HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-11/07/2013 Hearing 1
I TOWN OF SOUTHOLD ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
COUNTY OF SUFFOLK : STATE OF NEW YORK
2 ------------------------------------------- X
3 TOWN OF SOUTHOLDfFy
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
4
'30ARD DFAPPFALq
6 Southold Town Hall
Southold, New York
7
8 November 7 , 2013
10 : 05 A. M.
9
10 Board Members Present :
11
12 LESLIE KANES WEISMAN - Chairperson/Member
13 ERIC DANTES - Member
14 GERARD GOEHRINGER - Member
15 GEORGE HORNING - Member (Left at 2 : 15 P . M. )
16 KENNETH SCHNEIDER - Member
17 JENNIFER ANDALORO - Assistant Town Attorney
18 VICKI TOTH - Secretary
19
20
21
22 Jessica DiLallo
Court Reporter
23 P. O. Box 984
Holbrook, New York 11741
24 ( 631 ) -338-1409
25
2
1 INDEX TO HEARINGS
2
3 Hearing Page
4
5 Preston Reed, #6696 3-7
6 Christian Rogers & Daniela Vitali
7 (CV) , #6697 8-13
8 Roy Ward, III , # 6691 13-25
9 Jeffrey S . Pundyk, # 6694 25-32
10 True Light Church (Keith Benson) , # 6695 32-38
11 Estate of James J . Bissett , III , # 6698 38-48
12 Joanna Chernushka , # 6693 48-83
• 13 Brewer Yacht Club @ Greenport , Inc . , # 6699 83-96
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
November 7, 2013 Regular Meeting 3
1 HEARING #6696 - PRESTON
REED
• 2 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The first
3 application before the Board is for
4 Preston Reed, # 6696 . Request for
5 variance from Article XXIII Section
6 280-124 and the Building Inspector ' s
7 August 13 , 2013 Notice of Disapproval
8 based on an application for building
9 permit for screen porch addition to
10 existing single family dwelling : 1 ) less
11 than the code required minimum rear yard
12 setback of 75 feet , located at : No # Off
• 13 East End Road, adjacent to Fisher ' s
14 Island Sound, Fisher ' s Island .
15 Good morning .
16 MR . HAM : Good morning . Stephen Ham,
17 38 Nugent Street , Southampton, New York,
18 for the applicant . This project involves
19 a removal of an existing screened porch
20 and it ' s replacement in the same location
21 of a larger porch, which will use about
22 257 additional square feet , in the same
23 area now where the porch exists . The lot
24 coverage will increase by minuscule
• 25 amount . It will still be less than 30 .
November 7, 2013 Regular Meeting 4
• 1 The lot effected is the golf course of
2 the Fishers Island Club, common boundary .
3 So there will be no impact on any
4 neighbor by virtue of a variance in this
5 case . And the alternatives are limited .
6 If they would put it anywhere else, they
7 would probably need a variance . The
8 utility easement would interfere with it
9 going in one direction and I have set
10 forth -- that is the summary of the
11 statements that I have made in this
12 memorandum, which I have just
• 13 distributed . If you have questions
14 concerning any of these -- the porch
15 itself and the structure, Sam Fitzgerald,
16 architect is here and he can address any
17 issues here .
18 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You ' re proposing
19 an enlargement of 257 square feet?
20 MR . HAM : That ' s correct .
21 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let ' s see what
22 questions the Board might have . George,
23 do you want to start?
24 MEMBER HORNING : I could . Can you tell
25 us what the existing rear setback is for
November 7, 2013 Regular Meeting 5
1 the building itself?
2 MR . HAM : The existing for the house
3 is 50 . 25 feet and we ' re going to have
4 50 . 26 . It will be about the same as the
5 existing house . I don ' t know if we have
6 the -- the house is 50 . 25 . There is no
7 dimension for the front porch but we ' re
8 not going to be any closer than the
9 existing house .
10 MEMBER HORNING : I am trying to make a
11 point of that . That the porch now is
12 being sort of -- maybe half a porch, it
• 13 will be a full porch .
14 MR. HAM: Correct .
15 MEMBER HORNING : And it ' s not going to
16 encroach any further than what it
17 existing than it does ?
18 MR. HAM: Correct . No, the existing
19 setback of the house is 100 foot farther
20 than our setback requested.
21 MEMBER HORNING : Did you get any
22 inquiries from the Fishers Island Fishing
23 Club?
24 MR . HAM: No . They have acknowledged
• 25 notice of the hearing and no comment .
November 7, 2013 Regular Meeting 6
1 MEMBER HORNING : What kind of
2 foundation?
3 MR . HAM : Let me put Sam Fitzgerald up
4 for that question .
5 MR. FITZGERALD : Good morning . Sam
6 Fitzgerald . The foundation will be
7 stoned . We will actually put concrete
8 piers in stone . So the appearance will be
9 sort of an old fashioned porch where you
10 have stone piers , and then we will have
11 lattice going around the stone piers . So
12 it will be similar to what it is now .
13 Just an extension of the same style .
14 MEMBER HORNING : So you ' re not making
15 a foundation, per se, you ' re just putting
16 pilings in stone?
17 MR . FITZGERALD : That is correct .
18 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : George, any more
19 questions?
20 MEMBER HORNING: No, I am all set .
21 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Ken?
22 MEMBER SCHNEIDER : No questions .
23 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Gerry?
24 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: It will be an open
25 screened porch, just like the way this
November 7, 2013 Regular Meeting 7
1 one is ?
• 2 MR. HAM : Correct .
3 MEMBER GOEHRINGER : But with a roof ,
4 of course?
5 MR. HAM : Correct .
6 MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Thank you .
7 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Eric?
8 MEMBER DANTES : No .
9 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I don ' t have any
10 questions . It ' s quite straight forward .
11 Is there anyone in the audience that
12 wishes to address this application?
• 13 (No Response . )
14 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Hearing no
15 further questions or comments , I will
16 make a motion to close this hearing and
17 reserve decision to a later date .
18 MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Second.
19 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor?
20 MEMBER DANTES : Aye .
21 MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Aye .
22 MEMBER HORNING : Aye .
23 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye .
24 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye .
• 25 ( See Minutes for Resolution . )
November 7 , 2013 Regular Meeting 8
• 2 HEARING #6697 - CHRISTIAN ROGERS &
3 DANIELA VITALI
4 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next
5 application before the Board is for
6 Christian Rogers and Daniela Vitali ,
7 #6697 . Applicant requests a Special
8 Exception under Article III , Section
9 280-13B ( 13 ) . The applicant is the owner
10 requesting authorization to establish an
11 accessory apartment in an accessory
12 structure, located at : 5020 Oregon Road,
• 13 Mattituck.
14 Is there someone here to represent
15 that application?
16 MR . LARK : Hi . Richard Lark,
17 Cutchogue, New York, for the applicant .
18 I believe all the posting and mailing
19 requirements have been completed and have
20 been filed with the clerk . I believe you
21 have also inspected the property and read
22 the application . There is one change
23 since the application and it doesn ' t
24 affect it . I am going to hand it up .
• 25 The applicant ' s , Christian Rogers and
November 7, 2013 Regular Meeting 9
1 Daniela Vitali , who are here today,
2 closed title on the property on
3 October 21st . Just for the record, I
4 wanted to hand it up . Having said that ,
5 the application speaks for itself . I
6 think it ' s pretty complete and I think it
7 meets all the requirements for the Zoning
8 Code . So for me to just talk about it ,
9 it would be duplicitous , since you have
10 seen it . And the survey and everything,
11 the file is complete . The applicant ' s
12 are here, so if you have any questions
• 13 for them. I know they would like to say
14 a word to you . Other than that , if you
15 have any questions of me, otherwise, I
16 would just be duplicitous by just reading
17 the application .
18 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Sure . Let ' s
19 just confirm that the livable floor area
20 has been calculated and confirmed by the
21 Building Department at 728 square feet ,
22 which is conforming to the code?
23 MR . LARK : Yes , that is correct . Mike
24 Verity has been involved with this right
25 from the beginning because as you know,
November 7, 2013 Regular Meeting 10
1 the main house was an old house and the
2 prior owner now, they didn ' t take care of
3 a lot of technical requirements . Like
4 getting the right certificates and the
5 plumbing certificates and everything
6 else . The work was done right but the
7 paperwork wasn ' t . So everything has been
8 brought up to snuff . The only thing
9 remaining now is if the Board would grant
10 the approval to utilize it .
11 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We have done an
12 interior inspection . Perhaps your
• 13 clients would like to come forward and
14 tell us a little bit about their
15 intentions?
16 MR. LARK: Yes , they ' re here .
17 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Would you please
18 just state your name for the record .
19 MS . VITALI : Absolutely, Christian
20 Rogers , and this is Daniela and back
21 there is my sister, Ariana . First of
22 all, thank you for your time in
23 appearing . We are looking to make this
24 main house are primary residence and we
• 25 would like very much to be able to use
November 7, 2013 Regular Meeting 11
1 the accessory apartment to rent to my
• 2 sister , who just moved back from Italy
3
after being awayon a sabbatical for
4 several years . And this is essentially
5 why we ' re here . As you just heard, we
6 recently just closed . We ' re having a
7 little bit of work done on the primary
8 house . Painting, that kind of thing .
9 We ' re hoping to be done by -- between
10 Thanksgiving and Christmas . Hopefully by
11 Christmas .
12 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Welcome to the
• 13 neighborhood .
14 MR. ROGERS : Thank you .
15 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Actually, I
16 found it a little bit interesting,
17 personally, in reading your application ,
18 we were apparently neighbors in New York
19 City as well .
20 MR . ROGERS : Oh really .
21 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : 36 years on ( In
22 Audible ) Street .
23 MR. ROGERS : Oh my goodness , yeah .
24 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Which has
• 25 nothing to do with this application . I
November 7, 2013 Regular Meeting 12
1 don ' t have any questions .
• 2 Ken, do you have any questions?
3 MEMBER SCHNEIDER : No . The
4 application seems to be complete .
5 MEMBER HORNING : What is the first
6 floor use? The one below the accessory
7 apartment?
8 MR. ROGERS : They are two car garages .
9 MEMBER HORNING : And do you have any
10 idea for what the 2005 CO, for what work
11 that involved in that building?
12 MR. LARK: Originally, that was a
• 13 preexisting building there and it was
14 used by the Rosnowski Family . They had a
15 bathroom in there, workshop . He
16 modernized all of that and got it safe
17 and got it structurally sound and
18 everything else . The second floor, which
19 is what you have seen . At that time, it
20 was just converted to basically storage .
21 He says in his affidavit , when the kids
22 came home, they converted it to livable
23 for their sons . Originally it was
24 storage at that time .
• 25 MEMBER HORNING : And then the
November 7 , 2013 Regular Meeting 13
1 conversion was done after that?
• 2 MR . LARK : Yes .
3 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Gerry?
4 MEMBER GOEHRINGER : No questions .
5 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Eric?
6 MEMBER DANTES : No .
7 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay . Is there
y
8
anyone else in the audience who
wishes to
9 address this application?
10 (No Response . )
11 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Hearing no
12 further questions or comments , I will
• 13 make a motion to close this hearing and
14 reserve decision to a later date .
15 MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Second .
16 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor?
17 MEMBER DANTES : Aye .
18 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye .
19 MEMBER HORNING : Aye .
20 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye .
21 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye .
22 ( See Minutes for Resolution . )
23 **** ** * * ** * * *++* +**+ * * * *+ + * **+** ** * *
24 HEARING #6691 - ROY WARD, III
• 25 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next
November 7, 2013 Regular Meeting 14
1 application before the Board is for Roy
• 2 Ward, # 6691 . Request for variances from
3 Article XXII Code Section 280-116 ( B) and
4 Article XXII code Section 280-124 based
5 on an application for building permit and
6 the Building Inspector ' s August 5 , 2013
7 Notice of Disapproval concerning a permit
8 for "as-built" patio structure , at ; 1 )
9 proposed construction at less than the
10 code required bulkhead setback of 75
11 feet , 2 ) less than the code required
12 minimum rear yard setback of 50 feet ,
. 13 3 ) less than the code required minimum
14 side yard setback of 15 feet , located at :
15 4075 Stillwater Avenue, adjacent to East
16 Creek, a . k . a . Eugene ' s Creek .
17 Good morning .
18 MR. FABB : Good morning .
19 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Please state
20 your name and spell it for the record .
21 MR. FABB : William Fabb, F-A-B-B .
22 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thank you . Do
23 you have a copy -- let me give you a copy
24 for your records of the LWRP review
• 25 finding of inconsistency . So we can talk
November 7, 2013 Regular Meeting 15
1 about that for the record . We just
• 2 recently received it . We will just
3 review the fact that this "as-built "
4 patio structure has a bulkhead setback of
5 22 feet , where the code requires 75 feet .
6 A rear yard setback of 42 feet , where the
7 code requires 50 feet and a single side
8 yard setback of 12 feet , where the code
9 requires 15 feet .
10 MR. FABB : Correct .
11 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So you ' re aware
12 that the members have inspected the site
• 13 personally . So we have seen it and the
14 adjacent properties as well . So what
15 would you like to tell us ?
16 MR. FABB : We have surveyed adjoining
17 properties and looked at the lay of the
18 land to the north and the south, and
19 there seems to be, as pictures have been
20 taken, that there are structures within
21 this area . That have all these things
22 all up and down this creek, close to
23 Mr . Ward ' s property . We ' re looking to
24 rectify the situation for Mr . Ward . I
• 25 know this has been going on for some time
November 7, 2013 Regular Meeting 16
1 now . He has completed some other work on
• 2 the house . He inherited these issues .
3 So we ' re trying to work with the Board,
4 as well as Trustees to clarify and
5 resolve any issues .
6 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay . Let me
7 ask you a question about a Trustees
8 wetland permit that I am sure you are
9 aware of, these issues from 2005 . It
10 would appear that the action that was
11 required on the subject property was to
12 install a 10 foot non-turf buffer
• 13 landward of the bulkhead . The current
14 LWRP report indicates that the buffer was
15 installed but it was with vegetation less
16 than the required condition .
17 MR. FABB : That ' s correct .
18 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And how do you
19 propose to address that?
20 MR. FABB : I would have no problem
21 installing in that area with indigenous
22 planting material with any of the turf
23 that is preexisting there right now to
24 satisfy the Trustees and the LWRP ' s
• 25 requirements . The amount of turf on that
November 7, 2013 Regular Meeting 17
1 area is minimal . To remove it , is
• 2 actually beneficial to all .
3 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay . Can you
4 just tell us a little bit about how the
5 structure was actually built , when and
6 under what circumstances?
7 MR . FABB : I am not positive of the
8 actual construction date . It was
9 performed by many others , but to the best
10 of my knowledge , I would say 2008 , 2010 ,
11 would be my guess as far as that went .
12 They installed a masonry patio and they
• 13 also installed a dry stack natural stone
14 wall terrace to the effect, to change the
15 grade .
16 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well , we have a
17 9 foot side yard setback for the house
18 that was granted by ZBA decision # 6404 .
19 The side yard setback for the "as-built "
20 patio structure is 12 feet .
21 MR. FABB : Correct .
22 MEMBER HORNING : I think it was
23 October 13 , 2010 was the note that I
24 made, which we sort of date that patio
• 25 being after that .
November 7, 2013 Regular Meeting 18
1 MR . FABB : Okay .
• 2 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The other
3 nonconforming setback that you found in
4 the area, I know you submitted some
5 information --
6 MR . FABB : Correct .
7 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Are you aware of
8 whether or not if any have received
9 variance relief?
10 MR . FABB : No, I am not .
11 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Because that
12 would be something that we would want to
• 13 find out , whether the Board in that
14 particular area had a precedent of
15 granting bulkhead setback relief .
16 MR. FABB : Okay .
17 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It helps the
18 Board to know if those setbacks were
19 legalized.
20 MR . FABB : Okay . We have some
21 pictures to submit to you as well . As
22 you can see from the pictures , he is
23 protruding to almost the furthest point
24 east on the landward side . So as far as
25 where the preexisting home was , this is
November 7, 2013 Regular Meeting 19
1 where the issue is . We have taken
• 2 pictures of the depth structures . It ' s
3 very close in comparison, as far as
4 setbacks go . I also got some preexisting
5 variances that were up and down the
6 inlet , that my office just brought to my
7 attention .
8 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay . Yes .
9 Vicki had told us . You had found some
10 variance relief?
11 MR. FABB : Correct .
12 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : What we will do
• 13 is take a look at these as information
14 that is submitted to the Board . Let ' s
15 see what else the Board has . With regard
16 to the rear yard setback, the existing
17 house is not set back 50 feet . Do you
18 know what the existing setback is from
19 the patio structure to the bulkhead?
20 MR. FABB : I think it might be 50
21 feet . Just maybe under 47 feet . 43 1/2 .
22 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So the house
23 itself has a rear yard setback of
24 approximately 43 1/2 and it would appear
• 25 that the "as-built" patio structure is at
November 7 , 2013 Regular Meeting 20
• 1 42 . That is what is cited on the Notice
2 of Disapproval . I am just trying to
3 establish the rear yard setback and the
4 bulkhead setback . Well , we certainly
5 realize by site inspection, that there is
6 a very huge slope on the property . The
7 only way to really have any benefit at
8 all in using it , would be to create some
9 sort of terrace condition because it
10 would have to -- by some sort of
11 retaining wall or whatever, to be
12 leveled . You do know that all of the
• 13 structures have to conform with Chapter
14 236 Stormwater --
15 MR. FABB : Correct . I have actually
16 brought other structures and residents
17 and the existing garage on site , up to
18 code as far as LWRP . That was taken care
19 of by my office a few years ago . A new
20 drywell system, specified by his
21 engineer . We had installed that as per
22 the plan .
23 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So there was a
24 new drywell . When was it installed?
. 25 MR . FABB : 2010 , 2011 . And all of the
November 7, 2013 Regular Meeting 21
• 1 drainage installed was as per the plan
2 that was submitted to Building
3 Department .
4 MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Where is that
5 drywell ?
6 MR. FABB : That drywell is on the
7 front of the house on the south side in
8 the driveway . There were three 8x8 ' s
9 that were installed.
10 MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Are there any
11 drywell ' s where the patio itself is? Is
12 the patio exactly level? What happens if
• 13 the water runs off?
14 MR . FABB : The patio has either
15 settled over time . They had it pitched
16 towards the water . There is no french
17 drain at this point in that patio .
18 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: So you ' re going to
19 have to do something?
20 MR. FABB : Yes . My recommendation at
21 that point , the way that these things
22 are , would be to actually cut the patio
23 and install a French drain and have that
24 actually plum into a drywell .
• 25 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Outside?
November 7, 2013 Regular Meeting 22
• 1 MR . FABB : Inside the patio . I don ' t
2 want to have to go through any more
3 Trustee permits . It has to be performed .
4 If this is what it takes to rectify the
5 situation, then we will do that .
6 MEMBER GOEHRINGER : So you would
7 saw-cut the patio and install a French
8 drain and put a cover over it?
9 MR . FABB : That is correct . It would
10 be leveled with the pavers and pitched
11 off to the south with plumbing coming
12 through the walls . And we would reclaim
• 13 the water in a precast drywell .
14 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That is a very
15 interesting statement and probably a very
16 pragmatic statement . The Board may
17 reserve the right to inspect that .
18 MR . FABB : Of course .
19 MEMBER GOEHRINGER : I ' ll be honest
20 with you, we don ' t see too much of that .
21 MR . FABB : Not a problem.
22 MEMBER HORNING : And I wanted to
23 clarify this business as this setback .
24 The Notice of Disapproval says the
• 25 "as-built" patio of 22 feet from the
November 7, 2013 Regular Meeting 23
1 existing bulkhead . I wanted to clarify
2 the alternate relief granted decision
3 # 6404 in October, 2010 , gave a 43 . 5
4 bulkhead setback .
5 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That is for the
6 house .
7 MEMBER HORNING : So that is where that
8 22 comes from?
9 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Correct .
10 MR . FABB : Correct .
11 MEMBER HORNING : I just wanted to make
12 that clear .
• 13 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Ken, any
14 questions?
15 MEMBER SCHNEIDER : No .
16 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Eric, any
17 questions?
18 MEMBER DANTES : What kind of driveway
19 is that?
20 MR. FABB : That is a shell driveway
21 coming into a certain point and then
22 directly to the house is a paver
23 driveway .
24 MEMBER DANTES : Is it oyster shell?
• 25 MR . FABB : Crushed clam shells .
November 7, 2013 Regular Meeting 24
• i MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Are they
2 professionally cleaned when they come?
3 MR . FABB : They are pretty clean when
4 they come to us . They bleach out
5 beautifully . Since we have been using
6 those in the last few months , people are
7 starting to revert back to that . It ' s
8 actually a great look .
9 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Any other
10 questions?
11 MEMBER DANTES : No .
12 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay . Is there
• 13 anyone else in the audience that would
14 like to address this application?
15 (No Response . )
16 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Hearing no
17 further --
18 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I apologize .
19 Could we just close this at the special
20 meeting so I can evaluate the setbacks
21 that Mr . Fabb has given us?
22 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : If you need
23 that .
24 MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Just in case I
• 25 have any other questions .
November 7, 2013 Regular Meeting 25
• 1 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : If you want to .
2 We can still deliberate on it .
3 MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Yes .
4 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All right . I am
5 going to make a motion to adjourn this to
6 the Special Meeting, two weeks from
7 today, at which time we will close
8 assuming that we don ' t have any
9 additional questions .
10 MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Second .
11 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor?
12 MEMBER DANTES : Aye .
• 13 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye .
14 MEMBER HORNING : Aye .
15 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye .
16 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye .
17 ( See Minutes for Resolution . )
18 * *** *++** *+ * *** *+ +** ** *+*** * * +** ** *
19 HEARING #6694 - JEFFREY S . PUNDYK
20 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next
21 application before the Board is for
22 Jeffrey S . Pundyk, #6694 . Request for
23 variances from previous ZBA Grant #5498 ,
24 conditions # 1 and #2 and the Building
• 25 Inspector ' s September 6, 2013 Notice of
November 7, 2013 Regular Meeting 26
1 Disapproval based on an application for
•
2 building permit alterations to an
3 existing non-conforming building with a
4 conforming use (garage ) at : 1 ) change in
5 the use from accessory storage ,
6 2 ) addition of utilities other than
7 electric and cold water, located at :
8 1185 Mill Road, Mattituck .
9 Would you state your name and please ,
10 spell it for the record .
11 MR . BERMAN : My name is Andrew Berman,
12 B-E-R-M-A-N .
• 13 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We need to get
14 from you affidavits of posting and any
15 green cards that were returned to you .
16 MS . TOTH : Do you have the affidavit
17 of posting that you put the sign up,
18 because that I don ' t have?
19 MR. BERMAN : The affidavit was
20 previously sent .
21 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The affidavit of
22 posting was previously sent? Let me see
23 what material we have . We do have it .
24 Okay . So let ' s look and see . On
• 25 April 8th of 2004 , ZBA decision #5498 ,
November 7, 2013 Regular Meeting 27
• 1 there was a side yard setback variance
2 for the garage with two conditions . One
3 that it be used as an accessory storage
4 only and two , that electric and water is
5 permitted and other plumbing and heat is
6 not permitted . You are proposing to
7 convert this garage with those conditions
8 to an art studio and workshop, to add a
9 sink and add heat ; is that correct?
10 MR . BERMAN : That ' s correct .
11 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It ' s a two car
12 garage and you ' re proposing to remove the
• 13 garage doors and replace it with some
14 residential type doors and part of the
15 structure will remain as structure ;
16 correct?
17 MR . BERMAN : Yes . About 20% will
18 remain as storage and the rest will be an
19 artist studio .
20 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : What sort of
21 studio are you proposing? Actually, the
22 code doesn ' t allow it to be called an
23 artist studio . We will call it what the
24 code permits , which is a workshop .
• 25 MR . BERMAN : Okay .
November 7, 2013 Regular Meeting 28
• 1 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : How is it
2 intended to be used and by whom?
3 MR . BERMAN : It will be used by Ann
4 Pundyk who is the owner . It will be used
5 for work . And the intent is to keep the
6 shell of the building as is , with except
7 for modifying those doors . No change to
8 the envelope or footprint . We would like
9 to add a sink and heat .
10 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And what kind of
11 heat? Radiant?
12 MR. BERMAN : Radiant , yes .
• 13 MEMBER DANTES : What kind of radiant
14 heat?
15 MR . BERMAN : It will be a hot water .
16 There is an existing slab . We will tear
17 up the floor and put the two beams below
18 the finished floor .
19 MEMBER DANTES : What type of floor?
20 MR . BERMAN : Plywood flooring .
21 Sheetrock interior .
22 MEMBER DANTES : Is there going to be a
23 hot water heater?
24 MR . BERMAN : Hot water heater,
• 25 exactly .
November 7, 2013 Regular Meeting 29
• 1 MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Will there be any
2 attempt to rent this to anyone else
3 besides the owner of the premises ?
4 MR. BERMAN : No . Absolutely not .
5 It ' s only for their use .
6 MEMBER HORNING : Will there be any
7 noises?
8 MR. BERMAN : There will be no noise .
9 There is no equipment . It will be
10 finished space . She works alone . It ' s a
11 culmination to make her work . It ' s a
12 workshop with no power tools . The
• 13 storage is for materials . There will be
14 no cars .
15 MEMBER HORNING : I am just trying to
16 clarify what type of workshop it will be?
17 MR. BERMAN : Her work is prints ,
18 drawings, videos and she writes . So it ' s
19 a combination of all of that, but
20 absolutely quiet .
21 MEMBER DANTES : Will there be AC?
22 MR . BERMAN : Eventually there will be
23 an AC . It ' s not finalized . It will be
24 centralized . There would be a compressor
• 25 outside in the side yard and a fan unit
November 7, 2013 Regular Meeting 30
. 1 in the inside .
2 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is this a
3 full-time year round residence?
4 MR . BERMAN : No . Weekend and summer
5 residence .
6 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is this workshop
7 proposed to be used year round?
8 MR. BERMAN : Yes .
9 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : There is no
10 bathroom proposed to be in there?
11 MR . BERMAN : No . Just a sink .
12 MEMBER HORNING : And where will the
• 13 water go?
14 MR . BERMAN : The water will be going
15 into a drywell just for this building .
16 MEMBER HORNING : Is it there now?
17 MR . BERMAN : It ' s something that we
18 would be supplemented it . Rather than
19 just add, we would put in another module .
20 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Are you aware
21 that the code does not permit an artist
22 to do any sales or dealings by the public
23 of their work in a private workshop?
24 MR . BERMAN : This is solely a personal
• 25 works space . There is no commercial
November 7, 2013 Regular Meeting 31
1 intent .
• 2 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Gerry, any
3 questions?
4 MEMBER GOEHRINGER : There is no intent
5 to habitate this in any way?
6 MR. BERMAN : No .
7 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Ken?
8 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: The water supply is
9 coming from where?
10 MR. BERMAN : The water supply is
11 coming from the house . We would propose
12 to install an on-demand hot water heater
• 13 underneath the sink .
14 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Would it be
15 electric or propane?
16 MR . BERMAN : Electric . The sink would
17 be solely for wash-up . To be honest , it
18 doesn ' t have to be a requirement . I put
19 it out there as an additional request .
20 She could even make do without a sink .
21 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: No other questions
22 for me .
23 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : George , any
24 questions?
• 25 MEMBER HORNING : No .
November 7, 2013 Regular Meeting 32
1 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Gerry?
• 2 MEMBER GOEHRINGER : No .
3 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Eric?
4 MEMBER DANTES : No .
5 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there anyone
6 else in the audience that wishes to
7 address this application?
8 (No Response . )
9 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Hearing no
10 further questions or comments , I am going
11 to make a motion to reserve decision to a
12 later date .
13 MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Second .
•
14 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor?
15 MEMBER DANTES : Aye .
16 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye .
17 MEMBER HORNING : Aye .
18 MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Aye .
19 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye .
20 (See Minutes for Resolution . )
21 *++**++ +*+ * ***** + ** * ** * +*+*+*++ * *+* +**+
22 HEARING # 6695 - TRUE LIGHT CHURCH
23 (KEITH BENSON )
24 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next
• 25 application before the Board is for True
November 7, 2013 Regular Meeting 33
• 1 Light Church , # 6695 . Request for Special
2 Exception per Code Section 280-48B1 , the
3 applicant is requesting permission to
4 convert existing office space to operate
5 a church of worship and religious
6 instruction, located at : 31095 Main
7 Road, a . k. a . State Route 25 , Cutchogue .
8 Good morning .
9 MR. BENSON : Good morning .
10 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Please state
11 your name for the record .
12 MR. BENSON : Pastor Keith Benson .
• 13 Last name is Benson, B-E-N-S-O-N .
14 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thank you . Do
15 you have copies of the comments to the
16 Board from the Planning Board?
17 MR . BENSON : No .
18 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay . Let me
19 give them to you . They have no
20 objection . Okay . As you know, we have
21 all done an inspection . You have done a
22 beautiful job renovating the building .
23 Previously, the structure was a childcare
24 facility and I think you indicated to us ,
• 25 that you meet there generally about twice
November 7, 2013 Regular Meeting 34
• 1 a week . No new construction is proposed.
2 The site plan approval is not required in
3 this instance by the Planning Board . The
4 plan shows that you have about 13 parking
5 spaces on site . The only concern that
6 the Planning Board had and that we want
7 to talk to you about , was the number of
8 parking spaces isn ' t adequate for the
9 potential growth of the congregation . I
10 don ' t know how you handle parking . So
11 let me just hear your thoughts when
12 suddenly 20 cars show up?
• 13 MR . BENSON : Sure . Sure . Probably
14 the first thing that we would do is , if
15 that became an issue with parking, is go
16 to multiple services , where we would have
17 back to back church services to make that
18 adequate parking . So people would be
19 there for an earlier service and then a
20 mid-morning service . So there would be a
21 flow of people leaving and then people
22 coming and creating that space for them .
23 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So you ' re
24 proposing to not park in King Kullen or
• 25 shuttle bus .
November 7, 2013 Regular Meeting 35
• 1 MR . BENSON : No .
2 MEMBER GOEHRINGER : This is Cutchogue .
3 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So I mean, that
4 was there only concern . Religious
5 institutions can frequently have more
6 than 14 cars at a religious service . So
7 they wanted us to ask you about it . This
8 is , of course, a use that is permitted by
9 code upon review and approval of a
10 Special Exception permit by the Zoning
11 Board. The fire marshal doesn ' t have any
12 objection .
• 13 Gerry, did you have any questions?
14 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I have a very
15 funny statement and I want to ask you .
16 You have no intentions of renting this
17 beautiful space to any wineries at off
18 times?
19 MR . BENSON : No, not at all .
20 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : George, any
21 questions ?
22 MEMBER HORNING : What is the current
23 size of the congregation?
24 MR . BENSON : As of right , we have
• 25 about 20 coherent ' s and that ' s including
November 7 , 2013 Regular Meeting 36
• 1 children .
2 MEMBER HORNING : And you are at a
3 different location now?
4 MR. BENSON : Yes . We kind of meet at
5 our house an biweekly bible study .
6 MEMBER HORNING : And do you have any
7 idea how successful or how you would grow
8 in the future? She was eluding to
9 parking -- if you were continuing to grow
10 -- like two years ago , was it the same
11 size as it is now?
12 MR . BENSON : No . It ' s been kind of
• 13 relatively small in that area because we
14 hadn ' t had a public venue to let people
15 know in that area that we are there .
16 MEMBER HORNING : So you ' re projecting
17 some level of growth, you just don ' t know
18 for the future?
19 MR . BENSON : Sure . The multiple
20 service would be able to address that
21 issue initially . Obviously, if it did
22 grow beyond that , we would need to
23 relocate to somewhere else I guess , if
24 that were need be .
• 25 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The law would
November 7, 2013 Regular Meeting 37
• 1 not allow you to permit the legal
2 occupancy of the building any way . The
3 fire marshal wouldn ' t allow that .
4 MR . BENSON : Right .
5 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The Special
6 Exception permit would require them to go
7 to the Building Department and make it
8 conforming to whatever the use is . We
9 found out that even though Special
10 Exception permits are our jurisdiction,
11 the fire marshal can make comment . When
12 you change a use, even if it ' s the same
• 13 use, the fire code also changes with the
14 use . What a childcare facility requires
15 is different from your proposal . So we
16 have to have them chime in on it and they
17 will determine the legal occupancy of the
18 building at one time .
19 Ken?
20 MEMBER SCHNEIDER : No questions .
21 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Eric?
22 MEMBER DANTES : No questions .
23 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there anyone
24 else in the audience that wishes to
• 25 address this application?
November 7, 2013 Regular Meeting 38
• 1 (No Response . )
2 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Hearing no
3 further questions or comments , I will
4 make a motion to close this hearing and
5 reserve decision to a later date .
6 MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Second .
7 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor?
8 MEMBER DANTES : Aye .
9 MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Aye .
10 MEMBER HORNING : Aye .
11 MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Aye .
12 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye .
• 13 ( See Minutes for Resolution . )
14 +*++ **+ *++ * ++* * * * *** ***+* ** + *+ + +
15 HEARING #6698 - ESTATE OF JAMES J .
16 BISSET, III
17 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay . We ' re
18 going to open the hearing for the Estate
19 of James J. Bissett , III , # 6698 .
20 Applicant requests a Special Exception
21 under Article III , Section 280-13 ( B) .
22 The applicant is the owner requesting
23 authorization to establish an accessory
24 apartment in an accessory structure ,
• 25 located at 55 Cox Neck Road, corner of
November 7, 2013 Regular Meeting 39
• 1 Middle Road, a . k . a . County Road 48 ,
2 private ROW ' S .
3 Let the record show that the agent for
4 the applicant has been delayed . The time
5 is now ten to twelve . It was scheduled
6 for 11 : 30 . We have opened the hearing .
7 We have read the legal notice into the
8 record .
9 MR . RUSSO : Okay .
10 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So we ' re
11 prepared . If you would please , because
12 we ' re recording this , if you would state
• 13 your name .
14 MR. RUSSO : Certainly . For the
15 record, my name is Eric J. Russo . I am
16 with the Law Firm of Vanbrunt , Juzwiak &
17 Russo . Offices at 140 Main Street ,
18 Sayville , New York, and I am here today
19 representing the applicant, the Estate of
20 James J . Bissett , through the executors
21 James J . Bissett , Jr . They have owned the
22 property since November 11th of ' 04 , at
23 55 Cox Neck Road, Mattituck, New York . I
24 can give you more information or I can
• 25 take questions . If you want me to go
November 7, 2013 Regular Meeting 40
• 1 through the whole presentation?
2 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well , first of
3 all , the livable floor area is code
4 conforming 512 square feet, and there is
5 an "as-built" apartment occupying -- it
6 is occupied now?
7 MR . RUSSO : It is presently occupied
8 by Diane Nelson and we have provided you
9 with a document of that , who is the aunt
10 of the son of the decedent . James J.
11 Bissett , IV is living in the main
12 residence . I can give you an affidavit
• 13 in terms of that as well . You ' re correct
14 with the size as you have just stated .
15 There is a deck attached that is over the
16 garage and the wood deck is 12x24 and I
17 am aware that both the Chairperson and
18 Mr . Goehringer were at the property on
19 October 22nd .
20 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : There was some
21 discussion as to whether there was an
22 accessory apartment in the barn on the
23 property?
24 MR . RUSSO : There are building permits
• 25 for the residence and the other five
November 7, 2013 Regular Meeting 41
• 1 structures on the property. They were
2 all acquired in the date of acquisition,
3 as of 2004 . There is also a building
4 permit for the swimming pool as well for
5 the premises . We ' re in the process of
6 securing Suffolk County Health Department
7 approval for the entire property because
8 it was never finalized . There is and is
9 being removed, in the other structure
10 that you referenced there was a living
11 quarters in there . That is being
12 removed . And if it hasn ' t been removed
• 13 already, it will be removed by the end of
14 the month . So it would only be according
15 to your code, under 280B, A through K, it
16 is located in the garage . It is occupied
17 by family members . We have provided you
18 with an affidavit . The square footages
19 are within the code requirement , that you
20 have set forth . There is adequate
21 parking on site , as you have witnessed.
22 There is only and will only be one
23 apartment on the property . It is not a
24 Bed & Breakfast , and as you ' re aware, you
• 25 have inspected it , it complies and
November 7, 2013 Regular Meeting 42
• 1 complies with State and Health Department
2 requirements . The code issues under that
3 section is there . And we would also
4 review and affirm with you, under 281 . 42
5 A through G, and -- unless you want me to
6 go through them, we ' re in compliance with
7 code requirements .
8 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The existing
9 garage has a half bath on the first
10 floor, which is permitted by code in an
11 accessory structure . However, the full
12 bath in the accessory structure , which is
• 13 an accessory apartment . I am not sure if
14 that half bath has to be removed or not .
15 MR . RUSSO : In our discussion with the
16 Building Department and the Zoning Board,
17 the Building Department does not find
18 that that was an issue . If it becomes an
19 issue, then we will have to remove it but
20 we have adequate sanitary flow according
21 to the Health Department to justify it .
22 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I needed to
23 bring it up for the record, but generally
24 a half bath is permitted in a structure
• 25 but when it ' s converted to an apartment ,
November 7, 2013 Regular Meeting 43
• 1 we need to look --
2 MR . ROSSO : Well, as of
3 October 1 , 2013 , we have providing
4 drawings for all the structures and it
5 accurately reflects what is there on the
6 property. Within the next week, they ' re
7 going out to comply with all the other
8 Building Department ' s requirements . So
9 we have submitted, to our knowledge, all
10 other building code requirements and
11 we ' re just waiting for the Zoning Board
12 and then our Health Department came in .
• 13 It is our understanding that we would
14 meet all the requirements for all the
15 structures on the premises .
16 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay . Eric, any
17 questions ?
18 MEMBER DANTES : No .
19 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Gerry?
20 MEMBER GOEHRINGER : You did a nice job
21 in giving us the presentation but I am
22 still going to ask the question that I
23 asked Mr . Bissett when we were there .
24 There never was -- and I know you ' re an
• 25 officer of the court , there never was an
November 7, 2013 Regular Meeting 44
• 1 accessory apartment in the main house at
2 any time?
3 MR . RUSSO : Absolutely not . And I
4 have provided you with floor plans and
5 the Building Department to reflect what
6 is there . There were six bedrooms and a
7 study . The Health Department wanted us
8 to reflect the study as a bedroom.
9 MEMBER HORNING : And it ' s a family
10 member for --
11 MR . RUSSO : The family member is Diane
12 Nelson, and I have provided you the
13 affidavit and she is residing there . And
14 I am aware that if we sell the premises ,
15 a new owner would have to come in and
16 comply with the code requirements and
17 then the accessory apartment permit , if
18 this Board seems to grant it , would have
19 to be applied for again and would have to
20 meet the town code requirements . And for
21 the record, the property is in contract
22 but we have not closed yet , and we ' re not
23 certain of when the closing date might be
24 because of the various requirements with
• 25 the Health Department .
November 7, 2013 Regular Meeting 45
• 1 MEMBER HORNING : Are there any
2 employees of the nursery living on site?
3 MR . RUSSO : No .
4 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So the intent is
5 to legalize the accessory apartment as of
6 now, and with current ownership?
7 MR. RUSSO : Correct .
8 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And also to be
9 made aware to the new owner, that the
10 permit does not run with the land .
11 MR . RUSSO : Correct . And the attorney
12 for the purchaser, Charles Cuddy and we
• 13 have confirmed that . He is aware of our
14 application with the Town and the Health
15 Department . I have told him when we have
16 all the CO ' s , that we will close at that
17 time . He is fully aware and advised the
18 purchaser of the circumstances .
19 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All right .
20 MEMBER HORNING : Here where it says ,
21 existing attic, is the apartment going to
22 be located any where near that ?
23 MR . RUSSO : I have not been in the
24 apartment myself . I have only been
• 25 around the perimeter . To my knowledge --
November 7, 2013 Regular Meeting 46
• 1 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I didn ' t see any
2 connection .
3 MR . RUSSO : I don ' t think there is a
4 connection to it .
5 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It ' s shown .
6 What ' s shown on here is accurate .
7 MR . RUSSO : I would imagine there is a
8 pull down to get into the attic .
9 MEMBER HORNING : What kind of stock is
10 on the nursery?
11 MR. RUSSO : Mr . Bissett had various
12 plants growing on the front portion of
• 13 the property . I think the entire
14 property, there is a corrals , there is
15 the horse farm.
16 MEMBER HORNING : And there is no
17 association with the Premium Wine
18 Holdings ?
19 MR. RUSSO : No . There has been
20 discussions if they would be interested .
21 They have opted to sell it to the doctor
22 who wants to purchase it . I think his
23 name is Dr . Gerry, who is Mr . Cuddy ' s
24 client .
• 25 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay . You don ' t
November 7, 2013 Regular Meeting 47
• 1 think that they will intend to come
2 before the Board for an accessory
3 apartment ?
4 MR . RUSSO : I am not sure . If his
5 cliens wanted to use the apartment , he
6 was fully aware of the requirements . The
7 low to moderate income requirements . He
8 said he was aware of the process and I am
9 not aware of the purchasers intentions
10 are at this time .
11 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay . Anything
12 else, anybody?
• 13 MEMBER GOEHRINGER : No .
14 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : There is no one
15 else in the audience . So hearing no
16 further comments or questions , I will
17 make a motion to close the hearing and
18 reserve decision to a later date .
19 MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Second .
20 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor?
21 MEMBER DANTES : Aye .
22 MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Aye .
23 MEMBER HORNING : Aye .
24 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye .
• 25 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye .
November 7, 2013 Regular Meeting 48
1 ( See Minutes for Resolution . )
• 2 * + ** * + ** * * * ** +*+ + * +* * +*+ * + + *+ + + ++
3 HEARING #6693 - JOANNA CHERNUSHKA
4 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next
5 application before the Board is for
6 Joanna Chernushka, # 6693 . Request for
7 variances from Article XXII Code Section
8 280-116 (b ) and Article XXIII Code Section
9 280-124 based on an application for
10 building permit and the Building
11 Inspector ' s September 6, 2013 amended
12 September 11 , 2013 Notice of Disapproval
• 13 concerning a permit to amend existing
14 building permit # 38109z ( storm repairs )
15 to include demolition and construction of
16 a new seasonal dwelling at ; 1 ) proposed
17 construction at less than the code
18 required bulkhead setback of 75 feet ,
19 2 ) less than the minimum code required
20 rear yard setback of 35 feet , located at :
21 600 Rabbit Lane , adjacent to Gardiner ' s
22 Bay in East Marion .
23 MR . ANDERSON : Bruce Anderson, Suffolk
24 Environmental for the applicant Joanna
• 25 Chernushka .
November 7, 2013 Regular Meeting 49
1 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thank you .
• 2 We ' re in an unusual situation, so let me
3 just explain it for the record . The
4 legal notice that I just read into the
5 record for the Notice of Disapproval that
6 was amended along with an LWRP report
7 that was based upon demolition due to the
8 inconsistency . The new Notice of
9 Disapproval indicated that demolition
10 when we were dealing with additions and
11 alterations . To include additions and
12 alterations with a 19 foot bulkhead
• 13 setback . Now therefore, based on the
14 state of that , the LWRP indicated that it
15 was exempt . I presume you have copies of
16 those?
17 MR. ANDERSON : Yes , I do .
18 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : This is based
19 upon the calculations from Joe Fischetti ,
20 who is a licensed engineer, determining
21 that the reconstruction of 465 square
22 feet and therefore it is not deemed to be
23 a demolition . So let ' s start with that .
24 The Board as you know, has made site
• 25 inspection . Perhaps you can begin what
November 7, 2013 Regular Meeting 50
• 1 by explaining what it is that happened in
2 this process to make it from demolition
3 to additions and alterations?
4 MR . ANDERSON : Okay . I will try to do
5 that . I am going to place this in
6 history . As you know in October 29th of
7 last year, Hurricane Sandy struck Long
8 Island with very significant tidal surges
9 and winds . And as you ' re probably also
10 know, this Town, the homes built along
11 Rabbit Lane in East Marion were
12 vulnerable . on this lot what happened,
13 the storm caused extensive property
14 damage, given the complete removal and
15 destruction of a 8x24 sunroom from the
16 building itself . Where it went from
17 there , no one knows . There was also
18 flooding damage . The bulkhead that was
19 fronting the property at that time was
20 also destroyed . The first thing that
21 happened, Costello Marine and the
22 property owner applied for to obtain to
23 reconstruct or construct a new bulkhead
24 in the same place as the existing
• 25 bulkhead, and Costello proceeded to
November 7, 2013 Regular Meeting 51
1 install that bulkhead . We were then
• 2 subsequently retained to secure the
3 required permits , raise the existing
4 dwelling on piles as it -- with the
5 floodplain requirements . And the first
6 thing that we did was to retain Joseph
7 Fischetti who is here with us today, to
8 design a FEMA compliant foundation . A
9 review of the survey that was submitted
10 with this application will tell you that
11 the house and the sunroom resulted in an
12 AE Flood Zone requirement . You will also
• 13 see that there is a Velocity Zone that is
14 just seaward of the sunroom, and that
15 Velocity Zone would require first floor
16 elevation of 9 . So what Mr . Fischetti
17 did, was he designed a tile plan for the
18 requirements for VE Zone even though it
19 was an AE 6 Zone . So it is slightly more
20 protective because what he is doing, he
21 is applying a more stringent foundation
22 and construction standards in an VE Zone ,
23 even though the house sits in an AE Zone .
24 So 2013 , we had applied for and received
• 25 at that point , a letter of
November 7, 2013 Regular Meeting 52
• 1 non-jurisdiction . On May 15, 2013, the
2 Southold Trustees granted a wetlands
3 permit to raise the existing dwelling on
4 piles . On June 18 , 2013 , the Building
5 Department granted a building permit to
6 raise and repair the existing dwelling
7 and that repair extended to the 8x20
8 sunroom, it ' s replacement . And the ( In
9 Audible ) Notice of Disapproval walks you
10 through the thinking process on the part
11 of the Town ' s Building Department . So
12 during the construction and the overall
• 13 repair of the dwelling, it became
14 necessary and desirable to raise the
15 dwelling up to the current building
16 codes . Specifically, the ceiling height
17 of the second floor, measured 5 feet
18 where 7 feet is required . And this
19 existing stairway leading up to this loft
20 space, was widen and relocated to comply
21 with the building code . That existing
22 stairway measures 2 foot 3 inches and the
23 stairway as constructed would be 3 feet
24 wide and comply with the building code .
• 25 So this variance from our standpoint is
November 7, 2013 Regular Meeting 53
1 really an exercise to bring the building
40 2 into compliance with the current building
3 codes for the State of New York . But to
4 do that , we ' re here today requesting
5 Zoning relief . The proposed
6 construction, which is the raising of a
7 ceiling and the widening of a stairway
8 occurs at its closest point of 19 . 1 feet
9 from the bulkhead. I will pass this out .
10 This is what the neighborhood looks like .
11 There is a bit of a technical juggle when
12 you are trying to fit the tax map to the
• 13 area . In any event , what we consider the
14 neighborhood to be is those houses along
15 Rabbit Lane and a review of the tax map,
16 it would show that there are 32 tax maps
17 that have frontage on Rabbit Lane , and of
18 those 14 of the tax maps on Lake Marion .
19 18 have tax map lots that front on
20 Gardiner ' s Bay, which is subject to these
21 setback provisions . 17 of those lots
22 face the bay, are developed and all have
23 bulkheads . Not one of them comply with
24 the setback of 75 feet on Gardiner ' s Bay .
25 Our measurements to the best of our
November 7 , 2013 Regular Meeting 54
• 1 ability indicates the bulkhead setbacks
2 range from 0 feet and that would be for
3 tax map lots 7 and 8 , to which the
4 bulkhead is almost integrated into the
5 foundation of the house . So they ' re at
6 0 . 31 feet for Lot #1 , with an average
7 setback of feet from the bulkhead line .
8 Also, it should be known that attached
9 deck extending to the existing bulkhead
10 commonly occur in this area .
11 Approximately half of these houses on
12 Rabbit Lane two-story ' s and we have
• 13 two-story house . And that is basically
14 how the neighborhood sets up . Now, I
15 went through the Town Zoning records and
16 I am going to hand up a few variances
17 that we were able to find . The first was
18 a variance granted in 1986 to Ted Dowd at
19 350 Rabbit Lane and Appeal #3464 , dated
20 February 10 , 1986 . And it reads the
21 relief granted to be a front yard at 54
22 feet , side yard to 9 feet , total side
23 yard of 24 feet , coverage is 220 . And
24 then it goes on to say that no
• 25 construction within 25 feet of ordinary
November 7, 2013 Regular Meeting 55
• 1 high water mark except for bulkheading as
2 may be recommended by State , County or
3 Town agency and after receiving the
4 necessary approvals . I found that
5 interesting because it occurred to me
6 that even in 1986, this Board recognized
7 the potential flooding problems that
8 could occur along Rabbit Lane . The
9 second variance that we found was issued
10 to Stefano Stefanides at 780 Rabbit Lane
11 and that would be Appeal #6413 , filed
12 October 27 , 2010 , which granted the
• 13 following relief . A 8 . 2 setback from the
14 westerly side yard, a 7 foot setback from
15 the bulkhead and a 15 setback on the
16 easterly side line . And then finally
17 third variance that we were able to find
18 along this stretch of land was granted to
19 a Richard Frizzy at 680 Rabbit Lane .
20 That would be Appeal # 6640 , filed
21 April 23 , 2013 . And that variance
22 approval authorizes demolition and
23 construction of a dwelling, and that
24 would be a two-story dwelling to replace
• 25 one-story dwelling . Having a rear yard
November 7, 2013 Regular Meeting 56
• 1 28 feet , single side yard of 6 feet .
2 Coverage at 29% and setbacks 17 feet from
3 the bulkhead . So those are the variance
4 decisions that we were able to find . We
5 submit that this variance application
6 should be granted because it would be no
7 impact to the character of the
8 neighborhood . The development of the
9 property is typical to the neighborhood .
10 Here we have taken an existing dwelling
11 with and placed it on pilings . The
12 finished floor would be 9 feet on top of
• 13 the piles . 9 feet above sea level . The
14 existing height of the building is 15 . 6
15 inches . So we ' re talking about a 3 foot
16 lifting of that ceiling roof . Second, we
17 submit that the benefits sought by the
18 applicant cannot be achieved by some
19 other method feasible other than a
20 variance because the second floor ceiling
21 height of 5 foot does not comply with the
22 uniform building code and all of the
23 buildings fall within the 75 feet of the
24 bulkhead . We submit that these variances
• 25 are actually not substantial in
November 7, 2013 Regular Meeting 57
• 1 relationship to the preexisting setback
2 that already existed this property . The
3 setback to the bulkhead is unchanged from
4 the original . We believe that the
5 raising of the ceiling height is exempt
6 from Trustee regulations . And finally,
7 the hardship is not self created because
8 the property is preexisting nonconforming
9 with respect to the applicable building
10 codes . All we ' re seeking here to do is
11 make it more conforming to the building
12 codes . Thus , the benefit to the
• 13 applicant if the variances were granted
14 would outweigh any detriment to the
15 health, safety and welfare of the
16 neighborhood or community . The benefit
17 to the applicant would be the ability to
18 use the second story living space . And
19 it ' s our opinion, that there is no
20 detriment to the health, safety and
21 welfare of the neighborhood or community .
22 That concludes my presentation . I am
23 here to answer any questions you might
24 have . Mr . Fischetti is here to answer
• 25 any questions pertaining to design and
November 7, 2013 Regular Meeting 58
• 1 the Chernushka ' s are here , obviously
2 interested in the outcome of their
3 application .
4 MEMBER DANTES : The variances that you
5 were citing before, were they renovations
6 to an existing structure or were they for
7 demolition and rebuilding or new
8 construction?
9 MR. ANDERSON : Both . One was a
10 demolition and a reconstruction for a
11 demolition of a house . And the other two
12 were additions and alterations within 75
• 13 feet of a bulkhead .
14 MEMBER HORNING : Mr . Anderson calls
15 for a seasonal occupancy .
16 MR . ANDERSON : Right .
17 MEMBER HORNING : And we ' re seeing a
18 trend towards phasing out of that whole
19 concept . You know, within various ways
20 because people want to occupy their
21 houses throughout the year . What makes
22 this seasonal as compared to something
23 else?
24 MR . ANDERSON : Well , there is no
• 25 heating . They are no heated spaces .
November 7, 2013 Regular Meeting 59
• 1 MEMBER HORNING : And that could be a
2 condition, if this variance was granted,
3 that could be a condition and be put in
4 there, right?
5 MR . ANDERSON : I guess you could . As
6 a condition of a variance , I don ' t think
7 that it is related to the variance ,
8 whether it ' s used on a yearly or seasonal
9 basis . It ' s seasonal . We ' re not asking
10 it to be full time . You know, I honestly
11 don ' t know what the thinking is going to
12 be 10 or 20 or 30 years from now.
• 13 MEMBER HORNING : On a year round
14 occupancy, you have more septic use, for
15 example . That is why I was honing in on
16 the idea of seasonal and was asking . You
17 covered the idea of neighborhood
18 variances and setbacks . How about
19 alternative locations on the site?
20 MR . ANDERSON : There is no alternative
21 location . The house is set on the site
22 pursuant to a building permit .
23 MEMBER HORNING : And in looking in the
24 future , if a new storm, how is this going
• 25 to be protected? A new bulkhead?
November 7 , 2013 Regular Meeting 60
• 1 MR . ANDERSON : It is protected by new
2 bulkhead and it is built above and beyond
3 the current floodplain requirements .
4 That is not to say that if you got a 40
5 foot tidal surge -- or 18 or 20 foot ,
6 that would happen . My point is , if you
7 were in Battery Park on that date, that
8 water popped the seawall . So New York
9 City tidal surge was like 14 to 16 feet .
10 MEMBER HORNING : The piling idea here ,
11 is going to protect it from a storm like
12 Sandy?
• 13 MR . ANDERSON : Yes , it would . Not to
14 say a stronger storm --
15 MEMBER HORNING : Understood. Thank
16 you .
17 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I have two
18 questions . Can you tell us what the
19 condition is of the sanitary system that
20 is located in the front yard on the
21 survey? We have two proposed drywell ' s
22 but I don ' t see where the proposed septic
23 is? If it was damaged?
24 MR . ANDERSON : We don ' t really know --
25 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Whether it seems
November 7, 2013 Regular Meeting 61
• 1 to be a demo or a reconstruction, the
2 septic?
3 MR . ANDERSON : I am quite certain the
4 septic if located between the house and
5 the road . I am reasonably certain that
6 we ' re talking about cesspools there . If
7 we were to construct a new septic system
8 we would be ( In Audible ) lot up and down
9 Rabbit Lane because no one has sufficient
10 frontage to have a compliant septic
11 system. I can tell you that what the
12 property owners have done . We have
• 13 represented a number of them. They have
14 repaired the septic systems as needed .
15 They have replaced rings as needed . The
16 Health Department is aware of that . This
17 application, there really isn ' t a
18 regulatory play against the septic system
19 because we ' re not increasing any
20 calculation of flood . Now, back to
21 George ' s point , I suppose if this house
22 was used year round, it would be
23 advisable to perhaps increase the septic
24 system but even in that exercise, it is
• 25 unlikely to construct a compliant septic
November 7, 2013 Regular Meeting 62
• 1 system .
2 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let me just read
3 into the record from the LWRP, which
4 says , the sanitary system is not shown .
5 MR . ANDERSON : Right .
6 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : To further the
7 above policy, 8 . b, it is recommended that
8 our Board require the inspection and
9 approval of the system by the Suffolk
10 County Department of Health Services .
11 The tests all show that groundwater is
12 measured at 3 . 8 feet from the grade . It
• 13 is also recommended that the Board
14 require that the sanitary system meets
15 setbacks from Chapter 275 Wetlands and
16 Shorelines , required setbacks of 75 feet
17 or 100 feet from a wetland, unless a
18 variance is granted . Obviously that
19 can ' t be accomplished .
20 MR . ANDERSON : I would say to that
21 that Mr . Terry withdrew that report
22 because it ' s exempt . It ' s exempt from
23 LWRP . I am not saying that is not a
24 concern . All I saying is that it doesn ' t
• 25 fit within the regulatory scheme of this .
November 7, 2013 Regular Meeting 63
1 Obviously if the septic system isn ' t
2 working properly, we ' re going to take
3 whatever steps and whatever applications
4 it takes to make sure it works correctly .
5 So we ' re not there and there is no
6 regulatory trigger, that I am aware of,
7 that puts us there . Maybe Joe , there is
8 something that you can add? I know he is
9 doing a lot of work down there .
10 MR . FISCHETTI : Joseph Fischetti ,
11 professional engineer, Southold. The
12 Health Department allows us to upgrade
• 13 the existing -- but repair existing
14 systems . We have talked about that with
15 them. We didn ' t even look at the system
16 until after the construction was done .
17 What we ' re going to do probably is go in
18 there and repair as needed, after the
19 construction . There is no need for us to
20 do it initially . We stayed away from
21 that area when we were working with
22 construction . So we will comply with the
23 Health Department standards . I did two
24 houses away, which is Grissy . And that
• 25 was very interesting . We did not have to
November 7, 2013 Regular Meeting 64
• 1 follow guidelines . We didn ' t have to go
2 to the Board . The important thing that
3 we try to do is keep them from collapsing
4 and that is what I try to tell the
5 people .
6 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay . Let ' s
7 review what happened during construction .
8 Clearly there was a lot of damage . When
9 the pilings were put in place , the
10 structure had to be moved . So it was
11 taken off of its location and probably
12 moved towards the front --
13 MR . FISCHETTI : I think it was
14 sideways .
15 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Now, when it
16 went to be put back on the foundation,
17 what was salvageable and what wasn ' t?
18 Because site inspection of the interior
19 that some of us have seen showed all the
20 framing members .
21 MR . FISCHETTI : The second floor was
22 not removed and put back on . Everything
23 that was there was repaired and put back
24 in place . It took about five months for
• 25 us to get the approvals , and the
November 7, 2013 Regular Meeting 65
• 1 structure was laying sideways off its
2 foundation for almost five months . So
3 basically when we lifted it and tried to
4 put it back again, it was no longer
5 level . It could not be put back again
6 because it was twisted. So at that time ,
7 we decided to repair what we needed to
8 repair . These were all structural repairs
9 based on flood damage . So we did not take
10 the second floor off . It was built in
11 place . Walls were twisted and we needed
12 to repair from storm damage . We repaired
• 13 a lot of the first floor .
14 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Did anything
15 remain on the first floor?
16 MR . FISCHETTI : We replaced all the
17 main girders .
18 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : What I am trying
19 to get at , you ' re saying the footprint
20 was not enlarged . The pilings were
21 replaced in kind --
22 MR . FISCHETTI : No . There were no
23 pilings . The foundation was in the same
24 place that it was originally .
. 25 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It was just an
November 7, 2013 Regular Meeting 66
• 1 elevation change?
2 MR . FISCHETTI : That ' s correct .
3 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : There were no
4 side yard changes , front yard changes ,
5 the footprint remains the same ; is that
6 correct?
7 MR . FISCHETTI : That ' s correct .
8 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : There was no
9 enlargement of that footprint?
10 MR . FISCHETTI : No .
11 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : There was no
12 proposed enlargement other than the roof
• 13 height , ridge height of the second floor;
14 is that correct?
15 MR . FISCHETTI : Yes .
16 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : How much of that
17 second floor is going to be salvaged
18 given the space in height? How much is
19 that going to have to be redone?
20 MR . FISCHETTI : Madam Chairperson, it
21 doesn ' t matter . We could take it down .
22 The Town definition of demolition allows
23 you to take everything down . We can use
24 the some of the exterior wall studs .
• 25 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : How much of that
November 7, 2013 Regular Meeting 67
• 1 25% will remain? You ' re saying 25% of
2 the first floor?
3 MR . FISCHETTI : We have two different
4 areas . We have a repair of storm damage
5 and we have a recommendation to demolish .
6 Those are two different areas . We have a
7 repair of storm damage , which we ' re
8 permitted to do .
9 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I am getting at
10 the fact that they have two Notice of
11 Disapproval ' s . One was for a demolition .
12 The other is now -- you have now said
• 13 it ' s not a demolition .
14 MR . ANDERSON : No, we have not said
15 that . The Building Department has said
16 that and the Building Department is the
17 one who inspected this . So we have been
18 working very closely with the Building
19 Department . They understand that in --
20 our actual Building Department says
21 repair .
22 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That was for the
23 storm damage .
24 MR . ANDERSON : Correct . If we ' re
• 25 going to back ( In Audible ) demolition and
November 7, 2013 Regular Meeting 68
• 1 then say ( In Audible) you know, it puts
2 you in a world win where nobody knows
3 where you ' re . It puts the property owner
4 in a position to not be able to repair a
5 home when it ' s damaged . Even our
6 calculations , which caused the Building
7 Department to rescind their prior notice
8 and issue the current notice, is that , we
9 said that -- actually the front part
10 could be a repair . We certainly didn ' t
11 demolish anything . The storm did it
12 away . The Building Department took the
• 13 more stricter interpretation and said,
14 whether you demolished or the storm
15 demolished, I don ' t care . I am
16 calculating that as part of a demolition
17 calculation from the other part of the
18 structure . In other words , what
19 remained . If we were to cut the sunroom
20 and even if we were to count the second
21 floor, we still don ' t get to the level of
22 a demolition according to the Building
23 Department .
24 MR . FISCHETTI : -- it ' s a very poor
• 25 definition, by the way . So let me talk
November 7, 2013 Regular Meeting 69
• 1 about it because Bruce and I have been
2 talking about it . It talks about
3 demolition and then it takes about
4 structural removal , which is a three
5 dimensional item. And then it says
6 square footage, which is a two
7 dimensional item. So how do you deal
8 with that ? And I said to Bruce, that
9 that specifically, we have not done any
10 demolition . We have done repairs of
11 walls . It ' s still all the square
12 footage . We did a demolition of -- the
• 13 demolition of the front porch was not a
14 demolition . It was ripped off by the
15 storm. A demolition of structure -- we
16 did repairs . We did not demolish . You
17 would have to demolish a first floor and
18 -- we repaired storm damage . We made the
19 floors compliant with the code . It was
20 all done with the Town ' s Building
21 Inspector ' s knowledge, because we had
22 Collin Raffy . We had him there all the
23 time . He kept him informed .
24 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You ' re right
25 about the potential difficulty when the
November 7, 2013 Regular Meeting 70
• 1 code describes it as a demolition .
2 MR . FISCHETTI : Right .
3 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : If you ' re
4 talking about square footage, its saying
5 you have the same square footage as we
6 had before, therefore it ' s not a
7 demolition .
8 MR . FISCHETTI : That is not what I am
9 saying .
10 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I am just trying
11 to be clear on what you ' re saying because
12 what we saw -- all floor joists , walls,
• 13 new materials . Same footprint . It was
14 probably replaced in kind .
15 MR . FISCHETTI : As I said to you, this
16 house was twisted from being off of its
17 foundation for so many months . Those
18 repairs needed to take place . There was
19 no way it would fit on a new level
20 foundation .
21 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : What I am saying
22 is , repairs to me says , fixed up what is
23 there . Make it structurally sound . In
24 fact , the repairs looked like it was a
• 25 replacement of the materials , in the same
November 7, 2013 Regular Meeting 71
• 1 place . But the repairs are in fact new
2 construction .
3 MR . FISCHETTI : I really can ' t answer
4 that . I based it on the repairs . I
5 didn ' t calculate it based on the
6 demolition . So that is the problem with
7 the Town ' s demolition .
8 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The second
9 Notice of Disapproval resulted from you
10 bringing in the calculation, no?
11 MR . FISCHETTI : Correct .
12 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So in fact you
• 13 did the calculation and based upon your
14 professional stamp --
15 MR . FISCHETTI : That ' s right .
16 MR . ANDERSON : We ' re perfectly happy
17 with the Building Department ' s
18 interpretation of what we ' re doing down
19 there . This is just whether or not we
20 can make the second floor comply with
21 ceiling heights . That is what this
22 application is about . I am not here to
23 argue whether it ' s a demolition or not a
24 demolition . It seems to me that we ' re
• 25 past that because the Building Department
November 7, 2013 Regular Meeting 72
• 1 says that we ' re passed that . I do say
2 that because I understand that your
3 problem, because when you closely look at
4 the definition, it says removal of the
5 structure .
6 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Right .
7 MR. ANDERSON : The Town is going to
8 have to rely on some policy on how to do
9 it . To me if you have a structure -- I
10 think we all know what a demolition is .
11 Perhaps in your travels you might mention
12 to whoever writes these laws . In the
• 13 middle of all this , I don ' t think that it
14 would be fair that the Chernushka ' s are
15 in the middle of all that . They ' re just
16 trying to put their house back .
17 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let ' s see if
18 there are other Board members who have
19 any questions? Ken, do you have any
20 questions that you would like to ask?
21 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: If I understand
22 correctly, you ' re saying that the work
23 that was done on the first floor was
24 mostly repair and in that repair, you had
• 25 twisted joists or studs or broken windows
November 7, 2013 Regular Meeting 73
• 1 or whatever, and you repaired them with
2 new?
3 MR. FISCHETTI : Yes .
4 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: So in your opinion,
5 that is not a demolition and the Building
6 Inspector also interpreted as a repair
7 and not a demo? The work that was did
8 was a repair?
9 MR. ANDERSON : That is what was
10 advised by the Building Department . We
11 both think that it is a repair . I will
12 mention a case that I did last summer,
• 13 which was a case of demolition and it was
14 just adopted this law . I remember the
15 Chairman asking does windows count . No
16 windows don ' t count . Siding does not
17 count . So what he is saying, vertical
18 three dimensional items don ' t count . So
19 we ' re all struggling with the same issue .
20 In my opinion, it ' s a poorly or unclear
21 definition of demolition . If the
22 Building Department is not saying it ' s a
23 demolition, I am certainly happy with
24 that because I relied on that when I
• 25 installed the piles . So to peel back
November 7, 2013 Regular Meeting 74
• 1 time and say, well , it ' s now a
2 demolition, we ' re into a whole other
3 thing . We have a property owner who has
4 relied on a building permit and spent a
5 considerable amount of money raising this
6 house and building it to a better
7 standard . Who is before you asking to
8 make it better and conforming to building
9 codes . It ' s left that individual in a
10 terrible spot .
11 MS . ANDALORO : I am not saying that is
12 the case . I have seen both things
• 13 happen .
14 MR. ANDERSON : We ' re very sensitive to
15 that . It ' s a very touchy thing . All I
16 can say that the Building Department has
17 been down there quite often . There has
18 been a lot of communication back and
19 forth .
20 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : When did that
21 start? When did you put the pilings in?
22 MR . ANDERSON : Shortly after issuance
23 of the building permit . The permit was
24 issued June 2013 . The house was damaged
• 25 in October, which meant that this house
November 7, 2013 Regular Meeting 75
• 1 was sitting in a position that needed to
2 be repaired for over six months .
3 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Did a Notice of
4 Disapproval go with that permit?
5 MR. ANDERSON : No . It was a permit for
6 storm damage, for flood --
7 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay . It was a
8 permit for storm damage?
9 MR . ANDERSON : That ' s correct .
10 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : To be perfectly
11 honest , however you want to interpret the
12 code, logic dictates that if a structure
• 13 is damaged, that all new materials are
14 required to frame it out . That that
15 original structure is gone . I don ' t care
16 how the code is written . I am saying that
17 it is logic . We ' re just trying to grapple
18 with the sequence of events that went
19 from storm damage to severe damage and
20 then FEMA compliant beyond what the AE
21 Zone says to new structure to old
22 structure to about to become new
23 structure . Certainly the property owner
24 has every right to maintain their
• 25 seasonal dwelling .
November 7 , 2013 Regular Meeting 76
1 MR . ANDERSON : I get that .
2 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We ' re just being
3 very candid and honest here .
4 MR . ANDERSON : You do realize that the
5 real remedy here doesn ' t rely with me or
6 either you, it relies with the Town Board
7 to clarify this .
8 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Understood . We ' re
9 very well aware of it and we have been
10 placed in a position trying to be guided
11 by the Building Department . Their mandate
12 is to interpret the code . Our mandate is
• 13 to make sure that they did it properly
14 but we can overturn a Building
15 Inspector ' s Notice of Disapproval or
16 disagree with them. I am not suggesting
17 that is what we ' re going to do here .
18 MR . ANDERSON : What I would just simply
19 say in this instance, is that we have
20 been relying on the Building Department .
21 He is well aware of what we have been
22 doing there . He has been down there . We
23 had a Pre-CO . Now why that was necessary,
24 1 don ' t know, but we did that . At the
. 25 time of the inspection of the Pre-CO,
November 7, 2013 Regular Meeting 77
• 1 that condition of that building was well
2 known by the Building Inspector . The
3 Pre-CO is probably dated the first week
4 in June . So a determination was made of
5 full knowledge of what damage occurred at
6 the time the building permit was issued,
7 meaning that it could not have been any
8 slighter hand on the applicant .
9 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let ' s continue .
10 Gerry?
11 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Nothing at this
12 time .
• 13 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Eric?
14 MEMBER DANTES : The only questions
15 that I have is , do you have any copies of
16 the survey -- an older survey?
17 MR . ANDERSON : I might . I don ' t but I
18 guess the best way to answer that
19 question is that the survey that
20 accompanies the approval prepared by
21 Peconic Survey dated February 6, 2013
22 showed the dwelling that occurred before
23 any work that took place . So if the
24 concern is that you have moved the --
• 25 let ' s say you moved it closer to a
November 7, 2013 Regular Meeting 78
• 1 bulkhead or you moved it closer to the
2 side yard, you know, that is cured upon
3 an application for Certification of
4 Occupancy . So that survey before you
5 tells you where that house was before it
6 was lifted . Put aside and lifted and put
7 back in place .
8 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So the bulkhead
9 setback that existed is exactly what you
10 are proposing?
11 MR . ANDERSON : That is correct .
12 MEMBER DANTES : I just have one more
• 13 question . I am looking at the picture
14 that you have submitted. Is that the top
15 elevation?
16 MR . ANDERSON : They are at the beach
17 looking straight back . It was in front
18 of us .
19 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well , because so
20 much of this is dependent upon not
21 enlarging something, just repairing what
22 is there and making it to code, and it ' s
23 especially important that you have an
24 accurate reflection of what is what .
• 25 This is -- this is the north elevation
November 7 , 2013 Regular Meeting 79
• 1 facing the road? The south?
2 MR . ANDERSON : That is the north .
3 That is the south .
4 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Just checking .
5 That is what we were looking at from the
6 road .
7 MEMBER SCHNEIDER : The interior
8 appears to be new and repaired in place .
9 And I don ' t know --
10 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All the wiring
11 and plumbing had to be redone?
12 MR . FISCHETTI : I wanted to say that
• 13 before , that when I worked with -- almost
14 ten years ago with the Sage property, I
15 had to -- when the Building Department
16 couldn ' t because they were beyond repair .
17 The way that I did it was , I broke it
18 down to the individual components and
19 then evaluated each component as to the
20 percentages . So that is what the code
21 should do . So plumbing should be part of
22 it . Flooring should be part of it . It
23 should be part of demolition . And then
24 evaluate it as a engineer . Then you
• 25 should sit down and evaluate it . Add it
November 7, 2013 Regular Meeting 80
• 1 up .
2 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It ' s a very
3 general --
4 MR. FISCHETTI : Yes , it was .
5 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All you needed
6 to save was 25% .
7 MR . ANDERSON : We are all in the same
8 boat here because -- and I feel sorry for
9 you guys sitting on that side of the
10 table . It ' s certainly not a workable
11 definition . Even on this side .
12 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You were correct
• 13 about the character of the neighborhood.
14 The numbers of alteration and
15 enlargements that have taken place over
16 time . The Board is not trying to cast
17 any doubt or suspicion on the applicant,
18 either you or the Building Department for
19 that matter . We ' re just trying to
20 grapple how it was a demo and not a demo .
21 It ' s hard to grapple to it . We cannot
22 grant anything that is inconsistent . We
23 do have now a new letter from the LWRP
24 that agrees with the new Notice of
• 25 Disapproval . That is why we ' re taking so
November 7, 2013 Regular Meeting 81
1 much time and information to make sure .
2 MR . ANDERSON : I understand .
3 MS . ANDALORO : Why didn ' t you demo it?
4 MR . ANDERSON : The client -- the
5 husband, they like the neighborhood as it
6 is and they are not looking to change the
7 neighborhood .
8 MS . ANDALORO : It seems like you went
9 through a lot to preserve the 25% .
10 MR . ANDERSON : The property owner
11 doesn ' t do what I do . Doesn ' t do what
12 Joe does . He said, I want the house to be
• 13 like it was . It ' s just that the second
14 floor came in as an afterthought . I was
15 ( In Audible) .
16 ( Stepped away from the microphone . )
17 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You know what ,
18 those conversations are not with respect
19 to this application . There is nothing
20 here that has not been completely
21 transparent .
22 MR . ANDERSON : That ' s important for
23 you to understand .
24 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay . I have one
• 25 other question, when I was out there
November 7 , 2013 Regular Meeting 82
• 1 inspecting, you had two stakes that were
2 out by the bulkhead, what was that?
3 MR . ANDERSON : Because the survey
4 offsets . So that when they set the piles
5 in .
6 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay. That is one
7 of the things that we look for that tell
8 us about setbacks .
9 MR . ANDERSON : We didn ' t want to put
10 the house back in the wrong location .
11 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay . Anything
12 else from anyone?
• 13 (No Response . )
14 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there anyone
15 else in the audience that wishes to
16 address this application?
17 (No Response . )
18 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Hearing no
19 further questions or comments, I will
20 make a motion to close the hearing and
21 reserve decision to a later date .
22 MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Second .
23 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor?
24 MEMBER DANTES : Aye .
25 MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Aye .
November 7, 2013 Regular Meeting 83
1 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye .
• 2 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye .
3 ( See Minutes for Resolution . )
4 +** ***+ * * *+++ + +** * +* **r * + ** * + + *
5 HEARING #6699 - BREWER YACHT YARD @
6 GREENPORT , INC .
7 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next and
8 last application before the Board is for
9 Brewer Yacht Yard at Greenport , Inc .
10 #6699 . Request for variance from Article
11 XXII Code Section 280-116 (8 ) and the
12 Building Inspector ' s August 6, 2013
• 13 Notice of Disapproval based on an
14 application for building permit to
15 demolish and construct a new restroom
16 building, at ; 1 ) proposed structure at
17 less than the code required bulkhead
18 setback of 75 feet , located at : 1410
19 Manhasset Avenue , adjacent to Sterling
20 Creek and Sterling Basin, Greenport .
21 Could you please state and spell your
22 name for the record .
23 MR. COLLINS : Sure . My name is Zachery
24 Collins . Z-A-C-H-E-R-Y C-O-L-L-I-N-S . I
• 25 am with High Point Engineering,
November 7, 2013 Regular Meeting 84
1 Farmingdale, New York . I am here on
• 2 behalf of the applicant , Brewer Yacht
3 Yard, as you mentioned for Section
4 280-116 (b ) of this Town ordinance .
5 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thank you very
6 much . What would appear that we have
7 before us is a demolition and
8 construction of a new restroom building
9 with a 0 bulkhead setback . The code
10 requires 75 feet ; however, the current is
11 at 0 bulkhead setback . And you ' re not
12 proposing a change in use , location or
• 13 footprint ?
14 MR . COLLINS : That is correct .
15 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : These are
16 comments from the Planning Board to the
17 Zoning Board . We requested that . Also
18 this is a copy from the Local Waterfront
19 Revitalization Program, do you have a
20 copies of that? Let me just give that to
21 you .
22 MR . COLLINS : Thank you .
23 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The LWRP ' s
24 recommendations , they were consistent . It
• 25 is a marine dependent use . This is a
November 7, 2013 Regular Meeting 85
• 1 notice from Suffolk County of
2 non-jurisdiction, and Planning Board --
3 they ' re actually not objecting to it at
4 all .
5 MR . COLLINS : Right .
6 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let me give this
7 to you .
8 MR. COLLINS : Thank you .
9 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The only thing
10 that is in the LWRP recommendation that I
11 would like to tell you is that they ' re
12 telling you, it ' s consistent provided
• 13 that the sanitary system meets the
14 required setback . Okay . Let ' s see what
15 that entails . We would like you to
16 verify that the sanitary system meets the
17 Town requirement according to Chapter
18 275 , requires that the septic tanks be at
19 75 feet and leaching pools at 100 feet
20 from the wetlands . The marine wetland in
21 this case is located at the bulkhead . The
22 tank was observed with PVC pipe running
23 under the parking area during site visit .
24 However, the purpose of the tank is not
• 25 identified . This situation is similar to
November 7, 2013 Regular Meeting 86
• 1 the dock master that was proposed at
2 Mills Creek & Marina, a sanitary system
3 is warranted due to the proximity of the
4 waters . That specifically stated in the
5 letter . Are you prepared at all to
6 address these issues?
7 MR . COLLINS : We do not have the exact
8 location documented on the plans of the
9 sanitary system. We ' re not proposing any
10 modifications to the existing sanitary
11 system. None of the changes to the
12 building modify the flow . We ' re not
• 13 changing the use . We ' re not enlarging
14 the building . So I do not have the ( In
15 Audible ) I would want to confirm that
16 that is the setback . That it an existing
17 use and we ' re not proposing to modify .
18 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well, I am just
19 reading -- the Board is only permitted to
20 grant variances that are consistent with
21 the LWRP . So we need to look at this in
22 order to find situations where it might
23 mitigate the required setback in order to
24 indicate that within our determination,
• 25 that we , as a Board, have found
November 7, 2013 Regular Meeting 87
• 1 circumstances that would now make it
2 consistent with the LWRP . Do you follow
3 what I am saying?
4 MR . COLLINS : I do .
5 MEMBER GOEHRINGER : The question is ,
6 is it a cesspool or is it a holding tank?
7 MR . GAFFGA: Neither .
8 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : State your name .
9 MR . GAFFGA: My name is Jessie Gaffga .
10 I am the manager . That PVC arrangement
11 that if you had seen it , is actually a
12 primp station . That the waste from that
• 13 building goes into the field, which is in
14 the middle of a property . That we feel
15 -- I have been trying to ascertain
16 certain information from the Town because
17 my application was done in early 2000 ,
18 and I can ' t seem to get what the plans
19 were . But that leech field has been there
20 quite some time to address that restroom
21 as well as the other restrooms that are
22 in the middle of the property .
23 MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Is it pumped to
24 any other cesspool?
• 25 MR . GAFFGA: Just a large cesspool
November 7, 2013 Regular Meeting 88
1 system that is in the center of that
• 2 property . That building pumps it into
3 that .
4 MEMBER GOEHRINGER : There was a
5 question that I forgot to ask you . So I
6 stopped in last Saturday and your truck
7 was there but I couldn ' t find you . So I
8 said, we will just ask you today .
9 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Can you locate it
10 on here where it is ?
11 (Whereupon, Mr . Gaffga approached the
12 podium . )
• 13 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Do you want to
14 mark that on here?
15 MR. GAFFGA: We have been working with
16 Greenport . Not just to get rid of this
17 but for other reasons .
18 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: We contacted
19 Greenport and they said that you were not
20 hooked up at this time .
21 MR . GAFFGA: My approach to Greenport ,
22 was that at the time , the Director of
23 Utilities didn ' t realize that was part of
24 the Village . The pump is right here . It
• 25 runs up to a leech field over here . I
November 7, 2013 Regular Meeting 89
1 hope that helps out .
• 2 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That certainly
3 clarifies what the pipe was .
4 MEMBER GOEHRINGER : That ' s not 75
5 feet .
6 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Certainly
7 nothing will .
8 MR . GAFFGA: I have a plan with the
9 septic with County approval from the
10 70 ' s . I can bring that in .
11 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Would you do
12 that ? That would certainly be helpful .
• 13 MEMBER GOEHRINGER : There was a
14 situation and not to reiterate what the
15 Chairperson said, that we have -- we ' re
16 presently telling you that you have an
17 exempt action but that the LWRP
18 Coordinator is indicating to us that he
19 wants it to be 75 feet -- excuse me ,
20 inconsistent . He is requesting 75 feet
21 from a water source . I have to tell you
22 that Jesse was a very helpful individual .
23 Really respective and caring .
24 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : If we have the
• 25 correct information, then we can make a
November 7, 2013 Regular Meeting 90
1 determination with the new Department of
• 2 Health approval and that it ' s an older
3 system and there is no increased flow .
4 Perhaps you want to provide a cover
5 letter summarizing that information with
6 a copy . We can enter that into our
7 determination and therefore make it
8 consistent and that can mitigate the
9 potential inconsistency . The request was
10 to ensure that the wetlands are protected
11 and so on by virtue where the system is
12 and how it operates . Now we know what
• 13 the pipe does and if we could have that
14 the information, we could address the
15 LWRP issues .
16 MR . COLLINS : Okay .
17 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Eric, do you have
18 any questions?
19 MEMBER DANTES : Yes . The second part
20 of the LWRP, they ' re asking for gutters
21 and leaders for Stormwater removal on the
22 new building .
23 MR . COLLINS : Yes . Currently there is
24 a drywell that drains -- it ' s in this
• 25 area . In the existing building ( In
November 7, 2013 Regular Meeting 91
1 Audible ) .
• 2 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Can you just
3 repeat that into the record . We ' re
4 recording this . If you could go to the
5 mic .
6 MR . COLLINS : The existing building
7 does not currently have a separate
8 Stormwater detention system. It goes
9 through the parking area and flows to
10 this over here, that drains to the water .
11 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : According to
12 Chapter 236 of the Stormwater Runoff, you
• 13 will need to gutter that new building .
14 MR. COLLINS : Okay.
15 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And it will have
16 to drain into a drywell or some evidence
17 that it will have to drain on site and
18 doesn ' t in any way impact the water
19 quality .
20 MEMBER DANTES : What is an alcove?
21 ( Phonetic ) .
22 MS . ANDALORO : There is an alcove?
23 MR . COLLINS : Yes , we do .
24 MS . ANDALORO : Do we have a copy of
. 25 that in the record?
November 7, 2013 Regular Meeting 92
1 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I don ' t believe
• 2 we do .
3 MS . ANDALORO : Can you get a copy of
4 that for us?
5 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : This is a newer
6 code . That may have been perfectly
7 acceptable at one time . At this time, the
8 building would have to have gutters and
9 leaders and it drain into a drywell .
10 MR. COLLINS : Understood .
11 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Can you just
12 address how you ' re going to deal with the
• 13 bulkhead when you take this down and
14 replace it? It ' s complicated engineering .
15 MR . COLLINS : It is complicated
16 engineering . Essentially, the ( In
17 Audible ) behind the existing bulkhead,
18 that is raised with timber piles to
19 support the existing bulkhead . The new
20 bulkhead, we drive the pile sheathing .
21 So do that on this plan . That is right
22 here . This runs along that front line .
23 That line is being held . The building
24 will have -- at least the front wall and
• 25 most of the side walls will need to be
November 7, 2013 Regular Meeting 93
1 removed . This will have to be in place .
• 2 The building will be demolished . The
3 soil from behind the bulkhead will be
4 excavated . The new piles will be driven
5 along the bulkhead . The final sheathing
6 will be done . This will match the
7 existing dock .
8 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Are you with the
9 Trustees or not ?
10 MR. COLLINS : We made an application
11 to the Trustees and they suggested that
12 we come before the Zoning Board first .
• 13 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay . It makes
14 it easier . If they do one thing and we
15 do something else, then you have to go
16 back and modify it . It ' s not good for
17 you and it ' s not good for the Town .
18 Ken, questions ?
19 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Yes . The bulkhead
20 setback variance, did you investigate any
21 other areas where you could put this
22 structure? Where you could have a more
23 conforming bulkhead setback?
24 MR . COLLINS : Unfortunately due to the
• 25 property, there are no other options for
November 7, 2013 Regular Meeting 94
1 the location of the building . There is
2 parking here . If it was shifted, then it
3 would impede on the existing parking
4 facilities .
5 MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Thank you.
6 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: So in other words ,
7 the building at this time , is going to
8 moved up . How is it going to be driven?
9 MR . COLLINS : Most likely by barge .
10 Most of the work will be done by land .
11 If he could get to it by water, it would
12 be easier .
• 13 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Okay .
14 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Do you need any
15 permits from Greenport to do this ?
16 MR. COLLINS : We have an active
17 Trustees permit for the bulkhead . The
18 only thing I have to do with the building
19 permit side of it , is bring them up to
20 date with it .
21 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Okay. It seems
22 like it ' s cut in half .
23 MR. COLLINS : Exactly .
24 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Do you guys have
• 25 anything else?
November 7, 2013 Regular Meeting 95
• 1 (No Response . )
2 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there anyone
3 in the audience that would like to
4 address this application?
5 (No Response . )
6 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay . Hearing
7 no further questions or comments, I will
8 make a motion to close this hearing
9 subject to receipt a cover letter with
10 Department of Health for the sanitary, a
11 letter of explanation of how it will be
12 effected and so on with regards to this
• 13 proposed construction, and a copy of the
14 DEC permission to discharge into a body
15 of water . I would still like to look at
16 it . And also for you to be aware that
17 you still have to put gutters and leaders
18 on there and a drywell , to comply with
19 Chapter 236 .
20 Is there a second?
21 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second .
22 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor?
23 MEMBER DANTES : Aye .
24 MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Aye .
• 25 MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Aye .
November 7, 2013 Regular Meeting 96
• 1 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye .
2 ( See Minutes for Resolution . )
3
4
5 (Whereupon, the November 7 , 2013
6 Public Hearing ' s concluded at 3 : 05 p . m. )
7
8
9
10
11
12
• 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
. 25
November 7, 2013 Regular Meeting 97
. 1 C E R T I F I C A T I O N
2
3
4 1 , Jessica DiLallo, certify that the
5 foregoing transcript of tape recorded Public
6 Hearings was prepared using required electronic
7 transcription equipment and is a true and accurate
8 record of the Hearings .
9
10 Signature : -4-
_
11 Je sic llo
12
• 13
14 Jessica DiLallo
Court Reporter
15 PO Box 984
Holbrook, New York 11741
16
17 Date : November 19 , 2013
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
• 25