HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-10/03/2013 Hearing
1
REGENEC
1 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
COUNTY OF SUFFOLK: STATE OF NEW YORK K
2 X
130ARD OF 4PPUAYS
3 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
4
5 X
6 Southold Town Hall
Southold, New York
7
8 October 3, 2013
9:06 A.M.
9
10 Board Members Present:
11
12 GERARD GOEHRINGER - Member
13 ERIC DANTES - Member
14 KENNETH SCHNEIDER - Member (Left at 1:33 p.m.)
I
15 GEORGE HORNING - Member
16 LESLIE KANES WEISMAN - Chairperson/Member (Excused)
17
18 JENNIFER ANDALORO - Assistant Town Attorney
19 VICKI TOTH - Secretary
20
21
22 Jessica DiLallo
Court Reporter
23 P.O. Box 984
Holbrook, New York 11741
24 (631)-338-1409
25 INDEX TO HEARINGS
I
2
• 1
2 Hearing Page
3
4 Michael Lloyd, #6690 3-9
5 Richard E. & Amanda J.T. 9-19
6 Riegel, 111, #6684 121-122
7 Edward J. Flannigan, #6687 19-27
8 Fordham House, LLC, #6680 28-58
9 Majorie Snyder & Ann Nottes, #6683 58-66
10 Lawrence Holfelder, #6682 66-80
11 Beate & Steven Swanson, #6681 80-92
12 Johnny Donadic, #6689 92-102
• 13 Donald J. McCallion, #6686 102-121
14 Suzanne S. Coleman, #6688 123-145
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
• 25
OCTOBER 3, 2013 REGULAR MEETING 3
1 HEARING #6690 - MICHAEL LLOYD
2 MS. TOTH: The first application is
3 for Michael Lloyd, #6690. Request for
4 variance from Article XXIII Section
5 280-124 and the Building Inspector's
6 March 25, 2013, updated August 29, 2013
7 Notice of Disapproval based on an
8 application for building permit for a
9 deck and a spa additions to existing
10 single family dwelling: 1) less than the
11 code required minimum front yard setback
12 of 40 feet, located at: 2350 Clearview
• 13 Avenue, corner of Gagen's Landing Road in
14 Southold.
15 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Who is here to
16 represent? Will you state your name for
17 the record.
18 MR. BRACKON: Donald G. Brackon, Jr.
19 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: What would you
20 like to tell us?
21 MR. BRACKON: There is no real
22 disturbance to anyone. This is at the end
23 of Gagen's Landing. It's actually just to
24 improve the deck. The reason why we can't
• 25 wrap it around there is because there is
OCTOBER 3, 2013 REGULAR MEETING 4
1 a septic in the back.
2 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: When you say the
3 "back," closest to the water you mean?
4 MR. BRACKON: As you're looking at
5 your plan where the deck wraps around,
6 the weird angle, there is a septic field
7 there.
8 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Mr. Bracken, do
9 you have the application with you? I
10 would just like to run over the reasons
11 of the appeal?
12 MR. BRACKON: I don't have it with
• 13 me.
14 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Let me just read
15 them to you quickly. This application
16 will not have an undesirable change in
17 the character of the neighborhood or a
18 detriment to nearby properties if
19 granted, because: Do you want to give us
20 your opinion?
21 MR. BRACKON: It fits in with the
22 house. It's not going to change the view
23 of the neighborhood. It's not something
24 that you're going to see. There is
• 25 actually a tree lining on the whole side
OCTOBER 3, 2013 REGULAR MEETING 5
of that street, which was put up for
2 privacy also. The Town has a ramp there.
3 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The second one
4 is, benefits sought by the applicant
5 cannot be achieved by some other method
6 feasible for the applicant to pursue,
7 other than an area variance, because:
8 MR. BRACKON: Because the side yard
9 the way the house is set-up, the side
10 yard is already on the other side of the
11 house. We can only put it there and we
12 can't go back.
• 13 MEMBER HORNING: And where did you
14 say the septic is/was?
15 MR. BRACKON: When you're looking at
16 the plan, it extends out and there is a 6
17 foot so to speak with an angle. The
18 septic is in that area. There is the
19 reason why it is such a weird layout.
20 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: And the amount of
21 relief requested is not substantial
22 because: The deck is there, it's wrapped
23 around for what reason?
24 MR. BRACKON: To tie the flow of the
• 25 house together and to makes things easier
OCTOBER 3, 2013 REGULAR MEETING 6
1 placed.
2 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: And for the
3 record, you do have two front yards.
4 MR. BRACKON: We do have two front
5 yards.
6 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The variance will
7 not have an adverse effect or impact on
8 the physical or environmental conditions
9 in the neighborhood or district because:
10 MR. BRACKON: We're not changing
11 anything in terms of going outside of the
12 footprint. We're not disturbing any
• 13 vegetation. We're basically working with
14 what we have already. So we're not like
15 encroaching a corner in any way.
16 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: From Gagen's
I
17 Landing Road extension is what, for the
18 record?
19 MR. BRACKON: As far as I know,
20 that's a Town road and that's a Town boat
21 ramp.
22 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: But it
23 dead-end's?
24 MR. BRACKON: It's a dead-end and
• 25 with one neighbor across the street.
OCTOBER 3, 2013 REGULAR MEETING 7
• 1 MEMBER HORNING: What's the
2 approximate distance the right-of-way
3 or Gagen's Landing is larger than the
4 actual access road?
5 MR. BRACKON: The survey is based on
6 the actual setback.
7 MEMBER HORNING: Right. Is there an
8 edge of the pavement?
9 MR. BRACKON: The edge of the
10 pavement actually goes further away.
11 MEMBER HORNING: And this tree line
12 there that you're describing it's not
• 13 on your property, it's on someone else's
14 property?
15 MR. BRACKON: No, there is a tree
16 line there is arborvitae's and cedar's
17 that are hedge that are blocking out
18 the homeowners property.
19 MEMBER HORNING: Okay. And then on
20 the other side of Gagen's Landing?
21 MR. BRACKON: That has an elevated
22 house because of the flood conditions.
23 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: This is a very
24 strange situation. We actually measured
• 25 Gagen's Landing Road on the opposite
OCTOBER 3, 2013 REGULAR MEETING 8
• 1 side. We have an application on the
2 northwest corner and the stakes were
3 moved after the foundation was poured.
4 And one Saturday morning, the entire
5 association and three Board members
6 measured all of Gagen's Landing Road from
7 Bird View all the way to the turn and I
8 think the average width of Gagen's
9 Landing Road is 32 feet. If I am not
10 mistaken. So to answer your question,
11 it's not a 50 foot road. It does lack
12 that total 50 feet.
• 13 MR. BRACKON: I hear what you're
14 saying.
15 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Do you have any
16 questions of us or any other statements
17 you would like to make?
18 MR. BRACKON: No. I thank you for
19 hearing us. And let me know what is going
20 on so I can proceed or not proceed.
21 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The cardinal
22 question that we ask everybody that is
23 building a deck is, if it's open to the
24 sky?
• 25 MR. BRACKON: It's open to the sky.
OCTOBER 3, 2013 REGULAR MEETING 9
• 1 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: And it's going to
2 remain open to the sky?
3 MR. BRACKON: Absolutely.
4 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Any questions
5 from the Board members? Ken?
6 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: No.
7 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: George?
8 MEMBER HORNING: No.
9 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Eric?
10 MEMBER DANTES: Nope.
11 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Okay. Is there
12 anybody in the audience that would like
• 13 to speak for or against this application?
14 (No Response.)
15 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Okay. Hearing no
16 further comment. I am making a motion to
17 close the hearing and reserve decision to
18 a later date.
19 MEMBER DANTES: Second.
20 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: All in favor?
21 MEMBER DANTES: Aye.
22 MEMBER HORNING: Alye.
23 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye.
24 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye.
• 25 (See Minutes for Resolution.)
OCTOBER 3, 2013 REGULAR MEETING 10
• 2 HEARING #6684 - RICHARD E. & AMANDA
3 J.T. RIEGEL, III.
4 MS. TOTH: This is for Richard E. &
5 Amanda J.T. Riegel, III. Request for
6 variance from Article XXIII Section
7 280-124 and the Building Inspector's
8 July 29, 2013 Notice of Disapproval based
9 on an application for building permit for
10 additions and alterations to existing
11 single family dwelling: 1) less than the
12 code required minimum front yard setback
• 13 of 60 feet, located at: 3651 Crescent
14 Avenue, corner Central Avenue,
15 Munnatawket Avenue and Fox Avenue in
16 Fisher's Island.
17 MR. HAM: Good morning.
18 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Good morning.
19 State your name for the record.
20 MR. HAM: Steven Ham, 38 Nugent
21 Street, Southampton, for the applicant. I
22 have a memo.
23 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: What would you
24 like to tell us for the record?
• 25 MR. HAM: As you can see from the
OCTOBER 3, 2013 REGULAR MEETING 11
• 1 site plan it's a very oddly shaped lot.
2 It has four streets. It has a cut-out for
3 the Rosenfeld property, which produces
4 sort of a weird building envelope. At the
5 same time, it's probably the only
6 conforming lot in the neighborhood. On
7 top of that, we have an existing house
8 that is tucked inside the northeast
9 corner. So we have to work with that
10 condition. Further, one of the streets,
11 Munnatawket Avenue, some of the Board
12 members might had been there is August.
• 13 Essentially, a driveway that serves one
14 other property. The other properties
15 along that street would use the southerly
16 entrance from it. So what's proposed
17 here is to use the existing footprint to
18 building the garage. On top of the
19 garage, the additional living space,
20 which will be in the same footprint.
21 Obviously it will be going higher. That
22 area is already disturbed and won't be
23 further disturbed. Then it's proposed at
24 two covered porches. One open porch be
• 25 constructed also on the same side of that
OCTOBER 3, 2013 REGULAR MEETING 12
• 1 house, on Munnatawket Avenue side. One of
2 the purpose of that is the fact that the
3 interior configuration of the rooms in
4 the house lends itself to using that side
5 of the house for the porches. I have
6 spoken to both the architect and the
7 surveyor told me that the none of the
8 new construction will impact any views
9 from any neighbor. So it's an odd
10 situation the way is currently on this
11 property. The property is quite large.
12 We're proposing to increase the coverage
• 13 only by 1%, and even then, it will be
14 less than a quarter of the maximum
15 allowed coverage. So we would request
16 that you give us the relief that we have
17 asked for in the application. The
18 architect is here if you have any
19 questions or design issues.
20 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Can you just
21 approach and tell us which house it is in
22 this picture? Is this a dirt road?
23 MR. HAM: It's partly paved. This is
24 the house in question.
• 25 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Can we just run
OCTOBER 3, 2013 REGULAR MEETING 13
1 over the reasons for the appeal?
• 2 MR. HAM: Well, I have addressed them
3 in the memorandum.
4 MEMBER HORNING: Mr. Ham, your
5 memorandum refers to a 2.09 acre parcel
6 and the Notice of Disapproval talks about
7 a 91,000 square foot parcel.
8 MR. HAM: Sounds about right.
9 MEMBER HORNING: So they're calling
10 it a nonconforming square foot parcel but
11 you mentioned
12 MR. HAM: Maybe not in width but in
• 13 terms of lot area, it's certainly
14 conforming. This is R-80 zoning.
15 MEMBER HORNING: There is a
16 discrepancy with that.
17 MR. HAM: It's R-80 zoning.
18 MEMBER HORNING: Well, then the
19 Notice of Disapproval is in error then.
20 MR. HAM: I didn't pick up on that.
21 I'm sorry.
22 MEMBER HORNING: Well, we would need
23 that corrected.
24 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Do you want me to
• 25 go to the Planning first or do you want
!
i
OCTOBER 3, 2013 REGULAR MEETING 14
1 to go to Zoning?
• 2 MR. HAM: Do they have to go to
3 Planning?
4 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Well, I want to
5 know what is the correct zoning.
6 MR. HAM: Well, I can the site
7 plan is correct. It's R-80. I am familiar
8 with the area.
9 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: There is
10 something in the Village that is actually
11 120.
12 MR. HAM: It might just be a baby
• 13 section. I am going to meet with the
14 Planning Board later on an Affordable
15 Housing issue. It's R-80. It's a lot
16 measuring it's over 80,000 square
17 feet.
18 MEMBER HORNING: This affects how we
19 would write a decision. Our decision
20 includes this type of information. We
21 agree because of the setbacks but is it a
22 nonconforming parcel or is it a
23 conforming parcel. After the hearing, do
24 you want me to submit it?
• 25 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: You can go this
OCTOBER 3, 2013 REGULAR MEETING 15
1 afternoon.
• 2 MR. HAM: I will get it amended after
3 the hearing.
4 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: It is what it is.
5 MR. HAM: I am 99.9% sure without
6 even looking at a map that it's an R-80
7 zone. And it's over two acres. And it's
8 conforming area. It has the acreage
9 much more acreage.
10 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Gentlemen, do you
11 have any questions of the architect?
12 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: No. I just have a
13 note here. Is there a CO for the shed and
14 the green house.
15 MR. HAM: I did not represent them
16 when they purchased this property but I
17 am quite sure that everything was in
18 order. This they only purchased the
19 property last year. I would have
20 submitted with my questionnaire. Didn't I
21 submit my CO's? Let me see what I have
22 here. The CO's that I had were for the
23 one-family dwelling and alterations for
24 it.
• 25 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: We have no CO's
OCTOBER 3, 2013 REGULAR MEETING 16
1 in our file.
• 2 MR. HAM: When I go to the Building
3 Department, I will check that out.
4 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: We appreciate
5 that.
6 MEMBER HORNING: The proposed garage
7 is supposed to remain in place and the
8 roof taken off, I guess?
9 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Can you spell
10 your name please.
11 MS. GIRTY: B-R-O-O-K-E G-I-R-T-Y.
12 Given the building methods of the
• 13 existing garage and the new one, it made
14 sense to rebuild it exactly in the same
15 area that it is now.
16 MEMBER HORNING: In other words,
17 you're going to take the garage down?
18 MS. GIRTY: We would take the garage
19 down, so we can put the foundation.
20 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Substandard?
21 MS. GIRTY: Yes.
22 MEMBER HORNING: And did you consider
23 any alternative designs that would
24 increase the setback?
• 25 MS. GIRTY: Well, the garage is right
OCTOBER 3, 2013 REGULAR MEETING 17
• 1 next to the driveway or the road. So we
2 wanted to leave the garage where it is.
3 MEMBER HORNING: Well, it's on a sort
4 of improved semi-road but the driveway is
5 on the other side of the house; correct?
6 MS. DIRTY: Yeah.
7 MEMBER HORNING: Usually when
8 something is demolished, the Board looks
9 for increasing the setback. I am just
10 mentioning that.
11 MS. GIRTY: The garage is very small.
12 MEMBER HORNING: Now, you're going to
• 13 have a two-story.
14 MS. GIRTY: Just to make it less wide
15 it would make it much more usable.
16 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Any other
17 questions?
18 MEMBER HORNING: Well, we don't
19 know
20 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: He is going to
21 let us know.
22 MEMBER HORNING: It might effect the
23 setback conditions too.
24 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Do you want to
. 25 leave the hearing open or
OCTOBER 3, 2013 REGULAR MEETING 18
I
1 MEMBER HORNING: I have another
2 question. In regards to the Munnatawket
3 Avenue and the partially paved unpaved
4 portion, it is open to the public;
5 correct? It's the Town road?
6 MR. HAM: It's a Town road.
7 MEMBER HORNING: Do you know if the
8 Town plows it during the winter?
9 MR. HAM: We don't know.
10 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Does anybody else
11 have any questions? Kenny, anything else?
12 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Nope.
• 13 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: So are we closing
14 this subject to receipt of the
15 information if there are CO's on the shed
16 and greenhouse and the zoning?
17 MR. HAM: Assuming that there is not
18 a CO for the shed or the greenhouse, we
19 would apply for it. And if you wanted to
20 make it a condition for any variance, so
21 work could get started.
22 MEMBER HORNING: You will give us
23 that information though?
24 MR. HAM: Yes, I will be there this
25 afternoon.
•
OCTOBER 3, 2013 REGULAR MEETING 19
1 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: So we will be
• 2 seeing you again in the fall?
3 MR. HAM: You will be seeing me
4 several times, I think.
5 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: All right. I will
6 make a motion to adjourn the hearing to
7 this afternoon.
8 MEMBER DANTES: Second.
9 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: All in favor?
10 MEMBER DANTES: Aye.
11 MEMBER HORNING: Aye.
12 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye.
. 13 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye.
14 (See Minutes for Resolution.)
15
16 HEARING #6687 - EDWARD J. FLANNIGAN
17 MS. TOTH: This is a hearing #6687,
18 for Edward J. Flannigan. This is a
19 request for variance from Article XXII
20 Section 280-116(B) and the Building
21 Inspector's July 30, 2013, amended
22 August 7, 2013 Notice of Disapproval
23 based on an application for building
24 permit for a patio and pergola addition,
• 25 at; 1) less than the code required
OCTOBER 3, 2013 REGULAR MEETING 20
• 1 bulkhead setback of 75 feet, located at:
2 330 South Lane, adjacent to Gardiner's
3 Bay in East Marion.
4 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Amy, would you
5 state your name for the record.
6 MS. MARTIN: Amy Martin of
7 Fairweather & Brown, for Edward
8 Flannigan, 205 Bay Avenue.
9 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: What would you
10 like to tell us?
11 MS. MARTIN: First before we start, I
12 have a small correction in my writings. I
• 13 wrote 6' x 25' and it's 9' x 25' because
14 either my eyesight or our draftsman, have
15 to get our act together, the numbers on
16 this plan.
17 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: How does it
18 affect the setbacks?
19 MS. MARTIN: It doesn't. The
20 disapproval is for the right amount. It's
21 just that I staked it out at six feet and
22 I wrote six feet in the description. It
23 doesn't affect the disapproval or the
24 distance to the bulkhead.
• 25 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Very good.
II
OCTOBER 3, 2013 REGULAR MEETING 21
1 MS. MARTIN: What we're asking for is
• 2 a 27" high raised patio. It makes the
3 stepping out onto the patio similar to
4 the first floor of the house. It's 9'
5 long by 25' long. It would be 58' to the
6 bulkhead where 75' is required. It's
7 already a nonconforming setback. This is
8 basically an open patio to be able to
9 step out from sliding glass doors.
10 They're asking for an open pergola to
11 hold vines or keep it open. The house is
12 not similar from adjoining houses and
• 13 does not interrupt any one else's site of
14 vision.
15 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: In reviewing this
16 file, I noticed that there were
17 approximately four lots. This being one
18 of the four as being in the same exact
19 dimensions as the shoreline changes. Is
20 it a possibility you can give us some of
21 the setbacks on the other four either
22 one of the opposite side or two on the
23 opposite side?
24 MS. MARTIN: I don't have that.
• 25 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I mean, you don't
OCTOBER 3, 2013 REGULAR MEETING 22
1 have to get it today.
• 2 MS. MARTIN: I mean, I have an aerial
3 map that I can figure that from. I think
4 the house to the west is slightly back
5 and I think the house to the east is
6 slightly forward, but I can get you
7 those.
8 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Thank you. I
9 would appreciate that. Can we go over the
10 reasons?
11 MS. MARTIN: Yes. Okay. An
12 undesirable change will not be produced
• 13 in the character of the neighborhood or a
14 detriment to nearby surrounding
15 properties, as this is a very small
16 addition of the patio and open pergola
17 above. It's in keeping with the
18 neighborhood of year round seasonal
19 waterfront homes. No. 2, the benefits
20 sought by the applicant cannot be
21 achieved by something feasible other than
22 for the applicant to pursue an area
23 variance as this home has a preexisting
24 nonconforming distance of 64' from the
• 25 bulkhead other than rather than the
OCTOBER 3, 2013 REGULAR MEETING 23
1 75' required. As stated, we're asking for
• 2 a 9 foot deck. The minimum will improve
3 the use and assets.
4 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: You also have an
5 existing 64.08?
6 MS. MARTIN: That was yes.
7 MEMBER HORNING: Can I ask you at
8 this time, in terms of the survey what
9 we're looking at here, we do have a 6
10 foot measurement on the survey.
11 MS. MARTIN: Actually, that's 9.
12 MEMBER HORNING: I don't quite
• 13 understand how that would not affect the
14 setback.
15 MS. MARTIN: I wrote 6. It should be
16 9. It's upside down.
17 MEMBER HORNING: It's upside down?
18 MS. MARTIN: So the survey is correct.
19 My writing is wrong.
20 MEMBER HORNING: Okay. Thank you.
21 MS. MARTIN: So basically, if you
22 were at the site, the planting area in
23 front of the house is really all the area
24 that it would be. There is shrubberies in
• 25 front of the house.
OCTOBER 3, 2013 REGULAR MEETING 24
1 MEMBER HORNING: So if you
•
2 reconfigured the proposed area's
3 MS. MARTIN: It's 225.
4 MEMBER HORNING: 225.
5 MS. MARTIN: It always was. The
6 relief is not substantial because the 9
7 foot will not bother the neighbors or
8 cause problems to the bulkhead. The 275
9 square foot area of the raised patio will
10 match the first floor elevations with the
11 open pergola above, will provide some
12 shade. Actually, what Mr. Flannigan had
• 13 stated, if you look at the house the way
14 it is the patio that we're
proposing is
15 2 feet lower than the shrubs that are
16 there. No one complained at all before
17 that there is any line of sight nuisance.
18 So when we remove these mature shrubs out
19 and put in a patio, we won't be bothering
20 any neighbor. And the fourth variance
21 will not have any adverse effect or
22 impact on the environmental conditions in
23 the neighborhood because it's an addition
24 and the water runoff (In Audible) is to
• 25 be provided. Has the alleged difficulty
OCTOBER 3, 2013 REGULAR MEETING 25
1 been self-created, yes, because we're
2 developed this already. It's a
3 preexisting nonconforming but this is
4 needed to make the home more usable and
5 accessible.
6 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Was this house
7 built in the 601s, if you know?
8 MS. MARTIN: It was '63, according
9 to, I think the original building zone.
10 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Okay. So you're
11 going to give us, whatever in your
12 opinion is the setbacks for those three
• 13 other parcels. It changes drastically
14 when you look at the tax map.
15 MS. MARTIN: There is one to the east
16 that is way out back. Okay.
17 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Does the Board
18 have any other questions?
19 MEMBER DANTES: (In Audible.)
20 MS. MARTIN: Actually, that was a
21 glass wall and actually, I believe now
22 it's going to be sliding glass doors.
23 It's just changing the siding to have
24 open doors where they can access this
• 25 patio. Originally, if you open the whole
OCTOBER 3, 2013 REGULAR MEETING 26
1 thing up, you really don't have any
• 2 protection from bugs. It's not an user
3 friendly as it sounds. It's great when
4 you have a pool but not great when you
5 have a house.
6 MEMBER DANTES: And the other thing
I
7 was gutters in the front? How do you plan
8 on getting the water off the roof?
9 MS. MARTIN: There will be a drainage
10 I am not sure. There is a gutter there
11 now. I am not sure we have to figure
12 out to put the gutter so that it adjoins
• 13 the pergola so that it catches water from
14 the roof. We don't want that water going
15 onto the patio anyway. So we would put
16 the gutter where the arbor joins the roof
17 edge and then catch the water. And then
18 there will be a trench drain at the
19 bottom so that no water goes towards the
20 bulkhead.
21 MEMBER DANTES: Okay. Thanks.
22 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Okay. Kenny, any
23 questions?
24 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: No questions.
• 25 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: George, any
OCTOBER 3, 2013 REGULAR MEETING 27
1 further questions?
• 2 MEMBER HORNING: No.
3 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Is there anybody
4 that would like to speak for or against
5 the application?
6 (No Response.)
7 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Is there anything
8 else that you would like to tell us?
9 MS. MARTIN: No. Thank you.
10 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Okay. Hearing no
11 further questions, I will make a motion
12 to close the hearing of receipt of the
• 13 information that we requested, which is
14 small list of setbacks from the bulkhead
15 from the immediate three or four parcels
16 that are adjacent to this magnificent
17 piece of property.
18 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Second.
19 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: All in favor?
20 MEMBER DANTES: Aye.
21 MEMBER HORNING: Aye.
22 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye.
23 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye.
24 (See Minutes for Resolution.)
• 25
OCTOBER 3, 2013 REGULAR MEETING 28
• 1 HEARING #6680 - FORDHAM HOUSE, LLC.
2 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Okay. The next
3 hearing is a hearing that was adjourned
4 from the last regularly scheduled Public
5 Hearing, Fordham House, #6680.
6 State your name for the record,
7 please.
8 MS. BISHOP: Good morning, Stacey
9 Bishop from East End Construction
10 Services for Fordham House.
11 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Stacey, have you
12 received the Engineer's Report from our
• 13 engineer? Okay. And this is a summary
14 that we just received.
15 What are we going to see on this
16 survey, Stacey?
17 MS. BISHOP: You will see the
18 distance from the road to the house which
19 was not on the last survey. You will
20 notice that there are retaining walls on
21 the right elevation. We also spotted the
22 elevation markers throughout the
23 property.
24 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: And the setback
• 25 is the same from the last survey?
OCTOBER 3, 2013 REGULAR MEETING 29
• 1 MS. BISHOP: Yes.
2 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I just want to
3 take a minute and thanking you for one of
4 the best clearing jobs I have ever seen.
5 A tremendous job. And No. 2, for
6 re-flagging. I noted the bluff area but I
7 didn't notice the setbacks.
8 MS. BISHOP: Yeah. We spent a couple
9 of hours out there on Friday and making
10 sure that it was acceptable for you and
11 making sure you were able to clarify
12 things.
• 13 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: And tell us about
14 the retaining wall situation?
15 MS. BISHOP: The way that we figured
16 it out with respect to the existing
17 elevations because again, there has kind
18 of been an issue created with respect to
19 the adjacent property owner. So what it
20 does, it's created somewhat of the great
21 contract on the right side of the
22 elevation and the elevation on the left
23 side of the property. What we decided, if
24 you place the house as it's shown on the
• 25 survey, the first floor of the house is
OCTOBER 3, 2013 REGULAR MEETING 30
• 1 basically leveled with the adjacent
2 property owner. The way that they have
3 it. This kind of necessitates the cutting
4 out of things and putting different types
5 of retaining walls against the house. So
6 the house itself will act as the
7 retaining wall for that elevation. As you
8 come forward to the property from the
9 street, he does have a series of
10 retaining walls at two feet and four
11 feet, just to kind of step it down a
12 little bit. To kind of hold back of that.
• 13 The Association has done those beautiful
14 retaining walls that were there. They are
15 at an elevation of 42 feet at the left
16 end of the property, which is kind of
17 where the street elevation is, 41 to 42
18 feet. So the intent then is to follow a
19 similar to the bluff. The intent is, once
20 we address the issues on the right side
21 of the property, to kind of do a gentle
22 sloping more in line with what the bluff
23 is. So to end up where the Association
24 puts their retaining wall. So it's not to
. 25 underline or create a hazard for those
OCTOBER 3, 2013 REGULAR MEETING 31
I retaining walls.
• 2 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Okay. Thank you
3 for that because one of the main
4 considerations for us to deal with in the
5 engineering aspects was the retaining
6 wall aspect. And the issue of the zoning
7 issue.
8 MS. BISHOP: Correct.
9 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: So the only issue
10 that we have before us is the actual
11 setback issue that we're concerned about?
12 MS. BISHOP: That's correct.
• 13 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: And the
14 third-story.
15 MS. BISHOP: We can probably dispose
16 of the third-story really quickly. If you
17 recall the issue from the last hearing
18 was the six stairs going up and the
19 windows, that the Board felt that someone
20 could climb out or use that separately as
21 a balcony/space. What my client would
22 then like to do is keep the six stairs in
23 the absence he will put fixed windows
24 in, instead of the double-hung that was
• 25 shown on the plan. And then for
OCTOBER 3, 2013 REGULAR MEETING 32
1 ventilation, come off with some sort of
• 2 an awning window configuration for that,
3 so that you can crank that open. That
4 negates the possibility of someone
5 opening up the window and climbing out
6 onto the balcony. These windows will
7 allow him the ventilation that he needs.
8 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: We did establish
9 that this was a trust roof?
10 MS. BISHOP: That's correct. With the
11 exception of that center part, the rest
12 of the roof if going to be trust. So this
13 is going to be the only attic that he
14 has.
15 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Ken, what were
16 you asking from Stacey before?
17 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: A section view of
18 that third floor.
19 MS. BISHOP: The plans that I
20 submitted are really the best that I can
21 give at this point. There was kind of a
22 cross section that showed it. When you
23 get into the engineering aspect of it,
24 it's $20,000.00 for him to do engineering
• 25 and get the blueprints for this
OCTOBER 3, 2013 REGULAR MEETING 33
• 1 particular structure. In the absence of a
2 definitive decision, he didn't want to
3 spend that money and perhaps it get
4 changed or negated by the Board. Then it
5 would necessitate him for additional
6 plans.
7 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Can you give us
8 an estimate on what the square footage
9 would be up there, whether it's habitable
10 or non-habitable?
11 MS. BISHOP: I think it was on there.
12 It's 14 feet by 22 feet. So 14 feet wide.
• 13 The depth is 22 feet. It's approximately
14 308 square feet, the attic. It's longer
15 than it is wider.
16 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: And just tell us
17 again what that is going to be used for?
18 MS. BISHOP: Storage.
19 MEMBER HORNING: You mentioned
20 something about possible changing of some
21 windows. Is that overlooking a balcony
22 that is shown?
23 MS. BISHOP: Yes.
24 MEMBER HORNING: And making it so no
• 25 one can climb out, is there no doorway?
OCTOBER 3, 2013 REGULAR MEETING 34
• 1 MS. BISHOP: No. The intent is really
2 cosmetic. He just wanted this balcony in
3 the back with the six windows. From the
4 water side, it kind of makes it look
5 grandiose.
6 MEMBER HORNING: With no door?
7 MS. BISHOP: There is no door. The
8 original plan had double hung windows. If
9 that's an issue, then he was willing to
10 do six windows across, maybe some transom
11 window, an operable awning. Just to get
12 some ventilation into that space. He's
• 13 afraid of the heat building up in there
14 and keeping stuff up there and creating
15 damage he may have them.
16 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I just want to
17 discuss the engineering letter dated
18 October 3rd. Do you have a copy of it?
19 MS. BISHOP: I do.
20 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I reviewed this
21 letter and had a short recess out of this
22 room, 25 minutes ago, and in doing so, I
23 had a brief discussion with Mr. Richter
24 and he is quite concern about the water
• 25 runoff on the bluff. As you can see in
OCTOBER 3, 2013 REGULAR MEETING 35
• 1 No. 3 of this evaluation. Apart from the
2 fact that there are C&R's on this
3 property of 100 feet, and part of the
4 reason why you're in front of us. Has
5 there been any discussion of that with
6 your client?
7 MS. BISHOP: Yes. The client is
8 willing to stipulate to the 50 foot
9 non-disturbance buffer at the top of the
10 bluff. I have photos for the Board that
11 show, right now, I have taken photos from
12 the top of the bluff and also from the
• 13 beach. There doesn't seem to be any
14 discernable conditions that is created
15 from runoff. There is a lot of deer
16 paths. There is a lot of animal paths. I
17 do have photos from the other side of the
18 subject from the west, where you have
19 considerable erosion. People have erosion
20 under decks. People have erosion in or
21 about the stairs that are coming down.
22 Just in general. So I think a lot of
23 properties that exist in this community,
24 particularly on the strand, they have the
25 most number of homes on the water, they
OCTOBER 3, 2013 REGULAR MEETING 36
• 1 have lawns going directly to the bluff.
2 They have these decks at the top of the
3 bluff. Right before that precede the
4 stairs going down to the beach. They have
5 experienced a lot of erosion. So I think
6 by agreeing to this 50 foot
7 non-disturbance buffer is going to
8 eliminate those kinds of conditions as
9 what is on the opposite side of the
10 community. Additionally, a gentleman,
11 Robert Constantino from Planter's
12 Paradise in Speonk. I was kind of
• 13 expecting him. I don't know where he is.
14 He is addressing erosion control out in
15 the Hamptons with bluff's and what not.
16 He had some ideas on plant life that is
17 within the area, that have more than
18 advance restructure that will help
19 stabilize that bluff even further. There
20 is also an 8 foot diameter drywell back
21 there that will take care of the water
22 runoff from the roof.
23 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The problem is
24 inconsistencies from the LWRP
• 25 Coordinator. By the way, the purpose of
OCTOBER 3, 2013 REGULAR MEETING 37
• 1 the engineering was for the retaining
2 walls. That is what our major concern was
3 primarily. You know, the stipulation to
4 the non-disturbance buffer is fine to say
5 but we still have an issue with the 100
6 foot setback basically from the Covenants
7 & Restrictions, and I just don't know.
8 MS. BISHOP: Well, I may be able to
9 answer that for you a little. We left it
10 the way it is for a reason. So right now
11 the house is 65.8 from the road. And from
12 the top of the bluff, it's 61 feet. My
• 13 client has agreed that he will push the
14 house 20 feet forward. So than that will
15 give you a buffer of 82 feet. So then we
16 would only seek relief from the Board of
17 that 18 feet. And again, there are houses
18 that are in there, particularly on the
19 strand, along the water, that are closer
20 than 100 feet to the bluff. And we have
21 aerial photos showing that again as well.
22 MEMBER HORNING: What is the code
23 required front yard setback?
24 MS. BISHOP: In this community, it's
• 25 25 feet.
OCTOBER 3, 2013 REGULAR MEETING 38
1 MEMBER HORNING: So he could have a
• 2 front yard setback of 25 feet?
3 MS. BISHOP: He could. But there is
4 an egress down there that goes to the
5 community beach and even at 40 feet. This
6 gives him a 15 feet, more room for the
7 septic to sit in the front yard. This
8 gives him a little more room.
9 MEMBER HORNING: So for that size of
10 a house, he would still need some kind of
11 a variance, like a 3 foot variance?
12 Right?
• 13 MS. BISHOP: Well, he would like to
14 keep it at the 40. So if he came forward
15 that 25 112 feet, out to the 40 feet in
16 the front, it's only a 15 foot it's
17 compliant with the
18 MEMBER HORNING: Right, with the
19 granting of that variance. If the
20 MS. BISHOP: There are other homes
21 that are even further.
22 MEMBER HORNING: What I am getting at
23 is, as this proposed dimensions are
24 and they had the required 100 foot
• 25 setback from the bluff, with those
OCTOBER 3, 2013 REGULAR MEETING 39
1 dimensions, a front yard setback of 22
• 2 feet, is that what you're telling us?
3 MS. BISHOP: I am doing the math
4 really quickly in my head. Yes.
5 MEMBER HORNING: And therefore if it
6 was situated on the property with 100
7 foot setback, you would be coming to us
8 perhaps for a 3 foot front yard setback
9 variance? Would you agree with that?
10 MS. BISHOP: Technically. As we move
11 it forward, we're coming to you for an 18
12 foot rear yard variance.
• 13 MEMBER HORNING: But the Notice of
14 Disapproval hasn't been updated to
15 reflect that.
16 MS. BISHOP: We're proposing that
17 right now as a compromise to the Board.
18 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I think we would
19 want a survey of that with the new
20 setbacks.
21 MS. BISHOP: Okay.
22 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Okay. So give us
23 that.
24 MS. BISHOP: No problem.
• 25 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Okay. Does anyone
OCTOBER 3, 2013 REGULAR MEETING 40
• 1 have any other questions? Eric?
2 MEMBER DANTES: No.
3 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Ken?
4 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Are the
5 applicant's proposing top bluff setback
6 of 82 feet?
7 MS. BISHOP: 82 feet with the 50 foot
8 non-disturbance buffer.
9 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: And the front yard
10 setback requirement is only 25 feet?
11 MS. BISHOP: Yes.
12 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: You keep on
• 13 mentioning the strand. The strand as we
14 have seen from variances that we have
15 had, have actually two bluffs. And so
16 it's very difficult. And we could see the
17 reason why they have 25 foot setbacks.
18 The house is clearly built on the road.
19 The majority of the newer homes.
20 MS. BISHOP: The issue is the erosion
21 and it's valid. Particularly when you
22 look at the strand. So we're willing to
23 work with the Board in order to come up
24 with some type of planting that is
• 25 appropriate to maintain that. So that it
OCTOBER 3, 2013 REGULAR MEETING 41
• 1 doesn't have any of those problems or
2 sloping going on.
3 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Let's just see if
4 anyone has any
5 MEMBER HORNING: I wanted her to
6 address the LWRP, if that hasn't been
7 done yet.
8 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Well, it's more
9 or less of what she has been saying. You
10 can ask her whatever you would like her
11 to.
12 MEMBER HORNING: I still don't
• 13 understand why you can't have a 100
14 setback. I think the LWRP is wondering
15 that also and the Town Engineer is
16 wondering that also. And Statement No. 4
17 of the reasons, variance will not have
18 an adverse effect or impact on the
19 physical or environmental conditions in
20 the neighborhood or district because:
21 And the engineering is saying more so
22 that it would have with that and so does
23 the LWRP. So how do you comment on that?
24 MS. BISHOP: I don't think that it
• 25 would. I don't see how it would. We're
OCTOBER 3, 2013 REGULAR MEETING 42
• 1 stipulating to a 50 foot non-disturbance
2 buffer barrier. So that is 50 feet right
3 there and that is natural vegetation. And
4 that is something that does not exist on
5 other properties. So you have that right
6 there. And taking a look at these other
7 properties in this community, they have
8 lawns that come right up to the bluff.
9 There is a tremendous of underlying
10 there. So if you're set back already, and
11 it's stipulated and agreed, forever, here
12 on forward, that is much more greater
• 13 than what exist in that community. There
14 does not exist any runoff condition.
15 MEMBER HORNING: Have you provided
16 that information with the setbacks of the
17 average in the neighborhood?
18 MS. BISHOP: No.
19 MEMBER HORNING: Did you provide any
20 specific information about comparables in
21 the neighborhood?
22 MS. BISHOP: No. If you would like
23 me to, I can do that.
24 MEMBER HORNING: Yes.
• 25 MS. BISHOP: Absolutely, I will do
OCTOBER 3, 2013 REGULAR MEETING 43
• 1 that.
2 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Gerry, I have
3 another question. In looking at the
4 survey that you submitted, as it shows
5 right now, you propose it at 61.5 feet
6 from the top of the bluff. That is what
7 the survey shows today.
8 MS. BISHOP: That's correct.
9 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: And you have a
10 front yard setback at 65.8 feet.
11 MS. BISHOP: That's correct.
12 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: And you're
• 13 required to maintain a 25 foot front yard
14 setback minimum. And the top of the
15 bluff is 100 requirement. The front yard
16 setback, if you push the house up 40 feet
17 to the south, towards the front yard you
18 would still maintain the front yard
19 setback at 25.8 feet.
20 MS. BISHOP: Correct.
21 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: And then take that
22 40 feet at add it to the 61.5 feet and
23 then have the required 100 foot setback
24 from the bluff.
• 25 MS. BISHOP: That's correct.
OCTOBER 3, 2013 REGULAR MEETING 44
• 1 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Is there a desire
2 to put in a pool at some time because you
3 would need to have a variance for that.
4 MS. BISHOP: No. I understand. My
5 client does not. In fact, this plan that
6 he is copying off the internet does show
7 a pool and fountain and all these other
8 things and he just doesn't want it. He's
9 interested in using the access to the
10 beach to the side entrance. He's not
11 interested in putting steps down to the
12 beach. He's interested in building a
• 13 house and that's it. So that's why there
14 is nothing here with respect to a pool or
15 a fountain. I went over that scenario
16 with the surveyor, I thought he would be
17 here but I guess he is really busy. So I
18 went over it with him and that is when we
19 came up with if he pushed it forward,
20 which allows him an additional 15 feet
21 for the front yard. The way the street
22 comes down, it comes around he just
23 wants a little bit of privacy there. He
24 would like to keep it a buffer. It would
• 25 also allow him a little more for the
OCTOBER 3, 2013 REGULAR MEETING 45
• 1 septic. That is why we're here asking for
2 approval from the Zoning Board.
3 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: How much room is
4 required for the septic?
5 MS. BISHOP: Well, I was trying to
6 figure it out with the surveyor. I know
7 it comes off 10 feet and into a foot
8 pool. The way he has it drawn here, the
9 intent is to have one single car garage
10 on either side, as you see on the survey.
11 One on the left and one on the right.
12 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Anything else,
• 13 George?
14 MEMBER HORNING: Can you comment on
15 the C&R's and the business about modular
16 homes? It didn't appear to be a modular
17 home but is that an added architectural
18 feature? The third floor?
19 MS. BISHOP: That is something that
20 would be constructed here.
21 MEMBER HORNING: The entire third
22 floor, the attic?
23 MS. BISHOP: Oh, no. The attic comes
24 in as a trust system. The roof system
• 25 actually lies on a hinge. So the only
OCTOBER 3, 2013 REGULAR MEETING 46
• 1 thing that would be external of the home
2 at that point would then be that balcony.
3 MEMBER HORNING: But the third floor
4 that you're citing is the entire attic?
5 MS. BISHOP: Correct.
6 MEMBER HORNING: So that is one
7 variance there. And then there is the
8 total lot coverage, you're proposing a
9 22.40 lot coverage. Is there any way to
10 reduce that so that a variance wouldn't
11 be required?
12 MS. BISHOP: I had several
• 13 conversations with the client in regards
14 to that. He feels that it's his opinion,
15 the way the interior of the way the home
16 is laid out, he feels that it would be
17 compromised. So he is asking for me to
18 come to you today to seek for the
19 variance for the required square footage.
20 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: What is the
21 buildable area, Stacey?
22 MS. BISHOP: From the top of the
23 bluff we have 16,245 feet. To the Coastal
24 Erosion Line, it's 14,820. From the
• 25 Coastal Erosion Line he's allowed 2,964
OCTOBER 3, 2013 REGULAR MEETING 47
1 square feet. He is proposing a footprint
• 2 of 3,315.
3 MEMBER HORNING: Well, the Building
4 Department's Notice of Disapproval is
5 based on the top of the bluff?
6 MS. TOTH: No.
7 MS. BISHOP: It's from the Coastal
8 Erosion Line.
9 MEMBER HORNING: And that is where
10 they came up with the 22.4%?
11 MS. BISHOP: I believe so.
12 MEMBER HORNING: And again, can you
• 13 quickly address how you're going to deal
14 with the Covenant's & Restrictions on
15 modular buildings?
16 MS. BISHOP: Well, upon speaking with
17 the homeowner, it's his opinion that the
18 version that existed in 1975 with respect
19 to Covenant's & Restrictions states the
20 construction known as modular. So in
21 looking at the C&R's, the intent is to
22 create a higher community or an upscale
23 community, if you will. So the verbiage
24 that was used no longer exists. Modular
• 25 homes are recognized today as superior.
OCTOBER 3, 2013 REGULAR MEETING 48
• 1 To some of the pictures that are going
2 back to Hurricane Andrew, you can see
3 that these structures are superior
4 quality and the strength it's much
5 more energy efficient. Additionally, the
6 time of construction is shortened
7 greatly. I understand, we have spoken to
8 some people in the community. He hasn't
9 found any opposition to the idea.
10 Additionally with the Covenant's &
11 Restrictions, there have been amendment's
12 in 1975. So it's not carved in stone.
• 13 There have been amendments made and
14 future amendments can be made to
15 accommodate this new technology as it
16 exist today. I know, Mr. Vivona had
17 spoken about concerns of the retaining
18 wall and being damaged by heavy equipment
19 and the roads. I actually had someone
20 come down and look at it, and he foresees
21 no problem. But if it would appease the
22 Homeowner's Association, we would be
23 willing to get liability insurance naming
24 the Homeowner's Association the insured
• 25 to cover any sort of incidentals that
OCTOBER 3, 2013 REGULAR MEETING 49
• 1 might occur. So the intent now is to kind
2 of move forward with the Board and the
3 understanding that there are these issues
4 with the Homeowner's Association and that
5 the Board's approval can't supercede the
6 Homeowner's Association.
7 MEMBER HORNING: Are you saying that
8 this modular is in respect built at a
9 different site?
10 MS. BISHOP: That's correct.
11 MEMBER HORNING: And it's brought in
12 on trailers?
• 13 MS. BISHOP: That's correct.
14 MEMBER HORNING: And put into place?
15 MS. BISHOP: That's correct. As I
16 presented at the other hearing, it far
17 exists more than it was back then. The
18 design capabilities of it. The structure
19 ends of it. There are things that he has
20 in his house for an open floor plan that
21 could not be done on site. The fact that
22 it's being built in the factory, it's
23 almost it's kind if like an assembly
24 line. They have the cranes over head.
• 25 MEMBER HORNING: How many sections?
OCTOBER 3, 2013 REGULAR MEETING 50
• 1 MS. BISHOP: This I think is 8, 1
2 believe.
3 MEMBER HORNING: Four on the first
4 floor and four on the second floor?
5 MS. BISHOP: Yes.
6 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: It's like this.
7 MEMBER HORNING: Thank you.
8 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Okay. Let's see
9 who has anything else to say on this
10 application. Would you kindly also get
11 for us, any areas on where the Board has
12 granted excessive lot coverage. Primarily
• 13 it's going to be the strand.
14 MS. BISHOP: The reason that I didn't
15 present it here because it didn't match
16 up with the tax map numbers. So if that
17 something that you would like, I can take
18 the additional time.
19 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Certainly. And
20 we will close the hearing subject to
21 receiving that. The time actually doesn't
22 run until we receive it.
23 MS. BISHOP: Great.
24 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: In all fairness,
• 25 we have recognized your cooperation on
OCTOBER 3, 2013 REGULAR MEETING 51
1 this project.
• 2 MS. BISHOP: Thank you very much. We
3 appreciate that.
4 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Let's see if
5 there is anyone else that would like to
6 address this application?
7 MR. VIVONA: Yes. My name is Anthony
8 Vivona. I am the president of Pebble
9 Beach. We had a letter drafted sent to
10 the Zoning Board and to the owner and the
11 building company.
12 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: We received it on
• 13 September 30th. We do have the letter.
14 MR. VIVONA: Does the Board have a
15 concern about the modular homes? We have
16 a C&R that has been agreed upon on the
17 onset of this community. Our concern is
18 that we have still have approximately
19 19-20 lots that are still buildable in
20 this community.
21 MEMBER HORNING: How many, sir, 19 to
22 20?
23 MR. VIVONA: 19 to 20. We're told 23
24 can still be built upon. This modular
• 25 home is very nice. It's a beautiful
OCTOBER 3, 2013 REGULAR MEETING 52
• 1 house. But like everything else, there is
2 different grades to the way that it is
3 constructed. We're concerned that you
4 could get a house of less quality put in
5 and wouldn't want to be the neighbor next
6 to the house that is coming in like that.
7 MEMBER DANTES: I understand what
8 you're saying (In Audible.)
9 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I don't want you
10 to go to much further than that, because
11 that aspect is not within our purview. I
12 mean, you're certainly welcome to state
• 13 it and we will take your testimony on
14 that basis, but I want you to understand,
15 that is primarily between you and the
16 homeowner. We don't necessarily grant any
17 type of architectural review in this
18 Board. We just tell you in our opinion,
19 that is where the building is going. We
20 deal with setbacks. And as you heard, we
21 deal with the LWRP Coordinator and our
22 Town Engineer. That is basically where
23 our powers go. I will express an opinion
24 on modular homes, as this young lady
• 25 said, 80% of them are built in a control
OCTOBER 3, 2013 REGULAR MEETING 53
• 1 environment. And which makes them
2 probably a little better than the ones
3 built out in the field. And that's just
4 an opinion. And I kind of agree with
5 that. And I just wanted to tell you. Is
6 there anything else that you wanted to
7 say about the placement of this home?
8 MR. VIVONA: No, but the neighbors
9 will probably have something to say.
10 But my concern is the C&R is being
11 changed, will the Board overrule these
12 C&R's?
• 13 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I will say that
14 we don't particularly enjoy breaching
15 C&R's. Has it been done, yes. It's been
16 done very limited over the years. Started
17 with the a piece of property in Mattituck
18 with the DEC and then went to Southold.
19 There were certain instances in which we
20 had to breach the C&R's. I can count on
21 both hands the amount of times it has
22 been done in 30 years. This may not be
23 the time but we will come to as close as
24 we possibly can to what the C&R's stand.
• 25 That is just in my opinion.
OCTOBER 3, 2013 REGULAR MEETING 54
• 1 MEMBER HORNING: Gerry, maybe not in
2 this particular instance we would not be
3 breaching the C&R's, granting variances.
4 The homeowners are breaching the C&R's by
5 building the construction.
6 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I understand what
7 you're saying. So when you start out with
8 that situation in general, then you know
9 exactly where you stand. And as I said to
10 this young lady before, we appreciate you
11 coming forward and expressing the opinion
12 of the Association in this particular
• 13 matter. You have done it in a very
14 gracious way. We appreciate it.
15 MR. VIVONA: I am not trying to make
16 enemies with nobody. Trying to get a
17 change in the C&R's and the difficulty
18 that we face, in having to get a quorum.
19 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Understand. Thank
20 you. Anybody else? Sir. State your name
21 for the record.
22 MR. ROMANO: Good morning. My name is
23 Bob Romano. I am here on behalf of John
24 LaVanos who is here represented by his
• 25 son Bill. Mr. LaVanos is the property
OCTOBER 3, 2013 REGULAR MEETING 55
• 1 owner at 5295 The Long Way, the property
2 directly adjacent to the subject
3 property. It seems to me after hearing
4 the conversations and discussions today
5 and for lack of a better term, it's
6 really ten pounds of potato in a five
7 pound bag, the size of the proposed
8 building structure. For that reason and
9 several other reasons I will mention
10 today strongly opposes the request for
11 the variances based on several points.
12 One, is there is no prudent reason to
• 13 allow the coverage exceeding the 200. As
14 far as I can tell, the applicant has not
15 reasonably demonstrated to us that they
16 would be prohibited to build a house or
17 that they would be placed into economic
18 duress by not using the existing
19 restrictions. To grant the request would
20 be arbitrary and cause harm to my clients
21 in the form of their property enjoyment
22 as well as their property value. We would
23 respectfully request that the variance be
24 denied for that reason. With regard to
• 25 the setback, be advised upon my personal
OCTOBER 3, 2013 REGULAR MEETING 56
• 1 inspection this morning of the property
2 and it's pretty clear that the proposed
3 building structure if they built it as
4 requested would indeed occupy the views
5 of my client. That would cause them
6 further economic harm in granting the
7 request. For that reason, we would
8 request that the variance be denied. With
9 regard to the fixed building stairs, we
10 really have no objection to that as long
11 as it does not affect the height of the
12 structure and it of course remains code
• 13 compliant. In my experience with fixed
14 stairs, it usually results in the room
15 being used as a play room or game room of
16 that nature. And I would offer that that
17 be considered as well.
18 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Thank you.
19 MEMBER DANTES: Does your clients
20 have any plans to remove the drainage
21 pipe?
22 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: You have to state
23 your name for the record. I am Bill
24 LaVanos. I am John's son. I actually
. 25 today walked the property today and I
OCTOBER 3, 2013 REGULAR MEETING 57
1 called my father. He's going to take care
• 2 of it immediately. He had no idea.
3 MR. ROMANO: He has always shown in
4 good faith to try and be a good neighbor.
5 To have this house situated where they're
6 proposing, and I know they have
7 information that says it would not block
8 the view, but it might not block it
9 entirely, but it would to a certain
10 degree. Thank you.
11 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: It is my opinion
12 and not the opinion of the Board, that
• 13 that view is straight we're not here
14 to create view restrictions. The
15 magnificence it's certainly a
16 magnificent structure.
17 MR. ROMANO: I agree.
18 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I just had to
19 state that.
20 MR. ROMANO: I understand.
21 MEMBER HORNING: Are you intending to
22 submit anything in writing?
23 MR. ROMANO: Yes, I will submit.
24 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Anybody else?
• 25 (No Response.)
OCTOBER 3, 2013 REGULAR MEETING 58
1 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Thank you.
• 2 MR. ROMANO: Thank you very much.
3 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: What we will do
4 is close the hearing subject to receipt
5 of that and other information. Hearing no
6 further comment, I will make a motion
7 closing the hearing, subject to receipt
8 of letters from the applicant's agent and
9 the applicant's next door neighbor.
10 MEMBER HORNING: And Gerry, that
11 includes the setbacks?
12 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The setbacks and
• 13 the lot coverage.
14 MEMBER DANTES: Second.
15 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: All in favor?
16 MEMBER DANTES: Aye.
17 MEMBER HORNING: Aye.
18 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye.
19 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye.
20 (See Minutes for Resolution.)
21
22 HEARING #6683 - MAJORIE SNYDER & ANN
23 NOTTES
24 MS. TOTH: The next hearing is for
• 25 Majorie Snyder and Ann Nottes, #6683.
OCTOBER 3, 2013 REGULAR MEETING 59
1 Request for variance from Article XXIII
• 2 Section 280-124 and the Building
3 Inspector's July 25, 2013 Notice of
4 Disapproval based on an application for
5 building permit for additions and
6 alterations to existing single family
7 dwelling at: 1) less than the code
8 required minimum front yard setback of 35
9 feet, located at: 1245 Inlet Pond Road,
10 corner of Green Hill Lane in Greenport.
11 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Mr. Uellendahl,
12 how are you today?
• 13 MR. UELLENDAHL: I am very well,
14 thank you. And how are you all?
15 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Would you please
16 state your name for the record?
17 MR. UELLENDAHL: My name is Frank
18 Uellendahl and I am representing the
19 owners. Ms. Snyder is here with us, if
20 you have any questions that I cannot
21 answer.
22 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: We have two
23 letters of support, I don't know if you
24 have them. I would like you to tell us
• 25 what you're building and why you need it
OCTOBER 3, 2013 REGULAR MEETING 60
1 in that location? I have read the
• 2 application.
3 MR. UELLENDAHL: This is a relatively
4 small 16,000 plus lot. And it's a corner
5 lot. So we have two front yards. And this
6 is always the case. My owners have bought
7 the house. They put in the pool but now
8 they are wanting to live out here
9 permanently and need an extension,
10 another bedroom. One of the bedrooms will
11 be turned into a home office that they
12 work out of. And the only way to really
• 13 locate this small bedroom was to put it
14 into the front garage area. It has a
15 small deck facing the road. The lot is
16 very well planted. As you can see in
17 those photos, it's hard to see the house
18 from the corner. It's really private.
19 There was really no other way other than
20 to go up, and my homeowners really didn't
21 want that. They want it to be on grade.
22 As we're getting older, they don't want
23 to deal with steps. That's why the
24 location is situated on the site plan and
• 25 makes the most sense. I don't think that
OCTOBER 3, 2013 REGULAR MEETING 61
1 we're asking for much. The addition is
• 2 only 15 feet.
3 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Can we just run
4 over the law for a minute, which is the
5 reason for our appeal? Do you have that
6 in front of you? I know you chose not to
7 use the application and on your own. No.
8 1, the undesirable change will not be
9 produced in the character of the
10 neighborhood or a detriment to nearby
11 properties if the variance is granted
12 because: Just give me
13 MR. UELLENDAHL: Okay. The unique
14 height of the house and the angle. It's
15 existing. And the finishes will be as
16 minimal to the existing house.
17 Furthermore, the variance does not share
18 with other properties. Other properties
19 are very heavily planted. This landscaped
20 buffer will remain unchanged. This single
21 family house, will be a one-story, two
22 bedroom house.
23 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: And the benefits
24 sought by the applicant cannot be
• 25 achieved by some other method feasible
OCTOBER 3, 2013 REGULAR MEETING 62
• 1 for the applicant to pursue other than an
2 area variance.
3 MR. UELLENDAHL: The house is planned
4 in such a way that prohibits additions on
5 any other side of the house. The same
6 could be achieved by adding a second
7 story but it would significantly change
8 the character of the house, as well as
9 intrude on the neighboring properties.
10 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: So based upon your
11 opinion, you couldn't put it on the other
12 side of the garage?
• 13 MR. UELLENDAHL: No, because the
14 garage really blocks the connection to
15 the living area. And the kitchen really
16 extends from the garage to the other side
17 of the house.
18 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Okay. The amount
19 of relief is not substantial because
20 MR. UELLENDAHL: The property
21 consisted of two front yard setbacks of
22 35 feet. The addition is encroaching on
23 the 35 foot setback but still remains
24 20.7 from the side property line. I have
• 25 to tell you. I am not the designer of
OCTOBER 3, 2013 REGULAR MEETING 63
1 this. Denise Snyder is a New York
• 2 architect. Since we're very friendly,
3 they asked me to take care of the
4 building permit and the variance. We
5 have two front yards.
6 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: And the variance
7 will not have an adverse effect or impact
8 on the physical or environmental
9 conditions in the neighborhood or
10 district, because:
11 MR. UELLENDAHL: All views into the
12 property are heavily screened and blocked
• 13 by thick plantings. The house and the
14 proposed addition are very hard to see
15 from the road and other neighboring
16 properties. Additionally, this is only
17 one story height, which remains
18 consistent with what was built in 1970.
19 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: And the last, is
20 the hardship self created?
21 MR. UELLENDAHL: Yes. We had a
22 discussion about this. The existing house
23 is built on the north and easterly
24 setbacks and adding anything to the west
• 25 side would block all natural light to the
OCTOBER 3, 2013 REGULAR MEETING 64
1 rest of the house. The other remaining
• 2 options are to build a second-story,
3 which would significantly change the
4 character of the house.
5 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Thank you.
6 MR. UELLENDAHL: You're very welcome.
7 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Any questions,
8 Eric?
9 MEMBER DANTES: No.
10 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Any questions,
11 Ken?
12 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: No questions.
• 13 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Any questions,
14 George?
15 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: I just have one
16 quick comment. On the survey submitted, I
17 don't see the pool on the survey. I do
18 see it on the stamped drawings. I guess
19 that is your site plan.
20 MR. UELLENDAHL: Correct.
21 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Generally, we
22 would like to see everything on the
23 survey.
24 MR. UELLENDAHL: We're talking about
• 25 this here? This is where the pool is
OCTOBER 3, 2013 REGULAR MEETING 65
• 1 located and shows all the additions.
2 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: I am just looking
3 at the survey that was submitted.
4 MR. UELLENDAHL: Yeah. This hasn't
5 been updated. The original survey was
6 created before the pool was built. That
7 is why I did my site plan with the stamp
8 on it.
9 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Okay. Did you go
10 out there and locate the pool?
11 MR. UELLENDAHL: Yes. I took
12 measurements.
• 13 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Okay. Thank you.
14 It's your stamp.
15 MEMBER HORNING: Can I ask you, if
16 you looked at an alternative location for
17 the extension? You briefly mentioned it.
18 Why could you not just have the addition
19 put in there and eliminate the deck?
20 MR. UELLENDAHL: This is something
21 that my clients would like. They probably
22 would have gone up to a second floor, but
23 we discussed all options.
24 MEMBER HORNING: You feel it's a
• 25 hardship because two front yards?
OCTOBER 3, 2013 REGULAR MEETING 66
• 1 MR. UELLENDAHL: Yes, I do.
2 MEMBER HORNING: Thank you.
3 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Is there anybody
4 in the audience that would like to
5 address this application?
6 (No Response.)
7 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Hearing no
8 questions, I will make a motion to close
9 this hearing and reserve decision to a
10 later date.
11 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Second.
12 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: All in favor?
• 13 MEMBER DANTES: Aye.
14 MEMBER HORNING: Aye.
15 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye.
16 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye.
17 (See Minutes for Resolution.)
19 HEARING #6682 - LAWRENCE HOLFELDER
20 MS. TOTH: The next application is
21 for Lawrence Holfelder, #6682. Request
22 for variance from Article XXII Code
23 Section 280-116(B) and the Building
24 Inspector's June 20, 2013 Notice of
• 25 Disapproval based on an application for
OCTOBER 3, 2013 REGULAR MEETING 67
• 1 building permit for additions and
2 alterations to existing single family
3 dwelling: 1) proposed construction at
4 less than the code required bulkhead
5 setback of 75 feet, located at: 6340
6 Peconic Bay Boulevard, adjacent to Great
7 Peconic Bay in Laurel.
8 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Frank, how are
9 you?
10 MR. UELLENDAHL: I am fine. My name is
11 Frank Uellendahl. I am here representing
12 Mr. Holfelder who lives in Tampa now but
• 13 his family owns this house, I believe
14 since the 1940's. And he would like to
15 make some changes, some upgrades to the
16 building. No improvements have been made
17 except for repair in bulkhead. So the
18 house itself the "as-built" shows four
19 bedrooms. This is not something that the
20 owner needs. So that is why he is
21 suggesting to extend into the yard with a
22 dining room. And the master bedroom suite
23 will go where the (In Audible) is. This
24 is shown in the elevation. It still will
• 25 have the cottage appeal.
OCTOBER 3, 2013 REGULAR MEETING 68
• 1 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Two quick
2 questions. How did the bulkhead make out
3 during in Storm Sandy?
4 MR. UELLENDAHL: I heard there was no
5 damage, but the bulkhead was heavily
6 damaged earlier, 2005-2006.
7 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: So it was
8 re-built?
9 MR. UELLENDAHL: Correct.
10 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: You're aware of
11 the LWRP Coordinator's determination?
12 MR. UELLENDAHL: Yes, I am.
. 13 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: What would you
14 like to say in regards to that?
15 MR. UELLENDAHL: One of those
16 improvements that were made back in 2002,
17 the existing block septic system was in
18 bad shape and sand and gravel was put in
19 and two foot rings were put in. And I
20 feel I mean, they should have put in a
21 septic tank, which can be done but the
22 Building Department does not require me
23 to upgrade the septic system because
24 we're actually eliminating one bedroom.
• 25 It used to be a four bedroom house, and
OCTOBER 3, 2013 REGULAR MEETING 69
• 1 now a three bedroom house.
2 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: So therefore what
3 are you going to do to ensure effective
4 treatment of the sanitary sewer
5 discharges?
6 MR. UELLENDAHL: I feel that this is
7 an improvement already. This is already
8 set back from the bluff. I personally
9 don't have a problem with it, but I would
10 recommend down the line to put in a
11 septic pool, 1,000 gallon septic tank.
12 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I am not sure if
• 13 that is within our purview. I will
14 discuss that with counsel before we
15 close. One of my main concerns, I grew up
16 on the water side, probably a mile from
17 this house. And we still maintain that
18 piece of property which was a family
19 residence for many years. What about the
20 loading of the sun room, which is causing
21 the significant insufficient setback from
22 the bulkhead?
23 MR. UELLENDAHL: There are actually
24 two bulkheads. We do have you know,
• 25 homes were built back then right up to
OCTOBER 3, 2013 REGULAR MEETING 70
• 1 the water. We're not planning to change
2 the sun room. They have a small terrace
3 off the master bedroom. I don't see any
4 problems.
5 MEMBER HORNING: Is this existing 36
6 foot setback, that is from the corner of
7 the sun room?
8 MR. UELLENDAHL: Correct.
9 MEMBER HORNING: And this terrace, is
10 that something that you walk out of a
11 door?
12 MR. UELLENDAHL: Yes.
• 13 MEMBER HORNING: It's like a deck?
14 Covered?
15 MR. UELLENDAHL: I gave you the layout
16 of the master bedroom. Existing stair. We
17 will put in a new stair but it stays in
18 the same location. We will put in a
19 little sitting room. And you will walk
20 into the master bedroom and there will be
21 a sliding glass door that opens to a
22 water view. This is what it looks like.
23 Open. Yeah.
24 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: May I ask then, in
• 25 terms of the new construction of the
OCTOBER 3, 2013 REGULAR MEETING 71
• 1 one-story addition, did you explore
2 alternative ideas to get a greater
3 setback from the bulkhead than the 37
4 the proposed 37 foot.
5 MR. UELLENDAHL: Yes. I always try
6 to. In this case, it's difficult because
7 of the existing location of the cottage.
8 The kitchen should really stay where it
9 is in front, by the driveway. The only
10 way is to open up the wall and have the
11 dining room where it is showing.
12 MEMBER HORNING: Will there be a new
• 13 septic system installed?
14 MR. UELLENDAHL: In 2002, this was
15 received from my client. He had Raymond
16 Mine (phonetic) put in sand and gravel
17 two leeching pools.
18 MEMBER HORNING: I see. So on that
19 detail then, if you're going to put in
20 the 1,000 gallon tank, these other two
21 are going to remain?
22 MR. UELLENDAHL: Correct. This would
23 be a perfect solution to a problem and I
24 will talk to the owner. They might
• 25 consider doing sooner than later.
OCTOBER 3, 2013 REGULAR MEETING 72
1 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: You don't know if
• 2 there was any Suffolk County approval on
3 that new pools that were put in, do you?
4 MR. UELLENDAHL: I don't know.
5 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The second
6 situation, the way or the loading of the
7 addition on the easterly side of the
8 bulkhead, do you find that there will be
9 any excessive loading based upon this
10 addition?
11 MR. UELLENDAHL: I went there many,
12 many times to measure and I walked and I
• 13 do not see any problems based
14 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: You do understand
15 that we have to ask these questions, it's
16 not to be
17 MR. UELLENDAHL: No. No. It's fine.
18 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Let's briefly go
19 back to the law for a second. And just
20 review that quickly. I don't want to
21 forget that. No. 1, the undesirable
22 change will not be produced in the
23 character of the neighborhood or be a
24 detriment to nearby properties if
• 25 granted, because:
OCTOBER 3, 2013 REGULAR MEETING 73
1 MR. UELLENDAHL: Most waterfront
2 homes along Peconic Bay Boulevard are
3 located similarly close to the bulkheads
4 or bluff line. These were built in the
5 1930's - 1940's as summer cottages. When
6 they were no setback regulations in
7 places. Many homeowners have since
8 converted their cottages into large and
9 more comfortable year round residences,
10 which is the applicant's wish as well.
11 The existing cottage has one small
12 bedroom.
. 13 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Thank you. The
14 benefits sought by the applicant cannot
15 be achieved by some other method feasible
16 other than for the applicant to pursue an
17 area variance, because:
18 MR. UELLENDAHL: Due to the location
19 of the home and garage, there is no other
20 way to bring in much needed floor area
21 without the expanding of the living room
22 and raising the attic roof partially over
23 the master bedroom suite.
24 MEMBER HORNING: Okay. You're not
• 25 showing the driveway on the survey. Does
OCTOBER 3, 2013 REGULAR MEETING 74
1 it end at the garage?
• 2 MR. UELLENDAHL: No, it actually wraps
3 around the garage. Since I am working
4 with the Trustees on this application
5 now, I have already updated my plan. I
6 can certainly submit this to you.
7 MEMBER HORNING: Yes, that would be
8 handy. The one-story addition somehow
9 could not be attached more towards the
10 driveway area of the house?
11 MR. UELLENDAHL: There is the septic
12 system and also the driveway.
• 13 MEMBER HORNING: Again, it's hard to
14 visualize that because the driveway is
15 not shown.
16 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The driveway is on
17 the extreme left side.
18 MR. UELLENDAHL: (In Audible).
19 (Whereupon, Mr. Uellendahl stepped
20 away from the microphone.)
21 MR. UELLENDAHL: We all decided that
22 this was the only way to expand and
23 having a dining room that makes sense.
24 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That is why I
• 25 asked you the question about the loading.
OCTOBER 3, 2013 REGULAR MEETING 75
1 Okay. And the amount of relief that is
is 2 requested is not substantial, because:
3 MR. UELLENDAHL: Even those proposed
4 addition of 300 foot is on the ground
5 floor, it is within the 75 foot area from
6 the bulkhead. It will not further
7 increase the noncompliance. (In Audible.)
8 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The last one, is
9 the one that I am mostly concerned about.
10 Regarding the aspect of the LWRP
11 determination and our discussion, the
12 variance will not have an adverse impact
13 on the physical or environmental
14 conditions of the neighborhood or
15 district because:
16 MR. UELLENDAHL: The proposed
17 additions will not present a negative
18 impact on the physical or environmental
19 conditions because they are modest in
20 scale and comparable to neighboring
21 homes.
22 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Okay. I think, in
23 our opinion, if the Board is so inclined
24 to grant this variance, that we're going
• 25 to request since the house is going to
OCTOBER 3, 2013 REGULAR MEETING 76
1 be used more on a full-time basis. Even
• 2 though one less bedroom it's generally
3 going to be used more, we would request
4 the septic tank to be installed. I think
5 the septic tank would be something to
6 allow us to deal with the inconsistency
7 of the LWRP and make it more consistent.
8 Do you understand what I am saying?
9 MR. UELLENDAHL: Yes. I happen to
10 agree. I would have to speak to the
11 owner.
12 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Can you give us a
• 13 determination on that?
14 MR. UELLENDAHL: Yes. Pretty soon.
15 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: In that particular
16 case, we would suspect that installation
17 of the septic tank would be done under
18 the purview of the Health Department
19 approval. And so that we could have that
20 Health Department approval.
21 MEMBER HORNING: I agree with that.
22 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: And this entire
23 dialogue with you Frank, in this entire
24 situation was setback, setback, setback.
• 25 So you take that and take the LWRP
OCTOBER 3, 2013 REGULAR MEETING 77
• 1 inconsistency, the consistency is the
2 fact regarding your whole expertise. So
3 far as I am concerned, you have answered
9 the questions to the best of our ability,
5 and that's to my ability, I should say,
6 and that was the loading. It has been
7 repaired. I think that request of the
8 septic tank, which I am sure they would
9 be very happy to have you do, based upon
10 the fact that we have a system that works
11 but it's substandard to County approval
12 and that is what we're asking for.
• 13 MR. UELLENDAHL: I do have other
19 projects that I am working on and I
15 compared this to them, if you reduce the
16 number of bedrooms this is the first
17 time actually, by reducing the number of
18 bedrooms, you're basically asking to
19 upgrade the septic system. I have seen
20 other things and this was never mentioned
21 on other properties.
22 MS. ANDALORO: (In Audible) for that
23 work?
29 MR. UELLENDAHL: Yeah, I would have
• 25 to find out. That is something that I
OCTOBER 3, 2013 REGULAR MEETING 78
1 don't know.
• 2 MS. ANDALORO: If you have a permit
3 for that and you can provide that to the
4 Board, I think the Board would be
5 satisfied. If you don't have Health
6 Department approval, you should find out
7 if you needed it and whether or not
8 they're going to require it.
9 MR. UELLENDAHL: All right. Usually,
10 when something happens, like a septic
11 system collapses
12 MS. ANDALORO: Right.
• 13 MR. UELLENDAHL: I will have to find
14 out from my client.
15 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: We will adjourn
16 it for two weeks and see what you can
17 give us regarding the septic system.
18 MR. UELLENDAHL: He lives in Florida.
19 They are coming out during the summer.
20 They may want to come out during
21 Christmas. This is not you know
22 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The only problem
23 is, I have to do something with this
24 because of the inconsistency situation.
• 25 You're presently inconsistent. As I said,
OCTOBER 3, 2013 REGULAR MEETING 79
1 you're just an unbelievable person to
• 2 work with and we appreciate everything
3 but as we continue down all of these
4 waterfront areas, they are substandard
5 everything. Not only this one, this one
6 happens to be a pretty good conforming
7 lot then some of the ones that we have
8 dealt with over the years. It's a pretty
9 big piece of property compared to what is
10 there. So in that particular case, all I
11 can say is that is pretty much we're
12 requesting. In some way, if you can help
• 13 us out with that situation.
14 MR. UELLENDAHL: I will try.
15 MEMBER HORNING: And I will say that
16 the variance requested is pretty
17 substantial too.
18 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: You're absolutely
19 correct. So whatever you could tell us,
20 we would really appreciate it.
21 MR. UELLENDAHL: I will get back to
22 you soon.
23 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Okay. So I make a
24 motion adjourning the hearing to 10/17
• 25 subject to a particular proposal to
OCTOBER 3, 2013 REGULAR MEETING 80
1 assist us in removing the inconsistency
• 2 from the LWRP with the Health Department,
3 and from the owners in wanting to be
4 compliant.
5 MEMBER DANTES: Second.
6 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: All in favor?
7 MEMBER DANTES: Aye.
8 MEMBER HORNING: Aye.
9 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye.
10 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye.
11 (See Minutes for Resolution.)
12 *+***+**++*+r*+*+*****+*++*+++++****+
• 13 HEARING #6681 - BEATE & STEVEN
14 SWANSON
15 MS. TOTH: The next hearing is for
16 Beate and Steven Swanson, #6681. Request
17 for variances from Article XXIII Section
18 280-124 and the Building Inspector's
19 May 17, 2013 amended June 24, 2013 Notice
20 of Disapproval based on an application
21 for building permit for additions and
22 alterations to existing single family
23 dwelling, at; 1) less than the code
24 required minimum side yard of 10 feet,
• 25 2) less than the code required minimum
OCTOBER 3, 2013 REGULAR MEETING 81
1 combined side yards of 25 feet. Located
• 2 at 1120 Truman's Path, adjacent to Marion
3 Lake in East Marion.
4 MR. UELLENDAHL: My name is Frank
5 Uellendahl and this is a young couple
6 from the city. They would like - they
7 bought this cottage the original
8 cottage is the one that looks like a
9 shed. It is where the owners lived back
10 then and in the 70's decided to build a
11 new home.
12 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Not these owners?
• 13 MR. UELLENDAHL: No, prior owners.
14 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Prior owners.
15 MR. UELLENDAHL: Then the Building
16 Inspector at the time, said that the
17 plumbing needs to be removed and the
18 kitchen needs to be removed because they
19 cannot have two homes on a zoning lot.
20 And that has not happened. So no one ever
21 followed up. They just moved into the
22 house. But they did the application. We
23 will turn this cottage into a work space.
24 There really isn't much of a kitchen in
• 25 there but they are taking it out. Taking
OCTOBER 3, 2013 REGULAR MEETING 82
1 the shower from the bathroom so that it's
• 2 only a half bath. So it's according to
3 code. So in the meantime, I got a
4 building permit to renovate the main
5 house. They were two small bedrooms
6 facing the street. Like everyone else,
7 people want a nice master suite and the
8 only place was the attic to add a dormer.
9 They did really to have a deck. There
10 really is no deck. The living room is
11 right on the bluff. It's very small. It's
12 also a narrow lot. So the only way I
• 13 decided, listen you cannot put it behind
14 you. It's too close to the bluff. And I
15 suggested to use the side elevations.
16 They have big trees as you probably saw.
17 So we have a 9 1/2 foot porch and then in
18 consideration, a deck on grade wrapping
19 around. So then they can sit on the stoop
20 and enjoy the waterview. The neighboring
21 properties, has very steep ways going to
22 the south. We were trying to keep the
23 minimum 5 feet to the lot line. So the
24 roof of the screened in porch will be
• 25 used as a the roof for the master
OCTOBER 3, 2013 REGULAR MEETING 83
1 bedroom, second floor. That is the extent
• 2 of the application.
3 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: When we looked at
4 your original plan for this side yard, I
5 am looking at what you call the screened
6 in porch and the roof decking. So the
7 screened in porch is really towards the
8 rear?
9 MR. UELLENDAHL: Yes, it is.
10 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: And the deck was
11 in front of that facing the water; is
12 that correct?
• 13 MR. UELLENDAHL: That's correct.
14 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: When I look at
15 the side view, as you mention, that roof
16 will have a flat roof
17 MR. UELLENDAHL: Correct.
18 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: And then it will
19 lead to the master bedroom and then
20 sliding glass doors to the deck?
21 MR. UELLENDAHL: Correct.
22 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: And then the
23 loading of that is to the front of the
24 building, toward the road?
• 25 MR. UELLENDAHL: Correct.
OCTOBER 3, 2013 REGULAR MEETING 84
• 1 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: So the only
2 loading area you have is towards the deck
3 area, to the road?
4 MR. UELLENDAHL: Correct.
5 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Eric, any
6 questions?
7 MEMBER DANTES: No.
8 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Ken?
9 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: The parcel to the
10 south, that is vacant? You said there is
11 a big slope there?
12 MR. UELLENDAHL: Correct.
• 13 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: And you're going
14 to cantilever that terrace?
15 MR. UELLENDAHL: Yes.
16 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: I notice the
17 ledger boards in the deck
18 MR. UELLENDAHL: Yes.
19 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: The sliding glass
20 doors
21 MR. UELLENDAHL: The previous
22 building permit is actually subjected to
23 have a cantilever, balcony. So it's all
24 because of the views. Otherwise, no one
• 25 would be spending the time on those
OCTOBER 3, 2013 REGULAR MEETING 85
• 1 balconies. Of course, we would like to
2 have the deck and the screened porch. We
3 don't want to sit up front.
4 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: And once again,
5 you said that this is the narrowest lot?
6 MR. UELLENDAHL: Yes. If you look at
7 the tax map. Most of them are
8 (Whereupon, Mr. Uellendahl stepped
9 away from the microphone.)
10 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Yep, I got it.
11 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: You need to go to
12 the microphone, Frank.
• 13 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Are you familiar
14 with any variances granted in this area
15 besides the setbacks on other lots?
16 MR. UELLENDAHL: I have worked on a
17 house right on the bay. Right next to
18 Bruce's. There were no variances. I
19 worked on another house, they avoided a
20 variance.
21 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: And these lots are
22 all larger?
23 MR. UELLENDAHL: All larger, yeah.
24 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: What is the
25 footprint of this house?
OCTOBER 3, 2013 REGULAR MEETING 86
1 MR. UELLENDAHL: The house itself is
• 2 little shy of 2,000 square feet. And
3 we're adding a screened in porch of 240,
4 and the deck is also 235. The total
5 building coverage is still under 20.
6 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: And that also
7 includes the
8 MR. UELLENDAHL: The shed.
9 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: And that will
10 become as an accessory structure?
11 MR. UELLENDAHL: Yes. I listed the
12 summary on the site plan corner.
• 13 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Anything else,
14 Ken?
15 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Nope.
16 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: George?
17 MEMBER HORNING: Based on your site
18 plan and the existing side back is a 9
19 foot plus a 5.3 so a 14.8.
20 MR. UELLENDAHL: It's very close to
21 the 15 feet. Just shy about 2 1/2
22 inches.
23 MEMBER HORNING: And you're asking
24 for a 5.5 setback instead of the 15 foot
• 25 that exist, which is fairly substantial,
OCTOBER 3, 2013 REGULAR MEETING 87
1 I will point out. I think you have
• 2 explored alternative designs that you
3 have mentioned already. I will bring it
4 up again.
5 MR. UELLENDAHL: It's the same
6 situation. It doesn't make sense to
7 extend the main house where the main
8 entrance is now. They want to see the
9 water.
10 MEMBER HORNING: And based on the
11 layout of the adjoining neighborhood
12 here, and you mentioned this is one of
• 13 the narrowest lots in the neighborhood,
14 would you provide us with a narrative of
15 those lots on that side of, an analysis
16 of side yard setbacks?
17 MR. UELLENDAHL: Yes, I can find out.
18 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: You had nothing to
19 do with the engineering of the tree house
20 next door, Frank?
21 MR. UELLENDAHL: No. Does it look like
22 my design?
23 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I had to ask you
24 that question.
• 25 MEMBER HORNING: There are trees that
OCTOBER 3, 2013 REGULAR MEETING 88
1 are noted on the site plan here, they
• 2 remain; correct?
3 MR. UELLENDAHL: Yes.
4 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Was there any
5 discussion on making the screened in
6 porch smaller?
7 MR. UELLENDAHL: Usually the screened
8 in porch I already told my clients
9 that they might have to put a bench up
10 against the screen and a narrow elongated
11 table, so you can move around.
12 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: And just briefly
. 13 on the law, an undesirable change will
14 not be produced in the character of the
15 neighborhood or detriment to nearby
16 properties if granted, because:
17 MR. UELLENDAHL: There are much
18 waterfront homes that are located
19 similarly close to the water line. It's a
20 narrow lot. The home was built around the
21 1940's as summer cottages, when
22 regulations allowed these cottages to be
23 built close the bluff line. Many owners
24 have since converted their cottages into
• 25 larger, more comfortable year round
OCTOBER 3, 2013 REGULAR MEETING 89
1 residences, which is what the applicant's
• 2 are currently doing. An building permit
3 was on February 26, 2013 to construct
4 interior alterations and a dormer
5 addition. In the next zoning stage, the
6 owners would like to apply for a screened
7 inch porch and deck off the kitchen and
8 living room, off the side of the
9 building. This will give the owners
10 access to the outdoor area and will not
11 change the character of the neighborhood
12 and allows for more privacy for
• 13 themselves and also for their neighbors.
14 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The benefit
15 sought by the applicant cannot be
16 achieved by some method feasible for the
17 applicant to pursue, other than an area
18 variance, because:
19 MR. UELLENDAHL: Due to the location
20 of the home and there is no other way to
21 gain a usable porch or deck. The lot is
22 narrow. The 50 foot wide lot does not
23 allow for access on the landward side of
24 the existing dwelling where access to the
• 25 basement and the septic system is
OCTOBER 3, 2013 REGULAR MEETING 90
1 located. The applicant's are aware of the
• 2 situation on the lake side and opted not
3 to seek a variance on the lake side.
4 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: When we looked at
5 the property on the north side, we were
6 standing on the side closest to the tree
7 house.
8 MR. UELLENDAHL: The northeast side.
9 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I do understand
10 your argument, when you go the opposite
11 side because of the sheer slope of the
12 neighbors property.
• 13 Three, the amount of relief requested
14 is not substantial, because:
15 MR. UELLENDAHL: There are no other
16 options to enjoy outdoor living without a
17 screened in porch to protect from
18 mosquitos, as you can imagine.
19 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Four, the variance
20 will not have an adverse effect or impact
21 on the physical or environmental
22 conditions in the neighborhood or
23 district, because:
24 MR. UELLENDAHL: Because the deck and
• 25 screened in porch are light structures.
OCTOBER 3, 2013 REGULAR MEETING 91
1 They do not present a negative impact on
• 2 the physical or environmental conditions.
3 All roof runoff will be contained on the
4 site, shown on the site plan to prevent
5 further erosion or erosion. That we're
6 adding because there are no drywell's at
7 this time.
8 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Has the alleged
9 difficulty been self created?
10 MR. UELLENDAHL: Well, I always have
11 questions and problem with this. You
12 know, anything that we do is self if
• 13 we don't do anything, that is fine. It
14 should be, no. But it is self created
15 because I could put probably up front and
16 would need a variance as well.
17 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That would be a
18 topography problem.
19 MR. UELLENDAHL: I wouldn't have
20 agreed to that.
21 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Thank you.
22 MR. UELLENDAHL: Thank you.
23 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Is there anyone
24 else that would like to speak in favor or
• 25 against the application?
OCTOBER 3, 2013 REGULAR MEETING 92
• 1 (No Response.)
2 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Are there any
3 other questions of the Board members?
4 MEMBER HORNING: No.
5 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: No.
6 MEMBER DANTES: No.
7 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Hearing no further
8 questions, I will make a motion closing
9 the hearing subject to information
10 MEMBER HORNING: About side yard
11 variances and setbacks for the
12 neighborhood.
• 13 MR. UELLENDAHL: Correct. I will
14 produce that.
15 MEMBER HORNING: Second.
16 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: All in favor?
17 MEMBER DANTES: Aye.
18 MEMBER HORNING: Aye.
19 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye.
20 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye.
21 (See Minutes for Resolution.)
22
23 HEARING #6689 - JOHNNY DONADIC
24 MS. TOTH: The next application is
• 25 for Johnny Donadic. Request for
OCTOBER 3, 2013 REGULAR MEETING 93
• 1 variances from Article XXII Code Section
2 280-116(B) and Article XXIII Code Section
3 124B and the Building Inspector's
4 August 14, 2013 amended August 23, 2013
5 Notice of Disapproval based on an
6 application for building permit for
7 additions and alterations to existing
8 single family dwelling at: 1) the
9 proposed construction at less than the
10 code required bulkhead setback of 75
11 feet, 2) more than the maximum code
12 permitted lot coverage of 200, located
• 13 at: 325 Willow Point Road, adjacent to a
14 canal in Southold.
15 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Bruce, how are
16 you, sir?
17 MR. ANDERSON: Very well, thanks, and
18 yourself?
19 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Would you state
20 your name
21 MR. ANDERSON: Bruce Anderson, Suffolk
22 Environmental Consultants for the
23 applicant, Johnny Donadic. Before I
24 begin, I am going to hand up two quick
• 25 exhibits. One is tax map of the area and
OCTOBER 3, 2013 REGULAR MEETING 94
1 the second is an aerial photograph.
• 2 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Thank you, sir.
3 MR. ANDERSON: The applicant proposes
4 to construct really two separate
5 two-story additions within the existing
6 footprint of the home and to raise the
7 roof line to improve those additions of
8 the dwelling. The applicant will install
9 105 feet (In Audible) minus of trellis
10 work to the main living room area. The
11 easterly addition is approximately 120
12 feet. The westerly addition is
• 13 approximately 136 feet. A 517 square foot
14 roof deck will be installed over the
15 existing bedrooms and the four will
16 remain unchanged. The exhibits here
17 (Whereupon, Mr. Anderson stepped away
18 from the microphone.)
19 MR. ANDERSON: simply going up
20 within the same footprint. The roof deck
21 would be 39 feet from the bulkhead where
22 75 feet is required. However, there is no
23 further encroachment towards the
24 bulkhead. That is, there is no increase.
• 25 So what we're asking for is relief from
OCTOBER 3, 2013 REGULAR MEETING 95
• 1 281-2B which states that all buildings
2 located on lots with the bulkhead similar
3 structure exists shall be kept not less
4 than 75 feet from the bulkhead. And as we
5 said, we would be 39.6, from the existing
6 bulkhead, thus relief of 35.4 feet
7 requested. The neighborhood is
8 residential in nature. On the tax map,
9 you will see the canal that comes in and
10 almost dividing the overall property in
11 half. Mr. Donadic, is Lot #26 on there.
12 You also see a large lot, 2.6 acres. That
. 13 is owned by the Willow Pond Association.
14 Just so you know, Mr. Donadic is
15 president of the Willow Pond Association.
16 There is also two other parcels in this
17 neighborhood. One is owned by the Town of
18 Southold and the second is owned by the
19 County of Suffolk. The second is the
20 aerial, which we prepared. Again analyzed
21 the neighborhood. And you will note that
22 when you look at the photograph, all the
23 red are the two-story houses in the
24 neighborhood. And Mr. Donadic told me
• 25 that the houses on either side are two
OCTOBER 3, 2013 REGULAR MEETING 96
• 1 story houses. So the vast number of
2 houses here are two-story houses. So by
3 going up, we would be consistent with the
4 other houses in the neighborhood.
5 MEMBER HORNING: Based on the
6 information that you just submitted, you
7 just said the one directly to the
8 right-hand side, the house next to your
9 applicant, is a two-story building.
10 MR. ANDERSON: On either side of it.
11 MEMBER HORNING: You're just
12 highlighting that? That's what you're
• 13 saying?
14 MR. ANDERSON: That's correct. So
15 when we add up the number of lots
16 there are 37 of them in the neighborhood.
17 2 of them are developed. 21 out of the 28
18 contain two-story houses. So most of the
19 canal is bulkhead. When you look at the
20 bulkhead properties on the canal, we
21 determined that 2 out of 11 only comply
22 with the 75 foot bulkhead setback rule.
23 And only because they are actually almost
24 like flag lots. So what I am referring to
• 25 is what would be Lot #21 on your tax map.
OCTOBER 3, 2013 REGULAR MEETING 97
• 1 You will see that it has a flag lot
2 access to the canal. The flag there is
3 109 feet. The second would be Lot #17, he
4 obviously couldn't build within 75 feet
5 because he would have setback problems.
6 So all rectangular lots would not comply
7 with the 75 foot setback. And like I said
8 in this application, we're not proposing
9 to encroach any closer to the bulkhead.
10 MEMBER HORNING: Can you put that in
11 writing some where?
12 MR. ANDERSON: Yeah. I will be more
• 13 with specific information. As far as we
14 could tell, the acreage setbacks between
15 the developed bulkheaded lots and
16 bulkheads would be 34 feet. We're at 39
17 feet. So that gives you the general lay
18 of the land here. I will point out that I
19 asked Mr. Donadic to reach out to
20 all his neighbors. We will note, in the
21 file, you should have four letters of
22 support. If you do not have them, let me
23 know because I have copies.
24 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: We do.
• 25 MR. ANDERSON: So basically the
OCTOBER 3, 2013 REGULAR MEETING 98
• 1 property owners on either side of the
2 house, the two lots behind the house, are
3 familiar with the project and they are
4 all giving the support. We also
5 canvassed the area for other variances
6 and found two bulkhead variances granted
7 to an Angelo (In Audible) Point Road.
8 ZBA Decision #3723, granted March 15,
9 2008. A bulkhead setback of 32 feet, and
10 Richard Mass at 52 Willow Point Road, ZBA
11 Decision #3696 rendered on November 10,
12 1987, we're at 64 foot setback from the
• 13 bulkhead. Also you should know, that this
14 parcel also benefits from a previous
15 Zoning Decision #402 which was granted to
16 the previous owners, Cliff and Ruth
17 Cornell who covered the 23.60. The reason
18 why I mention that because that is the a
19 reason for the Notice of Disapproval. So
20 we're only asking for one variance, which
21 is for the bulkhead setback variance.
22 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Before we go into
23 a discussion. Could you please just run
24 over the area variance reasons with me
25 MR. ANDERSON: That is what I am
OCTOBER 3, 2013 REGULAR MEETING 99
• 1 going to do next. So we believe that the
2 variance should be granted because there
3 will be no impact to the character of the
4 neighborhood. The second story addition
5 would be in keeping with the character of
6 the neighborhood. That most of the
7 neighborhood contains two-story
8 dwellings. And that most of the
9 bulkheaded properties have setbacks that
10 are less than the 75 feet. Also no
11 further encroachment towards the bulkhead
12 is purposed in this application. We
• 13 submit that the benefit sought by the
14 applicant cannot be achieved by some
15 other method feasible for the applicant
16 to pursue other than an area variance
17 because the existing dwelling is setback
18 39.6 feet to the bulkhead and it's not
19 feasible to relocate the dwelling to 75
20 feet from the bulkhead. We submit that
21 the variance sought will not be
22 substantial because there is no further
23 encroachment towards the bulkhead. And
24 relief sought is less than 50% of the
• 25 requirement. And we finally submit that
OCTOBER 3, 2013 REGULAR MEETING 100
• 1 the grant of a variance will not have an
2 undue adverse effect or impact on the
3 neighborhood because all management
4 practices have been incorporated,
5 including maintaining the current number
6 of bedrooms at its current number. We
7 will provide whatever sediment erosion
8 control is deemed by the Town although
9 we're not anticipating any significant
10 severe disturbance to the land itself.
11 There will be no grading. There is no
12 increase in coverage. The height of the
• 13 building is minimized because as I
14 previously pointed out. And we finally
15 submit that the hardship is not self
16 created because the existing dwelling is
17 already located 39.6 feet from the
18 bulkhead. And again, it's not really
19 feasible to pick up this house and move
20 it. That concludes my presentation.
21 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Thank you.
22 Ken, any questions?
23 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Yes. Just briefly.
24 When did your applicant purchase the
• 25 property? 2010?
OCTOBER 3, 2013 REGULAR MEETING 101
• 1 MR. ANDERSON: Yes.
2 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: And there is no
3 need for a lot coverage variance because
4 the ZBA Decision gave you up to 23.6%?
5 MR. ANDERSON: That's correct.
6 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: And you're not
7 decreasing the bulkhead setback?
8 MR. ANDERSON: Correct.
9 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Okay. I have no
10 other questions at this time.
11 MEMBER HORNING: I have no questions.
12 Ken, covered it and your presentation was
• 13 very good and straight forward.
14 MEMBER DANTES: I have no questions.
15 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: You must have been
16 pretty thorough, Mr. Anderson.
17 Is there anyone in the audience that
18 would like to address this application?
19 (No Response.)
20 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I will make a
21 motion closing this hearing and reserving
22 decision to a later date.
23 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Was there an LWRP
24 on this?
• 25 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Yes, it was
OCTOBER 3, 2013 REGULAR MEETING 102
• 1 exempt. I just want to give this to you,
2 Mr. Anderson.
3 Okay. Hearing no further comments, I
4 will make a motion to close this hearing
5 and reserve decision to a later date.
6 MEMBER DANTES: Second.
7 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: All in favor?
8 MEMBER DANTES: Aye.
9 MEMBER HORNING: Aye.
10 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye.
11 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye.
12 (See Minutes for Resolution.)
• 13 +*+++*+*+*+**********r+*r**+***++*+*+
14 HEARING #6686 - DONALD J. MCCALLION
15 MS. TOTH: The next application is
16 for Donald J. McCallion, #6686. Request
17 for variances from Article XXIII Code
18 Section 280-124 and the Building
19 Inspector's August 20, 2013 Notice of
20 Disapproval based on an application for
21 building permit for demolition and
22 reconstruction of a new single family
23 dwelling at; 1) less than the code
24 required minimum side yard setback of 15
• 25 feet, 2) less than the total combined
OCTOBER 3, 2013 REGULAR MEETING 103
• 1 side yards of 35 feet and 3) more than
2 the maximum code permitted lot coverage
3 of 200, located at: 1100 Dean Drive,
4 a.k.a. Beachwood Road, adjacent to Great
5 Peconic Bay in Cuthchogue.
6 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Sir?
7 MR. ANDERSON: Bruce Anderson,
8 Suffolk Environmental for the McCallion
9 Family at 1100 Beachwood Drive. Mr. And
10 Mrs. McCallion are here. Also their
11 neighbor, Mr. Don Suter is also. I am
12 going to be handing out exhibits as I go
• 13 because I asked the architect to just
14 show the Board, give you a sense of what
15 the house would look like. So on
16 April 10th of this year, the McCallion's
17 lost their home to fire. That home was
18 originally built in 1915 and with the
19 family since 1968. The family is
20 obviously traumatized with the loss of
21 their home and is looking to replace
22 their home with a new deck. The
23 McCallion's propose to construct a 1558
24 single family dwelling with an attached
• 25 deck of approximately 800 square feet.
OCTOBER 3, 2013 REGULAR MEETING 104
• 1 The two-story single family dwelling
2 contains five bedrooms and would be
3 served by a septic system and public
4 water. The property contains 22,201
5 square feet and coverage of the entire
6 property is at 12.4%. Here are some
7 elevations. You have a (In Audible.)
8 (Whereupon, Mr. Anderson stepped away
9 from the microphone.)
10 MR. ANDERSON: is 32 feet and I do
11 note that the height regulations are 35
12 feet. It's well below the maximum height
• 13 submitted in this Town. We consider it
14 to be a low elevation two-story house.
15 This is a very tight-nit neighborhood.
16 Largely held in the same family for
17 decades. It is however zoned R-40 and
18 preexisting nonconforming lot. With
19 respect to lot area and lot width, the
20 frontage of this property at the street
21 is 50 feet, where as 150 feet is
22 required. We will also note that it has
23 frontage on Peconic Bay and the property
24 stands out, and becomes wider as you get
• 25 closer to the bay. This here is where
OCTOBER 3, 2013 REGULAR MEETING 105
1 it's most narrow. It is a waterfront
2 parcel. It has a large frontage beach
3 that varies over time. Varies in
4 response to coastal erosion and soil
5 deposition. The next I am going to hand
6 up is an old survey. This survey was
7 recovered from the un-burnt out portion
8 of the house. I highlighted three areas
9 on this survey. First, that it's dated
10 8/30/1971. Second, that the lot contains
11 17,800 square feet and third, that the
12 lot line contains 290 linear feet. Now,
• 13 if you look and compare that with the lot
14 that exist today, you will discover that
15 the lot is no longer 17,800 square feet.
16 It's now 22,201 square feet. We
17 discovered that the side lot line is no
18 loner 290 feet. It is now 342.2 feet.
19 And so this property has grown
20 substantially, and it did so quite
21 rapidly. It is a site for the dredging
22 at the creek. So it's this placing of
23 dredging and material that is causing it
24 to change. That is why this lot is
• 25 larger now than it was particularly, the
OCTOBER 3, 2013 REGULAR MEETING 106
• 1 1971 Van Tile survey. In other words,
2 had the area not been (In Audible) Halls
3 Creek, we would not be before this Board,
4 because the property would have been
5 under 22,000 square feet, and the side
6 yard and total side yard setbacks would
7 have been reduced.
8 MEMBER HORNING: Mr. Ham (sic), I
9 have an immediate question then. Who
10 would determine what spoils would be
11 took?
12 MR. ANDERSON: The County.
• 13 MEMBER HORNING: They arbitrarily did
14 that or
15 MR. ANDERSON: They did all these
16 frontage beaches as spoil sites because
17 there is only two ways you can dredge a
18 creek these days. One is to use a spoil
19 site like this, truck it off site, which
20 is very, very expensive. This is a
21 hydraulic dredging. They pump it all the
22 way west to a gigantic lot of material
23 and then they simply grade it off. Then
24 you have a much larger beach. That is why
• 25 this property is larger than it would be.
OCTOBER 3, 2013 REGULAR MEETING 107
• 1 In other words, historical conditions of
2 this property, we would not need side
3 yard relief because it would have been
4 less than 22,000 square feet and those
5 setbacks would decrease. But we're here,
6 and we're requesting relief from 281.124,
7 which is a nonconforming lot that
8 provides for lots greater than 22,000
9 square feet but less than 39,999 square
10 feet. The minimum side yard setback is
11 15 feet. The total combined side yard
12 setbacks are 35 feet. As proposed, the
• 13 dwelling would be 12.5 feet from the
14 easterly side lot line and 13.6 feet from
15 the westerly lot line. The total
16 calculated side yards is 26.5 feet.
17 Therefore, we're asking for relief of
18 2.1 feet and 1.4 feet in relationship to
19 the single side yard setback and relief
20 of 8.5 feet from the total side yards.
21 That is our variance request. We also
22 make a further request, 280-4, and that
23 may note, defines a buildable land as the
24 area or parcel not including beaches and
• 25 dunes. Here the area of beach is
OCTOBER 3, 2013 REGULAR MEETING 108
• 1 calculated by the surveyor and 8,085
2 square feet. Nevertheless, the Town's
3 Building Department took the position
4 that between existing lawn and the
5 landward area of the beach, the edge of
6 grass on the survey, as a dune. In doing
7 so, an additional 2,033 square feet was
8 subtracted from the buildable area.
9 Thereby increasing lot coverage to
10 increase from 19.4°% to 22.7%. The
11 increase is lot coverage compelled us to
12 go from 19.4 to requested relief of 2.70.
• 13 Now, the survey that is before you, I
14 have looked at this property very
15 carefully and the survey before you
16 you will see that there is edge of grass.
17 Then you will see edge of lawn. Now if
18 you look below where it says, "beach,"
19 you will see a 6 foot contour. You will
20 see the same 6 foot contour splitting
21 between edge of grass and edge of lawn.
22 You will see a third 6 foot contour out
23 where the house is to be constructed. We
24 put a note on the survey, it's my
• 25 opinion, that no actual dune exist on the
OCTOBER 3, 2013 REGULAR MEETING 109
• 1 property because when I go to the
2 regulations, I note that the dune is
3 defined by the Town Coastal Erosion
4 Hazard Law and that reads, a dune is a
5 ridge hill of loose windblown or
6 artificially replaced earth. The
7 principle component which is sand. So
8 the point of the matter is, if we're to
9 be determined that that area, edge of
10 lawn or edge of grass, was not a dune,
11 then we would comply with coverage and we
12 wouldn't be here for De Minimus coverage
• 13 that we're asking for.
14 MEMBER HORNING: Mr. Ham, is that
15 elevation was created by that dredging?
16 MR. ANDERSON: I do not know.
17 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Well, just
18 remember, Mr. Anderson, normally in a
19 situation like this, you could have
20 applied for an interpretation.
21 MR. ANDERSON: I know that.
22 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Okay. Did you
23 have a question? Please state your name
24 for the record.
• 25 MR. MCCALLION: Donald McCallion. I am
OCTOBER 3, 2013 REGULAR MEETING 110
• 1 the owner of the property. Thank you for
2 allowing us to have this hearing today.
3 We appreciate it. I just wanted to point
4 out that there had actually been two
5 dredging's. We brought up Halls Creek who
6 determined where the spoils are put. The
7 property owners received something from
8 the County saying that they would be
9 dredging and spoils would be put on our
10 property but we were never told
11 specifically where it was going to be
12 put. And there have actually been two
• 13 dredging in the last couple of years. The
14 last being in January, 2013. And when the
15 dredging were done, the spoils not only
16 covered those jetty's, but went out into
17 Great Peconic Bay by about 30 or 40 feet.
18 Thereby extending the property, so that
19 we have this addition that Bruce Anderson
20 stated.
21 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Thank you.
22 MR. ANDERSON: I am going to hand out
23 some more exhibits.
24 MEMBER HORNING: Mr. Ham
25 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: It's Mr. Anderson.
OCTOBER 3, 2013 REGULAR MEETING 111
• 1 MEMBER HORNING: I'm sorry.
2 MR. ANDERSON: It's okay.
3 MEMBER HORNING: Mr. Anderson, would
4 it be fair to say that the effect of the
5 dredging increased the property size and
6 therefore affected the side yard setback
7 requirements, but then it did not effect
8 the buildable land area?
9 MR. ANDERSON: That is exactly
10 correct. The side yard setbacks are
11 predicated upon total area of the lot but
12 the coverage is only predicated on that
• 13 portion of the lot that is buildable.
14 MEMBER HORNING: Right. Thank you.
15 And I apologize for confusing you with
16 Mr. Ham and calling you Mr. Ham when you
17 were Mr. Anderson. I am expecting Mr. Ham
18 at another hearing.
19 MR. ANDERSON: Okay. I am going to
20 talk about the neighborhood..I handed up
21 the maps. I would call this sort of
22 Beachwood Community. It extends from
23 Halls Creek ending at Dune Drive or
24 Beachwood Road. And you will see, if you
• 25 look at that, obviously all in front of
OCTOBER 3, 2013 REGULAR MEETING 112
• 1 Peconic Bay. All preexisting
2 nonconforming lots. More lots have been
3 made nonconforming with a possible
4 exception of the end lot, which is 20.1.
5 The minimum lot width, if you would look
6 at the tax map, you will see lots as
7 narrow as 40 feet. The middle lot width
8 in an R-40 Zone is 150 feet. And they
9 all I asked Mr. McCallion to do this,
10 to reach to his neighbors. You have
11 letters of support in your file, I
12 believe. They are all abutting
• 13 neighbors.
14 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I have four,
15 Mr. Anderson.
16 MR. ANDERSON: That's correct. I
17 also went through the Town's records
18 regarding variances and I have four
19 variances. I am just going to hand up
20 one copy for your file. The first
21 variance is Mary Wayner at 575 Beachwood
22 Road. That would be ZBA decision #5711,
23 granted December 5, 2005. That granted
24 setbacks at 3 and 5.5 feet and lot
• 25 coverage at 25.5. The second variance
OCTOBER 3, 2013 REGULAR MEETING 113
• 1 relief granted to Maryanne Meer's whose
2 the abutting neighbor to the left. She
3 is at 1050 Dune Road. That would ZBA
4 decision #5984. Granted on
5 January 25, 2007 for a 1.5 side yard
6 setback for attached deck. The third is
7 Lori Gaylord. I handled that. That is the
8 property at the mouth of Halls Creek, and
9 that was a bulkhead setback of 37 feet.
10 Also a side yard setback to 12.7 feet,
11 where 15 feet is required. And then
12 finally ZBA decision #6585, granted on
. 13 August 21, 2012.
14 MEMBER HORNING: Do you have a sheet
15 that you can submit to us, that you
16 have
17 MS. TOTH: I have them.
18 MEMBER HORNING: Okay. I was just
19 wondering if they were just on one sheet.
20 MR. ANDERSON: No. But next time 1
21 will do that for you. It's a good idea.
22 The fourth is Don and Irene Suter who is
23 here today, and he's at 1150 Dean Drive
24 and that is ZBA decision #5489, granted
• 25 April 16, 2004. In that decision, the
OCTOBER 3, 2013 REGULAR MEETING 114
• 1 Board granted side yard setback relief at
2 5.1 feet, where 15 is required and 23
3 feet to the front lot line, where 50 feet
4 is required. There was also another
5 variance that I was unaware of that your
6 very skilled zoning expert provided to me
7 and that there was an old ZBA decision
8 ran for this property on January 2, 1969
9 for reduced frontage and area. It doesn't
10 say much more than that. So I am now
11 going to go through the variance
12 criteria. We will submit that there is no
• 13 impact to the character of the
14 neighborhood. The dwelling that is
15 constructed is of reasonable size. The
16 dwelling with the deck would be set back
17 from the high water and the beach line.
18 In addition, the side yard setbacks on
19 the westerly side for this property has
20 historically been 6.1. And so, we're
21 increasing this setback from what it
22 existed traditionally for this property.
23 So when we talk about the variance
24 criteria, we submit that there would be
• 25 no impact to the character of the
OCTOBER 3, 2013 REGULAR MEETING 115
• 1 neighborhood. The property is typical of
2 the neighborhood. The dwelling is of
3 reasonable size. And as I submitted
4 before, the side yard setbacks would be
5 increased with previous setback of 6.1
6 feet. While the easterly side would
7 essentially be maintained. We submit that
8 the benefits sought by the applicant
9 cannot be achieved by some other feasible
10 other than an area variance because the
11 lot contains buildable land at 12,083
12 square feet and a limited lot width of
• 13 50 feet. The lot obviously widens as you
14 get towards the beach, but you can't put
15 a house on a beach. The variances that we
16 seek, we submit are not substantial, due
17 to the preexisting setbacks. (In Audible)
18 constitutes 9.3% of the standard. Then
19 the relief for total side yard calculates
20 at 3.5 feet which is 11.6% of the
21 standard. Finally, apply the coverage as
22 depicted on the variance, we're asking
23 for 2.7% coverage limitation. So when we
24 when we look at these variances,
• 25 they're very, very small. They're
OCTOBER 3, 2013 REGULAR MEETING 116
1 De Minimus variances. The granted
• 2 variance will not have adverse effect on
3 the physical or environmental
4 conditions of the neighborhood because
5 ail access management have been
6 incorporated into the design. This
7 project, so you know, benefits from a
8 New York State DEC permit. I will hand
9 that up for your records. So they would
10 include, construction of a septic system
11 with the requirement of Suffolk County
12 Department of Health Services. We will
• 13 control all runoff generated from the
14 project. It will be captured and
15 recharged as code requires. We intend to
16 fully comply with Town standards with
17 respect to drainage. The land would be
18 suitably stabilized with vegetative
19 construction. The proposed driveway would
20 be a gravel. The natural area, that is
21 the area between the lawn and the beach
22 would be preserved in its entirety. And
23 we have minimized our grading and fill to
24 300 yards because that is the minimum
• 25 amount of grading and fill pertaining to
OCTOBER 3, 2013 REGULAR MEETING 117
1 solely for the construction of the septic
• 2 system. I believe this project is exempt
3 from the LWRP. So there doesn't appear
4 to be any special issues regarding that.
5 I submit to you that it's a hardship that
6 we experience and it's not self-created
7 because it's a preexisting nonconforming
8 lot and it's recognized by the Town as a
9 building lot. The applicant has sought to
10 minimize variance request with this type
11 of design, and therefore, at the end of
12 the day, the benefits of the variances
• 13 granted for the applicant would outweigh
14 the benefits to the health, safety and
15 welfare of the community. There would be
16 no detriment to the community. I note
17 again, that all abutting neighbors
18 support the design. It will not impact
19 the health, safety and community to the
20 neighborhood. And that's my presentation.
21 MEMBER DANTES: When was the house
22 purchased?
23 MR. ANDERSON: The house was
24 purchased in 1968.
• 25 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: George?
OCTOBER 3, 2013 REGULAR MEETING 118
1 MEMBER HORNING: Just to reiterate a
• 2 couple of things then. Mr. Anderson, you
3 have submitted other information
4 regarding side yard setbacks?
5 MR. ANDERSON: That's correct.
6 MEMBER HORNING: You have submitted
7 some information here in terms of photo
8 display of what you're suggesting to be
9 neighboring lot coverage's in the
10 neighborhood; correct?
11 MR. ANDERSON: Correct.
12 MEMBER HORNING: And you're further
• 13 suggesting that if someone else had a
14 project that they wanted to do, they
15 would probably need a variance for lot
16 coverage?
17 MR. ANDERSON: That is correct.
18 MEMBER HORNING: And one other
19 question about the detail. I think you
20 were using the Suffolk County DIS
21 System
22 MR. ANDERSON: Yes.
23 MEMBER HORNING: And they sometimes
24 make it seem like there is a lot of
• 25 encroachment
OCTOBER 3, 2013 REGULAR MEETING 119
1 MR. ANDERSON: Yes. It's a software.
is 2 Actually, Mr. Goehringer would probably
3 know a lot more about that because I
4 thought you worked in that division.
5 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No, I didn't work
6 in that division but I worked with that
7 software.
8 MEMBER HORNING: Thank you. That is
9 all my questions.
10 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Ken?
11 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: No questions.
12 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Is there anyone
• 13 that would like to speak in favor or
14 against this application?
15 MR. SUTER: Hi. I am Don Suter. I
16 am the neighbor to this property. They
17 have done a good job with our community.
18 Every house the lots were carved out
19 so long ago, so we have been living with
20 those restrictions for a long time. I am
21 happy that when someone is building a
22 house because they can put a better
23 electrical system in the house. We are
24 always worried about fires on that block.
• 25 To the fore-front, we really need a
OCTOBER 3, 2013 REGULAR MEETING 120
• 1 better system for the community. Not that
2 it's all compliant, but just a better
3 system. I just wanted to note, that we
4 know what we got in the community and
5 what we're dealing with. You know, small
6 lot lines. And also because of the
7 sizes, we're usually over the requirement
8 of the 200. That's the nature of the
9 beast. We all support the application,
10 and the neighbors to.
11 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Anybody else?
12 (No Response.)
• 13 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Seeing no further
14 hands or further comment, I will make a
15 motion taking this whole entire
16 application and accepting it and thanking
17 you for the presentation, I will close
18 the hearing and reserve decision to a
19 later date.
20 MEMBER HORNING: Second.
21 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: All in favor?
22 MEMBER DANTES: Aye.
23 MEMBER HORNING: Aye.
24 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye.
• 25 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye.
OCTOBER 3, 2013 REGULAR MEETING 121
• 1 (See Minutes for Resolution.)
2
3 HEARING #6684 - RICHARD F. & AMANDA
4 J.T. RIEGEL, III
5 MS. TOTH: This is a re-opening of
6 the Richard F. & Amanda J.T. Riegel
7 application, #6684.
8 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: So Mr. Ham, you
9 have given us
10 MR. HAM: Yes. The Notice of
11 Disapproval has been corrected, not only
12 to correct the Zoning District to the
• 13 property, which is correctly R-80 now.
14 Also the section of the ordinance in
15 which the relief is sought, which is the
16 same relief, a required 16 foot setback.
17 And as I confirmed that there was no CO
18 for the greenhouse or the shed, and we
19 would undertake to apply for a building
20 permit and come here as well, within
21 whatever reasonable period you would give
22 us, you can go forward with the variance.
23 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Very good.
24 MEMBER HORNING: I have a question,
• 25 there is no substantial removal of trees
OCTOBER 3, 2013 REGULAR MEETING 122
• 1 for the proposed construction; correct?
2 MR. HAM: Correct.
3 MEMBER HORNING: And very little
4 disturbance to the natural vegetation?
5 MR. HAM: Correct. There is a lawn
6 area a little bit, where the garage is
7 being removed but it's largely the area
8 that is not pristine. Most of the
9 property will clearly be open space. No
10 impact. I have also pointed some of that
11 in the memorandum as well.
12 MEMBER HORNING: Thank you.
• 13 MR. HAM: Thank you.
14 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Hearing no
15 further comment, I will make a motion to
16 close the hearing and reserve the
17 decision to a later date.
18 MEMBER HORNING: Second.
19 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: All in favor?
20 MEMBER DANTES: Aye.
21 MEMBER HORNING: Aye.
22 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye.
23 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye.
24 (See Minutes for Resolution.)
• 25
OCTOBER 3, 2013 REGULAR MEETING 123
1 HEARING #6688 - SUZANNE S. COLEMAN
• 2 MS. TOTH: Our next hearing is for
3 Suzanne S. Coleman, #6688. Request for
4 variances from Article III Code Section
5 280-15 and the Building Inspector's
6 March 4, 2013, renewed August 13, 2013
7 Notice of Disapproval based on an
8 application for building permit for
9 "as-built" alterations to an existing
10 pool house, construction of an in-ground
11 swimming pool and construction of a
12 gazebo, at; 1) work outside of the scope
• 13 of the building permit and certificate of
14 occupancy for the pool house, 2) pool
15 house at less than the code permitted
16 minimum side yard setback of 15 feet, 3)
17 pool house at less than the code
18 permitted minimum rear yard setback of 15
19 feet, 4) in-ground swimming pool in a
20 location other than the code required
21 rear yard, 5) "as-built" gazebo in a
22 location other than the code required
23 rear yard. Located at no number Montauk
24 Avenue in Fisher's Island.
• 25 (Member Horning has recused himself
OCTOBER 3, 2013 REGULAR MEETING 124
is 1 from the hearing/application, #6688)
2 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Ms. Moore, would
3 you kindly state your appearance for the
4 record.
5 MS. MOORE: Patricia Moore, for
6 Suzanne Coleman. The property owner of
7 the subject property. Mr. Coleman is here
8 today. I think we suspect the fact that
9 we're going to start the record at this
10 point and then this hearing would
11 obviously have to be continued. We just
12 learned of the technical problems we had
• 13 as far as people that are available and
14 sitting on the Board. Mr. Coleman
15 traveled a very long way, and the Board,
16 as a courtesy, will start the hearing
17 today.
18 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: We should also
19 point out to Mr. Coleman also, that we're
20 bound by police action at any point. We
21 did have to go through a situation with
22 the judge this morning, which took us a
23 good 35-40 minutes.
24 MS. MOORE: All right. There is a lot
• 25 of information that I have given you in
OCTOBER 3, 2013 REGULAR MEETING 125
• 1 writing. And the reason that I have given
2 you as much as I have, we shouldn't have
3 to be here today. And the reason why I
4 say we shouldn't have to be here today is
5 that if people were doing their jobs,
6 quite frankly, back when the permits were
7 being issued, this should have been
8 resolved back in the 80's, 70's when
9 building permit's had been issued. What
10 I also provided is my affidavit and the
11 numerous invoices regarding the
12 construction and those were just the tip
• 13 of the iceberg. Those are just some. I
14 do have a folder, but I thought those
15 would be the ones that are most
16 descriptive of the work that was being
17 done and timeline. You don't put
18 electricity in a room unless the room is
19 felt for the most part, in that stage of
20 construction. So in my affidavit, that
21 you come to certain conclusions. So in
22 leap of faith, that there are certainly
23 more work that is going on, but those are
24 timeframes to come to the bigger
• 25 picture.
OCTOBER 3, 2013 REGULAR MEETING 126
1 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I just want to
• 2 give you this. I do want to tell you one
3 thing. Mr. Fisher has agreed to come over
4 and do a short inspection for us within
5 the next two weeks. Is that a
6 possibility for him to be able to walk on
7 the property?
8 MS. MOORE: Yeah. That would be
9 great. He has been asking for an
10 inspection for years. We would be happy
11 to have him there.
12 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: We just talked to
13 him and he said that if he could, he
14 would walk on the property and do
15 MS. MOORE: If you want to say
16 something, you have to come up to the
17 microphone. They do transcription here.
18 MR. COLEMAN: I just said, do
19 whatever you like to do and correct
20 whatever needs to be corrected, and I
21 never got an answer.
22 MS. ANDALORO: (In Audible.)
23 MS. MOORE: I think my photograph
24 speak for themselves. It shows the
• 25 exterior. It shows the interior. You can
OCTOBER 3, 2013 REGULAR MEETING 127
1 ask for any testimony you would like. So
• 2 I really can't
3 MS. ANDALORO: (In Audible.)
4 MS. MOORE: Okay.
5 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I just wanted to
6 bring that up before I forget.
7 MS. MOORE: I understand. I forget
8 somethings to.
9 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: What is the phrase
10 that you just used, "Leap of Faith?"
11 MS. MOORE: Yes.
12 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Of all the years
• 13 that we have known you, I have never
14 heard you use that particular phrase.
15 MS. MOORE: I will tell you why,
16 because I never had to go through a
17 Building Department file that was such a
18 mess in all my life and I have been at
19 this for 25-28 years. I have known you
20 since I was young and dark hair. It
21 really is a mess. Excuse me for the
22 younger Board members. We all start out
23 here and this is what you turn into after
24 years of appearing before the Board. The
• 25 reason I say, leap of faith, we have to
OCTOBER 3, 2013 REGULAR MEETING 128
1 in a sense try and picture the paperwork
• 2 that is in the file and based on the
3 numerous invoices that we have, this
4 project is moving in the normal course.
5 And I don't want to belabor what I have
6 already given you because there is a lot
7 of documentation. So what I am going to
8 do on the record is kind of identify the
9 standards of the zoning variance that you
10 have to address. And Mr. Coleman
11 remembered something else. Go ahead.
12 MR. COLEMAN: I think the bills and
• 13 the invoices and the checks for 99-1000
14 of what was paid to the pool house prior
15 to he CO. And it proved that nothing
16 happened after that inspection.
17 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Thank you.
18 MS. MOORE: Okay. Let me go through
19 with respect to the standards of an area
20 variance, that there will be no
21 undesirable change produced to the
22 character of the neighborhood or the
23 property. What I you have the record
24 of when this property was purchased.
• 25 There was a tennis court on the property.
OCTOBER 3, 2013 REGULAR MEETING 129
1 That tennis court remains. This property
• 2 was bought through a sealed bid and
3 Mr. Coleman one the sealed bid and ended
4 up purchasing the property that way.
5 What the Google maps that I have here
6 show that this property has vacant land
7 of Fisher's Island Utility Company to the
8 north, 7.9 acres, if my memory serves.
9 In any case, many acres. It is vacant.
10 To the east, is the Deckson-Dawson
11 property. I know she sent a letter.
12 Thank you. We did get a copy of it and I
• 13 was able to send a copy to my client in
14 advance, and I know he wants to address
15 the points that she makes in the letter.
16 To the west is the Fisher's Island Chapel
17 Union Chapel, pardon me. And that
18 building is close to the road. I believe
19 I described to you, they have chickens in
20 the back in a fence, and that is as far
21 as the fence goes. They are encroaching
22 on the Coleman property but Mr. Coleman
23 and his family have certainly been
24 cooperative. They don't have an objection
• 25 to allow them to continue, since it
OCTOBER 3, 2013 REGULAR MEETING 130
• 1 doesn't bother anybody. So with respect
2 to changing the character of the
3 neighborhood, the improvements have been
4 in place since their permits were first
5 issued. Keeping in my mind, that this
6 property is not considered a waterfront
7 property. The only yard is the rear
8 yard. In the rear yard, is the Coleman's
9 sanitary system and as you approach, the
10 rear yard, you have the regulatory
11 permits that are required from the code.
12 So in practical sense and environmentally
• 13 and really as far as the proper
14 development of this structure, placing
15 the structures on the west side of the
16 house made absolute sense. Again, the
17 paperwork in the records are a mess and
18 partly is that the contractor was
19 Mr. Marshall and I heard this from
20 Mr. Ham, who happens to be in the
21 audience, there were lots of issues with
22 the contractor all over Fisher's Island
23 and he was a little reckless in his
24 paperwork and his work for Fisher's
• 25 Island residents. So I am not surprised,
OCTOBER 3, 2013 REGULAR MEETING 131
1 paperwork that is sloppy at best. And
• 2 then the Building Department had troubles
3 controlling Mr. Marshall. Mr. Coleman?
4 MR. COLEMAN: May I just interject?
5 One of the other problems that we had was
6 Mr. Marshall's office with all the
7 records and papers were burnt. So he had
8 no records. There was nothing.
9 MS. MOORE: Thank you. Really the
10 same argument holds true, whether it's
11 the pool house, the pool, which happens
12 to be a lap pool, and the gazebo, they
• 13 are, as I said, in the side yard. Since
14 this property was acquired, with a tennis
15 court in the center of it. So all of the
16 structures were built what would
17 considered the side yard. The pool
18 setback is not an issue. It is a lap
19 pool and has been there for a long time.
20 It's been there for Ms. Coleman's health,
21 and I have put that all in the record for
22 my written submission. When we look at
23 the surveys that are in this file as
24 well, because (In Audible) are excellent
• 25 surveyor's. They have never had issues
OCTOBER 3, 2013 REGULAR MEETING 132
• 1 with them but we have survey's that are
2 conflicting. And a survey that the
3 Building Department had in their file
4 shows setback being an existing pool and
5 the pool house being located 11 feet from
6 the property line. It was essentially, I
7 want to say, attached, is a loose term.
8 It was close to the tennis court and
9 whether or not at the time, for whatever
10 reason and remember we're dealing with
11 the early 70's, 80's, with attachment of
12 structures and that was something later
• 13 on, in the 90's and later, was clarified
14 by this Board and code revision to make
15 it clear that it couldn't be one Board
16 attaching (In Audible) or asphalt. It had
17 to be habitable space. We obviously don't
18 have habitable space between the tennis
19 court to the pool house and again, we're
20 going backwards in time. And as
21 Mr. Coleman said, when he tried to find
22 out from Mr. Marshall what went on, he
23 said all his records were burned in a
24 fire. So there is no feasible other than
• 25 an area variance. Again, we're dealing
OCTOBER 3, 2013 REGULAR MEETING 133
1 with structures that did get permits. The
• 2 pool when one of the first fliers when
3 the Building Department sent right after
4 the pool was constructed, they sent him a
5 letter saying that it needed a CO, but
6 apparently the only thing that they
7 hadn't seen at the time was the fence.
8 But by the time the letter arrived to
9 Mr. Coleman, there was a fence in place.
10 So as far as Mr. Coleman was aware,
11 Mrs. Coleman, that had been solved. So
12 once you solved the pool fence issue, you
• 13 think you were going to get a C of O.
14 From the records and all, you know that
15 the acting Building Inspector was active
16 on this property, he had worked for the
17 Coleman's. Quite frankly, on Fisher's
18 Island, you can't sneeze on the property
19 without someone knowing about it. So it's
20 hard for us to believe that there was not
21 a pool house, a gazebo? I mean, certainly
22 the acting Building Inspector would know
23 about it and that he paid and asked
24 people to do their work. I don't know
• 25 where the communication didn't just
OCTOBER 3, 2013 REGULAR MEETING 134
• 1 didn't get to the final end product, the
2 C of 0. That didn't happen. As
3 Mr. Coleman had pointed out, he did have
4 a CO for the pool house. I have record
5 and the written application. I have given
6 you what the code would have required as
7 far as notices. If the Building
8 Department would have had a problem and
9 they put a condition of the C of 0, which
10 would make no sense whatsoever, but the
11 building permit was for a pool house. And
12 the building was already under
• 13 constructed and completed, as Mr. Coleman
14 pointed out. You are supposed to give
15 some form of notice but what happened
16 after that, there was some sort of
17 electrical inspection and then a plumbing
18 certificate. Both of those things should
19 have generated a C of O for the interior
20 work. To expect an applicant to submit
21 different plans, it didn't make sense. At
22 the time you have one permit number with
23 one process and you don't get separate
24 applications or separate permits for it.
• 25 Again, it's just the paperwork it's
OCTOBER 3, 2013 REGULAR MEETING 135
• 1 sloppy, at the least. This is a summer
2 home. You can't blame the owner for the
3 mistakes that was made in the Building
4 Department. People rely on the Building
5 Department and the CO's and permits that
6 they get, that once it's issued, it's,
7 the property meets zoning and two, that
8 everything that is there has proper
9 permits. Less than that would leave open
10 every permit. We have to trust our
11 government and our Building Department to
12 issue the permits. With respect to the
• 13 gazebo, apparently that one didn't have a
14 permit and didn't have a C of 0. We can't
15 get one because of the location in the
16 side yard. When you saw the photographs,
17 you could see that the gazebo was pretty
18 much done at the same time and the gazebo
19 provides some shading area for the
20 Coleman's, which now, they're older and a
21 comfortable space for them to watch their
22 grand kids and stay out of the sun. Go
23 ahead, Mr. Coleman, you interject as you
24 like.
• 25 MR. COLEMAN: We both have known (In
OCTOBER 3, 2013 REGULAR MEETING 136
• 1 Audible) in some more serious than
2 others.
3 MS. MOORE: Yes. That was in the
4 written submission but you have heard it
5 from him as direct testimony. With
6 respect to the amount of relief being
7 substantial or not substantial, keeping
8 in mind that the setbacks at the time the
9 building permits were issued, they were
10 10 feet. Not the 15 feet. It really
11 should have been the setback that we're
12 dealing with. Pardon me, for a moment.
• 13 The survey reflects the proposed location
14 being 11 feet at the time, but it's to
15 meet the 10 foot criteria. Again, all the
16 structures are existing. Do you have a
17 question that you need me to answer?
18 MS. ANDALORO: No.
19 MS. MOORE: I just want to make sure
20 that they're paying attention to me and
21 not you.
22 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: It's so weird that
23 we have this situation. Just two Board
24 members.
• 25 MS. MOORE: Oh, yeah. So you get
OCTOBER 3, 2013 REGULAR MEETING 137
• 1 caught not paying attention a little bit
2 more.
3 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No. No. Not
4 paying attention. We get caught on how
5 these things happen at times.
6 MS. MOORE: All right. The final
7 criteria is that there will be no impact
8 on the physical or environmental
9 conditions. Certainly, the location of
10 these structures are as far away from any
11 water as the structures could be. The
12 adjacent piece, which I know was the
• 13 frustration for everyone, as I said, it's
14 a large piece of property. Over 7 acres.
15 In order to develop this property, they
16 would have to maintain large setbacks
17 from property lines themselves. And also
18 the postioning of the property would also
19 necessitate creating setbacks from the
20 water. So our structures certainly don't
21 create any environmental impact. We solve
22 the encroachments onto the Fisher's
23 Island property immediately upon
24 immediately when I was involved. I know
• 25 they were back and forth with the
OCTOBER 3, 2013 REGULAR MEETING 138
• 1 Building Department. I said to wait, to
2 find out what the Building Department
3 wants from us. The hope was to remove the
4 encroachment, given that the permits were
5 already in place and the Building
6 Department would feel comfortable issuing
7 permits. Well, it didn't happen that way
8 and we removed the encroachment. It was
9 cut down, the balcony. The balcony
10 handrails is blocking the door to not
11 create a dangerous condition. And now no
12 longer is encroaching. With respect to a
• 13 bilco door that was placed in the back
14 again, my client was under the impression
15 that we had plenty of room. Bilco doors
16 were not considered encroachments or side
17 yards the Building Department today
18 allows bilco doors to encroach into a
19 side yard. Not over the property line.
20 That too was removed and a board was
21 placed. And all that is still there is
22 the cement that keeps the soil from
23 filling in the area. It's an access for
24 utilities. It should not bother anyone
• 25 and certainly does not create an
OCTOBER 3, 2013 REGULAR MEETING 139
• 1 environmental issue. So on the record, I
2 am going to put together for the rest of
3 the Board members, the maps and which
4 shows the location of my clients house
5 and the driveway that leads to the tennis
6 court and pool and the pool house. Also
7 there is a letter shed in the corner that
8 has variances. So that is not a problem.
9 I will provide that for you. So what I
10 wanted Mr. Coleman to do is respond to
11 Diane Dexter's letter. It seems mostly
12 personal comments that she was making. I
• 13 also have a photograph for the Board.
14 MR. COLEMAN: I just wanted to state
15 for the Board, that at no time did
16 Mrs. Coleman and I do anything without
17 building permits and did all the proper
18 procedures that were necessary to improve
19 our home. We're not familiar with the all
20 the regulations. We relied on the
21 professionals and we paid for them. We
22 have been trying to clean up this matter
23 for three years. We have 26 members in
24 the family and 14 grandchildren, and we
• 25 lost three summers for this aggravation.
OCTOBER 3, 2013 REGULAR MEETING 140
. 1 And at my age, that is not a pleasant
2 place to be. And I don't know, if I have
3 mentioned this, I have spent $30,000.00
4 to date to try and clear this matter. In
5 order to put it into a little bit of
6 context, we have been on Fisher's Island
7 since 1972, and we didn't know anything
8 about Fisher's Island. And we were
9 encouraged by the old (In Audible).
10 Sealed bid. I asked people what I should
11 do. I bid $11,500.00 and the only other
12 bidder was (In Audible) and he bid a
• 13 $1,000.00. I don't know. I know it was
14 substantially less. There was also
15 chatter that whoever brought that
16 property would never be happy because it
17 would be difficult because he didn't want
18 anyone to buy his property, our property.
19 And later on, we became a little bit more
20 concerned and we even offered to buy the
21 utility company at that time it was
22 7 acres, $125,000.00. 1 was 36 years of
23 age. It was a stretch for me. So off we
24 go. We have a neighbor that was unhappy
. 25 that we have bought the property. So we
OCTOBER 3, 2013 REGULAR MEETING 141
• 1 have had up's and down's with the
2 neighbor. I would like to address the
3 neighbor's letter, if I could. In the
4 first part, codes and personal desire and
5 all that. And brings in the utility
6 company and chapel. We have always had a
7 good relationship with the union chapel.
8 We have had an adjoining property. I have
9 let them cut the hedge to open up the
10 property. I have never had a complaint
11 from them. From the chapel. So I don't
12 know what that is all about. For the pool
• 13 house, there is reference that we're too
14 close to a property line. I have never
15 heard of any statements. In reference to
16 a two story building, it's inadequate. It
17 was done by a architect. It was always as
18 it was proposed. She states that she is
19 unhappy because two windows or whatever
20 is facing her property. The next
21 paragraph is in reference to trespassing
22 on her property. We have 14
23 grandchildren and we never go near her
24 property. In fact, we only go down there
• 25 to cut it and keep it in shape. I have no
OCTOBER 3, 2013 REGULAR MEETING 142
• 1 doubt that my grandchildren have probably
2 tied something down there and we told
3 them not to do it. If they were over 5
4 times in years, it would have been a lot.
5 Destroying the trees on the neighbors
6 property. We had some people, they are
7 doing things and they trimmed some spruce
8 trees on our property. Mrs. Dawson got
9 very upset. We paid $3,000.00 to settle
10 the matter. I can show you pictures
11 today are 30 feet high. So I don't quite
12 understand all of that. Mrs. Dawson
• 13 represents that we put rocks in the cove
14 and (In Audible) I really think that's a
15 utilities matter. In order to answer it,
16 we had permission from the utilities
17 company when I offered to buy it, there
18 is a drain going into the main harbor,
19 when the roads to (In Audible) and we
20 were encouraged to keep it clear, and
21 continue to operate and work. We hired a
22 local contractor to go down there and
23 easily keep it clear. Then a long story
24 short, we used that for 30 some odd
• 25 years. She says that I am dumping debris
OCTOBER 3, 2013 REGULAR MEETING 143
• 1 on her property. I think I have the
2 records from the dump. I don't dump in
3 this woman's piece of property. The
4 confusion came with a gentleman named Jim
5 Lane who lives on Mrs. Dawson's property.
6 I believe he's a landscaper. He operates
7 his business out of there. He was
8 working for us as well as Mrs. Dawson.
9 And he said that Mrs. Dawson wanted him
10 to put debris up by the road. I said,
11 ,are you sure?" He said, "yes." So he
12 took debris and put it by the road. And
. 13 all the years later, I said, this isn't
14 right. Maybe she wants it clear. So we
15 cleared it out by the truck loads and
16 went to the dump and took care of it. So
17 I think that addresses that part. I will
18 just give this to you.
19 (Whereupon, Mr. Coleman, stepped away
20 from the microphone.)
21 MR. COLEMAN: We tried to make it
22 nice for everybody. I am happy to answer
23 any questions.
24 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I don't have any
• 25 at this time. Thank you.
OCTOBER 3, 2013 REGULAR MEETING 144
• 1 MR. COLEMAN: Thank you.
2 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Ms. Moore, are
3 you done?
4 MS. MOORE: Yes. I think my comments
5 I think you have heard plenty today.
6 I will see if Mr. Ham has any comments.
7 I will reserve my right to respond if
8 necessary. Thank you.
9 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Mr. Ham?
10 MR. HAM: Steven Ham, 36 Nugent
11 Street, Southampton. I am representing
12 the utility company to the north, who
. 13 received notice about this application
14 two weeks ago. I was on vacation. I was
15 able to get up here and look at the file
16 on Monday, scanned it and we had a
17 conference call with several
18 representatives from the Fisher's Island
19 Utility Company, and for the time being
20 oppose this application. They feel that
21 the materials that Ms. Moore has
22 submitted is incomplete and inaccurate.
23 And many materials and we would like
24 the opportunity to present our side of
• 25 the matter at a subsequent hearing date.
OCTOBER 3, 2013 REGULAR MEETING 145
• 1 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: All right. Very
2 good. Hearing no further comments at
3 this time, I will make a motion to
4 adjourn this hearing to November 7th
5 December 5th
6 MS. MOORE: (In Audible.)
7 (Whereupon, Ms. Moore was no way near
8 a microphone.)
9 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: All right. 1:30
10 on December 5th. I am making a motion to
11 adjourn the hearing till December 5th at
12 1:30 and the hearing will remain open
• 13 until we receive Mr. Ham's response and
14 circulate that.
15 MEMBER DANTES: Second.
16 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: All in favor?
17 MEMBER DANTES: Aye.
18 MEMBER HORNING: Aye.
19 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye.
20 (See Minutes for Resolution.)
21
22
23 (Whereupon, the October 3, 2013,
24 Regular Meeting of the Zoning Board of
• 25 Appeals concluded at 2:20 P.M.)
OCTOBER 3, 2013 REGULAR MEETING 146
• 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 o earings.
10
11 Signature:
12 Jessica
• 13
14
15 Jessica DiLallo
Court Reporter
16 PO Box 984
Holbrook, New York 11741
17
18 Date: October 17, 2013
19
20
21
22
23
24
• 25