change. 23 We're going to close the hearing at 24 the Special Meeting, which is July 25th. If • 25 you don't have it by July 25th, let us know July 11, 2013 Regular Meeting 102 • 1 and we will have to do some altering stuff. 2 MS. MOORE: Okay. I appreciate it. 3 MS. HEISNER: May I just ask 4 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: State your name for 5 the record, again. 6 MS. HEISNER: Nancy Heisner, 7 H-E-I-S-N-E-R. For the fill issue, if there 8 is fill put on this lot, then it will run 9 off onto my property. Both properties are 10 level now. When the water comes up, it 11 comes up on my yard and it comes up on the 12 lot to the same level. So it's still put • 13 in 14 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: We're just 15 asking. 16 MS. HEISNER: Okay. I still don't 17 understand but, okay. 18 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Thank you very 19 much. Hearing no more comments at this 20 point, I will make a motion adjourning the 21 hearing to the Special Meeting on 22 July 25th, at which point we intend to 23 close it, if we can, subject to the receipt 24 of the survey. • 25 MEMBER HORNING: Second. July 11, 2013 Regular Meeting 103 • 1 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: All in favor? 2 MEMBER DANTES: Aye. 3 MEMBER HORNING: Aye. 4 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye. 5 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye. 6 (See Minutes for Resolution.) 8 HEARING #6666 - RATSO, LLC. 9 MS. TOTH: This is a request for 10 variances from Article XV Code Section 11 280-64A and Article XV Code Section 280-63 12 and the Building Inspector's May 13, 2013 • 13 Notice of Disapproval based on an 14 application for building permit for 15 additions and alterations to an existing 16 commercial building, at; 1) less than the 17 code required minimum front yard setback of 18 100 feet from the right of way, 2) less 19 than the code required minimum rear yard 20 setback of 60 feet, located at: 67875 Main 21 Road, also known as County Road 25, corner 22 of Albertson Lane in Greenport, New York. 23 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Okay. Who would 24 like to be heard? Kindly state your name • 25 for the record. July 11, 2013 Regular Meeting 104 • 1 MR. RATSEY: My name is Colin Ratsey. 2 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: What would you like 3 to tell us, Colin? 4 MR. RATSEY: I recently purchased this 5 property from Corrazini and I think you're 6 aware of the buffer is 25 feet on both 7 sides; is that correct? I own a 8 construction company and I tried to build 9 on TJC, which is down the road and I had 10 some problems with the DEC. So I bought 11 this lot. It's commercial. I installed a 12 six foot fence all the way around it • 13 because our stuff now is getting stolen. 14 Our aluminium and copper. I mean, they're 15 going in our trucks. It's hard enough to 16 make a living without them stealing from 17 us. So I bought this building and I wanted 18 the Town to know that I made it a mechanics 19 shop, a carpentry shop, you know a paint 20 shop. To try and make it better for my 21 employees. The shop that I am in now, the 22 secretary's have to leave and go home 23 early, so we can paint. So I would like to 24 build an office on the side. I actually • 25 think it would make the building look July 11, 2013 Regular Meeting 105 • 1 better. I gave your drawings of the 2 building. I tried to spruce it up a little 3 bit. I put a flat roof so I could put the 4 AC's on top and try to hide them, without 5 having them on the ground. And I have made 6 the entrance way come a little further. So 7 that from the office, you can see straight 8 across the garage doors. So with one or two 9 people in the office, they can pretty much 10 secure the whole place. I only have one 11 entrance in, off of Albertson. So the way 12 that I use the property, I come off • 13 Albertson to go around the back and come 14 around the front. There is only one way in 15 and one way out. You know, I think that it 16 I put the hedges in now. My plan is to 17 have the hedges go 8 to 10 feet high, like 18 my house. And try and make it nice off the 19 road, so you can't see what's in there. I 20 mean, it is a construction yard. we can't 21 keep everything beautiful but I figured 22 this would make it better. A lot of 23 customers do come to my house, whether it's 24 holidays and such. That is why I put the • 25 office here. To try and keep them away. So July 11, 2013 Regular Meeting 106 • 1 if I make it nice from the street, it 2 would make my business look better. To have 3 them come to my home is ridiculous. All 4 right. Thank you. 5 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: How many people 6 are you going to have in your office? 7 MR. RATSEY: Right now, I only have 8 two. But you know a couple of the guys that 9 we have working for us, go in and fill out 10 paperwork. They keep all the major books in 11 there. So any given time, it could be a 12 couple of people in there. The girls • 13 usually kick us out but we try and get in 14 there. 15 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: George, do you 16 have any questions? 17 MEMBER HORNING: Yes, I have a few. 18 How necessary for your business is this 19 additional space on your site? 20 MR. RATSEY: If we don't get it, we're 21 selling the property. I mean, we're in 22 Greenport now. We live at 413 Wiggins 23 Street in Greenport. We have a 24 construction site there. We have four or • 25 five trucks there a day. We are right July 11, 2013 Regular Meeting 107 • 1 against the railroad tracks. That is 2 what we're trying to do with this we're 3 trying to make it fit within the 4 neighborhood. I guarantee when you drive 5 by it in three years, it will look like the 6 Hampton's. You won't even know what it is 7 there now. I put a fence up there 8 immediately. I have like seven containers 9 on my property. I am not sure if you're 10 familiar with TJC, we kept containers 11 there. Maybe about four or five Sunday's 12 ago, I had all my containers moved around. • 13 I had them all moved. So we can move stuff 14 around pretty quick. We have done our best 15 on the TJC property. The Town keeps 16 pushing us to move smaller and smaller. 17 It's hard to keep giving people jobs if we 18 keep going smaller and smaller. 19 MEMBER HORNING: Looking at the site 20 that you're proposing the office addition 21 on, with the nonconforming setbacks, did 22 you think of any alternatives? 23 MR. RATSEY: If you look at the plans, 24 the site plan on one side shows all the • 25 cesspools and the 440 volts coming on one July 11, 2013 Regular Meeting 108 • 1 side. So we can't go there. The back side 2 is where Mel Rose is. There is not enough 3 room to go around our building there. The 4 front is where our we need to be able to 5 turn around and bring 18-wheelers in. I 6 think we had four in today already. So this 7 area, which I propose right now is a grass 8 lot, that is overgrown grass. So I am just 9 trying to stick on that. So I am not 10 hurting anything. I am not touching that. I 11 bought an engineer there. 12 MEMBER HORNING: So you're stating • 13 here, that this proposed addition office 14 space that you say that you need is best 15 located on the site plan as you're 16 proposing and you can not reasonably locate 17 it somewhere else on the site? 18 MR. RATSEY: Like I said, there is 19 cesspools and electric on the one side. 20 The back does not have enough room. The 21 front side is the hill. The entrance is on 22 Albertson. 23 MEMBER HORNING: And the arrows on this 24 site plan are the traffic flow? • 25 MR. RATSEY: I would have to look on July 11, 2013 Regular Meeting 109 • 1 your site plan. 2 MEMBER HORNING: Yes, that is right. 3 Thank you. 4 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Ken? 5 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: No questions. 6 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Eric? 7 MEMBER DANTES: The location of the 8 proposed location is not being used? 9 MR. RATSEY: Yes. That's it. 10 MEMBER DANTES: And your neighbors, 11 are they all commercial? 12 MR. RATSEY: Yes. I have Penny Lumbar. • 13 I have only been there for three or four 14 months. I have dressed it up. 15 MEMBER DANTES: The only other 16 question that I had, is there any other 17 current variances on the property? 18 MR. RATSEY: Well, the lot is too 19 small. So the lot, it would be stupid to 20 put the building any where else on the 21 property. The 50 foot buffer came so close 22 to the handicap buffer. You couldn't go 23 around the building. So they gave him more 24 space going this way. • 25 MEMBER DANTES: I don't have any other July 11, 2013 Regular Meeting 110 • 1 questions. 2 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Colin, we did get 3 a response from the Planning and they said 4 that the site is consistent. It's going to 5 be a 3200 square feet. They are talking 6 about the buffers, which is what you have 7 said. 8 MR. RATSEY: Yes. You know, I can do 9 this without even telling anyone. I don't 10 want to do that. I am 50-years-old. 11 George Costello died, my best friend, I 12 have 13 years to go. So I am setting an • 13 example for my son so that he can work 14 smart and not stupid. This is going to be 15 better for everybody. This is a ideal 16 situation. So I want to put this on the 17 outside. The best that I can, so I can 18 make it best that I can. 19 MEMBER HORNING: What are you 20 fabricating? 21 MR. RATSEY: I do work for the whole 22 town. So I do everything. I clean-up the 23 oil spills. I jacked the house up on the 24 corner. I am a carpenter. So I fix • 25 things. Whatever we have to do to get July 11, 2013 Regular Meeting 111 • 1 done. 2 MEMBER HORNING: Thank you. 3 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Is there anybody 4 else that would like to speak in favor or 5 against this application? 6 (No Response.) 7 MEMBER HORNING: Hearing no further 8 comments or questions, I will make a motion 9 to close the hearing and reserve the 10 decision till later. 11 Can I have a second? 12 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Second. • 13 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: All in favor? 14 MEMBER DANTES: Aye. 15 MEMBER HORNING: Aye. 16 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye. 17 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye. 18 (See Minutes for Resolution.) 20 HEARING #6663 - JOHN ABBOTT 21 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The last 22 application of the day is on behalf of John 23 Abbott. Appeal #6663. 24 MS. TOTH: Request for Variance from • 25 Article XXII Code Section 280-116(B) based July 11, 2013 Regular Meeting 112 1 on an application for building permit and • 2 the Building Inspector's April 24, 2013 3 Notice of Disapproval concerning a permit 4 for construction of a 10'X15' covered 5 deck/gazebo; at 1) less than the code 6 required bulkhead setback of 75 feet, 7 located at: 8630 Peconic Bay Boulevard, 8 adjacent to Great Peconic Bay and Private 9 Road in Laurel, New York. 10 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Who is the 11 representative? Kindly state your name for 12 the record. • 13 MS. RIGDON: Agena Rigdon, 14 R-I-G-D-O-N. Here for Mr. Abbott. 15 Mr. Abbott is also in attendance. 16 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Let me have the 17 spelling of your name please, again. 18 MS. RIGDON: A-G-E-N-A, last name, 19 R-I-G-D-O-N. 20 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Okay. We have some 21 additional information from the County and 22 then a copy of the LWRP's Coordinator 23 letter of consistency and his determination 24 that this property to inconsistent. Do you • 25 have a copy of that? July 11, 2013 Regular Meeting 113 • 1 MS. RIGDON: I do. I was faxed it. 2 Thank you. 3 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I just want to 4 give you the County's interpretation. 5 Okay. What would you like to tell us? 6 MS. RIGDON: As you're aware, there 7 was a structure there. A concrete sort-of S storage building that Mr. Abbott used. The 9 proposed structure is actually smaller then 10 what was there. No fault as to Mr. Abbott, 11 as you well know, was a result of the storm 12 damage from Hurricane Sandy. A short storm • 13 event. Mr. Abbott would like to put back a 14 structure similar and better than what was 15 there. More environmentally friendly and 16 restore the bluff and the bulkhead, which 17 already has Board approval. He does have 18 approval for this 10'x 15' covered deck 19 from the Southold Trustees, and also has a 20 letter of non-jurisdiction as well as an 21 emergency hurricane general permit from the 22 DEC. 23 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Did you read the 24 LWRP Coordinator's • 25 MS. RIGDON: I did. July 11, 2013 Regular Meeting 114 • 1 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Would Mr. Abbott 2 be inclined to move that out of the VE Zone 3 to a higher zone? Meaning closer to the 4 top of the bluff? 5 MS. RIGDON: At this point, I don't 6 think that he would like to move it. I 7 believe that the new structure is located 8 further landward of what was preexisting. 9 I think he is compromising to meet the 10 environmental code specifications and the 11 general public. There are also decks in 12 the area that were constructed not to long • 13 ago. A couple of neighbors down, that 14 actually sit right on the bulkhead. 15 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: This is a covered 16 deck. This is 17 MS. RIGDON: Uh-huh. Understood. The 18 reason he needs it covered, and it's just a 19 simple 2x4, 4x4 structure, he has had some 20 health issues and he would love to sit out 21 on a deck that is not covered but 22 unfortunately he has some medical issues 23 and he needs the screening from the sun. 24 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Let me just the • 25 LWRP Coordinator issues three separate and July 11, 2013 Regular Meeting 115 • 1 distinct evaluations of a piece of 2 property. The first one is an exempt one. 3 Usually is one where the water is not 4 involved and the tidal water or the lake 5 water is not involved. The other one is a 6 consistent, and that usually is a situation 7 where he would mention that there is a 8 possibility where water runoff may be 9 has to be diverted into this Chapter 236 of 10 our Stormwater Management Law, into storm 11 drains. And the third one is inconsistency. 12 The inconsistency is a very important one • 13 because on that one, we need to address and 19 mitigate any factors that are being 15 addressed by the LWRP Coordinator. So what 16 we that is why I ask that question 17 regarding this particular request from the 18 LWRP Coordinator. The floodplain maps have 19 changed. We now have new zones in the 20 center of this, which I believe to be an 21 intermediate zone, which is referred to a 22 SLOSH, S-L-O-S-H category. And so he is 23 basically asking us or asking your 24 applicant, to consider the possibility of • 25 moving it to a different application. July 11, 2013 Regular Meeting 116 • 1 Now, I have to be perfectly honest with 2 you. 3 Sure. You need to use the mic. Just 4 state your name. 5 MR. ABBOTT: Yes. My name is John 6 Abbott. I am the owner of the property. 7 When you say move it to a different 8 location? 9 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I am talking about 10 a higher location in the VE Zone. Being in 11 a zone where, if we have another situation 12 like we had, you don't lose it. • 13 MR. ABBOTT: I just don't understand 14 what you're saying. The property is flat. 15 You're saying raise it up higher? 16 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No. Moving it up 17 the hill a little farther. 18 MR. ABBOTT: It's at the top of the 19 hill now. When you come out to Laurel 20 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: It's determined to 21 be in the VE Zone. A high velocity zone, 22 where I suspect it was destroyed by Super 23 Storm Hurricane Sandy. 24 MR. ABBOTT: What actually happened • 25 with the storm was, the bulkhead breached July 11, 2013 Regular Meeting 117 1 the erosion and went around the supporting • 2 structure. The water didn't do anything. 3 The wind blew it over in one piece. I was 4 going to take it and put it right back up 5 on the structure but when the people from 6 the Town came down, they didn't like the 7 structure and wanted me to get rid of the 8 structure. My original intent was to put 9 it right back up on the structure and 10 repair the structure and repair the 11 bulkhead. Now, as you come out my lawn, 12 it's at the top. You walk this one 2x6 up • 13 onto the deck. I am not understanding what 14 you're saying. 15 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Well, this is my 16 problem, when we come over to your very 17 beautiful piece of property 18 MR. ABBOTT: It was. 19 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Well, it will be 20 again. I have trouble visualizing. I saw 21 where it was, okay, which was very close to 22 the bulkhead down toward the bottom of the 23 hill. I refer to this as a hill. 24 MR. ABBOTT: Let me tell you why it • 25 looks that way. Down below the concrete July 11, 2013 Regular Meeting 118 • 1 pad that was there, that is not where the 2 bulkhead started. That is not where the 3 front of the structure. 4 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Where was it? 5 MR. ABBOTT: The structure was 16 feet 6 back from the front of the bulkhead. The 7 stairs came down, then there was a concrete 8 pad that you walked five or six feet. Then 9 there was some growth area and then there 10 was the bulkhead. So the do you 11 remember the property right next door? To 12 my east? That gazebo? Essentially it's the • 13 same thing. It's going to roughly start 14 where his gazebo starts and go out as far 15 as his gazebo. The front of the structure 16 that I would like to put up, is going to be 17 16 or 17 feet from the bulkhead. Two doors 18 down now, I understand that is an 19 existing bulkhead and his was not blown 20 over, he is 8 feet from the bulkhead. My 21 other neighbor is about 12 feet from the 22 bulkhead. I am currently 16 feet. 23 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Can I just explain 24 something to you, Mr. Abbott? • 25 MR. ABBOTT: Sure. July 11, 2013 Regular Meeting 119 • 1 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Everything I am 2 saying, I consider to be not trying in 3 any way to give you an impression of you 4 don't understand what you're saying. We 5 have a copy of the survey, and I am not 6 speaking specifically for the entire Board. 7 But the majority of those structures that 8 are on Peconic Bay Boulevard right now do 9 not have C of O's. None of them do. 10 MR. ABBOTT: This one did. 11 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: This one did. 12 It's gone. • 13 MR. ABBOTT: Correct. Okay. Yes. 14 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: What the LWRP 15 Coordinator is saying is to move it closer 16 to the house so that it is out of that low 17 end zone, which we refer to the High 18 Velocity Zone. A little closer to the 19 house. That would be a mitigating factor 20 in the inconsistency evaluation. So we 21 would like you to move it up a little bit. 22 I have difficulty understanding how it 23 exist right now. I have to be honest with 24 you and I have been doing this for 32 • 25 years. I think this is not a sarcastic July 11, 2013 Regular Meeting 120 • 1 statement, but you know, you have a 2 tremendous amount of devastation, and so, 3 you know, if you could possibly consider 4 moving it a little to the rear of the 5 house 6 MR. ABBOTT: How far are you talking 7 about? 8 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Well, I don't know 9 how far the zone is to get out of the VE 10 Zone. I am going to give you an example. 11 The one of the old restaurants down in 12 New Suffolk across from the the only one • 13 that exist in New Suffolk now. They moved 14 that out of the VE Zone because they would 15 have had to do so much strapping and 16 everything else that they needed to do 17 reconstruction of the restaurant. I can't 18 tell you exactly how far it would be. It 19 would only be your surveyor, but any where 20 closer or partially out of the VE Zone, I 21 would consider I can't answer for the 22 Board. Okay. So that would be the 23 situation that I would suggest to you. I 24 don't want you to leave here that we're • 25 not being cooperative. July 11, 2013 Regular Meeting 121 • 1 MR. ABBOTT: As you said, to look at 2 what was there, it was very confusing to 3 what the location of the old gazebo was. I 4 wish I could draw something for you. I have 5 a picture from 1947 but it's from the 6 front. The structure was built in 1942. 7 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Yeah. That was the 8 year that I was born. I am looking at a 9 hill that looks like this. Here would be 10 the bulkhead down here. You're telling me 11 that you want to put it approximately here. 12 And I am saying to you, that all of this • 13 area down below is in the VE Zone. That is 14 a high velocity wind and tidal zone. And 15 what I am saying to you you know, the 16 difference between these two meetings, 17 between now and August, is not that far 18 away. If you could state that for us and 19 have the surveyor tell us where that is, 20 the VE Zone and how far it would take you 21 out of the zone, that would be the only 22 person that could tell us. 23 MR. ABBOTT: Okay. 24 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: These are all new • 25 terms that we're using. That word "SLOSH" July 11, 2013 Regular Meeting 122 • 1 that I used, also a new term. The young 2 lady here has the evaluation. Please be 3 aware we're not this is not a sarcastic 4 thing. We're not allowed to discuss this 5 with you unless it's on the record. So 6 when we came to your house, we couldn't 7 MR. ABBOTT: Sure. I understand. g MEMBER GOEHRINGER: We couldn't 9 discuss it with you. That is why we're 10 discussing it with you today. So that is 11 that. 12 MR. ABBOTT: I don't have a problem • 13 moving it back another 3 feet. 14 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That is not a bad 15 picture. Please, tell us where that is? 16 MS. RIGDON: There is a scale on this. 17 MR. ABBOTT: See this line here, that 18 is the replenishment of the grade. That is 19 where it was. This distance here from the 20 front of the gazebo, from here is 16 feet. 21 This is level, as you see with the front 22 lawn. Now, if I move it back, I am probably 23 going to have to elevate the whole 24 structure. To the intent, I am going to • 25 have to raise it, which is going to have July 11, 2013 Regular Meeting 123 • 1 some safety issues. More stairs. This from 2 here to here is 15 feet. Down here from 3 here, where the ground starts to break, 4 that was and is, all natural vegetation. 5 That is all I am trying to get back. 6 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I understand. It's 7 not going to affect you that much. You 8 know 9 MR. ABBOTT: My concern was only is 10 now was a 2x6. You know, that ends up 11 being it's 16 now. If they want 20, it's 12 only 4 feet back. • 13 MS. RIGDON: As we know, the 14 structural element of what had preexisted 15 differ between what where we're proposing 16 to construct now. The new vinyl bulkhead 17 will be a series of vinyl, which will last 18 approximately 75 to 100 years. 19 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: We're putting in 20 right now, 619 feet of bulkheading not 21 now, but as of September 3rd. 4,000 feet. 22 In the Mattituck Park District Beach. They 23 legitimately told us that this retaining 24 wall that we're putting in will not survive • 25 a major storm. And we're using the same July 11, 2013 Regular Meeting 124 • 1 stuff that you will be using, I mean, it 2 may vary from grade here and there. So in 3 general, what I am saying to you is, the 4 bulkhead or the retaining wall, is one in 5 fact the exact same thing. And I know the 6 gentleman that you have constructing it, 7 the guy is unbelievable. And I told your 8 brother that, Mr. Abbott, when he asked me 9 how I knew about that. And so very simply, 10 we're just trying to get some sort of 11 mitigation between based on the LWRP 12 Coordinator's evaluation of the • 13 inconsistency. So that we can give you a 14 decision, well there was some sort of 15 mediation here and we can mitigate this. 16 MR. ABBOTT: If I moved it back to 20 17 feet and 5 inches from the front of the 18 bulkhead to the front of the gazebo, would 19 that be acceptable? Would you consider 20 that? 21 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: How does that work 22 with the LWRP? They are requesting 20 feet 23 from the bulkhead? 24 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: He is requesting • 25 that it be moved out of the VE Zone. July 11, 2013 Regular Meeting 125 • 1 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Where is the VE 2 Zone? 3 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That is the 4 question. 5 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: It's not on the 6 map? 7 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: It's not on the 8 map. 9 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Then how could we 10 say move it to a line that is not on the 11 map? 12 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That is why I said • 13 only a surveyor would know where the VE 14 Zone is. 15 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Well, how did Mark 16 come up with that conclusion? 17 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I have no idea. 18 MS. RIGDON: He eyeballed it. 19 MS. TOTH: He eyeballed it and printed 20 it out and attached it to the report. 21 MS. RIGDON: That is greater than 20 22 feet from the bulkhead. 23 MR. ABBOTT: If we move it 20.1, that 24 complies with his request or idea. • 25 MEMBER HORNING: He has a photo in July 11, 2013 Regular Meeting 126 • 1 your report. It's in the photo but you 2 can't see it. There is another photo 3 showing the parcel showing the gazebo 4 location with the SLOSH category in the 5 hurricane map zoning. 6 MR. ABBOTT: This document that we 7 have is based upon his photo. This document 8 that he wrote says greater than 20 feet. 9 Again, I will ask the question, if it was 10 20.5, 20.1, 20.2, that would satisfy his 11 observation. Would that be acceptable? 12 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The only way that I • 13 could tell you that we could answer that 14 question and this is not a sarcastic 15 statement, is for you to stake it and we 16 will send him back out there. 17 MR. ABBOTT: Okay. I can stake the 18 back but I can't stake the front because 19 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Stake the back. 20 And then tell us after you stake it. 21 MR. ABBOTT: There is nothing there. 22 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The existing 23 bulkhead is pulled out? 24 MR. ABBOTT: Gone. • 25 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I was there July 11, 2013 Regular Meeting 127 • 1 yesterday. 2 MR. ABBOTT: Yes. It's all a disaster 3 down there. I can put some paint on the 9 debris. 5 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The only way that 6 I could see it, is if a surveyor stakes it. 7 MR. ABBOTT: Physically stake it or 8 mark it on the drawing? 9 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Physically stake 10 it. 11 MR. ABBOTT: He is going to have the 12 same problem. • 13 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Not necessarily. 14 They use other types of mechanisms to do 15 it. 16 MR. ABBOTT: My question is, I can be 17 done there and measure it out, this is 18 all 19 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: You can take it 20 from the it's the rear of the house. 21 MR. ABBOTT: There is all debris there 22 right now. 23 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I understand that. 29 We were there last night. • 25 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Looking at the LWRP July 11, 2013 Regular Meeting 128 • 1 report on the last page, last sentence 2 says, "the distance from the bulkhead from 3 the top of the bluff to be restored," which 4 you intend to restore, "would be greater 5 than 20 feet as indicated on the DKR 6 Shore." This is dated March 15, 2013. 7 Now, I am not sure which survey they are 8 talking about. 9 MS. RIGDON: It's a site plan. Not a 10 survey. 11 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: A site plan. Okay. 12 Site plan. And then he says, in the • 13 previous sentence. "It is recommended that 14 the gazebo be located landward." So the 15 LWRP Coordinator is saying that the top of 16 the bluff would be 20 feet from the 17 bulkhead. And then he is asking that the 18 gazebo be landward of that top of the 19 bluff. 20 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Right. 21 MR. ABBOTT: 20.1 inches, for 22 arguments sake, would be the front of the 23 gazebo. Is that fair? 24 MS. RIGDON: Would the Board consider • 25 that? I can redo the site plan. July 11, 2013 Regular Meeting 129 • 1 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: What Mark is saying 2 here that when you're all done with your 3 reconstruction of your bluff, the top of it 4 would be 20 feet from the bulkhead. He is 5 asking that the gazebo be placed landward 6 of the bluff. Does everybody understand? 7 MEMBER HORNING: I understand that. 8 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: So he is asking it 9 to be greater than 20 feet from the 10 bulkhead providing that the top of the 11 bluff is 20 feet. 12 MR. ABBOTT: The top of the bluff is • 13 actually going to be further back. 14 MEMBER HORNING: We don't know in 15 relation to the rear of the house. 16 MS. RIGDON: The top of the bluff has 17 to be restored. 18 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: There is two things 19 that he is talking about. He would like to 20 see the structure located landward of the 21 top of the bluff. 22 MS. RIGDON: The restored top of the 23 bluff. 24 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: The variable that • 25 he does not know, he says that it appears July 11, 2013 Regular Meeting 130 • 1 that once the bulkhead is restored, that it 2 would be approximately 20 feet from the top 3 of the bluff. So he does not know where the 4 top of the bluff is going to be. 5 MR. ABBOTT: I am going to have the 6 guy construct that bluff. The top of the 7 bluff is going to be 20 feet from the top 8 of the bulkhead, okay? 9 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Fine. 10 MR. ABBOTT: The front of the gazebo, 11 will be 20.1 from the top of the bulkhead, 12 2 inches behind the crest of the bluff. • 13 MEMBER HORNING: I don't think you're 14 understanding what he is saying. It's a 15 minimum 16 MR. ABBOTT: Of 20? 17 MEMBER HORNING: Yes. 18 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: 20 feet landward of 19 the bluff. 20 MR. ABBOTT: Okay. How do you define 21 that? 22 MEMBER HORNING: Well, it could be 25 23 feet for example. 24 MR. ABBOTT: I am going to dictate • 25 where the bluff is going to go. So I will July 11, 2013 Regular Meeting 131 • 1 make it whatever you want it to be. I am 2 not arguing. I just want to make sure that 3 I understand. 4 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: We appreciate 5 this. It's a little new to us. 6 MEMBER HORNING: I want to ask a 7 couple of questions related to this in a 8 way. Sir, the reason why it's important to 9 us, when we issue a variance it goes with 10 the property. It doesn't go with the owner 11 necessarily. We're all mortal beings. Some 12 of us might not be here a year from now. • 13 And so, but the variance will be. You 14 eluded to the problem and associate that 15 with your 16 MR. ABBOTT: I have no one (In 17 Audible.) 18 MEMBER HORNING: So what does this 19 have to do with the distance from this 20 gazebo to the corner of your house? 21 MR. ABBOTT: Not a lot. But unless 22 you're telling me that it's going to be 23 back 20 feet from the then I have two 24 problems. Number one, it's a certain • 25 number of feet from my front porch, then I July 11, 2013 Regular Meeting 132 • 1 don't I bought a place on the water, 2 that I don't get to see the water. Kind of 3 useless to have the house. 4 MEMBER HORNING: But you're 5 overlooking the water. I don't understand 6 that concept. 7 MR. ABBOTT: I am not going to see 8 much. I won't see any of the beach. 9 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I think we can 10 correct this whole situation by asking you 11 to speak to the LWRP Coordinator, based on 12 the evaluation that we just read to you. • 13 MR. ABBOTT: Sure. How do I get in 14 touch with him? 15 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: He is over in the 16 Annex. Just make an appointment to see him. 17 In the Planning Division over in the Annex. 18 MR. ABBOTT: What's his name? 19 MS. TOTH: Mark Terry. It should be on 20 the LWRP letter. 21 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: You have a copy of 22 the LWRP? 23 MS. RIGDON: It's actually not on 24 here. • 25 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: It says memorandum. July 11, 2013 Regular Meeting 133 • 1 Oh, it's on the top. 2 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Wait a minute. 3 There is a possibility that he may not meet 4 with you, okay? So, in that particular case 5 what would you like us to do? 6 MS. ANDALORO: Somebody should reach 7 out to the LWRP Coordinator for 8 clarification of his letter. I think you 9 have asked the applicant to place the VE 10 Line on his survey. 11 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That is what we 12 need. • 13 MS. ANDALORO: This plan is difficult. 14 I think it's confusing. I think this is 15 what Mark bases his decision on. There is 16 no distances on here, on these plans. 17 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: It's a site plan. 18 It's not a survey. 19 MS. ANDALORO: I know. I think if 20 there were approximate distances because 21 everything sounds so up in the air. The 22 other thing that you can do, Sir, and I 23 don't know if this is an option for you, 24 but you may want to wait and see where this • 25 comes out before you construct the bluff July 11, 2013 Regular Meeting 134 • 1 and then you come back to us? 2 MR. ABBOTT: That's an excellent idea. 3 However, if I have the opportunity now to 4 eliminate any problem, I want to do that 5 now. 6 MS. ANDALORO: You should certainly, 7 before you construct the bluff, take a look 8 at where the VE Zoning. I think that is 9 important. 10 MR. ABBOTT: The LWRP guy will not 11 meet with me directly? 12 MS. ANDALORO: He does support for the • 13 Board. 14 MR. ABBOTT: Can I ask a question? 15 MS. ANDALORO: Sure. 16 MR. ABBOTT: Would it be possible for 17 one of you gentlemen to join me and go over 18 there and make an appointment? He won't see 19 me. He will see you. 20 MS. ANDALORO: I am uncomfortable 21 making that representation. You should 22 talk to him about it first. He may be open 23 to meeting with you. I am just saying that 29 we never do that. So I just don't want to • 25 put him in an uncomfortable situation. We July 11, 2013 Regular Meeting 135 • 1 usually deal with him directly. He might be 2 willing to meet with you but we should talk 3 to him first. 4 MR. ABBOTT: That's great. That's even 5 better. 6 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: The situation with 7 our parties is, we're not permitted to 8 discuss the application outside a public 9 venue. Like we all can't go in some room 10 and start talking about this project. 11 MR. ABBOTT: People have done that a 12 lot with me. • 13 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: So we can't 14 actually go and talk to the LWRP 15 Coordinator without it being a public 16 noticed and noticed to the public that 17 we're doing that. We're obliged to be open. 18 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The question is, 19 how do we get the VE line on your survey? 20 Can we get it on your survey? 21 MR. ABBOTT: You know, I don't know 22 what a VE Line is. 23 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: It's a High 24 Velocity • 25 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: They must have July 11, 2013 Regular Meeting 136 • 1 looked at this site plan here, and said, 2 that okay, some of the scale your 3 outline of your gazebo of 11 feet from the 4 proposed bulkhead. 5 MR. ABBOTT: If that is what that 6 says, then it's incorrect, because that 7 should say 16 feet. The old gazebo was 16 8 feet from the front of the bulkhead. That 9 is all I want to do. That 11 feet is 10 incorrect. If he assumed that it was 11 11 feet, then that is incorrect. 12 MEMBER HORNING: If you go to whoever • 13 made this survey and you said to him, I 14 have a board that is requesting the VE Line 15 be put on the survey, he will know what 16 we're talking about. You don't necessarily 17 need to know. It's good to know what it is. 18 MR. ABBOTT: So he will know what it 19 is? 20 MEMBER HORNING: Yes. 21 MS. ANDALORO: That's very common 22 language. 23 MR. ABBOTT: I will get it done by 24 tomorrow. • 25 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: What we need it July 11, 2013 Regular Meeting 137 • 1 done by is the Special Meeting, which is 2 the 23rd of this month. 3 MR. ABBOTT: When you put that on the 4 drawing, how many drawings? One drawing? 5 Ten drawings? 6 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Six or seven. 7 MR. ABBOTT: Okay. And who do I bring 8 them to? 9 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Our office in the 10 Annex. Next to the Building Department. 11 Go into the Building Department and ring 12 the phone, and one of the gals come out. • 13 The ladies come out. 14 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Let's also try and 15 get a bulkhead 16 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Is the bulkhead 17 going to be put back in the exact same 18 place? lg MR. ABBOTT: Exact same place. 20 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: So we need a 21 proposed location. 22 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: We need a proposed 23 location landward of the VE line showing 24 where it is, from the west, from the • 25 bulkhead. July 11, 2013 Regular Meeting 138 • 1 MR. ABBOTT: So just to make sure I am 2 clear. He is going to give me a map with 3 the new VE Line on it. Then I am going to 4 ask him to move back 20 feet and write in a 5 10' x 15' gazebo. Is that what you need? 6 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That would be out 7 of the VE Zone. 8 MR. ABBOTT: Out of the VE Zone. 9 MS. ANDALORO: Just as long as it is 10 landward of where the VE Line is. It could 11 be less than that. It could be more as 12 well. • 13 MS. RIGDON: I will coordinate that. 14 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: The proposed 15 distance from the bulkhead to the base of 16 your gazebo. He is going to say that is 17 where you're going to place the gazebo. 18 MR. ABBOTT: That is not a problem. 19 Then when I get that, I have to go over to 20 the Building Department? 21 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Then you will ring 22 our phone and they will 23 MS. RIGDON: I will handle that. 24 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: We need that • 25 before the 25th, so we can close the July 11, 2013 Regular Meeting 139 • 1 hearing, assuming we have all that 2 information on the survey. 3 MR. ABBOTT: Okay. 4 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: And then we can 5 make a decision. 6 MR. ABBOTT: Very good. 7 MS. RIGDON: What time is the meeting? 8 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Special Meeting. 9 We have a Special Meeting. We will adjourn 10 this meeting to the 25th at which time, if 11 we have received your survey and we have no 12 further questions, we will close your • 13 hearing. 14 MS. RIGDON: Okay. What time? 15 MS. TOTH: Five o'clock. 16 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: By the Capital 17 One. 18 MS. RIGDON: Okay. 19 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Now, here is the 20 question, assuming that we have questions, 21 do you want to give them a date in August? 22 MS. TOTH: You can do that at the 23 Special. 24 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: We will do that. • 25 We will give you date in August, if we have July 11, 2013 Regular Meeting 140 • 1 questions with the information that we 2 have, which means, that you don't have to 3 notice anyone else. 4 MR. ABBOTT: Okay. Very good. 5 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: We will assume, I 6 hate to use this word, attempting to 7 comply. If you comply with everything that 8 we think that we need at that point, then 9 we will just close the hearing. 10 MR. ABBOTT: Very good. 11 MS. RIGDON: Thank you. 12 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Okay. I make a • 13 motion adjourning this hearing to the 25th, 14 7/25. 15 MEMBER HORNING: Second. 16 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: All in favor? 17 MEMBER DANTES: Aye. 18 MEMBER HORNING: Aye. 19 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye. 20 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye. 21 (See Minutes for Resolution.) 23 (Whereupon, the July 11, 2013, 24 Regular Meeting of the Zoning Board of • 25 Appeals concluded at 2:04 P.M.) July 11, 2013 Regular Meeting 141 • 1 2 C E R T I F I C A T I O N 3 4 5 I, Jessica DiLallo, certify that the 6 foregoing transcript of tape recorded Public 7 Hearings was prepared using required electronic 8 transcription equipment and is a true and accurate 9 record of the Hearings. 10 t ^ ry 11 Signature:__ i~~_~_"._~1_______ 12 Jessica DiLallo • 13 14 15 Jessica DiLallo Court Reporter 16 PO Box 984 Holbrook, New York 11741 17 18 Date: July 25, 2013 19 20 21 22 23 24 • 25