HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-08/08/2013 Hearing 1
RECEIVED
1 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS AU6 21 2013
COUNTY OF SUFFOLK: STATE OF NEW YORK------- gpARDOFAPPEALS
2 `~X'
3 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
4
5 X
y Southold Town Hall
Southold, New York
7
g August 8, 2013
10:16 A.M.
9
10 Board Members Present:
11
12 LESLIE KANES WEISMAN - Chairperson/Member
• 13 ERIC DANTES - Member
14 GEORGE HORNING - Member
15 KENNETH SCHNEIDER - Member
16
17 JENNIFER ANDALORO - Assistant Town Attorney
18 VICKI TOTH - Secretary
19
20 GERARD GOEHRINGER - Member (Excused)
21
22 Jessica DiLallo
Court Reporter
23 P.O. Box 984
Holbrook, New York 11741
24 (631)-338-1409
25
2
• 1 INDEX TO HEARINGS
2
3 Hearing Page
4
5 Nicholas & Mary Antonucci, #6638 3-12
6 Ralph M. Carbone, #6664 12-26
7 C & L Realty, #6672 26-46
8 Sanford H. & Elizabeth M. Friemann, #6667 46-64
9 Hugh Switzer, #6669 64-86
10 Robert K. Scripps, #6668 86-94
11 Ralph & Catherine Caselnova, #6673 94-103
12 Shari Cai, #6671 103-108
• 13 John Abbott, #6663 108-136
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
August 8, 2013 Regular Meeting 3
• 1 HEARING #6638 - NICHOLAS & MARY ANTONUCCI
2 MR. ANTONUCCI: that I redid the
3 application and updated it based upon the
4 items that we needed to go forward with
5 that, and that is why we're here today.
6 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Mr. Antonucci,
7 as I recall, your original Notice of
8 Disapproval was on a corner lot in Southold
9 and you had a front yard setback that was
10 nonconforming at 22.2 feet, where the code
11 requires 35. The new Notice of
12 Disapproval, as of August 5th, indicates a
• 13 front yard setback of 20.5 feet; is that
14 correct?
15 MR. ANTONUCCI: Yes.
16 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Tell us about
17 the changes that you're proposing? I think
18 we just got this information this morning.
19 MR. ANTONUCCI: Yeah. I am sorry, you
20 got
21 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I know you
22 adjourned in order to make some changes to
23 your application.
24 MR. ANTONUCCI: Yes.
25 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: So I just wanted
August 8, 2013 Regular Meeting 4
• 1 to have a chance to look over it.
2 MR. ANTONUCCI: Sure. If you want, I
3 can just give you an overview of what we're
4 looking to do?
5 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: That would be
6 great.
7 MR. ANTONUCCI: Our house the
8 plans that we're looking to build, we
9 couldn't go forward with them for various
10 reasons. And so, when we had to go back to
11 the drawing board, literally and
12 figuratively, we came up with the plans to
• 13 build would be 4 foot less on the
14 footprint on the frontage on Landon Lane.
15 So it would be 40' X 26'. So that would be
16 the footprint on Landon Lane. So we're
17 actually 4 feet back of where our footprint
18 is. One of the things that we're asking
19 for at this time, and we're not sure it
20 looks like we were not going to do it
21 initially, but we also put in the plans to
22 build a porch that would extend 2 feet over
23 what we have existing. And we the
24 reason we did that now is just to save time.
• 25 If we do want to put a porch on later on,
August 8, 2013 Regular Meeting 5
• 1 we would have that variance to do that.
2 But basically that is what we're looking to
3 do. Our house would be five bedrooms,
4 3 1/2 baths. Going from two bedrooms that
5 we have we're using a bedroom as a study
6 right now, and that is what we're looking
7 to do. The need or the reason for what
8 we're looking to do is, my family is
9 growing. I have three children. And
10 we're looking to bring my mother into my
11 house too. And that is what we're looking
12 to do. So it's going to be a
• 13 multi-generation house, but this way, my
14 mom has a place to live and it's safe and
15 secure. And that is what we're looking to
16 do. I also went around and got the
17 average setbacks from my neighborhood too.
18 To show that we're not doing anything that
19 is out of the ordinary in our neighborhood.
20 And I made some copies, if you would like
21 to see those?
22 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Yes. Please
23 come forward and submit those.
24 MR. ANTONUCCI: The overheads are
• 25 from Google maps. And I also noted the
August 8, 2013 Regular Meeting 6
• 1 addresses in the front of where we got this
2 information from. And so I guess, the
3 reason why we're really here today is
4 because if there was another way that we
5 could address this, if we combine adjacent
6 lots to build, there is no other avenue for
7 us to explore other than to seek relief with
8 this. And what we're looking to build, we
9 feel and hopefully you will agree, that
10 fits the tone of the neighborhood and we're
11 not looking to create anything that is
12 different from anything in the neighborhood.
• 13 We actually think that it will improve the
14 neighborhood because parts of our house are
15 in disrepair. Especially the exterior part.
16 And that's why we're here.
17 MEMBER DANTES: Looking at the few
18 surveys here, it looks like one is the
19 existing structure and one is the proposed
20 structure?
21 MR. ANTONUCCI: Yeah.
22 MEMBER DANTES: And what is the
23 increase in the building envelope?
24 MR. ANTONUCCI: In the building
• 25 envelope, I think I put down percentages of
August 8, 2013 Regular Meeting ~
• 1 what it would be in the application, but
2 we're going from 26' X 40', that would be
3 the new building footprint where it is.
4 And if you look at the old existing
5 footprint, we have this alcove in between,
6 that was in between the west wing of the
7 house, where that is. So basically all
8 we're looking to do is enclose that
9 footprint. To make a basic rectangle of
10 something that was irregular. We're not
11 extending out. I don't know if that
12 addresses your question?
• 13 MEMBER DANTES: It does. Thank you.
19 MR. ANTONUCCI: Backing up a little
15 bit, we had hoped to originally start
16 building earlier on because my kids we
17 were hoping to have the building done in the
18 summer because my kids attend Southold
19 Elementary and Junior Hiqh, the High School,
20 and so now we're going to be pushing this
21 back and hopefully once we do get started,
22 we will either have to find a rental place
23 or do something along those lines to get
24 this going.
• 25 MEMBER HORNING: Sir, did the Building
August 8, 2013 Regular Meeting 8
• 1 Department, when they amended the Notice of
2 Disapproval, did they mention anything about
3 lot coverage?
4 MR. ANTONUCCI: The Notice of
5 Disapproval says first construction is
6 nonconforming, 11,250 square foot lot in a
7 residential R-40 District pursuant to
8 Article XXIII 280-124, which states that in
9 lots measuring less than 20,000 square feet
10 in total size, the minimum front yard
11 setback is 35. And then it says the
12 proposed front yard setback is 22.3 feet,
• 13 but really it's 20.5, if we add that porch.
14 MEMBER HORNING: My colleague was
15 asking about this footprint increase, which
16 is showing in terms of lot coverage on the
17 survey, but I am asking, I think there is a
18 technicality involved here in lot coverage.
19 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: You're right.
20 The Notice of Disapproval should have
21 addressed the existing lot coverage that is
22 now 18.3°s and proposed, based on the new one
23 that you just submitted, it shows a total
24 lot coverage of 27.9. The code, in your
• 25 zone district
August 8, 2013 Regular Meeting 9
• 1 MR. ANTONUCCI: I have the numbers
2 that I calculated for lot coverage and I
3 get, let's see, 319.9.2 square foot
4 increase. So I get 2,261.72 square feet.
5 In my application, it's on the page where it
6 says "New Construction."
7 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I think that is
8 the surveyors error. I am glad that you
9 caught that George because I don't want
10 to stamp a survey that has an incorrect lot
11 coverage. The code only permits a maximum
12 of 20% in your Zone District, unless
• 13 variance relief is granted.
14 MR. ANTONUCCI: I put down current
15 would be 17.26%, the proposed is 20. The
16 17.97 is without porch.
17 MEMBER DANTES: In looking at the
18 survey here that shows the proposed new
19 section. This one here. It shows the
20 proposed deck, that it looks like it's
21 handwritten on there, it says, "Patio on
22 grade."
23 MR. ANTONUCCI: Yes. That was a
24 mistake. In the backyard, the one facing
• 25 the adjacent neighbors property. That would
August 8, 2013 Regular Meeting 10
• 1 be a patio. Not a porch. On grade.
2 MEMBER DANTES: It looks like the
3 survey shows proposed deck, in which case
4 the surveyor would include the deck
5 calculation
6 MR. ANTONUCCI: That is the error.
7 MEMBER DANTES: I need a revised
8 survey to show that.
9 MR. ANTONUCCI: Okay.
10 MEMBER HORNING: That is 20.10, lot
11 coverage?
12 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: That's
• 13 considered De Minimus.
14 MEMBER HORNING: Okay. So we hope
15 that is around 20~.
16 MR. ANTONUCCI: Yes. Based on the
17 numbers and what we elected to do, it would
18 be that.
19 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Does the Board
20 have any other questions?
21 (No Response.)
22 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Is there anyone
23 in the audience that wishes to address this
24 application?
• 25 MEMBER HORNING: I have a question.
August 8, 2013 Regular Meeting 11
• 1 How soon can we get an updated survey?
2 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I am going to
3 make a motion to close this hearing subject
4 to a revised survey. We have 62 days from
5 the date of the closing of the hearing,
6 which would be today, to make a decision;
7 however, the sooner that you can get us the
8 survey, we can move as quickly as two weeks
9 from today.
10 MR. ANTONUCCI: I will go right to
11 Peconic Surveyor right now.
12 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I just wanted
• 13 you to be aware of it, because I know that
19 you're eager to get going. So as soon as
15 you get it to us, I will put it on the
16 agenda for the next meeting, which will be
17 in two weeks.
18 MR. ANTONUCCI: I also wanted to
19 mention, we appreciate the Board's patience
20 with someone who has never gone through this
21 before because it's been a process. Thank
22 you for your patience.
23 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: That's what
24 we're here for.
• 25 I don't think anyone seconded it.
August 6, 2013 Regular Meeting 12
• 1 MEMBER DANTES: I will second it.
2 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: All in favor?
3 MEMBER DANTES: Aye.
4 MEMBER HORNING: Aye.
5 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye.
6 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Aye.
7 (See Minutes for Resolution.)
g HEARING #6664 - RALPH M. CARBONE, JR.
10 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The next
11 application before the Board is Ralph M.
12 Carbone, #6664. This hearing was adjourned
• 13 from last month, so there is no need to read
14 the legal notice into the record.
15 Good morning.
16 MR. HAM: Steven Ham, 38 Nugent
17 Street, Southampton, for the applicant.
18 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: We were very
19 pleased yesterday, when Eric and Ken and I
20 went over for the annual meeting and meet
21 Mr. Carbone, but also to see the site
22 personally. So it was very constructive for
23 all of us. And there is a great deal of
29 paperwork here.
• 25 MR. HAM: I have some more here for
August B, 2013 Regular Meeting 13
• 1 you, unfortunately.
2 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I believe that
3 there are some issues having to do with the
4 LWRP that you're going to want to be
5 addressing, rather for my jumping in and
6 letting you go ahead.
7 MR. HAM: That was one, and the Soil
8 Technician report was another. A necessity
9 with the Coastal Erosion permit for a small
10 portion of the foundation, was a third
11 issue. The swimming pool was a fourth and a
12 sprinklering of the Captain's Loft was a
• 13 fifth. Those were the five issues that I
14 walked away with and I have a memorandum
15 that will be able to address each of them.
16 So I think before I present that, I want to
17 say in terms of the LWRP, I have engaged and
18 have had conversations over the last week
19 with Stanley White, who is the Coastal
20 Engineer, who designed the bluff
21 stabilization project, and I understand, he
22 is also a consultant on the Harvey property.
23 And I asked him to address the consistency
24 issues and so forth, and he was out in Ohio,
• 25 and couldn't attend the hearing, but based
August 8, 2013 Regular Meeting 14
1 on his comments and so forth, we have an
• 2 affidavit from him, which addresses the
3 consistency issues that were in the LWRP
4 report. I have an original of that and
5 copies are attached to the memorandum that I
6 am giving you, where I present some
7 arguments on consistency as well. That will
8 go over.
g CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay.
10 MR. HAM: First, I had a hard time
11 getting my hands around this LWRP report and
12 I decided one of the reasons is, Mr. Terry
• 13 was using an existing conditions sketch,
14 which is in the report. And that shows the
15 house and the deck seaward of the Coastal
16 Erosion Hazard Line, and his recommendation
17 is the to satisfy that, the structures
18 should be moved landward of the Coastal
19 Erosion Line, and that, as he has pointed
20 out in the affidavit and as I have pointed
21 out in the memorandum, is exactly what will
22 happen upon completion of the bluff
23 restoration. The structures will be
24 landward of that line, except possibly for a
• 25 small portion of the existing foundation,
August 8, 2013 Regular Meeting 15
1 which will be used to support an open deck
• 2 in that area. Now, one thing that Mr. Terry
3 does not list when he cites the LWRP
4 policies, that I point out in the memorandum
5 if you look on Page 2 of his report, #3,
6 he has an A, B and C for the exception.
7 Maintaining existing development and
8 structures in hazard areas may be warranted
9 for, and then he list three items. There is
10 a fourth there, and that has to do with
11 existing structures where it is not
12 practical to move them. So I would argue in
• 13 the case of that small foundation, that may
14 remain seaward of the Coastal Erosion Hazard
15 Line, that it's still consistent with the
16 LWRP Policies because everyone reads, and as
17 I pointed out in the memorandum, the soil
18 technician, Mr. White and his affidavit and
19 I think the Board concurred at the last
20 meeting, that it's not only impractical but
21 imprudent to try and move a foundation just
22 to satisfy a small setback encroachment into
23 that erosion line. So we feel that by
24 completing the bluff restoration project,
• 25 that would satisfy Mr. Terry's concerns in
August 8, 2013 Regular Meeting 16
1 terms of consistency. Even though a small
2 part of that foundation continues to lie on
3 the Coastal Erosion Hazard area. There is
4 also concurrence of James King of the Board
5 of Trustees on this. We tried to get a
6 letter for you from on this. He was
7 unwilling to give it. I have an exhibit
8 there with my back and forth with the staff
9 member from the Board of Trustees. He felt
10 that it was unnecessary to I guess it
11 would be their interpretation of no Coastal
12 Erosion Permit is required. That their
• 13 Wetland's Permit covers everything that the
14 Carbone's wanted to do at the proposed,
15 insofar as State jurisdiction is concerned.
16 The other recommendation to satisfy some
17 other concerns were the LWRP's policies that
18 Mr. Terry worked, it is recommended that the
19 Board reference the Soil District Report.
20 In my memorandum, I have take from that
21 report. It was not easy because it was
22 lumped together many of the recommendations,
23 and by large, the Carbone's are comfortable
24 with all them. We were asked if they would
• 25 be acceptable conditions to any variances
August 8, 2013 Regular Meeting 17
1 that you might grant. There were a couple
• 2 of exceptions. Again, like Mr. Terry, the
3 soil technician did not interpret was
4 using any existing conditions as opposed to
5 proposed conditions on the site plan, which
6 you have in the record, to show where the
7 various structures would be in relation to
8 the top of bluff. So I pointed out at the
9 last hearing, in fact, that the silk fence
10 that she mentions would have to be on the
11 face of the bluff, will not. There will be
12 ample flat area at the top of the bluff
• 13 following completion of this bluff
14 restoration for that. There are some minor
15 issues that we hope you will agree with us
16 on concerning the use of (In Audible). This
17 again, is in the memo. I don't need to go
18 into all the details. She mentions having
19 soil removed. We're happy to remove
20 contaminated soil but the intent is to keep
21 native soil on site and use that, but by
22 enlarge the Carbone's are in agreement that
23 her recommendations would be carried out.
24 So I think that addresses between Mr. White
• 25 and us dealing with Mr. Terry's
August 8, 2013 Regular Meeting 18
• 1 recommendations, I think a consistency
2 finding would be appropriate in this case.
3 Insofar as now, I have dealt with the
4 soil technician's the first issue was
5 consistency. The second issue was soil
6 technician's recommendations. The third was
7 the Coastal Erosion Hazard Permit would be
8 needed for a very small part of the
9 foundation that was contained to be in that
10 hazard area. Again, the Trustees do not
11 feel that is necessary. The other two
12 issues had to do with the installation of
• 13 the sprinkler system. The Carbone's have
14 decided that if it's continued to be
15 interpreted as a third-story, the Captain's
16 Loft, and continues to be counted as part of
17 the building and therefore, would have to be
18 sprinklered, we would not carry that out at
19 this time due to extent of it. I would say,
20 if you could look at it as more of a
21 decorative feature, like a cupola or a
22 belfry, that would be appreciated, but if
23 not, then we would withdraw that part of the
24 application.
• 25 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The plans show
August 8, 2013 Regular Meeting 19
1 stairs going up to what is considered
2 habitable space.
3 MR. HAM: Right.
4 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: And that is
5 considered a third-floor.
6 MR. HAM: I understand.
7 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: And what
8 changes, if any, would you propose to make
9 in order to maintain it as a decorative
10 feature rather than habitable space?
11 MR. HAM: Mr. Catalano is the
12 architect.
• 13 MR. CATALANO: Hi. Tom Catalano,
14 Catalano Architects. The only changes would
15 be replacement of the existing
16 demonstration. If you had a chance to go up
17 there during the site visits, it would be to
18 replace the existing windows. We would
19 leave the structure as is.
20 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay. The
21 stairs would still be in place?
22 MR. CATALANO: Yes. No changes on the
23 stairs.
24 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: So the proposal
• 25 is then to remove one of the request for
August 8, 2013 Regular Meeting 20
• 1 variances for a third-story habitable space?
2 MR. CATALANO: Yes.
3 MR. HAM: Yes, it is. It would be
9 considered non-habitable.
5 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I think the
6 Building Department determined it to be
7 habitable based upon it had enough space
8 to put a chair down and bookshelves and so
9 on. It would appear from that, that someone
10 can stay up there and utilize it. You can
11 go up there for a view once in a while.
12 Tell us how you would describe it?
• 13 MR. CATALANO: It's really an
14 alteration to space. It has a height of
15 over seven feet. So it probably does reach
16 the absolute minimum requirements to be
17 defined as habitable space. I guess, in a
18 preexisting nonconforming sense, our only
19 intention was to spruce it up so that it
20 doesn't quite have a negative visual impact
21 on the house as it does now. And there is
22 no foreseeable occupancy of that, other than
23 an intermittent basis. It's quite hot up
24 there in the summertime. So it's not a real
• 25 comfortable space that someone can occupy on
August 8, 2013 Regular Meeting 21
• 1 a permanent basis.
2 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: So if we were to
3 condition this, remove the variance and
9 condition it upon granting it as a height
5 conforming decorative feature that is
6 non-habitable, would that be something
7 MR. CATALANO: No. Not at all.
8 MEMBER HORNING: I don't want to be in
9 the position where we're going against the
10 Town Code, you know, with my conversation
11 with our fire inspector about the codes.
12 It's kind of an unusual thing in the Town of
• 13 Southold. I will just say what I heard, and
14 how I interpreted it. Third-story
15 three-story structures are allowed in New
16 York State, under the condition that the
17 entire premises is sprinklered. Three-story
18 structures are not allowed in the Town of
19 Southold, only two and a half story
20 structures are. You can have something like
21 this and get a variance from the State but
22 the variance says you don't need to
23 sprinkler the whole household. You just
24 need to sprinkler the structure from the
• 25 third-story structure all the way to the
August 8, 2013 Regular Meeting 22
• 1 nearest egress. That is what the fire
2 inspector tells me. I don't want to see us
3 having some sort of a decision that violates
4 State Code or Town Code.
5 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: We wouldn't be
6 doing that. It's our jurisdiction to make a
7 determination as to whether or not this is
8 non-habitable space and a decorative
9 feature, an observation area and
10 non-habitable space. Also you're right, the
11 code does not require that the entire house
12 be sprinklered. Only that area to be
• 13 sprinklered. An egress will be the
14 stairwell
15 MEMBER HORNING: No. It has to be an
16 exterior area. We went over that at the
17 other hearing. I think it's a little bit of
18 a problem.
19 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: This is a
20 Building Department issue really.
21 MEMBER HORNING: if we got our own
22 attorney to give us some advice on how to
23 steer us that way.
24 MS. ANDALORO: I think you have
• 25 adequately addressed the issue on the
August 8, 2013 Regular Meeting 23
• 1 record.
2 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay. Well, at
3 least we understand what your intent is, to
4 keep this as an original footprint of the
5 architecture and you're not really
6 interested in expansion and creating a great
7 deal of financial burden and sprinkler the
8 whole area as a consequence.
9 MR. HAM: And the extent of a fire
10 sprinkler system, it's just going to be 80°s
11 of the cost of the entire building. So it's
12 quite onus from an expense standpoint.
• 13 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Well, we will
14 have to figure out how we might avoid this
15 one option would be to go back to the
16 Building Department and simply work it out
17 with them. You know, "What do we have to do
18 to keep it, for it to be determined as
19 non-habitable space?" Therefore it's not a
20 third-story. That is one option.
21 MR. CATALANO: There is no heat there.
22 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: So it's not
23 conditioned. And you're not proposing to
24 condition it?
• 25 MR. CATALANO: No. It's an existing
August 8, 2013 Regular Meeting 29
• 1 structure. There is no change of use.
2 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay.
3 MR. HAM: There is one more issue that
4 the Board has and that is the swimming pool,
5 which currently did not have a building
6 permit or Certificate of Occupancy. What we
7 plan to do is bring you an application for a
8 building permit sometime in the Fall for
9 that and come to your Board as necessary and
10 do that. My clients are willing to I
11 know you like to have everything clean when
12 you issue when you grant a variance but
• 13 they're willing to make a condition of any
19 variances that they might get, that you
15 would hold up CO's on the residence until
16 the necessary pool applications have been
17 made. So we hope that you can proceed with
18 this matter without requiring the Carbone's
19 to deal with the pool at this time.
20 Especially, we would have to re-advertise
21 and everything else. It would slow us down.
22 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Questions?
23 George, anything else?
24 MEMBER HORNING: No.
• 25 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Is there anyone
August 8, 2013 Regular Meeting 25
1 else in the audience that wishes to address
• 2 this application?
3 (No Response.)
4 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay. I think
5 we have covered everything, and I have no
6 further questions. We have quite the
7 paperwork.
8 MEMBER HORNING: Can we get an
9 estimate now of the percentage of completion
10 of the stabilization?
11 MR. CARBONS: Ralph Carbone, owner.
12 No work has been proceeded since our last
• 13 hearing. So they plan to start the end of
19 August or right after Labor Day in earnest
15 to get the project completed. So we're
16 still at the 30°s.
17 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Anything else
18 from anyone?
19 (No Response.)
20 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay. Hearing
21 no further questions or comments from
22 anyone, I will make a motion to close this
23 hearing and reserve decision to a later
24 date.
• 25 Second?
August 8, 2013 Regular Meeting 26
1 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Second.
• 2 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Seconded by Ken.
3 All in favor?
4 MEMBER DANTES: Aye.
5 MEMBER HORNING: Aye.
6 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye.
7 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Aye.
8 (See Minutes for Resolution.)
10 HEARING #6672 - C&L REALTY, INC.
11 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The next
12 application before the Board is for C&L
• 13 Realty, #6672. This is a request for
14 variances from Article XXII Section
15 280-116(B) and Article XIII Section 280-56
16 and the Building Inspector's June 28, 2013
17 Notice of Disapproval based on an
18 application for building permit to construct
19 decking additions to an existing commercial
20 building, at 1) less than the code required
21 bulkhead setback of 75 feet, 2) more than
22 the code permitted lot coverage of 30~ in
23 the MII District, located at: 61600 Main
29 Road, a/k/a State Route 25, adjacent to
• 25 Budd's Pond in Southold.
August 8, 2013 Regular Meeting 27
1 Is someone here to represent that
• 2 application?
3 MR. STRANG: Good morning, everyone.
4 Garrett A. Strang, architect, Southold, New
5 York.
6 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Garrett, I want
7 to give you Mark Terry's LWRP report. A
8 copy of that. We just received it.
9 MR. STRANG: Obviously the nature of
10 our application is to deal with getting
11 access to the building. After Super Storm
12 Sandy, this property did suffer severe
• 13 damages throughout and it became evident, as
14 far as what was there, as far as walkways
15 and lights needed to be repaired. These
16 walkways originally were concrete and steps
17 and things like that. Concrete steps and
18 concrete walkways. There was an application
19 and permit granted by both the DEC and the
20 Trustees to replace in-kind. Then it became
21 evident that that wasn't going to address
22 the issue of making the building accessible
23 because we have had no ramps or anything
24 there. So the applications to the DEC and
• 25 the Trustees were modified to build this
August 8, 2013 Regular Meeting 28
1 particular structure that you're seeing
• 2 before you presently, which brings the board
3 walk up to the height of the building. So
4 that the building is totally accessible.
5 Those permits were amended and granted by
6 those two agencies. When we filed for the
7 building permit to do that work, the
8 Building Department said, "No, you need a
9 variance." My interpretation of the code
10 was that it was an accessory structure, in
11 that, it's freestanding and not attached to
12 the building. Totally a freestanding
• 13 structure. There position was, well, if I
14 can stand from this to that, it becomes part
15 of the building. It's a matter of
16 interpretation in my opinion. So at this
17 point, we're asking the Board to grant us
18 the necessary relief to do thee structures,
19 which would then make this entire building
20 accessible.
21 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay. Let's
22 just enter into the record that the bulkhead
23 setback that is proposed is at 28.2 feet.
24 The code requires 75 feet; however, the
• 25 entire structure is much closer than 75 feet
August 8, 2013 Regular Meeting 29
1 in its current location. The lot coverage
• 2 that is being proposed is 31.3$, where the
3 code permits a maximum of 30~ in an MII
4 District. I just wanted to make sure that
5 the record included that information
6 specifically of what you're requesting.
7 MR. STRANG: Yes, that's correct.
8 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I have a few
9 questions here. You see in the LWRP report
10 that the recommendation of the lot coverage
11 is primarily in a flood zone. That is not a
12 problem with consistency, nor is the deck
• 13 that is in the AE Zone. The concern is
14 fundamentally the portion of the building
15 and decking that is VE Zone. We don't
16 really have that those zones on the
17 survey.
18 MR. STRANG: No. I take exception to
19 Mark's interpretation of the map. When I
20 look at the flood map, which I have a copy
21 with me, it indicates that the VE Zone is
22 basically the bulkhead. There is an area
23 that's within the site that includes part of
24 the building, that is called a "moderate
• 25 wave action zone." That is still an AE
August 8, 2013 Regular Meeting 30
1 Zone. My position, and I can show the Board
• 2 if they want to look at the map where the VE
3 Zone ends. The white line is the end of the
4 VE Zone.
5 MEMBER HORNING: We need this on a
6 survey.
7 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I think the way
8 to resolve the whole thing, because I have
9 certainly no issue of what is being proposed
10 as long as we're facing this all the time
11 now. Where the VE Zone is being built where
12 the high wave action. So now we're having
• 13 everybody put all that information into a
14 survey. It's the only way we can actually
15 really determine what is being proposed
16 where. So if you could take that map into,
17 and of course they have that information
18 who is your surveyor, Medford?
19 MR. STRANG: Yeah.
20 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: And ask them to
21 put that information, where the AE Zone and
22 VE Zone is and then we will see exactly what
23 is where and presuming all your information
24 is correct, everything should be in the AE
• 25 Zone, and then we're fine.
August 8, 2013 Regular Meeting 31
1 MR. STRANG: Just for the record, if I
• 2 may? Even if we find that part of the deck
3 is in the VE Zone or part of the boardwalk
4 is in the VE Zone, its construction is not
5 prohibited. We have to do a slightly
6 different technique.
7 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: We have to find
8 some way of mitigating circumstances to
9 permit construction in a VE Zone, which
10 certainly this Board has the jurisdiction to
11 do. One thing would help is to tell us what
12 percentage, and why you have to have it.
• 13 MR. STRANG: Okay.
14 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: That would be
15 something that would be helpful a great
16 deal.
17 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: You said there was
18 a different type of construction that was
19 recommended in the VE Zone?
20 MR. STRANG: In the VE Zone, you have
21 to build in pilings. Okay. Now what we
22 proposed in this case, and you probably
23 don't have the construction drawings because
24 I didn't want to muddy up the file for you,
• 25 giving you drawings that the Building
August 8, 2013 Regular Meeting 32
1 Department has. So we're constructing this
• 2 by 6 X 6 posts and concrete sonotube
3 footings that go down below the line. There
4 is an anchoring system to hold that post to
5 the footing. And then the posts is anchored
6 to the gutter and suit structure of the
7 decking system. So everything is tied in
8 place and not haphazardly and get blown
9 away. It's all anchored down.
10 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: It's typical
11 construction or is that also applicable to
12 the VE Zone?
• 13 MR. STRANG: Because this is such an
14 accessory structure, it could be applicable
15 in a VE Zone. I could check with FEMA's
16 recommendation on that. Because FEMA is the
17 one that dictates what type of construction
18 you're going to use. And if you're building
19 a house or a building, you have to put it on
20 piling driven or jetted piling foundation,
21 because in the VE Zone you got the velocity
22 wave action that would be pushing on the
23 structure. So you need to have the pilings.
24 Since there is no walls, per se, there is no
• 25 minimal lateral forces on it, just the deck
August 8, 2013 Regular Meeting 33
1 and joists. So this system may be accepted
• 2 by FEMA, if you find that it goes into the
3 VE Zone.
4 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Okay. That was my
5 question.
6 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: On your
7 architectural plans you note that grade is
8 to be flushed with the boardwalk. Could you
9 tell me a little bit about that?
10 MR. STRANG: It was part of the
11 application with the DEC and the Trustees to
12 address a softer transition, opposed to just
• 13 vertical lines. So there would be a terrace
14 in this case, a sloping of natural grade
15 that will be landscaped.
16 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: This is for the
17 ramp?
18 MR. STRANG: No, the ramp is there
19 really is no ramp per se. The way that I
20 have designed it, it's more of a sidewalk
21 pitch. So we don't have to have railings.
22 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I was going to
23 ask you about that because I noticed that
24 there was no railings on your drawings. You
25 didn't provide elevation drawings. I
August 8, 2013 Regular Meeting 34
• 1 couldn't determine what was the slope. Is
2 it 1 to 12?
3 MR. STRANG: No. It's much shallower
4 than 1 to 12. 1 to 12 would require
5 railings, because that is by definition a
6 ramp. Our slope is, I believe, 32 to 1.
7 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: It's very
8 gradual.
9 MR. STRANG: Yes. It's basically what
10 would be a sidewalk pitch. And that was
11 intentional, not to have railings. And that
12 was the other issue as to why the grade was
• 13 brought up to along side the boardwalk, so
14 that we don't have to have railings. 1 and
15 32 is the pitch or 3/8's of a foot.
16 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Now, what is the
17 material? That is not shown.
18 MR. STRANG: It's treated wood. 6 X 6
19 posts. Treated wood deck posts. And the
20 surface material is probably going to be
21 synthetic, PVC or Trex or something like
22 that.
23 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Eric, any
24 questions?
• 25 MEMBER DANTES: No.
August 8, 2013 Regular Meeting 35
• 1 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: George?
2 MEMBER HORNING: The survey that we're
3 using as a reference is dated June 27, 2011.
4 It says, with proposed boardwalk and
5 platform. Do you have a copy of that?
6 MR. STRANG: Yes, I believe it's the
7 one that I am looking at.
8 MEMBER HORNING: There is a little
9 footnote on the left that says, "existing
10 improvement in the area of proposed platform
11 and boardwalk is not shown on here." And
12 so, going back to the permitting process,
• 13 there was a permitting for concrete
14 sidewalk?
15 MR. STRANG: Yes.
16 MEMBER HORNING: And did the storm
17 change the mindset?
18 MR. STRANG: Well, there was
19 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: You have to just
20 state your name.
21 MS. SEPNOSKI: Kathleen Sepnoski,
22 representing the family. Originally it was
23 for concrete because there existed already
24 concrete porches and landings on all of the
• 25 buildings. However, they are all at
August 8, 2013 Regular Meeting 36
• 1 different grades and it's been a hindrance
2 to some of the elderly and some of the
3 families with children and strollers.
4 Getting in and out of the various buildings.
5 But we were going to proceed with the
6 concrete and then we had Super Storm Sandy.
7 So we had the permit in place for a year
8 with the Trustees and it didn't need to be
9 with the DEC. After the storm, this was the
10 opportunity to make the change, so that we
11 could address all these different levels and
12 platforms. And the age of some of the
• 13 concrete, it was a trip hazard in some of
14 the places. The other part of it so we
15 switched to the wood. The Trustees didn't
16 have a problem. We were able to modify the
17 application and they approved it as well.
18 The slope, it's a very gradual slope that
19 comes off the edge and back towards the
20 bulkhead because we saw in making repairs
21 from Irene, that by putting the landscape
22 cloth down first, putting a base inside of
23 (In Audible) over top and then putting
24 another layer, helps slow some of the
• 25 erosion that goes around the bulkhead of our
August 8, 2013 Regular Meeting 37
• 1 whole property. So we did repair on that
2 95% and we just completed it in this area.
3 And we will make the rest of this pitch once
4 it's approved because we're going to be
5 digging. Whether it's concrete or it's
6 wood, we want to make that repair after we
7 finish this feature. The other reason why
8 we wanted to go with wood is because if we
9 ever come up with the funds from disaster
10 relief, we potentially may be approaching
11 the town, and say if we could lift the
12 building and get it out of harms way. We're
• 13 barely affording to make some of the repairs
14 that are necessary. We have gotten in the
15 rooms and the lobby and we're working on the
16 last portion of the building right now to
17 work on the repairs from Sandy. So right
18 now it's just cost prohibitive to have gone
19 down that path to raise the building. It is
20 in our mind, but in the future. The money
21 that we're spending on this deck, the deck
22 could rise with the building. Rather than
23 have spent the money on the concrete. So I
24 think that addresses a couple of questions.
• 25 MEMBER HORNING: What did the storm
August 8, 2013 Regular Meeting 38
1 damage?
2 MS. SEPNOSKI: The storm damage was
3 cosmetic to the interior. We had already
4 all of our (In Audible) higher up but the
5 wall boards. Specific to two of the
6 porches, because of the age of them, the
7 block had some of the mortar missing. The
8 waves actually got into it and cracked it
9 more. I do have a couple of pictures.
10 We're using two pieces of (In Audible) that
11 we salvaged from the water to be the
12 temporary porch to get in and out of the
• 13 building, until such time we can do this.
14 So those were the reasons why we chose to
15 make this repair.
16 MEMBER HORNING: Of the Wetland's
17 Permit #7770, which was in April, its says
18 approving the repair and replacement of the
19 concrete sidewalk and decking. You didn't
20 do any of that?
21 MS. SEPNOSKI: We haven't.
22 MEMBER HORNING: You didn't do any of
23 the things that you were permitted for and
24 then you got a revised
• 25 MS. SEPNOSKI: Correct. We hadn't had
August 8, 2013 Regular Meeting 39
1 the time to do it given the temperature of
2 the winter and all of the other issues that
3 we were faced in repairing 14 of the other
4 hotel units and all of our docks, which were
5 damaged.
6 MEMBER HORNING: So going back to the
7 survey and the note on the survey, the
8 existing improvement in the area of the
9 proposed platform and boardwalk is not shown
10 herein, it was all concrete sidewalk?
11 MS. SEPNOSKI: It was all we were
12 going to cover the same area but it was
• 13 going to be concrete.
19 MEMBER HORNING: But it wasn't new.
15 The existing improvements were not the new
16 improvements that you were permitted for?
17 You never did those. That's what you're
18 saying?
19 MS. SEPNOSKI: Correct.
20 MEMBER HORNING: Okay. Good. The
21 other buildings on the site, are they part
22 of your operation?
23 MS. SEPNOSKI: Yes.
24 MEMBER HORNING: And you use for what
• 25 kind of things?
August 8, 2013 Regular Meeting 40
• 1 MS. SEPNOSKI: The other buildings on
2 the site are hotel rooms.
3 MEMBER HORNING: No, I mean, there are
4 other buildings maybe associated with the
5 marina? I understand where the hotel is,
6 from the road out to the bay. Then there is
7 a couple of other buildings. Are they on
8 your site? They're on your survey.
9 MS. SEPNOSKI: Right now, they're
10 primarily storage. We haven't had the funds
11 to renovate all.
12 MEMBER HORNING: Storage used for the
• 13 hotel?
14 MS. SEPNOSKI: Storage used for the
15 hotels. Storage used because there are
16 20 dock slips that are associated with this,
17 so we have the transient guests that come
18 and stay in the rooms as well as docking.
19 So we have kayaks. We have other facets of
20 the marina. My parents also own Port of
21 Egypt Marine. So we use the property for
22 multiple use.
23 MEMBER HORNING: Can you just quickly
29 speak to this item here, proposed 30 foot
• 25 right-of-way? What is that all about?
August 8, 2013 Regular Meeting 41
• 1 MS. SEPNOSKI: When the Marr Family
2 originally owned the property, they owned
3 all the way over into what is now
4 Albertson's basin. So the property was
5 split. They sold Bill Whiskey and his
6 family the basin, and the land that is in
7 front of that basin. And they sold to my
8 parents, the land and the hotel attached to
9 our side. So in order for Bill Whiskey to
10 get to that bit of land, he has a
11 right-of-way through the property.
12 MEMBER HORNING: Okay. Thank you.
• 13 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Anything from
19 anybody else?
15 MS. SEPNOSKI: And I do have the
16 pictures. You can see that where the end
17 of the deck is. It's so well back from
18 where the boardwalk ends.
19 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Now, we talked
20 about some things that would be beneficial
21 to the Board to have as part of our records.
22 No. 1, we need to have a survey with the VE
23 and the AE Zone, and No. 2, if any
24 structures happen to be in that VE Zone, the
• 25 percentage of the overall proposed
August 8, 2013 Regular Meeting 42
• 1 improvement that are in the VE Zone. And
2 the information relative to the
3 construction. Whether or not the
4 construction in that VE Zone is FEMA
5 compliant. And also, I believe the
6 information about the landscaping technique
7 that you employed around the bulkheading to
8 prevent washout and so on. It would be
9 helpful, although it's in the record,
10 because you testified, but if you want to
11 write up anything about that, those I think
12 can be considered mitigation to flooding and
• 13 so on.
14 Is there anything else that the Board
15 would like information wise?
16 MR. STRANG: Just two points, if I
17 may? One, I am looking at the survey now,
18 and actually on the survey it says that the
19 flood zone is actually AE. Lower left-hand
20 corner.
21 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Yes, it does.
22 MS. TOTH: But that's an old flood
23 map.
24 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: It has all
• 25 changed. And so many surveys do that now.
August 8, 2013 Regular Meeting 43
• 1 It's all changing. Even as we speak.
2 MR. STRANG: I will take care of that.
3 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Yes. Let's get
4 an updated version so we know exactly what
5 we're talking about and how to address the
6 LWRP. Is there anything else that you would
7 like to tell us?
8 MR. STRANG: Yes. Just so the Board
9 is aware, there was existing to the entry to
10 what is the lobby area, prior to the storm,
11 there was an existing canopy over that. To
12 cover the entrance. And although it is not
• 13 shown on this drawing, it is intended to be
14 replaced in-kind. So just so the Board is
15 aware of that.
16 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: What building
17 are we talking about? If it's replacing
18 in-kind, then I believe it's as of right.
19 MR. STRANG: Just wanted to make sure
20 it was on the record.
21 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: It's as of
22 right.
23 MEMBER HORNING: On the survey, is
29 that kind of a proposed platform area?
• 25 MS. SEPNOSKI: Yes.
August 8, 2013 Regular Meeting 44
• 1 MR. STRANG: It would be right here.
2 Where the jog is on the survey. This. It
3 would be right about here. This is the
4 lobby.
5 MEMBER HORNING: So does it stick out
6 beyond the boardwalk?
7 MS. SEPNOSKI: It doesn't go beyond.
8 MEMBER HORNING: Okay. And how big is
9 the canopy area?
10 MR. STRANG: About eight feet wide.
11 MS. SEPNOSKI: Just enough to cover
12 the door way entrances.
• 13 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: All right. Is
14 everyone good?
15 (No Response.)
16 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Is there anyone
17 else in the audience that wishes to address
18 this application?
19 (No Response.)
20 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Hearing no
21 further questions or comments, I am going to
22 make a motion to adjourn this to the Special
23 Meeting, which is in two weeks, to give you
24 the opportunity to put everything that you
• 25 need together and make absolutely sure that
August 8, 2013 Regular Meeting 45
• 1 the Board doesn't have any additional
2 questions. If we don't, we can close it and
3 deliberate as soon as possible. It might
4 even be if we get the information really
5 quickly, we may be at the best case
6 scenario, we may be able to deliberate that
7 evening at the closing, if we have enough
8 time to write a draft decision because we
9 have new material, and we don't have any
10 questions about it. So that would be the
11 best case scenario. The next scenario would
12 be to close it in two weeks and we would
• 13 write the decision and then at the next
14 meeting, we would deliberate, which would be
15 a month from today. It depends on part on
16 how fast you're able to put everything
17 together.
18 MR. STRANG: We will do A.S.A.P. We
19 appreciate that.
20 MS. SEPNOSKI: I appreciate it.
21 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: A large matter
22 depends on when we can get all what we need
23 from you so that we know exactly what we're
24 deliberating on. As I said, if we can get
• 25 that in a timely way, the earliest would be
August 8, 2013 Regular Meeting 46
• 1 two weeks from today. If not, we will close
2 two weeks from today, unless we have
3 additional questions, and then we can
4 deliberate at the next meeting. We meet
5 every two weeks. So that is we all have
6 to be at a public meeting to deliberate.
7 MR. STRANG: Very good. Thank you
8 very much.
9 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Is there a
10 second to my motion?
11 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Second.
12 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: All in favor?
• 13 MEMBER DANTES: Aye.
14 MEMBER HORNING: Aye.
15 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye.
16 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Aye.
17 (See Minutes for Resolution.)
19 HEARING #6667 - SANFORD H. & ELIZABETH
20 M. FRIEMANN
21 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The next
22 application before the Board is for Sanford
23 and Elizabeth Friemann, #6667. Request for
24 variance from Article XXII Code Section
• 25 280-116(B) based on an application for
August 8, 2013 Regular Meeting 97
• 1 building permit and the Building Inspector's
2 May 29, 2013 Notice of Disapproval
3 concerning a permit for demolition and
4 reconstruction of beach house/cabana/deck,
5 at; 1) proposed structure at less than the
6 code required bulkhead setback of 75 feet,
7 located at: 1165 Old Harbor Road, adjacent
8 to Cutchogue Harbor in New Suffolk.
9 MR. FRIEMANN: Good morning.
10 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Sir, before you
11 come forward, would you please state your
12 name for the record?
• 13 MR. FRIEMANN: My name is Sanford
14 Friemann. I live at 1165 Old Harbor Road,
15 New Suffolk.
16 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay. This is a
17 copy of which we have just recently
18 received. Okay. What would you like to
19 tell us?
20 MR. FRIEMANN: I believe that you have
21 my application, the Trustees' permit, my
22 grandfather permit, all pertaining to which
23 we lost also in Hurricane Sandy. We propose
29 a new structure to build it to today's FEMA
• 25 standards. And we believe that it's out of
August 8, 2013 Regular Meeting 48
1 the VE Zone. And we were located,
• 2 approximately 3 feet landward of the prior
3 structure, which was seaward, and
4 approximately 2 1/2 feet higher from the top
5 of the bulkhead. The new structure will be
6 built on pilings, according to FEMA
7 standards. This is nothing more than a
8 7' X 18' foot shed. It's not habitable. It
9 has no heat. It has no utilities other than
10 electric. So we can see what we're doing at
11 night. The shed was built prior to the Town
12 Code, and in my wife's family since the
• 13 1950's. Many generations have enjoyed this
14 and will hopefully continue to do so. The
15 improved building construction standards
16 will ensure much better construction and
17 will also help protect lost's of human life,
18 flooding and erosion hazards since it will
19 be above the flood-plain when completed.
20 Basically, it's a storage shed where we put
21 beach chairs, clam rakes and things like
22 that. And it has a deck where we can sit
23 down and enjoy the view. And there is no
24 demolition involved because Hurricane Sandy
• 25 took care of that all.
August 8, 2013 Regular Meeting 49
• 1 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The survey that
2 you submitted does not have the current
3 flood zone on it. You have just given us
4 some information. According to the LWRP
5 report, which shows that it's inconsistent,
6 we don't have any kind of CO or Pre-CO on
7 the structure. The best that you have as
8 documentation is a 1994 grandfathered
9 Wetland Permit for a beach house with
10 unspecified dimensions. We don't know what
11 size it is.
12 MR. FRIEMANN: No. There are some
• 13 dimensions on it.
14 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Not on the LWRP.
15 MR. FRIEMANN: Not on the LWRP but on
16 the grandfather permit there are.
17 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Do you have a
18 copy of that?
19 MR. FRIEMANN: It should be in my
20 packet. I submitted that with my
21 application as well.
22 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Let me take
23 another look. I do see that. It says an
24 existing beach house. A 15' X 30' deck
• 25 around the beach house and an 85' X 4'
August 8, 2013 Regular Meeting 50
• 1 existing dock. So there are no dimensions
2 on the beach house.
3 MR. FRIEMANN: Okay. The dimensions
9 that I submitted on the plans are exactly
5 the same as what was lost.
6 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: And according to
7 this report, this beach house is going to be
8 landward of where the bulkhead was?
9 Seaward?
10 MR. FRIEMANN: Only three feet of it.
11 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Three feet of
12 the proposed structure is seaward of the
• 13 existing bulkhead line.
14 MR. FRIEMANN: No, landward. If you
15 look
16 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: It's very
17 unclear. We don't know where the VE Line is
18 on here. And it looks like you're proposing
19 a beach house and on the survey it doesn't
20 specify dimension, but you have told us it's
21 17' X 18'.
22 MR. FRIEMANN: If you look at the
23 construction plans that I have submitted, it
24 will show you in plain view the exact
• 25 location of where it is.
August 8, 2013 Regular Meeting 51
1 MEMBER HORNING: On the survey it
• 2 looks like it was all seaward of the
3 bulkhead.
4 MR. FRIEMANN: Yes, it was.
5 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: It was?
6 MEMBER HORNING: We're talking about
7 proposed.
8 MR. FRIEMANN: It was seaward of the
9 bulkhead.
10 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: And is that
11 where you're proposing to put it back?
12 MR. FRIEMANN: Not in the same place.
• 13 We're going to raise it up approximately
14 MEMBER HORNING: Sir, we're looking at
15 a 2007 survey. It doesn't show the proposed
16 locations apparently then.
17 MR. FRIEMANN: It's the same exact
18 location.
19 MEMBER HORNING: Then the proposed
20 location is seaward of the bulkhead.
21 MR. FRIEMANN: No, that was the
22 existing.
23 MEMBER HORNING: I know, but you just
24 said it's proposed to be in the same exact
• 25 place.
August 8, 2013 Regular Meeting 52
• 1 MR. FRIEMANN: We want to raise it and
2 move it back three feet.
3 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: There is nothing
4 in here that shows that these construction
5 drawings
6 MR. FRIEMANN: Yes, right on the
7 construction drawings.
8 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: That is not a
9 site plan, sir.
10 MEMBER HORNING: We need it shown on a
11 survey, I believe. We need the dimensions
12 shown on a survey. We need the flood zones
• 13 on the survey. We need the existing or what
14 was existing, which I guess you have on the
15 survey and then the proposed on the survey.
16 MR. FRIEMANN: So you want the survey
17 amended? Is that what you're asking me to
18 do?
19 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: What you're
20 showing on this "so called floor plan," is
21 three feet from an existing retaining wall,
22 and a deck surrounding it.
23 MR. FRIEMANN: Yes.
24 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The whole thing
• 25 raised. With a rail?
August 8, 2013 Regular Meeting 53
• 1 MR. FRIEMANN: Yes.
2 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: And it's all
3 essentially on the beach?
4 MR. FRIEMANN: Yes.
5 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I mean, the
6 drawings are, honestly, confusing, because
7 the survey doesn't match.
8 MR. FRIEMANN: There are also some
9 pictures that I submitted to you that shows
10 the area that is going to be constructed.
11 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: You do not have
12 a Pre-CO or a CO for this; correct?
• 13 MR. FRIEMANN: I have a grandfathered
14 permit.
15 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: A Wetland's
16 Permit for an unspecified
17 MR. FRIEMANN: I do not have a CO for
18 that building. That is correct because it
19 was built in the 1940's and part of my
20 wife's family bought the property in the
21 1950's. Prior to code.
22 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: And you just
23 said that this is just for storage. Why
24 couldn't you have storage in a more
• 25 conforming location? Why do you have to
August 8, 2013 Regular Meeting 54
• 1 have this sitting well, if it's the same
2 location, not only in a VE Zone but it's
3 also, you know, building a structure in a
4 very hazardous location. Once, as I am sure
5 you're aware, once a structure is
6 demolished, even in fact if it had a legal
7 Certificate of Occupancy or Pre-CO, once
8 that nonconforming status once it's
9 demolished by natural law or whatever, that
10 preexisting nonconforming legal status is
11 extinguished. The Board needs to grant when
12 there is justification for granting it, the
• 13 least amount of variance we can possibly
14 grant that would provide relief when
15 justified to a property owner from a code
16 that is restricted. And you can appreciate
17 the fact that a lot of these beach houses
18 were taken out by Sandy. A lot of them
19 were. And a lot of them were built without
20 any legal status. Some were built prior to
21 building. Some were built whenever they
22 were built. And the Board is really trying
23 to be fair and consistent in our decisions
24 about how to provide, because we're
• 25 increasingly seeing the very terrible
August 8, 2013 Regular Meeting 55
• 1 weather episodes, and consequently we're
2 seeing increased pollutions in bays because
3 all of this stuff goes out into this water
4 and it becomes a hazard to boaters, some a
5 hazard to swimmers. Leaching arsenic into
6 the water. We really have to apply what we
7 know and understand and responsible
8 balancing of now knowing about environmental
9 science, and the reasonable rights of the
10 property owners and the welfare of the
11 entire community and the protection of our
12 wetlands and basins. That is why we have an
• 13 LWRP. So I just want the record to reflect
14 the issues that the Board is addressing not
15 only in your application but other
16 applications of these beach houses.
17 MR. FRIEMANN: This is just a shed
18 really. Not really a beach house.
19 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Well, if we call
20 it a shed, it's still considered a
21 structure. Now you're proposing to raise it
22 above the beach, it's still below the top of
23 the bank. And anything that is below the
24 top of the bank is basically being built on
• 25 a lower bulkhead or a beach. That's a
August 8, 2013 Regular Meeting 56
• 1 difficult proposition to undertake.
2 Particularly, it was never really
3 established with a Pre-CO or a CO. You
9 could go to the Building Department and see
5 whether you were eligible for a Pre-C0. The
6 fact that it is now demolished puts it into
7 another category. And I must say I do
8 understand after I said that, you can't
9 even do that. Once it's gone, it's gone.
10 You could've applied for it prior.
11 MR. FRIEMANN: Yeah, but I didn't
12 demolish it.
• 13 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: No, no, I know
14 that.
15 MR. FRIEMANN: There would be no need
16 for me to do it.
17 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Only to
18 establish it legally. Had you been selling
19 your property, you probably would have
20 needed to do that, you know, because
21 mortgage would have required that.
22 MR. FRIEMANN: I understand that.
23 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: There are a lot
24 of anomalies in this town. We're doing our
• 25 best to try and deal with them responsibly
August 8, 2013 Regular Meeting 5~
• 1 and as best as we can. Taking into
2 consideration all the planning. Let me see
3 if the Board has any other questions.
4 MEMBER HORNING: I want to know what
5 they propose utilities in you're calling
6 it a beach house?
7 MR. FRIEMANN: As far as what's
8 concerned?
9 MEMBER HORNING: Proposed utilities.
10 MR. FRIEMANN: Electric and water,
11 which was there before.
12 MEMBER HORNING: So you're proposing
• 13 to put electricity and water. What goes
14 along with the water?
15 MR. FRIEMANN: Nothing.
16 MEMBER HORNING: How to you drain the
17 water?
18 MR. FRIEMANN: We blow it out. The
19 sprinkler company comes and does the
20 sprinklers and blows the water out. Blow
21 the lines out. You mean for the winter?
22 MEMBER HORNING: No. The water
23 drainage?
24 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Are you
• 25 proposing a hose?
August 8, 2013 Regular Meeting 58
• 1 MR. FRIEMANN: There is no bathroom.
2 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Are you
3 proposing a hose there?
4 MR. FRIEMANN: Yes. It's like a
5 shower head with a chain on it, spring
6 loaded. You wash your feet off. It's to
7 wash the sand off so you don't track it in.
8 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: That is not
9 shown on here either.
10 MEMBER HORNING: And the water drains
11 onto what?
12 MR. FRIEMANN: Onto the beach.
• 13 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Ken, anything?
14 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Well, I think it's
15 a strange application here, looking to
16 recreate something that did not have a CO
17 seaward to the bulkhead. Quite honestly.
18 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: We had one that
19 was landward of the bulkhead. It was
20 practically sitting on it. And this Board
21 denied it.
22 MEMBER HORNING: You're right.
23 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Eric?
24 MEMBER DANTES: In looking at the
• 25 survey there is the neighbor's property. Is
August 8, 2013 Regular Meeting 59
• 1 there also a beach cabana on the neighbor's
2 property?
3 MR. FRIEMANN: It's a habitable I
4 would call it a cottage with a septic system
5 and everything else. Right next door to
6 where I am.
7 MEMBER DANTES: Is that something that
8 is legally there?
9 MR. FRIEMANN: I can't answer that
10 question. I would have to assume so.
11 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Hold on. Our
12 Board assistant has some information on
• 13 that. We often do research on character of
14 the neighborhood.
15 MEMBER DANTES: It looks like
16 something else was there?
17 MR. FRIEMANN: There was another
18 structure that was there that was destroyed
19 by the storm, which I have not addressed
20 because that is attached to a rental
21 property that I own. And that I do have a
22 CO for, but I wanted to take care take
23 care of my own residence first. And further
24 to the south, that has been replaced. That
• 25 was there prior and destroyed by the storm.
August 8, 2013 Regular Meeting 60
• 1 They have been replaced within the last
2 couple of months.
3 MEMBER HORNING: And you're not sure
4 if they were seaward of the bulkhead or
5 landward of the bulkhead?
6 MR. FRIEMANN: They're both landward
7 of the bulkhead with steps down to the
8 beach.
9 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Is there anyone
10 else in the audience that wishes to address
11 this application?
12 (No Response.)
• 13 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: All right. What
14 would the Board like to do? Would you like
15 some more information or do you think that
16 we have enough to close and make a decision?
17 MEMBER HORNING: Close it what we
18 have. I thought we were going to close with
19 the request for an updated survey?
20 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: If you feel the
21 updated survey will help us address the
22 information that was put in the record.
23 MEMBER HORNING: The survey that we
24 have doesn't have
• 25 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Let's give you
August 8, 2013 Regular Meeting 61
• 1 an opportunity to provide the Board with
2 updated information. We will require a
3 survey that shows the AE Zone and VE Zone,
4 the top of the bank and specifically where
5 you propose to locate the new constructed
6 beach house and the dimensions of the beach
7 house, and the location of the existing
8 bulkhead. Did I miss anything?
9 MEMBER HORNING: Proposed utilities.
10 Anything for the drainage. You may want to
11 ask about that too? I don't know
12 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: That is going to
• 13 be a drainage code. It's a large structure
14 that is surrounded by a deck, all of which
15 is elevated, and seaward of the bulkhead.
16 So we really need to understand. If you
17 wish to give us clearer information for us
18 to make a decision, we would encourage you
19 to submit that. Based on that, I am going
20 to probably adjourn this to the Special
21 Meeting subject to receipt of that
22 information.
23 MR. FRIEMANN: Can you please go over
24 with me one more time what you're going to
• 25 require?
August 8, 2013 Regular Meeting 62
• 1 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Listed on the
2 survey, the AE Zone and the VE Zone. We
3 need to see the top of the bank. We need to
4 see the bulkhead. We need to see the
5 proposed location of the beach house exactly
6 and any decking around it with dimensions.
7 We need to have you indicate on the survey
8 that there is proposed electric and water
9 associated with this structure.
10 So hearing no further questions or
11 comments, I am going to make a motion to
12 adjourn the hearing to the Special
• 13 Meeting
19 MEMBER HORNING: Before we do that,
15 the only thing that I am a little bit
16 unclear on is, you know, if someone runs a
17 hose to a dock, they don't need any special
18 water containment.
19 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Wherever there
20 is plumbing, there is going to be a
21 requirement now to conform with Chapter 236,
22 the Stormwater Management Program. How that
23 applies in this particular instance, I
24 cannot tell you. That is something that the
• 25 Building Department would have to do.
August 8, 2013 Regular Meeting 63
• 1 MR. FRIEMANN: It's not a big problem
2 for me. If I had to eliminate that, I would
3 do it.
4 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay. So lets
5 give him an opportunity to submit whatever
6 additional information you would like to
7 submit to us in support of your application.
8 At least we will have much clearer
9 information to base our decision on.
10 MR. FRIEMANN: When is the next
11 meeting?
12 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Two weeks from
• 13 today.
14 MR. FRIEMANN: That would be the 24th?
15 MS. TOTH: 22nd.
16 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: If at all
17 possible, we would like you to submit it
18 prior to that. We will close the hearing at
19 that time, if we have no further questions,
20 but in order to do that, we need the
21 information.
22 MR. FRIEMANN: Absolutely. I
23 understand.
24 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: So we will be in
• 25 a position to make a decision.
August 8, 2013 Regular Meeting 64
• 1 MR. FRIEMANN: When is the date?
2 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The 22nd, at
3 5 o'clock.
4 MR. FRIEMANN: And I can submit this
5 to your office?
6 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Yes. And then
7 we will take a look at it before that
8 meeting.
9 MR. FRIEMANN: Thank you for your
10 consideration.
11 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: You're very
12 welcome.
• 13 So I am going to make a motion to
14 adjourn the hearing to the Special Meeting.
15 Is there a second?
16 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Second.
17 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: All in favor?
18 MEMBER DANTES: Aye.
19 MEMBER HORNING: Aye.
20 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye.
21 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Aye.
22 (See Minutes for Resolution.)
24 HEARING #6669 - HUGH SWITZER
• 25 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The next
August 8, 2013 Regular Meeting 65
• 1 application before the Board is for Hugh
2 Switzer, #6669. Request for variance from
3 Article XXII Code Section 280-105 based on
4 an application for building permit and the
5 Building Inspector's May 20, 2013 Notice of
6 Disapproval concerning a permit to install
7 deer fencing, at: 1) fence height at more
8 than the code permitted 9 feet when located
9 in the front yard; located at: 3180 Mill
10 Lane, adjacent to Goldsmith Inlet, in
11 Peconic.
12 MR. SWITZER: Good morning.
• 13 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Please state
14 your name for the record.
15 MR. SWITZER: Yes. I am Hugh Switzer.
16 I live at 3180 Mill Lane in Peconic, and my
17 wife Susan is here as well. Thank you for
18 very much for addressing our zoning request.
19 A little background, I think is in order.
20 The property has been in our family for many
21 generations, three generations. I (In
22 Audible) live there now. My wife and I have
23 six children and we have eight
29 grandchildren. And we have tried to live
• 25 there and I say, "try" because in the last
August 8, 2013 Regular Meeting 66
• 1 few years we have been inundated with deer.
2 It was safe. It was healthy. The deer, the
3 deer ticks, the Lyme Disease has gotten out
4 of hand for us. I personally have had Lyme
5 Disease five times. Doctors tell me that my
6 heart valve issue and the Bell's Palsy that
7 I had are related to it. My wife has had
8 Lyme's Diease four times. She couldn't sit
9 for five years because the back pain was so
10 bad from the (In Audible). She has had
11 trouble sleeping for 15 years, and as a
12 result, we're both under a multi-year very
• 13 expensive medical program for systemic Lyme
14 Disease that we have. And unfortunately,
15 many of us in Town have. As a result of
16 that, our children and our grandchildren no
17 longer come and visit with us. So they're
18 not here. Will not be here. We only go out
19 of the house I made an exception with Ken
20 yesterday for his schedule, but we only go
21 out with white shirts on and long pants and
22 boots and sprayed heavily with (In Audible).
23 We spray our property every month for ticks.
24 We have traps, poison for mice and moles,
• 25 and spray all of our garden plants and
August 8, 2013 Regular Meeting 67
• 1 stuff. And the problem with all of that,
2 all of that is going into our well water and
3 we're near Goldsmith Inlet. Some of that
4 has to be going into the Inlet, which is
5 highly polluted to begin with. And what is
6 really frustrating, with all of that, we
7 still have loads of ticks. So that leaves
8 us to our request, and our request is to add
9 a relatively short lengths of deer fence to
10 the northwest corner and to the southwest
11 co mer. From the north, we will be
12 extending the fence about 80 feet to the
• 13 west, towards Mill Lane. That fencing would
14 be more than 85 feet from the north property
15 line. And that north property line borders
16 open park land. And I understand that
17 they're in agreement to us going ahead. It
18 would be on the hill, about 25 feet high in
19 the woods and it's behind the hedge. So
20 that section would be invisible. I'm sorry,
21 not invisible, but not visible. On the
22 southwest corner, we want to extend it
23 approximately 125 feet to the west towards
24 Mill Lane. It's in a low area. It's going
• 25 to be behind tall hedges. Again, not
August 8, 2013 Regular Meeting 68
• 1 visible. And that borders property at 2700
2 Mill Lane, that we also own. That leaves
3 for us the westerly border that is on Mills
4 Lane. That has tall hedges. We spray it
5 like crazy with liquid fence. Ken, I looked
6 up at your yeah, and that looks very
7 good, and I am going to try that.
g MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Good.
9 MR. SWITZER: So we think we feel
10 that we're pretty safe on that side with a
11 fence. We have approval from the Town
12 Trustees for the fencing, and we're here
• 13 because the Building Department can't
14 approve anything that goes forward of the
15 house line. Our neighbors to the west
16 support our plans and support our request.
17 And we would very much appreciate your
18 approval.
19 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Can you just
20 clarify for me, the survey that we have here
21 shows a very unusual shaped property.
22 MR. SWITZER: Yes.
23 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: You know, and
29 uniquely situated. Beautiful piece of
25 property of course. And I might add that
August 8, 2013 Regular Meeting 69
• 1 while I was there at site inspection, the
2 first thing that happened, when I got back
3 into my car, I took three ticks off me.
4 However, one of the things I believe all
5 of us, I don't like to speak for my
6 colleagues but nonetheless, we're all very
7 aware of the dramatic problem that many of
8 us face with Lyme Disease with ticks and so
9 on. It's just heartbreaking and very
10 upsetting. Certainly, we can appreciate the
11 severity of your medical issues. The
12 limitations of your grandchildren visiting
• 13 and so on. The Board is required to not
14 grant variances on the basis of personal
15 problems or circumstances, and that is
16 because the variances run with the land. So
17 as much as considering those things, we
18 can't in decision make reference to that as
19 a basis upon granting an application. What
20 I am looking at; however, is a very unique
21 piece of property. Your verbal testimony
22 coincides to what my visual interpretation
23 of your survey is, in which you're not
29 proposing fencing along Mill Lane. That is
• 25 the elevation and the existing shrubbery and
August 8, 2013 Regular Meeting 70
• 1 so on. It is sufficient to maintain that
2 barrier without having an eight foot high
3 fencing. So what we're really dealing with
4 is a portion of the fencing that goes from
5 towards the road from your house
6 basically. Okay. Anything behind that, in
7 the backyard or side yard, which is
8 permitted by code. What we're dealing with
9 is this dimension and that dimension. That
10 is the section of fencing that would be
11 considered nonconforming. I can't really
12 tell from this. Do you have any idea on how
• 13 many feet this is on either side? It says
14 80 feet and 125 feet, is that what you have
15 calculated that to be?
16 MR. SWITZER: Yes.
17 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: So that is what
18 those dimensions are.
19 MEMBER HORNING: Can you go over that
20 again?
21 MR. SWITZER: 80 feet on the north,
22 and 125 feet on the southwest side.
23 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: So 80 feet on
24 the northerly property line. It's hard to
. 25 determine where the property line is. 125
August 8, 2013 Regular Meeting 71
• 1 feet on the southerly.
2 MEMBER HORNING: Would you describe
3 the proposed fence material in a little bit
4 more detail?
5 MR. SWITZER: Sure. What it's not,
6 it's not the silver fencing material. It's
7 black. It's black thinner. Much
8 thinner. And it has openings about this
9 big.
10 MEMBER HORNING: It's wire?
11 MR. SWITZER: It's wire. Because it's
12 black, it's a thinner material. It really
• 13 is almost invisible.
14 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: What size posts?
15 The wooden posts
16 MR. SWITZER: No. They're metal
17 posts. So they're also not very visible,
18 and all of it is in woods. So that you
19 really don't even see it unless you're
20 looking for it.
21 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Could you get us a
22 catalogue cut of that fencing or a material
23 or picture of it?
24 MR. SWITZER: I can bring you in a
• 25 piece. I can bring you in a sample.
August 8, 2013 Regular Meeting 72
• 1 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: The color of your
2 fencing, I believe was black.
3 MR. SWITZER: Black.
9 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: And it was
5 difficult to see when I was there. And you
6 had mentioned Suffolk County owns the land
7 to the north of you, and you said that they
8 don't have a problem with the fencing or
9 something to that effect. Have you
10 contacted them at all?
11 MR. SWITZER: Yes. I sent them a
12 package, and I just received
• 13 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: You got a response
14 from them?
15 MR. SWITZER: Yes. And what they said
16 was, this is from the Deputy County
17 Executive and Commissioner Planning and
18 Environment. That pursuant the matter is
19 for local determination, as there appears to
20 be no significant Town or County wide
21 impacts.
22 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: So we have a
23 letter of non-jurisdiction.
24 MR. SWITZER: Is that what that is?
• 25 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: It's the same
August 8, 2013 Regular Meeting 73
• 1 thing that we always get.
2 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: And you own the
3 property to the south?
4 MR. SWITZER: Yes.
5 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Okay.
6 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Do you think
7 that, if this fencing is permitted, and
8 again, we have to distinguish this
9 particular piece of property from others in
10 Town, because I am sure you could appreciate
11 how many properties are faced with the same
12 sort of dilemma, but they're not necessarily
• 13 specific and unique as your property when it
14 comes to visibility and impact from
15 neighbors. Those are all things, character
16 of the neighborhood, that we have to
17 consider. The Board is very, very careful
18 in granting, because otherwise we would be
19 bombarded. Understandably by people who
20 would be wanting to, you know, put eight
21 foot high fencing right along the street
22 where it is very visible to everybody and it
23 would be looking like we all live in cages,
24 which is why the Board, when they adjusted
• 25 the code to permit eight foot high deer
August 8, 2013 Regular Meeting 74
• 1 fencing in residential zones, it was
2 permitted in backyard's and side yard's,
3 where it would not have the same kind of
4 visual impact. So in order to proceed, my
5 intent would be to distinguish this property
6 and it's uniqueness both in terms of what is
7 adjacent to it and its elevations, and the
8 kind of things that is proposed and so on.
9 That would make it distinguishable from
10 other applications that we might have. Then
11 we have a legal basis.
12 MR. SWITZER: Our access to the water
• 13 is towards the back of the house and there
14 is a gate in the fence that allows us
15 access.
16 MEMBER HORNING: Sir, have you
17 explored alternative ideas?
18 MR. SWITZER: I am putting up I
19 spent a huge amount of money to put up
20 privet hedges, skip laurel hedges. I have
21 sprayed everything that I can spray as often
22 as I can spray. I got one of those big
23 backpacks and the neighbors see me walking
24 around looking like Buck Rogers all the
• 25 time. Foreign chemical is all over the
August 8, 2013 Regular Meeting 75
• 1 property. It just doesn't work. They just
2 wander in from any direction and they stare
3 and look at me while I am spraying.
4 MEMBER HORNING: For example, and I am
5 not sure if this method worked, electrified
6 fencing. In rural places, you do that for
7 containment of livestock. It would have a
8 battery powered electrified scram. I am not
9 sure if you looked at that?
10 MR. SWITZER: Yes, we have.
11 MEMBER HORNING: It might scare the
12 deer away because they don't think that they
• 13 could jump over two.
14 MR. SWITZER: We have on a separate
15 property, we have explored exactly that.
16 And we have spent a lot of money installing
17 exactly that kind of fencing. The first
18 fence was 18 inches above the ground, and
19 then two feet behind it, you have 24 feet
20 above and 36 feet above, and that is
21 supposed to throw them off.
22 MEMBER HORNING: Were they electrified
23 too?
29 MR. SWITZER: They were all
• 25 electrified. The deer were standing in the
August 8, 2013 Regular Meeting 76
• 1 middle of the garden eating everything.
2 Took it out and threw it away.
3 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: They are so big.
4 The voltage is so low. Let me point out
5 something, our Assistant Town Attorney
6 brought out the code on fencing, because I
7 do know that it does specify the material
8 but what it's good about it, it's on
9 residential property. The height of the
10 deer fence shall not exceed eight feet.
11 That is fine. The fencing fabric (In
12 Audible) sounds like what you're proposing
• 13 anyway.
14 MR. SWITZER: Yes, ma'am.
15 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: It doesn't say
16 what kind of posts. You're putting in those
17 thin metal ones, which seems to be fine.
18 The only other thing that I
19 MR. SWITZER: The ones that were afar
20 were put in 8 foot spans.
21 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: So that would be
22 the thing that would not be conforming to
23 what the code says.
24 MS. ANDALORO: I think you should talk
• 25 to a fence guy. I used a guy, Mattituck
August 8, 2013 Regular Meeting
• 1 Fence to come up with that figure. He said,
2 if you're not using a particular post, that
3 figure would not work.
4 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: It would flop
5 too much.
6 MEMBER HORNING: Not off the record,
7 and we can't consider health issues. I am
8 curious about the sleep disorder thing.
9 What is the relationship with the sleep
10 disorder and the Lyme Disease?
11 MS. SWITZER: Susan Switzer, I am the
12 one with the sleep disorder. And
• 13 neurological problems are one of the prime
14 qualities of Lyme Disease and in some, one
15 of the first, along with Bell's Palsy.
16 Those are symptoms of Lyme Disease.
17 MEMBER HORNING: Is sleep disorder?
18 MS. SWITZER: Oh, yeah. And it's
19 neurological.
20 MEMBER HORNING: Thank you very much.
21 Now, let's say the deer are kept out with
22 your proposal, it doesn't keep out the mice,
23 the ticks and all these other things that
24 are still going to be there.
• 25 MR. SWITZER: Well, we have a service
August 8, 2013 Regular Meeting 78
• 1 that comes in and maintains about thirty or
2 forty bait traps around the property. So we
3 don't have mice. We don't have moles. So
4 we have eliminated that aspect of it. The
5 other aspect of it, the cycle for deer
6 ticks, in order for them to live, they need
7 deer. And if we eliminate the deer, we will
8 eliminate the ticks and Lyme Diease.
9 MEMBER HORNING: I thought I heard on
10 a show that that wasn't necessarily to
11 get established, they need deer. After
12 that, they don't need the deer any more to
• 13 survive.
14 MS. SWITZER: Adult female does need
15 the deer meal. The nymph and the larva do
16 not. That is why there is a three year
17 cycle because the adult female needs the
18 deer meal. And the research I have done on
19 Lyme Disease, shows you can keep it to eight
20 deer per square mile, basically eradicate
21 the ticks and all sorts of Lyme Disease.
22 And our property is certainly not a square
23 mile. So we need fewer than eight. So the
24 research does show, if you get rid of the
• 25 deer, you will get rid of the ticks. The
August 8, 2013 Regular Meeting 79
• 1 mites, the moles and the mice are
2 irrelevant.
3 MEMBER HORNING: Can you cite any
4 sources?
5 MS. SWITZER: On Monhegan Island in
6 Maine, there were no deer. Then there were
7 deer. And when there was deer, there were
8 ticks and Lyme Disease. There was all of
9 that. They eradicated the deer and then
10 they eradicated the Lyme Disease and the
11 ticks. And on six islands off Rhode Island,
12 four of them had deer. Two of them did not.
• 13 And the four with the deer had two diseases
14 with the ticks and two of them did not. And
15 I can't get you the research if you would
16 like? In fact, I have done a great deal. I
17 have also (In Audible) to getting the deer
18 down to a level that we can live with.
19 MEMBER HORNING: And what islands?
20 MS. SWITZER: Six islands off the
21 study.
22 MEMBER HORNING: And what are the
23 islands?
24 MS. SWITZER: I don't know if they
• 25 have names, but I can get you the study, if
August 8, 2013 Regular Meeting 80
• 1 you would like?
2 MEMBER HORNING: I live on an island.
3 So I am curious.
4 MS. SWITZER: We all live on an
5 island.
6 MEMBER HORNING: Block Island was not
7 part of the study probably?
8 MS. SWITZER: Block Island actually
9 had their own study. Block Island had no
10 deer until 1957 and then by 1994, there were
11 700.
12 MEMBER HORNING: Do they have Lyme
• 13 Disease out there?
14 MS. SWITZER: Oh, yeah.
15 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: In the interest
16 of time, it's a little education for the
17 Board but not for variance relief. What
18 would probably be helpful, not only can you
19 provide a sample of the posts and the
20 fencing fabric, you could go to the Building
21 Department with that, and indicate that
22 you're proposing to place this kind of posts
23 to see what their reaction is relative to
24 the code requiring 20 foot spacing. That
• 25 will help us figure out. That would help us
August 8, 2013 Regular Meeting 81
• 1 as to whether we can address that. I don't
2 know if whether we can grant a variance from
3 the requirement, but maybe we can. It would
4 make sense to me. Frankly, if the
5 residential property owner is proposing to
6 install something that is going to work and
7 have less visual impact then what otherwise
8 be the case, and would be more minimal, I
9 don't know why we wouldn't be able to
10 entertain it. The code doesn't specify the
11 diameter of the posts or the material that
12 it's to be made out of. It just says 20
• 13 foot spacing from Article XII.
14 MR. SWITZER: Is the 20 feet a maximum
15 or a minimum?
16 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: It doesn't say
17 maximum or minimum. It just gives you a
18 spacing. But I am not sure
19 MS. ANDALORO: It must be.
20 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: That is not
21 going to work with any of the material. It
22 sounds like any of the fencing material that
23 you're proposing is precisely the kind of
24 stuff that you're suggesting. It doesn't
• 25 indicate what gauge wire or what color wire
August 8, 2013 Regular Meeting 82
• 1 or what size or opening it is to be. It
2 just says wire fencing. And that sounds to
3 me fine. This property is uniquely shaped
4 and context relative to other properties.
5 MR. SWITZER: Can I interrupt for a
6 minute? One of our neighbors is here and
7 has to volunteer for the hospital. I know
8 he wanted to say something.
9 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Sure. Would you
10 spell your name, please.
11 MR. ALDCROFT: A-L-D-C-R-O-F-T. First
12 name, George.
• 13 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Thank you.
14 MR. ALDCROFT: And I had the property
15 since '75. We built our home in '79. So we
16 have been there many, many years. I know
17 how the Switzer's keep their property. In
18 the front you can see in the front where
19 they always had the privet and now they have
20 the higher bushes. When you take a look at
21 either side of their property, it's almost
22 all wooded. So when it's wooded, especially
23 in the high section, you're not even going
24 to see the fence. You know, I know we all
• 25 work as a group to care about what the Inlet
August 8, 2013 Regular Meeting 83
• 1 looks like, I don't think having the black
2 fence across the back is going to make a
3 difference anyhow for anyone's visual site
4 from the other side. And on the other side,
5 he does own the other piece of property,
6 which would be the facing the ocean side.
7 What I found, in my backyard there is a
8 small area of block off just to stop this
9 pattern. It has made a difference with the
10 Lyme Disease. I have had it. My wife has
11 had it. Most have. So we're trying to keep
12 the Lyme out. Now, if they completely had
• 13 open space where you would see the fencing,
14 I would probably be in objection, but I
15 can't see the fencing. I don't think anyone
16 else can. And it's just going to give them
17 protection, which will probably help us
18 also. You know, but I am in 1000 agreement
19 with what they want to do.
20 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Thank you very
21 much.
22 Is there anyone else in the audience
23 who would like to address this application?
24 (NO Response.)
• 25 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Is there
August 8, 2013 Regular Meeting 84
• 1 anything else from the Board?
2 (No Response.)
3 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Why don't we
9 just close the hearing subject to a sample
5 of the fencing?
6 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Do we want to get
7 an actual sample?
8 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Or a catalogue.
9 MR. SWITZER: I have an actual sample.
10 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: You can take
11 that into the Building Department and get
12 them to respond to the condition of the
• 13 spacings of the code.
14 MR. SWITZER: I will do that.
15 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: What we can do
16 then, just to make sure we don't complicate
17 things, is we will adjourn this two weeks to
18 the Special Meeting. That will give you
19 time to bring samples, go to the Building
20 Department. They might just say it's fine.
21 That's all that we need to know. If they
22 say you need a variance for that, then we
23 can address it, the posts, the spacing of
24 the posts. And then we will have everything
• 25 we need to make a decision.
August 8, 2013 Regular Meeting 65
• 1 MR. SWITZER: Okay.
2 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: So I am going to
3 make a motion to adjourn this to the Special
4 Meeting in two weeks from tonight. We meet
5 in the Annex. We don't take testimony. You
6 don't have to attend. We only record Public
7 Hearing's, but you can listen to us
8 deliberate. If we don't have any questions
9 about it, we will just close the hearing.
10 That's it. If we have this stuff quickly,
11 then we may even be in a position to make a
12 decision that night. But we have to have
• 13 time to read it over and write a draft and
14 make a decision that we will have time to
15 deliberate that evening. If that is not
16 possible, then we will close it, unless we
17 have questions and then deliberate one month
18 from today because we only meet twice a
19 month. So we will work as quickly as we
20 can.
21 MR. SWITZER: I will get the materials
22 to the Building Department this afternoon,
23 and hopefully have their response and the
24 samples to you later this afternoon.
• 25 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: If it's
August 8, 2013 Regular Meeting 86
• 1 possible, we have a Notice of Disapproval.
2 Maybe they could provide an amended Notice
3 of Disapproval of whatever additional
4 information the Board should consider, if
5 any. If there is just a verbal. You don't
6 need it and it's fine, then we need to know
7 that, but probably we should have at least a
8 little memo from them to put in our file.
9 If it needs further attention, we need to
10 know that. We need to know what and maybe
11 they would just update the Notice of
12 Disapproval.
• 13 MR. SWITZER: Okay.
14 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: So motion to
15 adjourn to the Special Meeting.
16 MEMBER HORNING: Second.
17 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: All in favor?
18 MEMBER DANTES: Aye.
19 MEMBER HORNING: Aye.
20 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye.
21 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Aye.
22 (See Minutes for Resolution.)
24 HEARING #6668 - ROBERT K. SCRIPPS
• 25 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The next
August 8, 2013 Regular Meeting 87
• 1 application before the Board is for Robert
2 K. Scripps, #6668. Request for variances
3 from Article XXIII Section 280-124 and
4 Article III Section 280-15 and the Building
5 Inspector's June 13, 2013 Notice of
6 Disapproval based on an application for
7 building permit for additions and
8 alterations to existing single family
9 dwelling, at; 1) less than the code required
10 minimum side yard setback of 15 feet,
11 2) proposed construction will result in
12 existing accessory garage in a location
• 13 other than the code required rear yard,
14 located at: 2745 Pine Tree Road, adjacent
15 to Little Creek in Cutchogue.
16 MR. WEBER: My name is Fred Weber.
17 Would you like me address as well?
18 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: No.
19 MR. WEBER: I would also like to say
20 my client, Mr. Scripps is here, if you would
21 like to ask him any questions. He is
22 available sitting right there.
23 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay. We're
24 looking at the creation of a single side
• 25 yard at 9 feet, where the code requires a
August 8, 2013 Regular Meeting 88
• 1 minimum of 15 and an existing accessory
2 garage, which will then be an addition that
3 is going towards the road it will be
4 partially located in a side yard where the
5 code requires a rear yard location. What
6 would you like to tell us?
7 MR. WEBER: Well, first off, the
8 project is located on Pine Tree Road. It
9 backs up to Little Creek. It's about 33,000
10 square feet. There is a small mid-size
11 house on the property. It's a cape. It's
12 one-story in the front and then the back has
• 13 a dormer, which comes out and creates a
14 second floor. The purpose of the addition
15 is to expand the bedrooms and bath areas for
16 families that are expanding with
17 grandchildren. The proposed addition is
18 going to be located on the west, landward
19 side of the house. The locations of the
20 additions to the east, because of the creek
21 and the environmental concerns, we're not
22 able to go further to the east. To the
23 north, we looked at the house plan, on the
24 north side of the property, there is
• 25 two-story it cuts off, kind of segregates
August 8, 2013 Regular Meeting 89
• 1 the bedroom area from the bedroom area of
2 the rest of the house. So from proximity,
3 the bedrooms on the south side of the house.
4 What that results in, is the continuation of
5 the south property line out to create the
6 addition. What we're proposing to create is
7 to expand a bedroom area and to expand a
8 den, and create a second bedroom all on the
9 first floor. And then on the second floor
10 to create a bedroom and bath. The
11 architecture of the project is going to
12 blend what is there, the style. The asphalt
• 13 roof to match. The front porch is added for
14 appearance and coverage over the entrance.
15 And just the last thing to mention, there
16 was a variance granted for something similar
17 back in 2007. And that involved a large
18 addition to the north and for budgetary
19 reasons, that was abandoned in 2007. We're
20 trying to do something more modest now.
21 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I remember that
22 piece of property. It was very unique.
23 These are all additions that are landward?
24 MR. WEBER: Right. Another thing I
• 25 should mention, is that the garage is
August 8, 2013 Regular Meeting 90
• 1 existing, detached garage. It has always
2 been there. The only reason why that comes
3 into play is because when you move the
4 addition toward the street, you know, the
5 garage ends up now in the side yard.
6 Nothing in the garage has changed.
7 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: It is permitted
8 in the front yard because it's a waterfront
9 property. So the existing side yard is
10 currently 9 feet; correct?
11 MR. WEBER: Correct.
12 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: And you're not
• 13 proposing any additional encroachment?
14 MR. WEBER: Correct.
15 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I did notice on
16 site inspection that the subject property,
17 the dwelling is a lot closer to the water
18 then the others on either side. So it's not
19 those additions are not going to have
20 much visual impact, if any on the adjacent
21 property owners. No proposed changes to the
22 wetlands to the creek side of the dwelling?
23 MR. WEBER: Correct.
24 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay.
• 25 Questions, Eric?
August 8, 2013 Regular Meeting 91
• 1 MEMBER DANTES: No, I think he
2 answered most of my questions already. The
3 side yard remains the same. And the small
4 encroachment on the side yard of the garage.
5 That's it.
6 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: George?
7 MEMBER HORNING: Did you explore any
8 alternatives when you were looking at
9 designs and ideas? That would make it that
10 you would not need a variance?
11 MR. WEBER: Yes. We actually did in
12 2007, we ended up showing the addition on
• 13 the other side to the north as well. That
14 involved more living space and more expense
15 that the owner didn't want to spend. We're
16 trying to make a more modest project. When
17 you enter the house I don't know if you
18 were at the site, but when you enter through
19 the front door into the house, without
20 changing around the whole interior of the
21 house, the north the house, from the
22 front door to the north, that is the whole
23 living area. So you wouldn't want to
24 overlap the whole addition onto that
• 25 entrance. You would have to sort of
August 8, 2013 Regular Meeting 92
• 1 double-back yourself. I guess, it's a
2 matter of the rooms that are there, are
3 pretty narrow already. The rest of the
4 addition is 22 feet. You know, with the
5 outside walls. The one room is 9 foot 4,
6 and the other is 12 feet 5. They're not
7 overly rooms.
8 MEMBER HORNING: Did you explore the
9 idea of making an addition that would attach
10 the garage, so that you would now have an
11 attached garage?
12 MR. WEBER: Well, that would create
• 13 more problems in a sense that now we have
14 the garage would be in a nonconforming
15 location attaching to the house.
16 MEMBER HORNING: I don't know if that
17 would be the effect.
18 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Well, the side
19 yard would not be conforming.
20 MR. WEBER: The 14 foot setback and 9
21 would up to 23. 15 for one and 35 for both.
22 MEMBER HORNING: I am just suggesting.
23 These are your plans. I am just saying, if
24 you had an attached garage you wouldn't have
• 25 this problem of advancing into the the
August 8, 2013 Regular Meeting 93
• 1 so-called side yard.
2 MR. WEBER: We would create a problem
3 for combined side yards.
4 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Come to the
5 microphone and just state your name, please?
6 MR. SCRIPPS: Robert Scripps, owner of
7 the property. One of the problems that we
8 originally faced when we were discussing
9 this was the garage. Was that the elevation
10 was the floor of the living room of the
11 house, it's roughly three feet higher than
12 the slab of the garage. That is No. 1.
• 13 No. 2, code would have attached the garage
14 by a totally enclosed quarter. So it's not
15 a separate piece of property. And that
16 the way that it would have to come into the
17 living room if we did that, and it's a very
18 small living room to begin with, that whole
19 space in the house wouldn't flow with that
20 idea.
21 MEMBER HORNING: Okay. Thank you.
22 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Ken?
23 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: No questions.
24 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Is there anyone
• 25 else in the audience that would like to
August 8, 2013 Regular Meeting 94
• 1 address this application?
2 (No Response.)
3 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Hearing no
4 further comments, I will make a motion to
5 close the hearing and reserve decision to a
6 later date.
7 MEMBER HORNING: Second.
8 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: All in favor?
9 MEMBER DANTES: Aye.
10 MEMBER HORNING: Aye.
11 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye.
12 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Aye.
• 13 (See Minutes for Resolution.)
15 HEARING #6673 - RALPH & CATHERINE CASELNOVA
16 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The next
17 application before the Board is for Ralph
18 and Catherine Caselnove, #6673. Request for
19 variance from Article III Section 280-15 and
20 the Building Inspector's May 14, 2013 Notice
21 of Disapproval based on an application for
22 building permit for an "as-built" accessory
23 in-ground swimming pool: 1) less than the
24 code required side yard setback of 25 feet,
• 25 2) less than the code required minimum rear
August 8, 2013 Regular Meeting 95
• 1 yard setback of 25 feet, located at:
2 26609 Main Road, a/k/a State Route 25 in
3 Orient.
4 MR. CUDDY: Good afternoon. I am
5 Charles Cuddy for the applicant. The
6 Caselnova's, as you can see from the
7 application, have owned the property for a
8 number of years. I don't know if anyone has
9 gone there.
10 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: We have all gone
11 there.
12 MR. CUDDY: Okay. It's a good drive
• 13 to get to.
14 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Thank goodness,
15 they put that yellow sign at the beginning
16 of that right-of-way because forget it.
17 MR. CUDDY: I decided that was the
18 right place. In any event, as the map
19 shows, they also own the development rights
20 to the south of the property. They acquired
21 the property and they acquired the
22 development rights separately. I am not
23 sure they were completely aware of the lines
24 of the development rights. The interesting
• 25 thing here is that they actually had a
August 8, 2013 Regular Meeting 96
• 1 permit for the pool. If you look at the
2 property card, they got a permit.
3 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: In 2001.
4 MR. CUDDY: And I have a note that I
5 am going to hand up from the Building
6 Department. The Building Department could
7 not proceed because at the same time, we
8 were coming before this Board and we had a
9 variance for the two lot subdivision. They
10 didn't have sufficient lot mass. They had
11 to use part of the right-of-way. Part of
12 their two acres. So the Board then gave
• 13 them a variance. We then went on and got a
14 subdivision in 2006. In the meantime, they
15 had constructed the pool based on that
16 permit. And I will hand up to you and I
17 have several things to hand up, this is from
18 Pat Conklin from the Building Department,
19 saying that they couldn't proceed because
20 there was a subdivision proceeding. I went
21 to the Building Department and spoke to Pat
22 Conklin, and they could not find this file.
23 The Building Department file. So I can't
24 tell you why the pool is exactly where it
• 25 is. They did get a permit, presumably for a
August 8, 2013 Regular Meeting 97
• 1 pool in the right place. Obviously one of
2 the things that is noticeable is that
3 they're close to the development rights, and
4 they own the development rights parcel. So
5 it's not somebody else's being it's their
6 own parcel. They're right on top of that
7 parcel. And again, I don't think that they
8 understood that because you see the grass
9 and how it is lined up, I think that they
10 thought there was substantial room between
11 the two and obviously there is not. The
12 property has now been subdivided. They have
• 13 spent on the pool, over $30,000.00. To move
14 the pool, which I guess is an alternative,
15 we believe it will be in excess of
16 $40,000.00. It was constructed in 2001 and
17 the cost was $30,000.00. To take it out and
18 try to move it over, would cost way more in
19 excess of that. Excess of $40,000.00. One
20 thing that I think is important at the site,
21 is that there is no neighbors at the site.
22 So there is no impact on the community.
23 There is really no environmental consequence
24 that is going to happen as a result of the
• 25 pool being where it is. I think that the
August 8, 2013 Regular Meeting 98
• 1 alternative would be enormous for them. And
2 I don't think they were building it to try
3 and be difficult in where to put it. I
4 think they believed or at least they tell
5 me, it was exactly the place where it should
6 have been. There is and I think you
7 probably noticed it on the map, it shows two
8 sheds. One of those sheds, the large one,
9 was approved by the Suffolk County Farming
10 Committee in 2003. And I will also hand up
11 that letter. So I think that one of their
12 smaller sheds is probably within the
• 13 development rights. But the big one is
14 purposely inside and was allowed to be
15 inside. Again, I don't think that there is
16 any community impact or any environmental
17 impact. It's a question of them building
18 closer to the development rights land, which
19 is their land. And then they have the
20 development rights land that they use part
21 of it for a vineyard, an orchard.
22 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: It would appear
23 from this survey that that right-of-way that
24 goes along where you make the turn off
• 25 the primary right-of-way, continues past
August 8, 2013 Regular Meeting 99
• 1 MR. CUDDY: Yes. There is another
2 property, I believe, beyond that.
3 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: So there is
4 another residential property that uses that.
5 I was just wondering who else uses that.
6 MR. CUDDY: Currently, there is one
7 that goes to the north, but towards the
8 Sound, I believe there is somebody there. I
9 am not sure who is the one that goes to the
10 west. It's a distance away from them.
11 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: It's hard to
12 determine what the front yard and what the
• 13 side yard on this property is. I mean, I am
14 looking at it, and I am wondering how in the
15 world that was I guess, there were not
16 even quite sure on the Notice of
17 Disapproval.
18 MR. CUDDY: Yeah.
19 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: It's side and/or
20 rear setback. It's supposed to be 25 feet.
21 Why does it have the setback at 25 feet?
22 Does it
23 MR. CUDDY: In an R-80, it's 25 feet.
24 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Right.
• 25 MR. CUDDY: Again, I don't think that
August 8, 2013 Regular Meeting 100
• 1 there was any deliberant effort on their
2 part to put the pool in a place where it
3 shouldn't be. I think it got there with a
4 permit and nobody knows what happened to the
5 surveys or the file. The file is completely
6 lost.
7 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: It did seem to be
8 the flattest part too.
9 MR. CUDDY: It is.
10 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: That is probably
11 you know, Vicki has a good point. While
12 we're here, a portion of that fence for the
• 13 pool is on the development rights.
14 MR. CUDDY: That's right.
15 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: And then the
16 pool equipment seems to be on the
17 development rights.
18 MR. CUDDY: That's what I was
19 mentioning.
20 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: And Suffolk
21 County is okay with that? I mean, if they
22 were ever going to sell this property
23 MR. CUDDY: I don't know the answer.
24 I don't know the answer but in my transcript
• 25 to the Farm Committee, I would have to guess
August 8, 2013 Regular Meeting 101
• 1 that they would not like it there. And so
2 if I went to the Farming Committee, I am
3 sure they would say to me about the fence,
4 which I have told my clients that I think
5 they should do.
6 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: So would there
7 be you know, our way to proceed once
8 again, when we see fences that are not on
9 the subject property that we're addressing,
10 usually ask them to move it to their own
11 property. It's a lot better than moving the
12 pool.
• 13 MR. CUDDY: That's true.
14 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: So if this were
15 conditioned on the fence and the pool
16 equipment being moved to a residential
17 property
18 MR. CUDDY: I believe they would
19 comply with that, and I believe that they're
20 going to have to do that eventually. I
21 agree.
22 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: And probably the
23 framed shed too.
24 MR. CUDDY: They have a letter.
• 25 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Then that is
August 8, 2013 Regular Meeting 102
1 fine. You could leave it.
2 You're going to assume that also that
3 propane tank is on the side of the pool
4 equipment?
5 MR. CUDDY: Yes.
6 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay. I don't
7 think there is anyone else in the audience
8 to address this application. Okay.
9 Hearing no further you know, we can
10 just close and make it subject to a survey
11 showing the relocation of that. And that
12 will give you time to get it done and not
• 13 delay. Vicki will wait until we get that.
14 MR. CUDDY: Okay.
15 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: It's not a
16 consequence. It's something to clear up.
17 MR. CUDDY: And they have to clear it
18 up and they understand it.
19 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: All right.
20 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: What is the
21 Ag-parcel, is that a production house?
22 MR. CUDDY: Part of it is. You can go
23 up the driveway and he has sort of a small
24 orchard
• 25 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Right.
August 8, 2013 Regular Meeting 103
• 1 MR. CUDDY: And some farming equipment
2 in the back of the shed.
3 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Hearing no
4 further questions or comments, I am going to
5 make a motion to close this hearing and
6 reserve decision to a later date.
7 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Second.
8 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: All in favor?
9 MEMBER DANTES: Aye.
10 MEMBER HORNING: Aye.
11 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye.
12 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Aye.
• 13 (See Minutes for Resolution.)
15 HEARING #6671 - SHARI CAI
16 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The next
17 application before the Board is for Shari
18 Cai, #6671. Request for variances from
19 Article XXII Section 280-116(B) and Article
20 XXIII Section 280-124 and the Building
21 Inspector's May 6, 2013 Notice of
22 Disapproval based on an application for
23 building permit for reconstruction and
24 alterations to an existing single family
• 25 dwelling, at; 1) less than the code required
August 8, 2013 Regular Meeting 104
• 1 bulkhead setback of 75 feet, 2) less than
2 the code required minimum side yard of 15
3 feet, 3) less than the code required
9 minimum combined side yards of 35 feet,
5 located at: 380 Midway Road, corner West
6 Lake Road, adjacent to Little Peconic Bay
7 in Southold.
8 Good afternoon.
9 MS. MOORE: Good afternoon. Patricia
10 Moore. This application you have the
11 description already. It's relatively
12 straightforward considering the things that
• 13 you normally review. This is an existing
14 house where a small portion of the second
15 floor the first and second floor that
16 connects the wing and the first floor is
17 going to be constructed all within the
18 existing structure, existing footprint. So
19 I believe that it's mostly renovation. Not
20 demolition. The roof pitches are changing.
21 It's going to be as you have noticed.
22 Yes, reconstructed and alterations.
23 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Let's just look
24 at this. It's 50 feet from the bulkhead,
• 25 where the code requires 75.
August 8, 2013 Regular Meeting 105
• 1 MS. MOORE: Correct.
2 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Single side yard
3 setback of 13.4 feet, where the code
4 requires a minimum of 15 feet. A total side
5 yard setback of 27.7, where the code
6 requires 35 feet.
7 MS. MOORE: Correct.
8 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: It is proposed
9 at the same side yard setback as existing.
10 MS. MOORE: Correct.
11 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The roof line
12 pitches are changing and modified.
• 13 MS. MOORE: Right.
14 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: And all of this
15 is in the side yard and landward.
16 MS. MOORE: Correct. Yes, it's
17 landward of the existing house and the deck.
18 All of the existing structures have permits
19 and it looks like with the latest
20 Trustees permit, with the bulkhead, there
21 was a non-turf buffer already included. A
22 significant portion. I want to say like
23 10 feet of non-turf.
24 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay. Let me
• 25 just give you a copy of this, Pat, I don't
August 8, 2013 Regular Meeting 106
• 1 think you got it. It's the LWRP?
2 MS. MOORE: I didn't get it, no.
3 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: It's stating
4 that it's exempt. You can have it just for
5 your file.
6 MS. MOORE: It looks bigger to me than
7 5 feet.
8 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: It wasn't 10.
9 MS. MOORE: It's somewhere between 5
10 and 10. In any case, a non-turf buffer was
11 already in place. The survey doesn't give
12 me that dimension.
• 13 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: It's in the
14 picture.
15 MS. MOORE: Yes, it's in the picture.
16 So you can see that it's significant.
17 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: It's not an issue
18 with the LWRP.
19 MS. MOORS: Yes, that's good. Does
20 anyone have any questions? As I said, it's
21 all identified pretty clearly.
22 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: And it says the
23 bulkhead setback?
24 MS. MOORS: Yeah, and the existing
• 25 side yard setbacks are preexisting. So it's
August 8, 2013 Regular Meeting 107
• 1 actually matching the same line of the front
2 of the building, but it is nonconforming.
3 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Let's see if
4 there is anyone else. Certainly, site
5 inspection indicates the enormous yard on
6 this property. This property is really
7 close to the water.
8 MS. MOORS: Yes.
9 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: And virtually no
10 impact.
11 MS. MOORS: Right.
12 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Any questions
• 13 here, Ken?
14 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: No questions?
15 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: George?
16 MEMBER HORNING: No questions.
17 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Eric?
18 MEMBER DANTES: No.
19 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The porch
20 MS. MOORS: The porch in the front, I
21 already got a building permit.
22 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The one-story
23 construction
29 MS. MOORS: I believe that is going to
• 25 be a bathroom renovation.
August 8, 2013 Regular Meeting 108
• 1 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Anything on the
2 deck? I know, it's not before us.
3 MS. MOORE: No. It has a CO actually.
4 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay.
5 MS. MOORE: I was running over there
6 this morning. I had to make sure it had a
7 CO.
8 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Well hearing no
9 further questions or comments, I am going to
10 make a motion to close the hearing and
11 reserve decision to a later date.
12 MEMBER HORNING: Second.
• 13 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: All in favor?
19 MEMBER DANTES: Aye.
15 MEMBER HORNING: Aye.
16 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye.
17 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Aye.
18 (See Minutes for Resolution.)
20 HEARING #6663 - JOHN ABBOTT
21 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The next
22 application before the Board is for John
23 Abbott, #6663, adjourned from 7/25/13 and
24 the original Public Hearing of 7/11/13.
• 25 There is no need to read the legal notice
August 8, 2013 Regular Meeting 109
• 1 again. Please just mention your names again
2 for the public record.
3 MS. RIGDON: Agena Rigdon, DKR Shores
4 for Mr. Abbott, who is also here today.
5 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Since the last
6 we spoke, the slope has been restored. The
7 Board members have done site inspection
8 again. The bulkhead has been restored.
9 Stakes have been put in place to know where
10 the VE Zone is. We also have stakes of 16
11 foot and 20 foot buffer from the bulkhead.
12 And we have photographic records of those
• 13 stakes. We have a re-vegetation plan for
14 the LWRP. The Trustees requirement of the
15 entire slope of that bank. And a letter
16 from (In Audible) clarifying some of the
17 intent (In Audible) conversations with the
18 Board. Let's see, who wants to get started.
19 Any questions or comments, or anything?
20 I think you saw Mark Terry's second
21 pass at the LWRP's proposal/
22 recommendations. That was just simply
23 talking about the restoration and
24 re-vegetation of the bluff and that you
• 25 didn't have a plan. Well, you submitted one
August 8, 2013 Regular Meeting 110
• 1 to us, which he has not had benefit of.
2 However based upon, that plan, what I would
3 like to point out, if you were to position a
4 structure on that bank that has now been
5 restored, the soil is of course extremely
6 unstable, and that is the whole point of
7 re-vegetating. It's to get that soil to
8 stay in place. If you were to put a
9 structure on it, you would not be able to
10 re-vegetate it underneath and that soil is
11 going to be washed out. And this
12 re-vegetation plan is very critical to the
• 13 approval of being able to say that this is
19 LWRP consistent now, which we have the
15 jurisdiction to do. We can't, as you know,
16 grant anything that is inconsistent, but we
17 can find ways of mitigating those
18 inconsistencies in order to grant them. We
19 can therefore find it consistent. With your
20 vegetation plan, I believe we can do that;
21 however, this would then require us to
22 discuss with you the location of your
23 proposed gazebo just landward at the top of
24 the bank, rather than on that slope. As
• 25 close as to the bank as reasonable. So I
August 8, 2013 Regular Meeting 111
• 1 wanted to bring that up here because I
2 believe the Board is going to wind-up having
3 to entertain that in order to make a
4 consistency determination on the LWRP. It's
5 just the way that you have that staked, I
6 think one set of stakes is right on the
7 edge of that bank. So if the structure was
8 located close to that, landward, closer to
9 your house. 10' X 15' is it?
10 MS. RIGDON: Correct. It's 10' X 15'.
11 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: So that would
12 bring the front edge, the seaward edge about
• 13 22 feet from the bulkhead, which would be
14 the better way to describe it. You will
15 have streps on the bluff, because the steps
16 will stabilize the soil underneath it and
17 then the vegetation will stabilize the rest
18 of that.
19 MR. ABBOTT: My name is John Abbott.
20 I am the homeowner. Just to add to that
21 statement. The original gazebo was built in
22 1942. I have pictures. I actually have
23 contacted with the previous owner. The
24 slope that now exist is substantially less
• 25 of an incline. That slope, I calculate to
August 8, 2013 Regular Meeting 112
• 1 be between 20 and 25 degrees. The old one
2 was between 30 and 35 degrees. The old
3 slope with the gazebo over it, which was
4 fully over it, there was substantial
5 vegetation over the staircase but under the
6 back of the gazebo.
7 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Was it native
8 vegetation?
9 MR. ABBOTT: I never planted one
10 thing. Whatever grew there, grew there.
11 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: And the gazebo
12 was raised on posts also?
• 13 MR. ABBOTT: No, it was on a concrete
14 structure. There was a overhang in the
15 back. So there was vegetative growing
16 underneath it actually grew into the
17 concrete. It used to be a bath house. When
18 I bought the property, I dismantled it. My
19 biggest problem .with the stairs was keeping
20 it clean from the vegetation growing up to
21 it. The dramatically reduced slope, in
22 fact, historically since 1942, has never
23 been a problem with erosion. The fact that
24 there are statements from the previous
25 owner, that there was never a problem with
August 8, 2013 Regular Meeting 113
• 1 vegetation growing underneath the back of
2 the old gazebo and there shouldn't be any
3 with the new one.
4 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay. I should
5 mention that the Board the reason that
6 the Board is considering the replacement of
7 what was demolished in any form is because
8 you actually did have some evidence of a CO
9 previously. The storm has taken out so many
10 of these throughout the Town. And it's only
11 going to happen again, which is why we're
12 going to be requiring going forward, flood
• 13 zones lines, like we asked you to do on all
14 of our surveys. We can't condone and I know
15 that you're only 11 feet from the bulkhead
16 but certainly the Board can't consider
17 putting anything back in a location that was
18 so hazardous to the property and to other
19 neighbors and so on. Even if you're willing
20 to say, if it gets wiped out again, I will
21 replace it again. We have to balance that.
22 The entire community. We also have to grant
23 the minimum variance relief that we can
24 justify. They don't say grant anything that
• 25 anybody wants. If we're going to grant
August 8, 2013 Regular Meeting 114
• 1 anything, let it be 10 feet from the
2 bulkhead. It's supposed to be 75 feet. Now
3 there is no way you can do that. It would
4 be in your front yard. So we understand.
5 The Board is certainly willing consider
6 replacement and the history and the fact
7 that you had a CO. We have done some
8 research and although there are many
9 structures from little sheds to beach houses
10 on Peconic Boulevard, most of them are not
11 legal and were never legal. And wouldn't
12 qualify for a Pre-C0.
• 13 MR. ABBOTT: This one was.
14 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Yes.
15 MR. ABBOTT: We do have a Pre-CO for
16 it.
17 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Yes, we know.
18 And that is one reason why even though the
19 Board is required (In Audible) when
20 something is preexisting nonconforming (In
21 Audible) if it is demolished, as was the
22 case here, then there is all bets are
23 off. The Board is not obligated to say go
24 ahead and replace it.
. 25 MR. ABBOTT: I think you can see the
August 8, 2013 Regular Meeting 115
• 1 pictures after the storm
2 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Yes. Can you
3 just talk into the microphone. I want to
4 make sure that we get you.
5 MR. ABBOTT: The gazebo was not
6 destroyed. The gazebo fell off the base.
7 It was in one piece. It was a dangerous
8 situation. In order for me now I have a
9 problem with the right-of-way. Kids, dogs,
10 everything was running through. So public
11 safety, I dismantled it. So the gazebo
12 itself fell in one piece. I have pictures.
• 13 What happened was, it fell into a pit. If I
14 had to do it all over again, I would have
15 just put it back up.
16 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: That slope is
17 long. That is the problem. Not the
18 bulkhead.
19 MR. ABBOTT: I'm being penalized for
20 doing something safe, when I shouldn't. I
21 mean, that is the way that I am looking at
22 it. But I think the moving it back, as you
23 know in our original plan it was 11 feet. I
24 moved back 5 feet, 16 feet. That's a big
• 25 compromise.
August 8, 2013 Regular Meeting 116
• 1 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I can understand
2 from your point of view but I would like to
3 add I am not meaning to subject a
4 conclusion. Our job here is to pass time
5 and bring the issues out. We're not saying
6 that the outcome is going to be X, Y and Z.
7 This Board it really isn't a negotiation.
8 It's not, "I will do this and you do that
9 and I do that." It's asking people about,
10 what we call "alternative relief," is
11 greater than X and we're talking about Y.
12 The Board has to ask you what the hardship
• 13 would be if you were to locate it here or
14 there or why couldn't you put it over there.
15 MR. ABBOTT: To that point, I have
16 spoken informally to two appraisers, who are
17 in the opinion in moving it back from where
18 it was, is detrimental to the market value
19 of the property. And moving it back to the
20 top of the bluff would be an adverse impact
21 to the market. Plus then I have to redo
22 I am going to incur a lot of costs. I will
23 be way out of line with I am going to
24 have to go back and start the process over.
• 25 So time, processing, money, aesthetics for
August 8, 2013 Regular Meeting 117
• 1 something with a CO that existed since 1942,
2 you know, I am kind of speechless.
3 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: What was the
4 original size of the gazebo?
5 MR. ABBOTT: The original size of the
6 gazebo was 164 square feet. This is
7 actually 4 square feet less. 10' X 11' was
8 the structure underneath it.
9 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The size of the
10 original gazebo, I think you originally
11 applied to the Trustees for a permit
12 MR. ABBOTT: Yes.
• 13 MS. RIGDON: That is a totally
14 different story. He got misinformation that
15 he could be approved by a 10' X 10' through
16 the Trustees.
17 MR. ABBOTT: I was told that a
18 building permit was not needed for a
19 10' X 10'.
20 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: You were talking
21 about a shed in a conforming location?
22 MR. ABBOTT: No. I was talking about
23 a gazebo. I was told the rules about a
24 shed.
• 25 MS. RIGDON: He was misinformed.
August 8, 2013 Regular Meeting 118
• 1 MR. ABBOTT: And when I found that
2 out, I went back and appealed for a
3 10' X 15'.
4 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: And was that the
5 original?
6 MR. ABBOTT: No. 10' X 15' was 150
7 square feet. The original one was 154
8 square feet.
9 MS. RIGDON: With the concrete
10 platform it actually totaled 195 square
11 feet.
12 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: All right. I am
• 13 glad that we cleared that up.
14 MS. RIGDON: It was smaller. We have
15 attempted to locate everything that we had
16 to. Mark Terry did want it out of the VE
17 Zone. It is out of the VE Zone. We moved
18 it back a couple of feet. So it's at the
19 16 foot, which differs from the Trustees
20 approval at 11. We're willing to mitigate,
21 if you have any other suggestions as well.
22 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Let's just clear
23 this up because this is our last shot.
24 MS. RIGDON: Yes, this is it.
• 25 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The vegetation
August 8, 2013 Regular Meeting 119
• 1 plan that you have here was probably with
2 the original survey that you gave us. It is
3 showing the proposed structure at 11 feet.
4 See, that is what you gave us.
5 MR. ABBOTT: Is that what I e-mailed
6 you?
7 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Yes. This is
8 much more helpful.
9 MS. RIGDON: When I located the top of
10 the slope, Mr. Abbott was very helpful to
11 me. That day was very windy. We discussed
12 moving it back to the 16 feet to try and
• 13 appease the Board and try to come to some
14 kind of negotiation.
15 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Again, I have to
16 take use of the word, "negotiation."
17 MS. RIGDON: Mitigation.
18 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I tried to help
19 you understand, where the code requires 75
20 feet now you know, you're certainly among
21 many of our neighbors. After all, we all
22 live here, that have lost property in storm.
23 So we're doing our best to allow what will
24 work out, as well at the same time, applying
• 25 the environmental science that we now know
August 8, 2013 Regular Meeting 120
• 1 that we're obligated by law to examine and
2 to conform to, which is that LWRP or to find
3 mitigating circumstances. This Board really
4 is attempting to cooperate where there was
5 evidence of some legal existing and to try
6 and protect your property, the neighbors
7 property from future storm events. And
8 again, I am not saying that what you have
9 submitted is something that we (In Audible)
10 but we have to in our decision, explain why
11 we're doing what we're doing. People are
12 going to look at that decision and read that
• 13 decision and throw it back at us and say,
14 "Mr. Abbott, you let that happen. How come
15 we can't have it." Well, we have to make
16 each application specific to the site and
17 the circumstances, so that we don't start a
18 precedent that is Willy-nilly to everybody
19 because then we're arbitrary and capricious
20 and could be wrong. We would be doing
21 things incorrectly. If we have to put these
22 things down, and it's going to say, "Is the
23 variance substantial?" That is one of our
24 standards. And we will calculate the relief
• 25 that is requested from the code, which is 75
August 8, 2013 Regular Meeting 121
• 1 feet. And when you look at it and say 16
2 feet from the bulkhead, do the math? What
3 percentage is 16 feet from the bulkhead when
4 the code requires 75 feet?
5 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Roughly 160.
6 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: So that would be
7 an 80°s variance. Now, the fact that it is
8 that substantial is difficult to basically
9 support. So if we decide to do that, we
10 have to find in the public record, the stuff
11 that you have given us, the testimony that
12 we have heard, reasons to say, however, that
• 13 substantiality is mitigated by the following
14 circumstances. I think we have enough
15 material in the record to have the
16 information that we need to write a good
17 decision, but I want you to understand
18 MR. ABBOTT: Can I ask a question on
19 clarification?
20 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Sure.
21 MR. ABBOTT: As a result of this,
22 whatever this is, do you rule yes or no, or
23 do you rule, this is allowed, this is not?
24 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: We can do this
• 25 is allowed. This is not. We're not going
August 8, 2013 Regular Meeting 122
• 1 to do yes or no. We're going to come to
2 some decision. We can except what you're
3 proposing or we can provide what is called
4 "alternative relief." Which won't require
5 you to do anything else except to submit a
6 final survey or plans adjusting and we can
7 stamp as approved. We can grant alternative
8 relief. You have applied for X, we're
9 prepared to grant Y. And then you would
10 simply get that decision, and you would get
11 a survey showing it located where it was
12 granted. That will get stamped by us and
• 13 then sent to the Building Department to get
14 a permit and your CO. That is how the Board
15 operates. The Board can say, yes or no, but
16 can also grant alternative relief.
17 MS. RIGDON: I was wondering if the
18 rest of the Board has any comments or
19 questions upon making a determination or
20 considering this application?
21 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Well, I am going
22 to ask the Board to comment or make any
23 questions now.
24 MS. RIGDON: Thank you.
• 25 MEMBER HORNING: There is a photo that
August 8, 2013 Regular Meeting 123
• 1 is attached to a memorandum from the LWRP
2 and it's dated July 23rd. And it's a color
3 photograph and shows your property of what I
4 believe was your existing cabana. So the
5 photo goes back to the storm. And in this
6 photo, it's very nice. It shows your
7 neighbor to the immediate north and
8 certainly appears as though his structure is
9 at the top of the bluff.
10 MR. ABBOTT: In that photo, my
11 structure was at the top of the bluff.
12 MEMBER HORNING: No, it wasn't.
• 13 MR. ABBOTT: The back of my gazebo was
14 at the top of the bluff. I just wanted to
15 clarify.
16 MEMBER HORNING: The structure itself
17 was on the slope downwards, seawards of the
18 top of the bluff. I am only mentioning that
19 because the LWRP's recommendation that we
20 kind of work with, recommends or requires us
21 to consider replacement that is at least at
22 the top of the bluff. That none of this is
23 on the slope. As the Chairperson was trying
24 to point out and the mitigating
• 25 circumstances and bring that up would be
August 8, 2013 Regular Meeting 124
1 that, "Hey, yeah, we would mitigate the fact
• 2 that we don't have a 75 foot setback and
3 much less than that exactly, but we will
4 have this structure at the top of the bluff.
5 That is a mitigation of this requirement.
6 Not having it three feet on top of the bluff
7 and ten feet off the top of the bluff or
8 whatever the dimensions are.
9 MR. ABBOTT: My understanding of what
10 the LWRP wanted, was that they wanted it
11 behind the VE Line. We're offering it 16.
12 MEMBER HORNING: Well, you asked for a
• 13 comment and that is my comment. We're
14 perplexed that why this structure is has
15 to be on the slope and cannot be located on
16 top of the bluff, and I myself asked that
17 question at the last hearing. And I have a
18 hard time understanding property values and
19 things like that. I can't understand that.
20 MR. ABBOTT: Well, the change in
21 property value is not determined by me. The
22 property value is determined by a
23 licensed
24 MEMBER HORNING: You're giving us a
• 25 verbal impact on that. I don't even know if
August 8, 2013 Regular Meeting 125
• 1 we consider that.
2 MR. ABBOTT: I had two weeks. You
3 asked for data and I am giving you data.
4 MS. ANDALORO: From a legal
5 perspective, unless you have an appraiser
6 here testifying or sworn affidavit, you guys
7 don't have to consider anything.
8 MEMBER HORNING: Thank you.
9 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I do want to ask
10 for clarification on what you just
11 submitted. It would appear that you're
12 proposed a 10 foot wide at 16 feet, it
• 13 looks as though 4 feet are overhanging 4
14 feet would be overhanging the top and 6 feet
15 would be at the top
16 MS. RIGDON: Approximately.
17 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I just want to
18 be clear on what we're talking about.
19 Ken, do you have any questions?
20 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: It's all right here
21 of whether the Board grants as proposed or
22 gives relief. We have to deliberate on it.
23 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Eric, any
24 comments or questions?
• 25 MEMBER DANTES: No.
August 8, 2013 Regular Meeting 126
• 1 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I think we kind
2 of covered all the issues. Is there
3 anything else that you would like us to
4 consider or anything else to say?
5 MR. ABBOTT: Just to review the
6 reasons, aesthetics, finance. I mentioned I
7 had a medical problem in one of the previous
8 things. I need a covered structure out in
9 front. You were down. You were down and
10 you were down. My front is a disaster. I
11 can't do anything with my front. I can't
12 cut grass. I can't put topsoil down until I
• 13 get this resolved. I have a right-of-way at
14 the side. People from the right-of-way are
15 screaming at me. Kids screaming at me.
16 There has been a lot. Moving the gazebo and
17 getting the thing done.
18 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Now that we have
19 all the information that we need to make a
20 decision, we will move as quickly to make a
21 decision. The earliest possible time would
22 be two weeks from today. If we can manage
23 to get together and prepare a draft
24 decision, we will be deliberating and making
• 25 a decision, which again, you're welcome to
August 8, 2013 Regular Meeting 127
1 come and listen to or you can call the
• 2 office the next day and find out what
3 happened. We will automatically get one
4 mailed to you. If you want to know faster
5 than that, you can call or you can sit in
6 on that. We will certainly move as quickly
7 as possible so that you don't have any
8 further delays.
9 MEMBER DANTES: Mr. Abbott, do you
10 think that you can e-mail us the pictures
11 that you have with the gazebo still
12 standing?
• 13 MR. ABBOTT: I have them with me.
14 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Actually, while
15 we're at it, wasn't there an accessory
16 building? Didn't it have four walls? Hold
17 on. This is important information. Would
18 you please come back to the mic and I am
19 going to repeat it for the transcript.
20 Please describe the accessory beach house,
21 as it was called that existed prior to the
22 storm?
23 MR. ABBOTT: Various town documents
24 describe it differently. Some describe it
• 25 as a beach house. Some describe it as a
August 8, 2013 Regular Meeting 128
• 1 bath house. Some describe it as a storage
2 building. As far as I am concerned, it was
3 a deck and a roof. When I purchased the
4 property in '86, (In Audible) showers and
5 water on the beach. So the first thing I
6 did was pulled the plumbing out. Pulled the
7 drains out. The front door was just a
8 concrete enclosure. It was only used to
9 support the structure. To support the
10 decking and the roof. I am not asking for a
11 beach house.
12 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I want to
• 13 understand what got demolished. Did it have
14 walls on it?
15 MR. ABBOTT: What happened was, if I
16 had concrete repair I talked to a
17 contractor, he could repair that super
18 structure in about a week, it would have
19 cost me $5,000.00. I had another
20 contractor, to put the gazebo back up on the
21 structure and that would have cost me
22 $4,000.00. The problem with getting
23 contractors after that storm was impossible.
24 It became a playground for kids and dogs. So
25 rather then get sued, I took it apart and
August 8, 2013 Regular Meeting 129
• 1 got it out of there. So in doing so, I
2 really
3 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Well, let's look
4 at that. That is a cement block structure
5 that has three sides to it.
6 MR. ABBOTT: Correct.
7 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Can you tell us
8 how high?
9 MR. ABBOTT: Yeah, in looking at it,
10 it was probably 7 1/2, 8 feet tall.
11 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: So it got blown
12 off at the roof
• 13 MR. ABBOTT: No. No. The whole
14 structure in one piece fell off.
15 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: But it had a
16 roof on it?
17 MR. ABBOTT: Yes, it did.
18 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: So all I am
19 saying is, the structure that was there, was
20 maybe 4 foot bigger, square footage wise
21 MR. ABBOTT: Correct.
22 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Then what you're
23 proposing
24 MR. ABBOTT: Correct.
• 25 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: And there were
August 8, 2013 Regular Meeting 130
• 1 three walls and one open on one side facing
2 the water?
3 MR. ABBOTT: Right.
4 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: With a wood
5 roof
6 MR. ABBOTT: There was a deck. It
7 had
8 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay. Planking?
9 MR. ABBOTT: Okay. Like a deck, with
10 space between the planking. When it rained,
11 the water came through.
12 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Was that
• 13 actually built that way?
14 MR. ABBOTT: There was a concrete
15 structure with three sides. There was
16 nothing on the top. I built it with joists
17 and decking material, like a deck.
18 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Like a flat
19 roof?
20 MR. ABBOTT: Yes. And on top of that,
21 we put a support structure and gable roof.
22 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: So it was like a
23 double decker?
24 MR. ABBOTT: Now, you know why it was
• 25 called so many things on different
August 8, 2013 Regular Meeting 131
• 1 documents.
2 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Yes, I do. We
3 never really had a clear description. So
4 there was a concrete structure that was down
5 here, that was a floor to a structure on
6 posts?
7 MR. ABBOTT: Yes.
8 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Posts holding up
9 a structure?
10 MR. ABBOTT: Correct. There was a
11 roof over that and then you went down the
12 stairs. There was a concrete structure that
• 13 I never used it for anything. It was just a
14 big u-shape thing and unsightly. The first
15 thing the Board of Trustees said was,
16 "that's going away; correct?" Now, it is
17 remember, we had another storm after Sandy.
18 That is when that super structure got
19 destroyed.
20 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay.
21 MEMBER HORNING: That is what I was
22 wondering. The structure in the photo
23 MR. ABBOTT: That is on the concrete,
24 6 feet off the base.
• 25 MEMBER HORNING: This is in the
August 8, 2013 Regular Meeting 132
• 1 original place or not
2 MR. ABBOTT: On top of this
3 MEMBER HORNING: I understand that.
4 This structure was not moved from the
5 storm
6 MR. ABBOTT: Nope.
7 MEMBER HORNING: I thought you said it
8 fell over in the storm
9 MR. ABBOTT: The structure on top of
10 it. The one piece got blown over.
11 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: So this is all
12 that remained?
• 13 MR. ABBOTT: Right. This was after
14 the second storm. This further eroded and
15 this cracked it.
16 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay.
17 MR. ABBOTT: Something that was in
18 one piece, I carted it away and got rid of
19 it. This became a playground for every kid
20 in the neighborhood. (In Audible).
21 (Whereupon, Mr. Abbott stepped away
22 from the microphone.)
23 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: You could go inside
24 there if you wanted to?
• 25 MR. ABBOTT: There is nothing there.
August 8, 2013 Regular Meeting 133
• 1 The gazebo started about a foot behind this.
2 I just used the gazebo.
3 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: All right. At
4 least we now know what was there.
5 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: And that fell
6 over?
7 MR. ABBOTT: This came over in one
8 piece.
9 MEMBER HORNING: Let's say there was
10 another storm like Sandy, has anyone
11 mentioned the thought of judging how
12 high the water had gotten, whether your
• 13 reconstructed bulkhead would be breached
14 in another storm like that?
15 MR. ABBOTT: No. I never had a
16 problem with that bulkhead. That bulkhead
17 was built in 1942.
18 MS. RIGDON: Regular storm surge, it's
19 not going to breach.
20 MEMBER HORNING: In your expert
21 opinion, there is not a very good likelihood
22 that a storm
23 MS. RIGDON: Correct.
24 MEMBER HORNING: I was curious about
25 that.
August 8, 2013 Regular Meeting 134
• 1 MS. RIGDON: Right.
2 MR. ABBOTT: I didn't have a problem
3 with the washout.
4 MEMBER HORNING: I gotta tell you,
5 we're looking at another piece of
6 property and if another storm comes, it
7 would probably rip out another 20 feet of
8 that, and there house would be right on
9 the right by a 50 foot drop off.
10 MS. RIGDON: It's very scary.
11 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: He might have
12 some other pictures that might be able to
. 13 help us.
14 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I don't think I
15 fully understood.
16 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: It has to be in a
17 public forum.
18 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: You will
19 notice that when we schedule a site
20 inspection, we can't all at once the
21 Open Meetings Law requires us to be there
22 can't be a quorum. So three is a quorum.
23 So at the most, two.
24 MR. ABBOTT: Okay.
• 25 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: We're not
August 8, 2013 Regular Meeting 135
• 1 really to discuss things with the applicant,
2 other than to clarify.
3 (Whereupon, multiple conversations
4 were taken place at this time.)
5 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The top is
6 landward.
7 MS. RIGDON: Oh wow.
8 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I actually
9 thought that what you had there was smaller
10 then what you came back to the Trustees to
11 request. We did not get copies of that. I
12 don't know. I mean, I have gone through
• 13 this file seven thousand times and I don't
19 recall seeing those photos.
15 All right. Okay. I think we have it
16 all.
17 Hearing no further comments or
18 questions, I am going to make a motion to
19 close this hearing and reserve decision to a
20 later date.
21 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Second.
22 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: All in favor?
23 MEMBER DANTES: Aye.
24 MEMBER HORNING: Aye.
• 25 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye.
August 8, 2013 Regular Meeting 136
• 1 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Aye.
2 (See Minutes for Resolution.)
4
5 (Whereupon, the August 8, 2013,
6 Regular Meeting of the Zoning Board of
7 Appeals concluded at 2:43 P.M.)
8
9
10
11
12
• 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
• 25
August 8, 2013 Regular Meeting 137
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
11 S i g n a t u r e•
12 Je s ca D1 allo
• 13
14
15 Jessica DiLallo
Court Reporter
16 PO Box 984
Holbrook, New York 11791
17
18 Date: August 20, 2013
19
20
21
22
23
24
• 25