HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-12/05/2013 Hearing
1
1 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
COUNTY OF SUFFOLK: STATE OF NEW YORK
2 X
3 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
4
5 X
6 Southold Town Hall
Southold, New York
7
8 December 5, 2013
9:32 A.M.
9
10 Board Members Present:
11
12 LESLIE KANES WEISMAN - Chairperson/Member
13 GERARD GOEHRINGER - Member
14 ERIC DANTES - Member
15 KENNETH SCHNEIDER - Member
16 GEORGE HORNING - Member (Left at 1:15 p.m.)
17
18 JENNIFER ANDALORO - Assistant Town Attorney
19 VICKI TOTH - Secretary
20
21
22
Jessica DiLallo
23 Court Reporter
P.O. Box 984
24 Holbrook, New York 11741
25 (631)-338-1409
2
• 1
2 INDEX TO HEARINGS
3
4 Hearing Page
5
6 William Murphy & Kimberly Reece, #6700 3-23
7 Bonnie Jean Robertson, #6701 23-44
8 Breezy Shores Community, Inc
9 (Steven Flotteron) #6704 44-64
10 Brian & Tabitha McQuade, #6702 64-72
11 Timothy McManus #6706 72-84
12 Philip & Jennifer Stanton #6705 84-93
• 13 Edith & Steve Papastefanou, #6703 93-103
14 Suzanne S. Coleman, #6688 103-146
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
• 25
December 5, 2013 Regular Meeting 3
• 1 HEARING #6700 - WILLIAM MURPHY
2 & KIMBERLY REECE
3 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The first
4 application before the Board is for
5 William Murphy and Kimberly Reece, #6700.
6 Request for variance from Article IV
7 Section 280-18 and the Building
8 Inspector's July 25, 2013 Notice of
9 Disapproval based on an application for
10 building permit for
11 demolition/reconstruction and additions
12 and alterations to existing single family
• 13 dwelling: 1) less than the code required
14 minimum rear yard setback of 50 feet,
15 located at: 1652 Bridge Lane, adjacent to
16 Great Peconic Bay and Wunneweta Pond in
17 Cuthchogue.
18 State your name for the record, if you
19 would.
20 MR. HERRMANN: Good morning. Rob
21 Herrmann of En Consultants 1319 North Sea
22 Road, Southampton, for the applicant.
23 Ms. Reece and Mr. Murphy are also here, as
24 well as the architect, Melissa Cicetti.
• 25 Do you want to begin or I should?
December 5, 2013 Regular Meeting 4
• 1 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Well, I just
2 want to indicate here that the actual
3 Notice of Disapproval indicates that there
4 is a rear yard setback and demolition and
5 reconstruction and this is additions and
6 alterations to a single-family with a rear
7 yard set of 25.4 feet. The code requires
8 a 50 foot rear yard setback. That's
9 basically it. The only other thing, Rob,
10 that I want to address is the LWRP
it recommendation, which is that, it is
12 consistent and that it's referenced to the
• 13 Trustees, established buffers.
14 MR. HERRMANN: Yes. I noticed that
15 after I saw that, that there is one
16 labeling mistake on the plan. Putting the
17 cart before the horse a little bit, but
18 just to cover that, there is an area that
19 is naturally vegetated now between the
20 wetland boundary and the house. It would
21 remain as such and never be cleared. It
22 is to be designated as a nondisturbance
23 buffer. And then there is an additional
24 area of plantings that was required
. 25 through the DEC and Trustees process and
December 5, 2013 Regular Meeting 5
• 1 that it be designated nondisturbance
2 buffer. On the site plan, it's designated
3 non-turf for both, even though the project
4 description says nondisturbance. So we
5 would have to give you a revised print.
6 I'm sorry, I just didn't catch that.
7 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: So it's just not
8 properly labeled?
9 MR. HERRMANN: Correct. But
10 subsequently, it is what it's supposed to
11 be. Just to give the Board really some
12 context because there is quite a bit going
• 13 on in the site plan here. This project
14 before the Board began as a design phase
15 almost three years ago in the beginning of
16 2011. At which time, we had a fairly
17 simply renovation proposed that was
18 primarily in-place renovation for the
19 first-story portion of the house and the
20 screen enclosure of what is an existing
21 14x24 deck on the north side of that same
22 first-story portion of the dwelling. The
23 Department of Building determined that
24 that side of the property, as you can see
• 25 from the survey a complicated lot but they
December 5, 2013 Regular Meeting 6
• 1 determined from that side of the house to
2 be the rear, which sets us up with the 50
3 foot setback requirement where that 25 112
4 setback currently exist. So we would have
5 to come to the Board but the issue that
6 was created by the first-story
7 reconstruction basically leaving the
8 two-story portion alone. That actually
9 has been previously renovated by the prior
10 owners. It would have been a substantial
11 renovation in FEMA zone. And so we would
12 we are in an AE6. With the requirements
• 13 of the State, we would have had to raise
14 the house two feet, and that exceeded the
15 scope of what the owners wanted to do at
16 that time. So we went through what ended
17 up being a rather lengthy process at Mike
18 Verity's suggestion, and apply to the New
19 York Department of State and get a
20 variance for not forcing us to lift this
21 home. Whatever it was, it was a fraction
22 of a foot. So we went through that whole
23 process and eventually in January of 2012,
24 got the variance. We then went to the
• 25 Trustees in July of 2012. We got their
December 5, 2013 Regular Meeting 7
• 1 approval but right about the time we were
2 preparing to come in here, Sandy happened.
3 So everyone had their certain impacts from
4 Sandy and what happened here, they part
5 of the existing house flooded. So we had
6 gone through this whole entire process of
7 having to try and get relief from the
8 State to not have to raise the house, to
9 only find out that the house was going to
10 be potentially subject to flood damage.
11 So the plan at that point changed to not
12 only lift the house but lift the house two
• 13 feet. So we were in effect in an AE6 zone
14 and 80-10 elevation requirement. Almost
15 at 10 foot. At that point, we then had to
16 bring the two-story portion of the house
17 into the project as opposed to just
18 lifting the part that we were working on.
19 So the projet before you is the screened
20 in enclosure of the existing deck, the
21 reconstruction and raising of the
22 first-story and then also just the raising
23 of the two-story portion of the house.
24 The two-story portion of the house, again,
• 25 that was previously renovated and we are
December 5, 2013 Regular Meeting 8
1 not proposing any addition to that side of
• 2 the house. It's just going up. So
3 revised plan was then submitted and
4 subsequently approved by the Trustees.
5 The original permit was modified to
6 include the raising of the house, at which
7 time the Trustees also added a little bit
8 to the buffer that you now see in the site
9 plan that is before you. And at the same
10 time, we went to the State DEC and got
11 their approval with the condition that the
12 non-turf buffer that was being added be
• 13 actively planted. So now at the end of
14 2013 we are back before you again, with
15 the project as it stands. Our written
16 detailed application shows a great bit of
17 detailing the construction and
18 architecture of the case and project and
19 our defense of a variance standard. So I
I
20 think I don't really want to go through
21 all of that right now, but it's probably
22 worth just for the record briefly
23 summarizing it to refresh the Board's
24 memory of looking at a lot of projects
• 25 this morning. Again, the original primary
December 5, 2013 Regular Meeting 9
• 1 purpose of reconstruction, the one-story
2 portion of the dwelling is to basically
3 simplify and unify the living spaces on
4 the interior. Increase the height to the
5 low existing window heads. Which in some
6 cases are below eye level and to provide
7 exterior wall cavity, which can then
8 accommodate building insulation, which is
9 currently required under New York State
10 Energy Code. The original purpose of
11 reconstructing the deck into a screened in
12 porch is for obvious reasons and provide a
• 13 habitable outdoor seating area directly
14 adjacent to the kitchen, which is there
15 now. That would be protected from
16 weather, pets, etcetera. And then as we
17 just discussed, the project was just
18 expanded to include the elevation of the
19 entire structure. With respect to the
20 physical implementation of these plans,
21 and again if the Board has any questions,
22 Melissa is here but I will just run
23 through it quickly. Generally as it is
24 presented in the application, the existing
• 25 one-story portion of the dwelling will be
December 5, 2013 Regular Meeting 10
1 removed to the top of the existing
• 2 fundation and it will be reconstructed it
3 place upon the existing foundation but
4 modified of course to finish the floor
5 level by two feet, and I think we
6 submitted foundation plans with the
7 application. The first story footprint
8 remains unchanged. The existing 14x20
9 attached deck, the one that I have been
10 talking about will be removed to the top
11 of the existing footing, replaced in
12 place. It will be an enclosed porch.
• 13 There is one other piece of demolition
14 that now comes on the other side of that
15 two-story portion of the house, which I
16 don't really think it's in the zoned that
17 we are concerned about with setbacks.
18 It's the 8x17.5 foot deck that is on the
19 south side of the house. We will be able
20 to elevate that deck to the newer deck
21 without demolishing it. Either way, that
22 deck is going to go up 2 feet with the
23 rest of the house. We argued in the
24 application that the relief would not
• 25 cause any undesirable change to the
December 5, 2013 Regular Meeting 11
• 1 character of the neighborhood because
2 although the project does include the
3 extent of work that we're talking about,
4 the finished dwelling is going to remain
5 the same footprint as the existing
6 dwelling. We will have some additional
7 entries and exceptions and all to get up
8 the two feet. Essentially, the house
9 stays the house just raised two feet and a
10 covered deck. We argue that the project
11 would not cause a detriment to nearby
12 properties for the same reasons because
• 13 the dwelling is really not being changed
14 in any way that would impact the
15 neighbors. This is not even something
16 that is fronting on any parcel, but really
17 approaches a view shed of the water that
18 is heavily offered. The dwelling to the
19 property on the east is located nearly 300
20 feet away and oriented in such a way that
21 it's looking in the other direction. You
22 can see some of those photos that have
23 been submitted with the application and
24 the aerial. Also, the board that I have
• 25 placed in front of you is just a blow-up
December 5, 2013 Regular Meeting 12
• 1 of some of the pictures that I have
2 submitted for our application. And with
3 respect to the physical environmental
4 conditions, we are back to where we
5 started the hearing. I have already gone
6 through the issues with the buffers that
7 are being added. Both the non-disturbance
8 buffer that are being added. Basically
9 maintenance over 9,000 square feet of
10 vegetation and in addition of almost 3500
11 feet of additional buffer area. Again, the
12 application has been reviewed by the Town
• 13 Trustees and approved in its current form
14 and it also has been reviewed by the DEC
15 and approved in its current form. We are
16 not involved with the Health Department
17 with this application because the septic
18 system was done under the prior
19 renovation. I tried to get that all out as
20 fast as I could. If you have any
21 questions, please, I am here, and again,
22 the owners and the architects are here.
23 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay. I don't
24 have any questions at this time. You have
• 25 covered them in your application. Let's
December 5, 2013 Regular Meeting 13
• 1 see if there are any Board members have
2 anything to add. George, we will start
3 with you.
4 MEMBER HORNING: The proposed rear
5 yard setback of 25.4 feet, that is the
6 existing setback?
7 MR. HERRMANN: That is correct.
8 MEMBER HORNING: The deck is going to
9 be demolished?
10 MR. HERRMAN: It's is going to be
11 taken down to the existing footings and
12 replaced in place with a screened in
• 13 porch.
14 MEMBER HORNING: Well, to the extent
15 of the Notice of Disapproval, using their
16 wording, the proposed
17 demolition/reconstruction
18 MR. HERRMAN: That's correct.
19 MEMBER HORNING: And
20 additions/alterations. I am getting at
21 that the demolition is of that deck, and
22 nothing else; correct?
23 MR. HERRMAN: Well. The first story
24 portion of the house is in effect being
• 23 reconstructed.
December 5, 2013 Regular Meeting 14
• 1 MEMBER HORNING: That is being
2 demolished also?
3 MR. HERRMAN: Correct.
4 MEMBER HORNING: Okay. And the
5 foundation of the one-story is going to be
6 raised up?
7 MR. HERRMAN: Yes, that is correct.
8 To modify the increase in height of two
9 feet.
10 MEMBER HORNING: And the foundation
11 for the new porch, will be what?
12 MR. HERRMAN: It will be the same
13 footings that was used to modify the
•
14 increase in two feet footings. So it
15 would be the same footprint as what is
16 there.
17 MEMBER HORNING: Will the foundation
18 be the same
19 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I'm sorry,
20 you're going to have to come to the mic
21 and state your name for the record.
22 MS. CICETTI: Hi. I am Melissa
23 Cicetti. I am the architect. Basically,
24 (In Audible).
• 25 (Speaker not in front of a
I
December 5, 2013 Regular Meeting 15
• 1 microphone.)
2 MEMBER HORNING: So the porch is going
3 to reuse the existing foundation. So there
4 is no enclosed
5 MS. CICETTI: No, it's going to be
6 open.
7 MEMBER HORNING: And when the flooding
8 occurred, did it come up? All around.
9 Okay. Thank you.
10 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Is there any
11 existing basement in the house?
12 MS. CICETTI: (In Audible.)
• 13 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Can I have one
14 discussion with the architect?
15 MS. CICETTI: Sure.
16 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: One of the reasons
17 why, and I am not speaking for the other
18 Board members, any variance from what you
19 show us, and I think Rob is well aware of
20 this, during normal construction, the
21 Building Department will say, and again, 1
22 am not speaking for the Building
23 Department, that wasn't depicted. So that
24 is why we are asking. We would rather not
• 25 have to come back to a second hearing. So
December 5, 2013 Regular Meeting 16
• 1 anything
2 MS. CICETTI: I have a good
3 relationship with Mike Verity. Very open.
4 So the intent is whenever you do a
5 renovation, and you remove something (In
6 Audible) you know, if we find something
7 that is (In Audible) crack in it, we have
8 to do it for structural safety. So except
9 for unforeseen circumstances, the house is
10 going to be raised only two feet, and the
11 part that we are demoing, if we see
12 something that needs to be fixed, we will
• 13 fix it, but the intent is to not go beyond
14 that footprint.
15 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: That wouldn't
16 change the Notice of Disapproval anyway.
17 It is written to allow that to take place.
18 MS. CICETTI: The intent is to respect
19 the footprint and not go beyond that.
20 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: So it's a total
21 demolition?
22 MS. CICETTI: Total demolition to the
23 top of the footing.
24 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Are you picking up
25 the first story at the same time you are
December 5, 2013 Regular Meeting 17
1 severing the second story?
• 2 MS. CICETTI: I think it's going to be
3 demo first and then jack-up the house. My
4 thought is, and I am not a house raiser,
5 so I can't really speak to it and by my
6 insurance company, I can't tell
7 contractors. Basically, one would think
8 logically, demo the one part and then it
9 picks up less structure and then you can
10 reconnect that house and then build a new
11 portion. I haven't thought this through
12 all the way.
• 13 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: It's a very
14 ambitious project.
15 MS. CICETTI: Yes.
16 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: You normally see
17 these in the great island of Fisher's
18 Island. You don't see that of an ambitious
19 nature over here. You will probably see
20 more of that after Superstorm Sandy.
21 MEMBER HORNING: I have another
22 question on the foundation. For the first
23 story portion of it, you are raising it
24 two feet. Is it going to be on a slab?
. 25 MS. CICETTI: The previous renovation,
December 5, 2013 Regular Meeting 18
• 1 they had to fill in the crawl space. So
2 the new one, I don't I meet with the
3 constructural engineer on Friday, but I
4 think the intent is to raise it up and put
5 I don't know if we are going to put a
6 slab.
7 MEMBER HORNING: No crawl space then.
8 MS. CICETTI: Right. It's not going
9 to be those concrete stands underneath.
10 Unless it's required by you guys.
11 MEMBER HORNING: I was just curious as
12 to what is in the foundation. Is it going
• 13 to be a crawl space and what happens the
14 next time it floods? Is water going to get
15 into that particular area?
16 MS. CICETTI: We are happy to put in
17 flood vents. We have not been required to
18 put them in but I just did that in Orient.
19 MEMBER HORNING: So the water can just
20 pass through that area.
21 MS. CICETTI: Flood vents are easy.
22 MEMBER HORNING: So you are not going
23 to pour a slab?
24 MS. CICETTI: I am meeting with the
• 25 structural engineer on Friday morning and
December 5, 2013 Regular Meeting 19
• 1 then I will speak to him and see what is
2 recommended. I am sorry that I don't have
3 that for you right now.
4 MEMBER HORNING: If you get an answer,
5 if you can just call the office and let us
6 know if there is going to be a crawl
7 space
8 MS. CICETTI: Or a slab. I don't think
9 that we are going to fill it in with dirt
10 because that has not been required by us.
11 MEMBER HORNING: You mean, you might
12 put a slab and then there would be a foot
• 13 or two
14 MS. CICETTI: Yeah.
15 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: There would be a
16 regrading of the property around the pipe?
17 MS. CICETTI: No, not really. We're
18 putting in new stoops, so we don't have to
19 regrade.
20 MR. HERRMANN: We explored that issue
21 a lot with the two wetland applications.
22 The project in its current format has lots
23 of stoops and steps and platforms, from
24 the original. So there was a purposeful of
• 25 avoidance.
December 5, 2013 Regular Meeting 20
• 1 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: And one more
2 question I have to ask, since you are
3 pretty much demolishing the first floor,
4 did you ever look at possibly in creating
5 a structure that would be in more
6 compliance with the code, as far as the
7 rear yard setback?
8 MR. HERRMANN: Basically the idea was
9 to keep what is there, and as I said, the
10 project has served more than from the
11 original decision, with the enclosure of
12 the deck. That has evolved into more of a
• 13 project with the lifting of the house,
14 which is more of a benefit to all, so I
15 think a part of that evolution was to lose
16 part of what they already have, they would
17 have to shrink and loose especially on
18 a particular parcel of this size where
19 there is no there will be no adverse
20 impact on anything. I think it would have
21 really spoiled the project. So could you
22 physically shrink the house and the deck
23 and change the 25.4 foot setback to 35,
24 yeah, sure, you could do anything at that
• 25 point.
December 5, 2013 Regular Meeting 21
• 1 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Okay.
2 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Just to clarify,
3 the proposal is to replace the decking and
4 to use the area as a seasonal porch?
5 MS. CICETTI: Correct. There is a
6 fireplace there.
7 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: That's fine.
8 MEMBER HORNING: Could I just ask one
9 question? Rob, when you were talking with
10 the Building Department, how did they
11 determine the rear yard setback?
12 MR. HERRMANN: George, are you going
• 13 to remember this?
14 MS. CICETTI: This was like two years
15 ago. Pat Conklin. We debated it over and
16 over. It had to do with the dirt road path
17 and their current driveway. The road
18 continues on a tax map. I can't remember
19 what she referenced. But that is how she
20 determined it.
21 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Are you saying
22 that there is two front yards?
23 MR. HERRMANN: No.
24 MEMBER HORNING: Is there a side yard
• 25 or no side yard?
December 5, 2013 Regular Meeting 22
1 MR. HERRMANN: There is a front rear
•
2 and somehow
3 MEMBER HORNING: Could you hold that
4 up for us?
5 MS. CICETTI: (In Audible.)
6 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: It's a very unique
7 parcel.
8 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: It sure is.
9 Eric, do you have any questions?
10 MEMBER DANTES: No.
11 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Is there anyone
12 else in the audience who would like to
• 13 address this application?
14 (No Response.)
15 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Hearing no
16 further questions, I will make a motion to
17 close the hearing and reserve decision to
18 a later date, subject to receipt of a
19 survey labeling the non-disturbance buffer
20 on the property.
21 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second.
22 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: All in favor?
23 MEMBER DANTES: Aye.
24 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye.
• 25 MEMBER HORNING: Aye.
December 5, 2013 Regular Meeting 23
• 1 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye.
2 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Aye.
3 (See Minutes for Resolution.)
q
5 HEARING #6701 - BONNIE JEAN ROBERTSON
6 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The next
7 application before the Board is for Bonnie
8 Jean Robertson, #6701. Request for
9 variances from Article III Code Section
10 280-18 Article XXIII Code Section 124 and
11 Article III Code Section 280-15 and the
12 Building Inspector's March 1, 2013,
• 13 amended and renewed August 22, 2013,
14 amended October 8, 2013 Notice of
15 Disapproval based on an application for
16 building permit for "as-built" additions
17 and alterations to existing single family
18 dwelling and "as-built" accessory
19 structure and combining two lots, at; 1)
20 proposed combining of two lots at less
21 than the minimum lot size of 40,000 square
22 feet, 2) additions and alterations to
23 dwelling at less than the code required
24 minimum rear yard setback of 50 feet, 3)
• 25 "as-built" accessory shed in a location
December 5, 2013 Regular Meeting 24
• 1 other than the code required rear yard,
2 located at: 55 Dickenson Street, corner
3 Third Avenue and Henry's Lane, Peconic.
4 What we have here is a proposed merger
5 of two lots into one. Moving from 10,349
6 square feet to a more conforming 30,349
7 square feet, while the bulk schedule
8 requires 40,000 square feet conforming.
9 We "as-built" additions and alterations to
10 an existing dwelling at a 10 foot rear
11 yard setback where the code requires 50
12 feet. We have an "as-built" accessory
• 13 structure shed 1) in a front yard location
14 where the code requires a rear yard and
15 it's a corner lot. It's a very unusual
16 shed. Let's see. Did you get the LWRP?
17 MR. HERRMANN: Yes, I did.
18 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I will just enter
19 into the record, the proposed lot merger
20 is consistent whereas the additions and
21 alterations at less than 50 feet and a
22 shed, other than a code conforming
23 location seems to be inconsistent. The
24 primary concern here is the location of
• 25 the sanitary system. It has to be
December 5, 2013 Regular Meeting 25
1 identified on here, and the functional
• 2 system because it's unknown. So we will
3 need to address that.
4 MR. HERRMANN: Rob Herrmann of En
5 Consultants, 1390 North Sea Road,
6 Southampton, on behalf of the applicant,
7 Bonnie Robertson. Bonnie's attorney,
8 Jennifer Gould is here, and the attorney
9 for the owner of the parcel, Ms. Moore.
10 There is lots of people here to answer any
11 questions you might have. As you eluded to
12 in the application of this parcel, it's an
• 13 interesting one. A good one, I think.
14 Determining actually what relief was
15 needed from this Board was a bit of
16 extensive conversations with both Ms. Hoff
17 and the Building Department. Essentially
18 three different versions of the Notice of
19 Disapproval were issued before all was
20 said and done. Although there is quite a
21 bit going on here, the essence is pretty
22 simple. Ms. Robertson has been engaged in
23 conversations with Mr. Johnson, the
24 adjacent property owner and we tried to
• 25 merge that vacant parcel with hers. As
December 5, 2013 Regular Meeting 26
• 1 Leslie noted, Ms. Robertson's parcel is
2 10,349 square feet. The vacant parcel is
3 20,000 square feet. So the result of the
4 merger would be to take a substantially
5 nonconforming lot and turn it in to a much
6 more conforming lot of the parcel that is
7 proposed and without the effect of
8 permanently distinguishing of what could
9 be pursued as a separate building parcel.
10 Now, this would admittedly require heavy
11 lift since the vacant parcel, as I
12 understand it through conversations with
• 13 Ms. Moore is being merged for zoning
14 purposes with the parcel from the west.
15 Another parcel. Even in that regard,
16 Ms. Robertson's proposal creates a net
17 benefit and really the Town zoning here,
18 and the parcel that I understand the
19 vacant piece is merged to, currently
20 stands on its own now as a vacant parcel.
21 So the vacant parcel with respect to
22 zoning purpose is much more useful to the
23 Town being attached to Ms. Robertson's
24 property. The problem as we learned, as
• 25 Pat originally approached the Planning
December 5, 2013 Regular Meeting 27
1 Board in this for a lot line modification
2 of Mr. Johnson's behalf, is that even
3 though everyone seems to agree, and I am
4 not sure how you can think otherwise if
5 this is a good idea to get rid of this
6 lot, that variance relief is technically
7 required under the code. Because even
8 though you are taking two nonconforming
i
9 lots and making them both more conforming,
10 the end result is still a nonconforming
11 lot. There are still going to be less
i
12 than 40,000 square feet, but unlike a
• 13 proposal where we might be trying to do
14 this for purpose of new development,
15 Ms. Robertson has had a house on her
16 parcel for a long time also. So the net
17 result is to take one very small parcel
18 and make it three times as big. Now, the
19 second component of why we are here, is
20 because in 1988, under the prior owner
21 there was a couple of the open and
22 attached decks that were added to the
23 existing dwelling. And you can see them in
24 the surveys from John Ehlers that were
• 25 submitted with the application. And
December 5, 2013 Regular Meeting 28
• 1 Ms. Robertson, when she purchased the
2 property in 2005, also added a shed, which
3 is about 90 square feet and doesn't
4 require a building permit but because of
5 where it is located between the house and
6 Third Avenue, the shed, again, despite not
7 required a building permit, is deemed to
8 be in a front yard. And that is also part
9 of the subject of our application here.
10 Taking a lead from the prior hearing
11 again, what I had argued with the Building
12 Department here and I will argue with the
• 13 Board is that the determination that has
14 been made here is that the Building
15 Department has effectively accepting that
16 this major leads to (In Audible)
17 application with the two properties as one
18 whole, and as a result of that, the
19 property is saying three front yards, one
20 rear yard and no side. And the reason why
21 they are doing that because Dickenson
22 Street is Ms. Robertson's goes through her
23 front yard. No one is going to contest
24 that but if you add the Johnson parcel,
• 25 you extend the parcel all the way towards
December 5, 2013 Regular Meeting 29
. 1 Henry's Lane, which because front yard No.
2 2 and then on the south east side of the
3 property, you have this unopen paper road,
4 where I actually met the neighbors out
5 there when I was posting the property and
6 it was a sort of a funny conversation
7 because they were basically walking around
8 in their driveway and right here in the
9 road. So what I would discuss, and I am
10 not even sure if you and I discussed this
11 or this was Pat, is that I am not sure why
12 the Building Department could have just
• 13 easily, if they wanted to say that there
14 were three front yards here, deem the
15 other side to be a side yard, which would
16 only require 15 foot relief, rather than
17 whatever it is or to really divide the
18 yard designations in a more logical way,
19 you would have kept Dickenson as you front
20 yard. Designated Henry's Lane on the other
21 side because that almost sits on a
22 wetland. You have the principle structure
23 here. You couldn't add a principle
24 dwelling structure and because of the
• 25 wetlands, you could never have an entry on
December 5, 2013 Regular Meeting 30
• 1 that side of the property. Given the
2 reality of the existing configuration,
3 this really is the front yard and you have
4 your house and what is behind it. Then you
5 can take Third Avenue that doesn't
6 matter what you call it. You can call it a
7 second front yard, side yard or call it
8 whatever you want. Then the northwest
9 becomes your side. As it sits now, if
10 Henry's Lane was a year, which is a
11 critical part of all of this,
12 Ms. Robertson could take the shed, which
• 13 was there and is currently in the front
14 yard and once owning Johnson's property,
15 could move it to the rear of the house
16 between the house and Henry's Lane and
17 then it would fit in a more conforming
18 rear yard. Again, this is not an issue
19 with trying to get a building permit but
20 with respect to zoning, you move it out of
21 the front yard to the paper road and to a
22 conforming rear yard. If that then makes
23 the northwest side of the property, the
24 side, you now have a required 15 foot
• 25 setback, where the 25 year old deck is 10
December 5, 2013 Regular Meeting 31
• 1 feet. Some total relief that we would be
2 asking for is a total 5 foot variance for
3 the deck that has been there since 1988.
4 That is our case. Now if you do that, or
5 if Jennifer says under the law, it has to
6 be a front yard no matter what, we have
7 three yards I don't know if there is a
8 reason why you have to call that what
9 is obviously the side yard, but in any
10 event, we are really just trying to
11 maintain not withstanding the shed, it
12 can be moved, getting your approval to
• 13 maintain a deck that existed for 25 years
14 so that Ms. Robertson can do something
15 that is really good for the Town from a
16 strictly zoning perspective. It would be
17 substantially decreasing the nonconformity
18 of this parcel. Now, the first thing that
19 Leslie mentioned from the LWRP, I am aware
20 of Mark's comments. I don't follow them.
21 The sanitary system really has nothing to
22 do with our application. We are really not
23 proposing additions or alterations. I
24 don't know how many Board members have
• 25 seen the property.
December 5, 2013 Regular Meeting 32
• 1 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I think we all
2 have.
3 MR. HERRMANN: It's a beautiful
4 property. This here is the deck. We
5 actually went to the Health Department,
6 and this actually related to what Pat
7 Moore was doing with the Planning Board.
8 We were issued a letter from the Health
9 Department specifically saying for
10 purposes of a proposed merger like this,
11 there is no need or requirement to inspect
12 the sanitary system or get any approval
• 13 from the Health Department for the merger
14 because actually and I know this
15 doesn't affect this Board, but now as how
16 the Town looks at lots, the Health
17 Department goes by what is on the 1981 tax
18 map. And on the 1981 tax map, each of
19 these parcels exist as a single and
20 separate buildable lot. The Health
21 Department, from their perspective,
22 Mr. Johnson could go in and get a permit
23 from the Health Department to build a
24 house and have a sanitary system on a
• 25 vacant lot that Ms. Robertson is trying to
December 5, 2013 Regular Meeting 33
• 1 distinguish. Why, because it exist on the
2 1981 tax map regardless of how the Town
3 thinks standards are for recognized lots.
4 The Health Department is never going to
5 give us a problem because we are literally
6 extinguishing this as a buildable lot.
7 Mark had some concerns also that relate to
8 wetlands. To me that is more really of an
9 issue I know that the Zoning has that
10 purview but more for the road of Trustees
11 and DEC. We did go to the DEC. So you just
12 approach the DEC with a Mia Culpa
• 13 situation and say we figured out that in
14 some point since 1977 the decks were
15 built, the shed was here (In Audible) de
16 minimus situation, they will issue what is
17 called a "warning letter," which I just
18 handed up to Leslie, which is what was
19 done here. Saying that they inspected the
20 property. We have seen what is there. We
21 know how long it has been there. We looked
22 at aerial photographs. Really not a
23 situation where it's having any impact.
24 Having said that, Mark does also suggest
• 25 in his LWRP report a couple of additional
December 5, 2013 Regular Meeting 34
• 1 things that we could do for mitigation if
2 this does results in an approval, which I
3 did discuss with Ms. Robertson and she is
4 if the Board sees fit to go along and
5 comply with Mark's suggestions, which are
6 No. 1, that the property would have a
7 permanent prohibition against fertilizer.
8 She does not have any problem with that.
9 She doesn't use them now. And it's really,
10 as you see, it's not that kind of
11 property. It's a little humble cottage in
12 the woods with a boundary stream that runs
• 13 through it with some freshwater wetlands.
14 His other recommendation, although I think
15 there is a typo, Leslie. I think you are
16 going to have to look at the report but I
17 think there is a typo where he suggests
18 that a permanent 50 foot non-disturbance
19 buffer be established around the wetland
20 on and then I think he means to refer to
21 the parcel currently owned by Johnson. So
22 it would be 1000-74-1-2 and I think he put
23 74-1-10, is that right? I think he
24 accidently dragged in the actual parcel
• 25 number. But there is currently a
December 5, 2013 Regular Meeting 35
• 1 freshwater wetland on the Johnson property
2 close to Henry's Lane. Ms. Robertson has
3 no problem with agreeing to that. I think
4 that if she moves the shed to the Henry
5 Lane side of the house, you would have the
6 50 foot buffer imposed by the Trustees or
7 DEC. So with respect to the mitigation
8 that is suggested, we would be willing to
9 comply.
10 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Rob, you are
11 saying that the tax map number is
12 incorrect?
• 13 MR. HERRMANN: That is what I think he
14 means to say. Because the two parcels
15 67-3-10 and 74-1-2. So it doesn't it look
16 like
17 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I think so.
18 MR. HERRMANN: Because the wetland is
19 actually on 74-1-2. And you know, in
20 Mark's defense, it took a couple of years
21 to get what tax map parcels were the
22 correct tax map parcels. But again, his
23 recommendation of the policies are
24 acceptable. That is really all that I had,
• 25 and I think that there was only one
December 5, 2013 Regular Meeting 36
• 1 question and that goes a little bit beyond
2 what I just discussed and I am going to
3 leave this to the Board. There was a
4 discussion that I had with Vicki that if
5 the Board granted this variance for the
6 merger, would we still in fact have to go
7 back to the Planning Board for a lot line
8 modification? Because this all started by
9 Pat Moore going to the Planning Board and
10 the Planning Board saying we can't deal
11 with this because this needs variance
12 relief. So the question is, once we get
• 13 variance relief, is there in fact a need
14 to go back to the Planning Board and then
15 get a lot line modification?
16 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Rob,
17 conceptually it doesn't make a whole heck
18 of a lot of sense to go and do that. Vicki
19 did call the Planning Board and spoke to
20 Allie who does these kinds of particular
21 applications and she doesn't feel there is
22 any reason to come before the Planning
23 Board.
24 MR. HERRMANN: That would be great.
• 25 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: We will get that
December 5, 2013 Regular Meeting 37
1 in writing. I just asked Vicki to make a
2 note to follow-up with it, just on behalf
3 of the Zoning Board. To make sure that we
4 have something in writing from them,
5 advising us how to proceed. This won't
6 interfere in any way for whatever variance
7 is in front of us, the merger.
8 MR. HERRMANN: I just wanted to get
9 that out onto the record.
10 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Well, we will
it find out from our perspective and then let
12 you know, where you need to pick it up.
• 13 MR. HERRMANN: Sounds like a deal.
14 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Let's see if
15 there are any questions from the Board.
16 MEMBER HORNING: The owners of the
17 lot, 74-1-1 and 74-1-2, is the same owner?
18 MR. HERRMANN: Not anymore. I think the
19 owner of 74-1-1 was sold recently but
20 there was a point in time where the owners
21 were the same, and that is why I think
22 this lot, 1-2, being merged with zoning
23 purposes with 1-1.
24 MEMBER HORNING: How do you sell a
25 portion of a merged lot?
December 5, 2013 Regular Meeting 38
1 MR. HERRMANN: Well, you don't see
2 a portion still exists as a lot.
3 MS. ANDALORO: That is what it will be
4 if we don't fix it on the record. Again, I
5 understand from a reasonable and efficient
6 purpose on your end why it's not going for
7 a lot line modification; however, from a
8 record perspective, that is the concern.
9 MS. MOORE: Pat Moore, on behalf of the
10 owner of the property. A suggestion that I
11 would pose to the Town Attorney and Rob
12 and his client, you could require a
• 13 covenant here that explains that the
14 parcels have merged and that way it
15 essentially buttons up the record. So
16 whether or not there is a lot line change,
17 it's reflected that these two properties
18 have merged. So it's another option that
19 you have without having to go through the
20 expense and the time for a lot line
21 change.
22 MR. HERRMANN: It has to be changed on
23 a tax map regardless.
24 MS. MOORE: Automatically it happens.
• 25 The description again, maybe as a
December 5, 2013 Regular Meeting 39
• 1 condition, we proceed with the deed with
2 the conveyance that a lot line is not
3 required in the conveyance of the Johnson
4 property to the Robertson property, with
5 a confirmation that it takes the perimeter
6 of the piece. End result is a lot line
7 change. So you can actually accomplish all
8 the same thing just by deeds. That's an
9 option and I will let the Town Attorney
10 discuss it with Planning.
11 MEMBER HORNING: These two lots that we
12 are talking about that are deemed to be
• 13 merged right now, were merged because of
14 the merger law?
15 MR. HERRMANN: Right, in other words
16 they are not legally merged but Suffolk
17 County receives them as they are,
18 different tax maps. For your purposes, if
19 somebody came in with a proposal to build
20 a new house on what is currently the
21 vacant lot, the Town would say, well, we
22 see that, but we're not recognized that
23 it's a single and separate parcel. In
24 reality it is, it legally exists. But if
• 25 you went to build a house on it, you would
December 5, 2013 Regular Meeting 40
1 argue that you couldn't and then argue to
• 2 unmerge them for zoning purposes. But you
3 don't I am not a lawyer, so Jennifer
4 and Pat can correct me, but you don't have
5 to go through that process to sell a piece
6 of real estate. It exist as a separate
7 piece of real estate and addressed by
8 Suffolk County as such.
9 MS. ANDALORO: I would think that any
10 attorney would apply their due diligence
11 and advise their client
12 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Right.
• 13 MR. HERRMANN: I am just trying to
14 respond to George's comment.
15 MS. GOULD: Jennifer Gould, attorney
16 for Bonnie Jean Robertson. I just want to
17 talk on what Pat has said, if you approve
18 this merger, the first deed will be (In
19 Audible) but from that, there will be a
20 confirmation deed showing the whole
21 parcel. In that confirmation deed, he can
22 just say the whole purpose of this
23 confirmation deed is to show the merger of
24 that lot and this lot.
• 25 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The point is,
I
December 5, 2013 Regular Meeting 41
1 what is before this Board, whether or not
•
2 of the recognition the merger to create a
3 more conforming lot in extinguish of
I
4 another, whether it's on paper or not
5 appropriate and justifiable. The rest of
6 it is not related to legal issues that
7 need to be clarified and not necessarily
8 right now by this Board. In the interest
9 of time, we are way behind schedule.
10 MEMBER HORNING: I didn't mean to open
11 a can of worms in asking about that
12 ownership. To me, if it's merged, I don't
• 13 know how you can see a portion of it.
14 There is something in the code defining
15 rear yards and front yards too. And I
16 think it addresses if you have access to
17 the road or not. And you might want to
18 look at that. Back in Orient, we had a
19 case like that. The applicant had no
20 access to a road or was not a front
21 yard
22 MR. HERRMANN: Which I think will be
23 the case too.
24 MEMBER HORNING: And I was going to ask
• 25 you about details of what they would have
December 5, 2013 Regular Meeting 42
• 1 for access, whether they could park a
2 vehicle on there, it might be considered
3 access.
4 MR. HERRMANN: I think it would only
5 matter in effect of what this Board is to
6 do subsequently.
7 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: I have a quick
8 question for Rob. On the vacant parcel,
9 in your opinion, if you wanted to create a
10 road access from the applicant's property
11 to Henry's Lane through that vacant
12 parcel
• 13 MR. HERRMANN: I think it would be
14 determined by the DEC and Town Trustees
15 because the wetlands presents a difficulty
16 with doing that. It would be difficult. I
17 don't think that if we were to ask the
18 DEC, I don't think that we would get it.
19 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Okay. Thank you.
20 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Is there anyone
21 else in the audience who wishes to address
22 this application?
23 (No Response.)
24 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Hearing no
25 further comments or questions, I am going
December 5, 2013 Regular Meeting 43
1 to make a motion to close the hearing
• 2 subject to receipt of conditions regarding
3 the actions that may or may not be
4 necessary from the Planning Board and any
5 other legal matter that we have discussed.
6 MR. HERRMANN: And I think that was
7 Jenny's concern. Your Board can still take
8 whatever action.
9 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Yes, we can.
10 This is more just an effort to be
11 cooperative with other agencies. So we all
12 can be on the same page.
• 13 MS. MOORE: I just want to make sure if
14 there is anything that yu need from me or
15 my clients that
16 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: If there is, we
17 will let you know.
18 MR. HERRMANN: Thank you.
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.
December 5, 2013 Regular Meeting 44
1 (See Minutes for Resolution.)
• 2
3 HEARING #6704 BREEZY SHORES COMMUNITY,
4 INC., (STEVEN FLOTTERON)
5 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The next
6 application before the Board is for Breezy
7 Shores Community, Inc., Steven Flotteron,
8 #6704. Request for variances from Article
9 XXIII Code Section 280-123, Article XXII
10 Section 280-116 (B) and the Building
11 Inspector's October 31, 2013 Notice of
12 Disapproval based on an application for
• 13 building permit for additions and
14 alterations to an existing seasonal
15 cottage at; 1) a nonconforming building
16 containing a nonconforming use shall not
17 be enlarged, reconstructed, structurally
18 altered or moved, unless such building is
19 changed to a conforming use, 2) less than
20 the code required bulkhead setback of 75
21 feet, located at #7 Breezy Shores
22 Community Inc., 65490 Main Road, a.k.a
23 State Route 25, a.k.a. Sage Boulevard,
24 adjacent to Shelter Island Sound in
• 25 Greenport.
December 5, 2013 Regular Meeting 45
• 1 I am going to give you a copy of the
2 LWRP Report and you have the affidavit of
3 posting and green cards. Okay. Who is
4 here to represent this application?
5 MR. FLOTTERON: Hi. Good morning, I am
6 Steve Flotteron, the homeowner at 7 Sage
7 Boulevard, Greenport. Because Breezy is a
8 unique property, I would like to give a
9 little background and my architect, Robert
10 Brown can give more specifics for you. As
11 you know, Breezy Shores has roughly 98
12 homeowners. And it's a seasonal co-op. And
• 13 years ago, as you know, it was a seasonal
14 brick factory and went cooperative about a
15 dozen years ago. Myself, just to
16 understand what we are looking for, is
17 I was very fortunate to work hard and be
18 able to get a little summer place for my
19 family. And the reason I picked this
20 place, part of it being a unique property,
21 it's not your typical that you are usually
22 dealing with. Because I bought this
23 place because it was a seasonal co-op. It
24 had a strict rules about this community.
• 25 They do not want to change it's quirky
I
December 5, 2013 Regular Meeting 46
• 1 character. Strict rules about the color of
2 our siding, to the color of our roof's. If
3 we were to do any type of improvements,
4 not to impede from the vision between the
5 sides of our homes. Not to change the
6 front or the look of our homes. The
7 community is very passionate in keeping
8 the original character. That is part of
9 the reason why I bought this home. Last
10 year, Sandy came, flooded throughout the
11 house and had a lot of damage. And why I
12 am coming here today, and I didn't come to
• 13 you many months ago, part of being a
14 cooperative, for 12 years, it's like
15 herding cats to come up with our own
16 strict rules (In Audible) changes. And
17 this community wants to maintain our
18 character but since we are not typical, we
19 didn't know how to move forward over the
20 years. Even if I wanted to add a couple of
21 square feet, we didn't know it becomes
22 an expensive task of hiring an architect
23 and going back and forth. Again, it's a
24 seasonal co-op. As you see, the request is
• 25 two things. One is to raise our home to
December 5, 2013 Regular Meeting 47
• 1 conform to the flood plain requirements
2 and the other one is for a minor addition.
3 It's a seasonal co-op. We don't want to
4 change our character. It's just a
5 comfortable modification. My cottage is
6 like 700 square feet. It's not changing
7 the lip from the water, which is really
8 our front door. It's just it's not even
9 expanding the width of the sides. It's
10 just rounding over a square and where we
11 have pieces of the side. And I have my
12 architect, Robert Brown here, who can give
• 13 you more specifics and other details.
14 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay. Thank you
15 for your testimony.
16 MR. BROWN: Robert Brown. Good morning,
17 architect for Mr. Flotteron. He basically
18 covered everything. We are lifting the
19 house to get it out of the flood zone. And
20 rounding off some corners, to create more
21 living spaces. That is the extent.
22 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: All right. Let
23 me go through a few things and a few
24 details here. Just so the record reflects
25 the specificity of what you are asking
December 5, 2013 Regular Meeting 48
• 1 for. Obviously FEMA compliance is really
2 one thing that is standard. The bulkhead
3 setback code requirement is 75 feet, you
4 are looking at 72 feet. We are all very
5 familiar with the property, as you know.
6 And that, it's not a typical. It's a
7 fairly small variance and it's typical of
8 the bulkhead along the waterfront
9 property. You are proposing to add 150
10 square feet to an existing 718 square feet
11 footprint. That would be about a 21%
12 increase in the square footage of the
• 13 footprint. You are proposing to enclose a
14 proposed entry deck and add to the living
15 space. It's 104 square feet for the
16 existing bedroom and 46 square feet for
17 the deck. That deck proposed, is that
18 proposed to be a raised deck?
19 MR. BROWN: Yes.
20 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: It is more than a
21 landing or an actual deck because I don't
22 know that any other cottages would have
23 anything other than landings on their
24 property?
• 25 MR. BROWN: For all intents purposes,
December 5, 2013 Regular Meeting 49
1 it's a landing.
• 2 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: It has been
3 deemed a landing by the Building
4 Department?
5 MR. BROWN: I don't believe they have
6 weighed in on it.
7 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay. I do want
8 to say something about this Section
9 280-123 of the code which refers to
10 building nonconforming uses. It cannot be
11 enlarged. You all recall, of course, the
12 Otano application before the Board. I am
• 13 sure everyone in the community will. The
14 Board spent a great deal of time on that
15 and it was rebuilt in place and in kind
16 and was raised to FEMA standard. We had
17 three other applications, Bowmen was a
18 20.6 square foot increase. To actually
19 increase the existing bathroom. The Board
20 had a choice of saying no, because it's
21 prohibited or suggesting, what the Board
22 decided to do, that it was so De Minimus
23 is nature, it felt unsubstantial. That it
24 made a decision that said property owners
• 25 had a right that within a very minimum,
December 5, 2013 Regular Meeting 50
• 1 minimum way, to improve their property
2 over time. It will deteriorate. It will
3 need to be renovated. It seemed to be so
4 insubstantial to get enough headroom and
5 another foot or two in the bathroom, that
6 it was a bump out. We followed that up
7 with even lesser De Minimus requests.
8 Mizrahy was 5.8 square feet, which was a
9 0.92% increase from 634 square feet to
10 639.8 square feet. And Willoughby was a 27
11 square feet increase, which was 3%. We
12 have also I could tell you what you
• 13 should have done or could have done, where
14 you are concerned about enlargement. Go to
15 the Town Board, who writes the code, and
16 asks them to change it and make an
17 argument as to why they should investigate
18 doing so. The Board, as I said, rightly or
19 wrongly, decided that 3%, was so De
20 Minimus in nature, that we could roll it
21 into a variance application. You are
22 proposing a 21%, 150 square foot increase,
23 which is by far and away, far larger than
24 this Board has ever entertained. And I
• 25 just want you to be aware and comment on
December 5, 2013 Regular Meeting 51
• 1 that if want to, that's fine. We do have a
2 letter indicating that your association
3 has indicated 150 feet makes sense to you,
4 however, that has utterly nothing to do
5 with the jurisdiction of this Board or the
6 Town Code that this Board is required
7 in this case not even grant relief. It's
8 not permissible.
9 MR. FLOTTERON: To give you a little
10 history of why I am making this request,
11 we always had our own By-Laws. You are
12 allowed to do an expansion within
• 13 perimeters. It took 12 years to finally
14 come to where we all agreed unanimously in
15 the community, is it 10 feet? 100 feet?
16 Can we do a second floor? Can we expand?
17 We have our own architectural review
18 committee now. I have been trying to get
19 through this with my own community for a
20 year now. So right now, from the
21 hurricane, I used every penny to get my
22 house back to the way that it was after
23 being destroyed and the insurance is not
24 covering to raise the home. No disrespect
• 25 to the architect, it cost me $10,000.00
December 5, 2013 Regular Meeting 52
• 1 just to get to this point. So it's
2 something of a financial hardship. So you
3 know what, I am spending so much now. We
4 got a conclusion that the Board didn't
5 know we didn't know if most of the
6 Board would ever give us 150. We got all
7 different answers over the years. So this
8 is the most that anyone has ever asked
9 for. We want to keep our quirky character.
10 We don't want to change our site lines.
11 And again, you know, I have spent so much
12 now just to get approval to raise my home
• 13 and the insurance is not covering it. In
14 the long run, my two teenage girls, are
15 living in a draw that's when they were
16 six. Now they are sixteen. They have a
17 sleeve of a bedroom with a closet.
18 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I do appreciate
19 that and the Board is not unsympathetic to
20 limitations property owners have in the
21 Town. However, our obligation is to uphold
22 the code. It's not to adhere to your
23 internal association decision as to what
24 you would allow. You can't do anything
• 25 without relief from the code. When it
December 5, 2013 Regular Meeting 53
• 1 comes to enlargement, you can decide
2 amongst yourselves what you want to ask
3 for but without relief from the code
4 and in fact, prior to Mr. Mulman, there
5 was no relief from that code. It was a
6 nonconforming building with a
7 nonconforming structure and in fact,
8 Otano, was a situation because it had been
9 determined to virtually be a tear down.
10 It lost whatever preexisting nonconforming
11 status to begin with. And again, out of
12 some degree of respect for property owners
• 13 and the character of that neighborhood,
14 the Board generously said you can rebuild
15 it in-place and in-kind. So I just want
16 the record to reflect accurately the
17 Board's position and why we have done what
18 we have done.
19 MR. FLOTTERON: I understand.
20 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The place to make
21 those changes was before the Town Board.
22 We don't write code. It's not our intent
23 to write code. In this case, the Board
24 decided the maximum relief because we
• 25 deemed it to be De Minimus, which is a
December 5, 2013 Regular Meeting 54
• 1 legal term saying insubstantial. Meaning
2 it's virtually no big deal at all. It's
3 very minimum. The Board said 3%. That is
4 our precedent. You can see one was 20.6
5 square feet. Not 150 square feet. Not 21%.
6 So at this point, I am going to see if the
7 Board has questions or anyone in the
8 audience wants to make comments. We will
9 certainly entertain them. Eric, do you
10 have any questions?
11 MEMBER DANTES: No, I don't.
12 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Gerry?
• 13 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I would put this
14 back to whatever I consider be the square
15 footage that we could possibly deal with.
16 And just go with the application. That
17 would be my thing. I am just suggesting it
18 at this point. I have to be honest with
19 you, a major part of those applications
20 had to deal with bathroom facilities that
21 were inadequate and
22 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: And utility
23 rooms.
24 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Right. Whatever
• 25 the case may be. In this particular case,
December 5, 2013 Regular Meeting 55
• 1 possibly your bathroom facility is
2 adequate
3 MR. FLOTTERON: My confusion, each
4 time we go to the Building Department and
5 get direction, this was the direction that
6 we were told to go. This is like sort of
7 financially killing us. We keep getting
8 different answers on how to move forward.
9 So that's why we ended up here today.
10 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: You ended up at
11 the right spot, we don't have the
12 legislation to go any farther.
• 13 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The bulkhead
14 setback we certainly do. That is something
15 that we can deal with very easily. But the
16 enlargement is really prohibitive by code
17 and it's only very recently, that this
18 Board even considered what we determined
19 to be very, very minor enlargements for
20 the reasons I have already said. I don't
21 need to repeat myself.
22 MR. FLOTTERON: I am just saying that
23 we were directed to come here.
24 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: You had to come
• 25 here for the bulkhead setback, and because
December 5, 2013 Regular Meeting 56
• 1 you proposed not replacing in-kind
2 renovating in-kind, rather enlarging. That
3 is where the other part of the code kicked
4 into the Notice of Disapproval and the 123
5 which is a nonconforming building. So that
6 is why you have two parts of the Notice of
7 Disapproval.
8 George, questions or comments?
9 MEMBER HORNING: No. Other than I will
10 paraphrase what my colleagues have said
11 already. I wanted to ask there was
12 some mention, your own organization
I
• 13 prohibits turning it into a two-story
14 building?
15 MR. FLOTTERON: Well, I guess my point
16 that I was trying to get across from that,
17 our residents are passionate. We are
18 having our own types of screening to make
19 sure we want to keep the character.
20 That is why we put a lot of thought and
21 came up with our own internal rules. You
22 won't see two-story homes coming in front
23 of you because we won't even let it get to
24 you. We are not going to extra 300 square
• 25 feet, extra bathrooms and dryers. When you
December 5, 2013 Regular Meeting 57
• 1 are on your boat and looking at our place,
2 it would look the same. We are just
3 trying to make a little more comfortable
4 modifications. It's a small one bedroom.
5 We just want to make it a small two
6 bedroom.
7 MEMBER HORNING: That is one thing
8 that I didn't quite follow the logic of
9 the statement here, that by increasing it
10 21%, "actually does not the perceived
11 size."
12 MR. FLOTTERON: You see the drawings?
• 13 MEMBER HORNING: I don't know how it's
14 not going to be perceived bigger.
15 MR. FLOTTERON: When you are looking
16 from the bulkhead, it would look exactly
17 the same. If you are standing from the
18 road and looking between the homes, it's
19 not going to be added on to the sizes
20 either way. It's not going any higher.
21 MEMBER HORNING: How will you not
22 perceive it to be bigger?
23 MR. FLOTTERON: I am saying, visually,
24 when you are at the bulkhead, the house
• 25 will look exactly the same to you. We are
December 5, 2013 Regular Meeting 58
• 1 not putting on extensions. We are not
2 sticking on the left side of the home. We
3 are not putting a second floor on.
4 Standing from the back of the house,
5 looking at the same view, it will be the
6 same width of the homes. It's not going
7 up. It's being raised up because of flood
8 plains but I am talking about, we didn't
9 add a second floor or total roof line on
10 it.
11 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Many
12 neighborhoods have their own covenants and
• 13 restrictions and their own rules and
14 regulation as to how they would like to
15 perceive their community. Those are
16 internal things to the neighborhood. They
17 have no we are not an architectural
18 review board. What color you use is and
19 all that stuff, is a matter for your
20 own
21 MR. FLOTTERON: Understand. I was just
22 trying to say that the home is not going
23 to be super-sized or doubled in size
24 because it a sensitive piece of property.
• 25 A lot of wetlands and stuff. Worried about
December 5, 2013 Regular Meeting 59
1 septic issues. That's why I was just
2 pointing out, we would not even think
3 about that.
4 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Well, I am afraid
5 of what has to happen is, in order for you
6 to increase the size, even though in
7 visually it may be in keeping with the
8 community wants, if you are going to
9 enlarge a nonconforming building with a
10 nonconforming use, beyond what this Board
11 is prepared to do, which is De Minimus is
12 nature, then the code would have to be
• 13 changed. The Town Code will have to be
14 changed to permit it. It prohibits it.
15 MR. FLOTTERON: That's meeting with
16 the supervisor?
17 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: What I will tell
18 you what you can do and I will tell you
19 this, this Board has already brought to
20 the attention of the Town Board several
21 months ago and the Code Committee, the
22 fact that this 123, only addressed a
23 modest expansion for a commercial
24 structures. It does not address
• 25 residential structures. And because we
December 5, 2013 Regular Meeting 60
• 1 have had these requests, we went to the
2 Town Board, brought it to their attention.
3 In fact, I have spoken to the supervisor
4 and the Town Attorney about this. They
5 were reminded again, that we have an
6 application before us and what they will
7 do with it, is entirely up to them. They
8 are aware that this Board is faced with
9 requests for enlargements and we have
10 granted what we perceived to be De Minimus
11 variation from the prohibition, which is a
12 big thing to do. The prohibition from the
• 13 restriction that you cannot enlarge it at
14 all. Not even a foot. It's just replace
15 in-kind. That is all that is permitted. So
16 they are very aware of it. So what you
17 want to do about that is entirely up to
18 the homeowner or association or
19 individuals or contact the Town Board.
20 MS. ANDALORO: Just so you have an
21 understanding, when the Town Board was
22 discussing this issue, they were talking
23 about numbers of like 5%. They have never
24 been presented with something like 20 or
• 25 over 20%. So I don't know how they would
December 5, 2013 Regular Meeting 61
1 feel about that.
• 2 MR. FLOTTERON: Okay.
3 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: And by the way,
4 when we had the Code Committee meeting,
5 the maximum was 5% for utilities.
6 MR. FLOTTERON: Should there be
7 another request that our co-op despite
8 changing the code, we go and change the
9 zoning for the whole property?
10 MS. ANDALORO: You can request a
11 change of zone, but I mean, you have to
12 show certain things. You have to prove
• 13 your case like you have done here.
14 MR. FLOTTERON: I understand. It's a
15 process.
16 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I hope we have
17 been able to help clarify some things. I
I
18 think the association should decide what
19 you value and where you would like to go
20 with it.
21 MR. FLOTTERON: Again, I appreciate
22 whatever you can do with this.
23 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Are there any
24 other questions that the Board has?
• 25 (No Response.)
December 5, 2013 Regular Meeting 62
• 1 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Is there anyone
2 in the audience that would like to address
3 this application?
4 MR. BROWN: (In Audible) raising
5 the house is an issue.
6 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: You don't need us
7 for that. That is done through the
8 Building Department. That is not variance
9 relief. Unless you are exceeding the
10 height, which you certainly wouldn't be in
11 that area.
12 MR. BROWN: Okay.
• 13 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Here is another
14 question, do you want to reconsider the
15 floor plan and submit something else or do
16 you want us to just make a determination
17 based on what you have given us? If you
18 want to reconsider the size of the
19 enlargement? If you want to do that, we
20 can hold this open. You can then come back
21 with an amended application.
22 MR. FLOTTERON: Okay. I think I will
23 do that. Yes.
24 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Is there anyone
• 25 else in the audience that wishes to
I
December 5, 2013 Regular Meeting 63
1 address this application?
• 2 (No Response.)
3 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Part of this is
I
4 an educational process. It's
5 understandable that people don't
6 understand the code and building permits.
7 MEMBER HORNING: How many different
8 homeowners?
9 MR. FLOTTERON: Two others.
10 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: So why don't we
11 do this and then you can discuss whatever
12 you feel is appropriate. Do you want to
• 13 adjourn to January or February?
14 MR. FLOTTERON: To play it safe, we
15 will say February.
16 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay. I am going
17 to make a motion to adjourn this hearing
18 to Thursday, February 6, 2014 at 9:30.
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.
December 5, 2013 Regular Meeting 64
• 1 (See Minutes for Resolution.
2
3 HEARING #6702 - BRIAN & TABITHA MCQUADE.
4 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The next
5 application before the Board is for Brian
6 and Tabitha McQuade, #6702. Request for
7 variances from Article XXIII Section
8 280-124 and Article III Code Section
9 280-15C and the Building Inspector's
10 September 23, 2013 Notice of Disapproval
11 based on an application for building
12 permit for additions and alterations to
• 13 existing single family dwelling and
14 additions and alterations to existing
15 accessory garage: 1) less than the code
16 required minimum front yard setback of 35
17 feet, 2) accessory exceeding the maximum
18 660 square feet on lots containing up to
19 20,000 square feet, located at: 650 Old
20 Shipyard Lane, corner of Landon Road in
21 Southold.
22 MR. SCHWARTZ: Mark Schwartz, architect
I
23 for the project. Mr. McQuade is also here.
24 I have a couple of letters to hand up.
• 25 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: So we have a
December 5, 2013 Regular Meeting 65
1 front yard setback at 26 feet, from Landon
• 2 Road and that would be for the second
3 floor addition. We have an accessory
4 garage proposed at 735.7 square feet where
5 the code permits a maximum of 660 square
6 feet.
7 MR. SCHWARTZ: Yes.
8 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: You are proposed
9 to add a 22x10 foot extension on the back
10 with cathedral ceilings and two skylights.
11 Okay.
12 MR. SCHWARTZ: Yes. The use of that is
• 13 for a workshop that is separate from the
14 garage.
15 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: There is no
16 second floor presented, yet there are
17 steps. What is going on up there?
18 MR. SCHWARTZ: Trying to raise it up
19 to the same roof line.
20 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Do you propose
21 any heat?
22 MR. SCHWARTZ: Electric, yes. No
23 heat.
24 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: And there is no
• 23 plumbing proposed?
December 5, 2013 Regular Meeting 66
• 1 MR. SCHWARTZ: No.
2 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: What kind of
3 workshop? What sort of work is proposed?
4 MR. SCHWARTZ: Mostly woodworking. It's
5 a hobby.
6 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Power tools?
7 MR. SCHWARTZ: (In Audible).
8 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Looks like there
9 is no increase in height in the existing
10 accessory garage.
11 MR. SCHWARTZ: Correct.
12 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay. Let's see
• 13 what comes up. Mark, do you want to
14 address any other variances before we
15 start with questions form the Board?
16 MR. SCHWARTZ: Just the fact that there
17 is a number of those in that area. Most of
18 them are front yard variances that are
19 similar to this. As well as the one
20 directly across the street, which is a
21 recent variance. A very similar project
22 to this one, I believe.
23 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay. That is
24 very helpful. Thank you. I'm sorry, you
• 25 will have to come up to the mic please,
December 5, 2013 Regular Meeting 67
• 1 and state your name, because we're
2 recording.
3 MR. MCQUADE: Brian McQuade. The
4 garage across the street on Landon, the
5 Antonucci's, they have a back room on
6 their garage, currently.
7 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Do you know how
8 large it is?
9 MR. MCQUADE: Probably within the same
10 lines of their garage.
11 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Did they come
12 before the Board for a variance?
• 13 MR. MCQUADE: It was preexisting.
14 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay.
15 Preexisting. We will take a look at the
16 material that you have submitted.
17 Eric, any questions?
18 MEMBER DANTES: What is the current
19 size of the garage?
20 MR. SCHWARTZ: 510.7. It's on the
21 chart, S1.
22 MEMBER DANTES: And you are applying
23 for what?
24 MR. SCHWARTZ: 225. At lot coverage, we
• 25 are right at 200. So we maximized the
December 5, 2013 Regular Meeting 68
• 1 garage. We are just trying to get some
2 space for the shop.
3 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Is that the
4 smallest workshop that you can conceivably
5 propose? Our obligation, when justified,
6 to grant the minimal variance possible. So
7 we have to explore lot coverage with
8 applicants and why they have to have it
9 this way. Can they have it lesser or less
10 substantial variance applied for. I have
11 not figured it out yet, but I have to
12 figure out what percentage from the lot
• 13 that is. The code allows a maximum of 600.
14 They are proposing 735.7. Let's figure
15 this out now.
16 MR. SCHWARTZ: There would really be
17 no visual impact to the neighbors.
18 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: What is the width
19 of the garage, Mark?
20 MR. SCHWARTZ: I believe it's 22 feet.
21 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: So if you went
22 8x22, and took 2x2 off, that would be more
23 and more conforming.
24 MEMBER HORNING: The framed garage
• 25 right now is used for cars?
December 5, 2013 Regular Meeting 69
• 1 MR. SCHWARTZ: Yes.
2 MEMBER HORNING: With the proposed
3 addition, would that be open? That back
4 wall out?
5 MR. SCHWARTZ: No.
6 MEMBER HORNING: Did we come up the
7 with
8 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Yes. 11% relief
9 from the code. The 10x22 is 11%.
10 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: You could build a
11 separate accessory structure for the size
12 that you are proposing to add to the
• 13 garage; however, at least then you might
14 need a variance for a accessory structure
15 in a side yard.
16 MR. SCHWARTZ: That is kind of right in
17 the middle of his backyard, which is kind
18 of small as it is.
19 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Where is the
20 septic?
21 MR. SCHWARTZ: To the north. We would
22 have to redo the septic also.
23 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: The new septic is
24 going to be proposed where?
• 25 MR. SCHWARTZ: To the west of the
December 5, 2013 Regular Meeting 70
• 1 house on the north property line.
2 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Okay. So you
3 really don't have any rear yard also
4 because you are subject to two front
5 yards.
6 MR. SCHWARTZ: Right.
7 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: So you could build
8 an accessory structure somewhere else
9 besides that you want to build the garage;
10 however, you would require a variance for
11 its location.
12 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: If you put it in
• 13 a side yard, it would then be in the side
14 yard. He is replacing one variance with
15 another. So it's going to be one variance
16 or the other variance.
17 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Which would be
18 better characteristic. I am making an
19 argument.
20 MR. SCHWARTZ: Yes.
21 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: So you haven't
22 shown us on the site plan where you are
23 proposing to put the new septic system;
24 right?
• 25 MR. SCHWARTZ: No, it's not on this
December 5, 2013 Regular Meeting 71
. 1 plan.
2 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: That is one
3 reason why it's making it a more
4 conforming location feasible, if that is
5 the only location for the septic.
6 MR. SCHWARTZ: I can provide you with
7 that location of the septic.
8 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay.
9 MEMBER DANTES: Do you plan on putting
10 any bathrooms?
11 MR. SCHWARTZ: No.
12 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Is there anyone
13 else?
•
14 (No Response.)
15 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Is there anyone
16 else in the audience who would like to
17 address this application?
18 (No Response.)
19 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay.
20 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I just want to ask
21 one question of Mr. McQuade, what is the
22 depth of your workbench, two feet, three
23 feet?
24 MR. MCQUADE: Probably the same size.
25 (In Audible.)
December 5, 2013 Regular Meeting 72
• 1 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The reason why I
2 ask that question is because my workbench
3 is three feet. That seems to be the
4 minimum.
5 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: All right. So I
6 am going to make a motion to close this
7 hearing subject to receipt showing the
8 proposed septic.
9 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second.
10 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: All in favor?
11 MEMBER DANTES: Aye.
12 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye.
• 13 MEMBER HORNING: Aye.
14 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye.
15 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Aye.
16 (See Minutes for Resolution.)
18 HEARING #6706 - TIMOTHY MCMANUS
19 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The next
20 application before the Board is for
21 Timothy McManus, #6706. Request for
22 variance from Article XXII Section
23 280-116(B) and the Building Inspector's
24 October 18, 2013 Notice of Disapproval
• 25 based on an application for building
December 5, 2013 Regular Meeting 73
• 1 permit for renovation of a cabana/shower
2 and construct new decking, at 1) less than
3 the code required bulkhead setback of 75
4 feet, located at: 7725 Nassau Point Road,
5 adjacent to Little Peconic Bay in
6 Cutchogue.
7 MR. GOGGINS: Good morning, William
8 Goggins for the applicant. Good morning
9 to the Board. Just to give you a little
10 brief history, the cabana has a
11 preexisting Certificate of Occupancy on
12 September 2, 1997. We call it a boathouse
• 13 but it's a cabana. Later on in 2012,
14 the McManus' wanted to build a new house
15 with a new garage on the premises. So they
16 went to the Trustees to get a permit and
17 do that, to build a house and garage, put
18 in a new sanitary system. And a new
19 sanitary system to the boathouse so that
20 there would be a pump projecting the
21 sanitary flow to the cesspools that are up
22 land. That permit was issued
23 August 27, 2012. The LWRP found it
24 consistent. After August 27, 2012,
• 25 Hurricane Sandy arrived and caused damage
December 5, 2013 Regular Meeting 74
• 1 to the cabana/boathouse. So on the 16th,
2 an application was made and the Trustees
3 issued a permit to reconstruct the cabana
4 and that was Permit No. 7883-E. Subsequent
5 to that, the cabana (In Audible) there was
6 a letter of non-jurisdiction with the DEC.
7 They never really got involved with the
8 process. Now, it's our application to
9 renovate the boathouse and you know, keep
10 it in-place and in-kind. We have a
11 certification that it was submitted to
12 the Building Department as well, stating
• 13 that the amount of work that would have to
14 be done. He certifies that based upon his
15 site inspection to the damaged of the
16 cabana the plan is to renovate 30% of
17 the structure and retain 58%.
18 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: We don't have
19 this one.
20 MEMBER HORNING: Considering the
21 decking separately from the structure?
22 MR. GOGGINS: Yes. The decking is
23 separate.
24 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: In between the
• 25 time that we had this application before
December 5, 2013 Regular Meeting 75
• 1 and the time that you had withdrawn it,
2 was there an indication that you were
3 reducing the size of it in any way?
4 MR. GOGGINS: No. The original
5 application was to build a brand new one
6 but it was going to be substantially
7 higher in size.
8 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That is when the
9 neighbor came in and didn't want it.
10 MR. GOGGINS: He didn't want his view
11 obstructed in any way. He had no objection
12 to the structure if it didn't increase in
• 13 height. So this would repair, would
14 accomplish his goal.
15 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: There was a vast
16 change in the cliff area when we went back
17 and looked at it a second time after the
18 application came back. I was wondering
19 where all that fill went and basically
20 what you did was refilled the entire area,
21 which was very unique. Very similar to the
22 other neighbors.
23 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Well, can you
24 explain or have someone here explain the
• 25 current structure is below the level of
December 5, 2013 Regular Meeting 76
• 1 what the new decking is going to be?
2 MR. GOGGINS: Correct.
3 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Sunk down in the
4 concrete block. How do you propose to
5 raise that and retain it? Obviously you
6 will have to redo it on new decking?
7 MR. GOGGINS: Right. Well, the one
8 process would be to raise the building. If
9 that can't be accomplished, there would
10 have to be a step down into the cabana. If
11 the cabana remained in place, there would
12 have to be two steps downward. That is how
• 13 it would be accomplished.
14 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: So the deck would be
15 constructed to it, the cabana?
16 MR. GOGGINS: Correct.
17 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: What is the
18 distance of the cabana to the new
19 bulkhead? I am looking at the drawings and
20 I don't see anything.
21 MR. GOGGINS: About eight.
22 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Eight feet,
23 approximately?
24 MR. GOGGINS: Yes.
• 25 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Thank you.
December 5, 2013 Regular Meeting 77
• 1 MR. GOGGINS: You're welcome.
2 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The survey that
3 we have before us shows a portion of the
4 cabana in a VE Zone. Most of it in the X
5 Zone. That wall is going to have to be
6 rebuilt. Is there a chance that that
7 structure could be moved out of the VE
8 Zone?
9 MR. GOGGINS: Yeah, I guess it's
10 possible but the fear would be, you give
11 us the approval and then it they can't
12 lift it and the whole thing gets
• 13 destroyed. I am sure they would definitely
14 consider that. I don't think that there
15 would be a problem with the applicant. The
16 fear would be that it would be damaged. If
17 the Board would like that to happen, I can
18 speak to the McManus' about moving that
19 out of the VE Zone. If they just move it
20 that short distance, it would be out of
21 the VE Zone and in the X Zone.
22 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: It looks like
23 it's possible.
24 MR. GOGGINS: I think it's definitely
• 25 possible.
December 5, 2013 Regular Meeting 78
• 1 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: You have to
2 rebuild the wall anyway. It would increase
3 your bulkhead setback a few feet and at
4 least get it out of the VE Zone.
5 MR. GOGGINS: I think they will agree
6 to that.
7 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: But you probably
8 have to speak to your engineer. You know,
9 find out what the implications might be
10 for the preservation of the structure in
11 order for that to be done.
12 MR. GOGGINS: I think that is a great
• 13 solution. In order to keep the same area,
14 we could shorten the width.
15 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: That is another
16 option. Cut back the existing width. It
17 can remain where it is but keeps it out of
18 the VE Zone.
19 MR. GOGGINS: Right.
20 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Let's explore the
21 utilities that are being in there. Tell
22 us a little bit about that, you're
23 proposing to put in a half bath and shower
24 access indoor, not the outside.
• 25 MR. GOGGINS: As previously
December 5, 2013 Regular Meeting 79
• 1 configurated, there is an indoor shower.
2 There is electric there. There is a sink
3 and a toilet.
4 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay.
5 MR. GOGGINS: I know there was
6 discussion about putting a shower on the
7 outside but the neighbor objected to that.
8 He didn't want to see people taking a
9 shower.
10 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Well, I think it
11 could be designed to prevent that. Walls
12 could help.
• 13 MR. GOGGINS: I understand. Nothing
14 has changed to the structure when they
15 went and got the CO in 1997. They did some
16 renovations. They put some rafters in to
17 tighten up the structure.
18 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Is there any
19 consideration to any possible way of
20 avoiding plumbing? Letting it be a cabana
21 to get out of the sun, recreation place or
22 for whatever they want to use it for? The
23 complications for this, is substantial.
24 MR. GOGGINS: It has already been
• 25 improved. It's already in place. They have
December 5, 2013 Regular Meeting 80
• 1 built the septic system big enough to also
2 cover the cabana. That is when they got
3 Health Department approval. They have
4 already spent monies to allow that happen.
5 To have that go into the larger pools.
6 They have already committed monies to it.
7 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: I saw a yellow hose
8 going to the cabana.
9 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I am sorry, you
will have to come to the mic.
10
11 MR. GOGGINS: This is Mr. Pawlowski. He
12 is the builder.
MR. PAWLOWSKI: Paul Pawlowski. How
. 13
14 are you? There are three lines in the
15 ground for potential use. One is the
16 septic line, where the proposed bathroom
17 would go back to the main house septic.
18 There s a water line and there is a
19 potential gas line, if they ever changed
20 it, or added heat or something. So it's
21 just three conduits for potential use.
22 MEMBER HORNING: What is the rational
23 for having the existing shower to the
24 opposite end of the building and I presume
• 25 the existing shower wastewater will also
December 5, 2013 Regular Meeting 81
• 1 be pumped out?
2 MR. PAWLOWSKI: Yes. Everything will
3 go to a pump, which will then go back to
4 the septic to the main house. And the
5 reason for that is, there is no sanitary
6 leeching at all except for the main house.
7 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Well, also a full
8 bath is not typically that is acceptable
9 in an accessory structure. I guess by
10 separating them, you don't have a full
11 bath. So that does make it a difference to
12 a Building Department precedent.
• 13 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Well, perhaps you
14 can do the access from the shower from the
15 outside and close out the interior walls.
16 MR. GOGGINS: That makes sense.
17 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Exactly. Well, we
18 have all had a chance to look at it and
19 it's going to be a substantially
20 complicated renovation for sure. It's not
21 easy. It is proposed that the cabana,
22 which is suggested to be a boathouse, why
23 would you need heat?
24 MR. GOGGINS: You wouldn't.
• 25 MR. PAWLOWSKI: Hot water heater.
December 5, 2013 Regular Meeting 82
• 1 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: It's not for
2 heat. Hot water. No heat. So it's proposed
3 as a seasonal use?
4 MR. PAWLOWSKI: Yes.
5 MR. GOGGINS: Yes.
6 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Do you want to
7 consult with the engineer to see what
8 would be involved either by reducing the
9 width in-place and in-kind or moving the
10 whole thing back out of the VE Zone? Do
11 you want to have some time to see how that
12 might work?
• 13 MR. GOGGINS: I mean, I can.
14 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: It's complicated.
15 It's really in bad shape.
16 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Is the issue at
17 hand that you are concerned that if you do
18 move it back, you will loose the
19 preexisting nonconformity?
20 MR. GOGGINS: No. If you give us
21 approval to move it back.
22 MEMBER HORNING: I think that the
23 concern is that it might fall apart.
24 MR. GOGGINS: That was my concern.
• 25 When you move a structure anything can
December 5, 2013 Regular Meeting 83
• 1 happen.
2 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The safest way is
3 to leave it where it is and just reduce
4 the width. What we're saying I think it
5 would increase the bulkhead setback
6 minimally. It would probably be less
7 expensive and less risky, but giving you
8 the option.
9 MR. GOGGINS: Right.
10 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Is there anyone
11 else in the audience who would like to
12 address this application?
• 13 (No Response.)
14 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Eric, do you have
15 any questions?
16 MEMBER DANTES: No, I think that's it.
17 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Gerry?
18 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I think that there
19 would be a disadvantage to close the
20 hearing at this point based upon the
21 possibility of cutting it and just leaving
22 it, you know, in that X Zone. Any
23 modification to this building, I think
24 it's an advantage.
• 25 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: What we could do
December 5, 2013 Regular Meeting 84
• 1 is leave this open till the Special
2 Meeting an give you two weeks to see what
3 you can come up with, and if you have been
4 able to answer those questions and perhaps
5 have a modified version, you can submit it
6 to us? We can close it at that time. If
7 you need more time, we can adjourn to
8 January. Nothing is going to be done now.
9 It may be done, but not necessarily used.
10 MR. GOGGINS: Okay.
11 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: All right. I am
12 going to make a motion to adjourn this
• 13 hearing to the Special Meeting in two
14 weeks, 12/19, subject to receipt of
15 possible amended survey.
16 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second.
17 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: All in favor?
18 MEMBER DANTES: Aye.
19 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye.
20 MEMBER HORNING: Aye.
21 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye.
22 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Aye.
23 (See Minutes for Resolution.)
24
• 25 HEARING #6705 - PHILIP & JENNIFER STANTON
December 5, 2013 Regular Meeting 85
• 1 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The next
2 application before the Board is for Philip
3 and Jennifer Stanton, #6705. Request for
4 variance from Article IV Code Section
5 280-18 based on an application for
6 building permit and the Building
7 Inspector's November 4, 2013 Notice of
8 Disapproval concerning a permit for
9 subdivision and conversion of an existing
10 accessory building for a single family
11 dwelling, at; 1) following the proposed
12 subdivision, the proposed conversion will
• 13 be a less than the code required front
14 yard setback of 50 feet, located at: 845
15 Maple Lane, adjacent to Town Creek in
16 Southold.
17 So this is for a subdivision of a lot,
18 conversion of an existing masonry garage
19 to a single family dwelling, following the
20 subdivision. And that single family
21 dwelling will have a front yard setback of
22 23.6 feet, where the code requires a 50
23 foot front yard setback, which is along a
24 private right-of-way or a common driveway.
• 25 We are certainly familiar with this
December 5, 2013 Regular Meeting 86
• 1 property, certainly some of us on this
2 Board. So it's all yours, Pat.
3 MS. MOORE: Thank you. Patricia Moore
4 on behalf Stanton's. You are familiar with
5 the property. The choice that we were
6 given this subdivision is somewhat
7 prompted by the preservation of the
8 structure. My clients at one point, with
9 the discussion with the Planning Board,
10 was hoping that the code might change to
11 allow accessory dwellings on oversized
12 properties so that you didn't have to go
• 13 through a subdivision process. That didn't
14 pan out. It became to difficult for the
15 Town Board to consider that type of
16 legislation. So we went back to the
17 proposal to subdivide the structure away
18 from the main house. This is a carriage
19 house, which was built pre-zoning. Our
20 guess is 1800's, early 1900's. It's truly
21 unique in its architecture style. It's as
22 I said, a carriage house. It has been used
23 over the years as a garage. It still has
24 the horse stables on the first floor. And
• 25 it has a loft area, second floor, which is
December 5, 2013 Regular Meeting 87
• 1 completely a very large space that
2 could be a house in and of itself, by way
3 of square footage. So the beauty of this
4 building hasn't been lost with the owners.
5 Our application for the variance is that
6 we either had to decide post subdivision
7 whether or not we needed a variance for an
8 accessory structure without a principle
9 structure or conversion of the existing
10 structure to a dwelling, which is the
11 overall plan all along. So our plan was
12 lets get (In Audible) for the structure as
• 13 is because the I want to call it, the
14 long term plan here was to convert it to
15 living space. The design and the plans
16 have not been developed. It's intending
17 to preserve as much structure as possible.
18 Because of it's size, it could easily be
19 turned into a single family dwelling,
20 unique architecture. Amazing single
i
21 family dwelling. So that is our reasons
22 for being before the Board, and obviously
23 the structure has been in place. The roads
24 were created after the structure was
• 25 originally created. So we are
December 5, 2013 Regular Meeting 88
• 1 essentially trying to preserve what is
2 here and the front yard variance is to
3 preserve the existing conditions as they
4 are. I would be happy to answer any
5 questions you might have.
6 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Well, let's start
7 with Ken.
8 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: What is the square
9 footage of I am going to call it the
10 "carriage house?"
11 MS. MOORE: Okay. It is footprint,
12 it's 40x50 and it's two-story. The second
• 13 floor does taper some. So it's a 2,000
14 square foot footprint more or less. It has
15 some pop outs here and there.
16 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: And looking at the
17 survey, this one here, I don't see the
18 pool on it.
19 MS. MOORE: The pool is actually
20 we're talking about the other parcel? The
21 post-subdivision is the main house.
22 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Uh-huh.
23 MS. MOORE: The subdivision has been
24 going on for a quite a while. So it's
• 25 quite possible that the pool was
December 5, 2013 Regular Meeting 89
• 1 constructed after the subdivision map was
2 originally prepared. So you don't see the
3 pool on Lot #1 because of this application
4 because it really isn't relevant to the
5 carriage house application. The carriage
6 house application, the only structures on
7 it are two existing sheds. One small one
8 that was already removed. You have
9 photographs that have the kayaks. Those
10 are the only two structures that I can
11 recall being on the property.
12 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: I would like to get
• 13 an updated survey of all the structures on
14 it.
15 MS. MOORE: On which property though?
16 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Has the whole
17 property been subdivided yet?
18 MS. MOORE: No. The whole property?
19 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Yes.
20 MS. MOORE: Well, we're actually in
21 the process of doing that for the Planning
22 Board. I have asked the surveyor to
23 update the survey, but timing wise, I
24 don't know how long it's going to take. So
25 is really necessary for this application?
•
December 5, 2013 Regular Meeting 90
• 1 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Yes. I would like
2 to see a complete survey, an updated
3 survey. I would like to see a CO for
4 everything. I see that there is an open
5 permit
6 MS. MOORE: I just learned about that
7 today actually. I apologize.
8 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: That's in process.
9 So at some point I would like to see a CO
10 for that.
11 MS. MOORE: That's not a problem. I
12 thought we had it a long time ago, but
• 13 apparently, it was a mess because of so
14 many structures and so many changes, she
15 didn't realize that the electrical
16 underwriters certificate was missing in
17 that file. So that's remaining. That's not
18 a problem and I will get that.
19 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: On the survey that
20 I am looking, there is another one framed
21 story structure, is that the accessory
22 pool house?
23 MS. MOORE: Yes.
24 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: So we have a CO for
• 25 that?
December 5, 2013 Regular Meeting 91
• 1 MS. MOORE: Yes, we do.
2 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Then we also have
3 the CO for the accessory in-ground
4 swimming pool.
5 MS. MOORE: Yes.
6 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: That is not on the
7 survey. And then on the proposed Lot #2,
8 the shed, can we get a CO on that?
9 MS. MOORE: That is a preexisting
10 structure. I could ask?
11 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: That's fine. I just
12 would like to clarify everything. I
• 13 personally don't see an issue with the
14 setbacks. I just wanted to clear up
15 everything with the surveys. So that when
16 it is written, we refer to a document that
17 is complete.
18 MS. MOORE: Okay. Not a problem.
19 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: I have no further
20 questions at this time.
21 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: George, anything?
22 MEMBER HORNING: I am not an expert in
23 the flood zones and stuff, but I am just
24 curious, what is the dotted lines that are
• 25 going through? Apparently it's flood
December 5, 2013 Regular Meeting 92
• 1 zones.
2 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: It's an AE Zone.
3 Let me show you, George. Right here. That
4 is that this way. This is that way.
5 MEMBER HORNING: Okay. Got it.
6 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Gerry, any
7 questions?
8 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: There is no
9 utilities at this point?
10 MS. MOORE: I don't think we have water
11 because we didn't go through the sanitary
12 yet. It was complicating the subdivision
• 13 process. Once the subdivision takes place,
14 the Health Department will have a standard
15 sanitary system on that lot and then we
16 will get the R number from the Health
17 Department based on the design of the
18 house, that is chosen. So based on the
19 number of bedroom and stuff.
20 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Eric, questions?
21 MEMBER DANTES: No.
22 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I don't have any
23 questions. It's a beautiful, beautiful
24 building. Certainly worth preserving.
• 25 MS. MOORE: They have been very
December 5, 2013 Regular Meeting 93
• 1 sensitive to the old buildings.
2 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: It has been there
3 for a long time without any adverse
4 impact.
5 MS. MOORE: Right.
6 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay. Anyone else
7 in the audience who wishes to address this
8 application?
9 (No Response.)
10 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Hearing no
11 further questions or comments, I will
12 close the hearing subject to receipt of
• 13 the updated surveys and CO's.
14 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second.
15 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: All in favor?
16 MEMBER DANTES: Aye.
17 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye.
18 MEMBER HORNING: Aye.
19 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye.
20 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Aye.
21 (See Minutes for Resolution.)
22**+****+****+*+*+**+*****+*+****+
23 HEARING #6703 - EDITH & STEVE
24 PAPASTEFANOU
• 25 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Edith and Steve
December 5, 2013 Regular Meeting 94
• 1 Papastefanou are the next application
2 before the Board, #6703. Request for
3 variances from Article III Code Section
4 280-15 and the Building Inspector's
5 September 5, 2013 Notice of Disapproval
6 based on an application for building
7 permit "as-built" in-ground swimming pool
8 and "as-built" shed, at 1;) in-ground
9 swimming pool in location other than code
10 required rear yard, 2) accessory shed in
11 location other than the code required rear
12 yard, located at: 7400 Main Road, aka,
• 13 State Route 25, corner of Cedar Lane
14 R.O.W. in East Marion.
15 The pool has a building permit but it
16 was located in the nonconforming front
17 yard, where the code requires a rear yard.
18 The "as-built" is in the front yard. The
19 code requires a rear yard. It technically
20 has three front yards. The ZBA Permit
21 No. 2128 5/20/76, granted for a front yard
22 south of the house and the pool was moved
23 closer to the right-of-way. Allegedly
24 because of the cesspool location but that
• 25 is not shown on the survey. So we have no
December 5, 2013 Regular Meeting 95
• 1 verification of that. Okay. Let's see what
2 you have to tell us, Pat.
3 MS. MOORE: Well, you have stated it
4 accurately. The sanitary I obviously have
5 to take care of. My clients description of
6 where the sanitary system was. So that was
7 passed onto the Board. This is quite a
8 surprise to the property owner when it
9 came up. As you said, there was a
10 variance. The pool was shifted over closer
11 to the road. And I have seen a lot of
12 pools that have CO's. If you talk to some
• 13 of the old lawyers out here or the lawyers
14 that have been practicing out here for
15 many, many years, they say that it was
16 practice whether it could be verified
17 or not, that pools would often get
18 building permits not necessarily C of O's.
19 This is not the first application that I
20 have had that the CO is nonexistent. The
21 structure is in place. It will not change
22 the character of the community. It has
23 been there since 1976. In fact, the
24 adjoining properties have changed in a
. 25 sense that, across Cedar Lane is now the
December 5, 2013 Regular Meeting 96
1 Lavender Farm and an active farm stand. So
• 2 it has some agricultural commercial
3 activity. Nonetheless, it's an active
4 site. The subdivision to the south is
5 part of the subdivision that was of this
6 lot and how it was created. This was one
7 of the earlier homes that was built in the
8 subdivision. So the house and the pool has
9 been in place for 30 some odd years. The
10 shed, there are two sheds. One shed is
11 adjacent to Cedar Lane. That shed houses
12 the pool equipment and enables pool
• 13 equipment to be out of site and has been
14 valuable to the property owner. The
15 property is significantly screened by
16 natural vegetation. You do not see the
17 pool or the shed from Cedar Lane. So it's
18 not visible from the street onto the
19 property. The property does slop down
20 towards the right-of-way, Cedar Lane. And
21 the reason well, when the pool was
22 built, there was an on-grade patio around
23 the pool. That on-grade patio begins flush
24 on the north end of the pool, and then it
• 25 slopes it raises above grade towards
December 5, 2013 Regular Meeting 97
1 the south and due to the change of the
•
2 natural grade. So that patio has not
3 changed other than its cosmetic
4 appearance. It was previously cement and
5 then it became brick pavers. They are not
6 full brick, I believe. And that is also
7 evidence many of the patios that were
8 replaced with the house were resurfaced
9 with the paved brick. There is another
10 shed on the west side of the property.
11 It's a small, less than 100 square feet.
12 It sits well close to the property
• 13 line. At the time, the code in 1976
14 allowed accessory structures to be as
15 close as three feet to the property line.
16 And it looks like it's less than that. I
17 can't tell I think it's 1.4 feet from
18 the property line.
19 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I'm sorry, if
20 you're going to testify, you need to come
21 to the mic and state our name.
22 MR. PAPAMICHAEL: George Papamichael.
23 MS. MOORE: At the time that all of
24 these issues came up, part of their
• 25 contract agreement, his financing and
December 5, 2013 Regular Meeting 98
• 1 contingency was (In Audible) and I think
2 you ultimately decided there was going to
3 be a large escrow account and this process
it
4 would continue. So he is the new owner.
5 MR. PAPAMICHAEL: As of October 21st.
6 MS. MOORE: So he is here as well, and
7 the application was filed by the original
8 owners.
9 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: So that shed is
10 there still?
11 MS. MOORE: It's still there. They
12 haven't moved it. That is again the
• 13 variance, because that was at the time.
14 (In Audible) locate it?
15 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The problem is
16 where?
17 MS. MOORE: What area would that be?
18 MR. PAPAMICHAEL: The issue that I am
19 having, the shed is in the back, and it
20 just has the pool filter and whatever is
21 there. So I need one shed to put something
22 in because I have no garage.
23 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay. Then that
24 needs to be addressed in the variance
• 25 relief, to a more conforming location. So
December 5, 2013 Regular Meeting 99
• 1 we will need to get the Notice of
2 Disapproval amended to reflect an
3 additional variance.
4 MS. MOORE: All you would need is a
5 new Notice of Disapproval or the paperwork
6 as well?
7 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Well, there is
8 an additional fee because there is another
9 variance and you will have to notice it.
10 If you had a conforming location to put it
11 in, then we would just say move it to a
12 more conforming location. But looking at
13 the ProPertY, the conforming location is
•
14 the rear yard and because you are burden
15 with three front yards, you have almost no
16 wiggle room here.
17 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Maybe by the deck?
18 The deck that is by the pool? Is it
19 raised?
20 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: It's attached to
21 the house.
22 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Doesn't that
23 determine the side yard?
24 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: It would be a
• 25 rear yard. It's more conforming but it's
December 5, 2013 Regular Meeting 100
• 1 not conforming.
2 MS. MOORE: Given that there is a
3 notice already on the small shed, could we
4 expand that and attach it to that small
5 shed?
6 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I was going to ask
7 that that be moved to a more conforming
8 location because it's only 2.6 feet to the
9 road. The pool shed.
10 MS. MOORE: The mistake that you made
11 in the application, Pat, you said that
12 Cedar Lane was partially a dirt road. It
• 13 has never been a dirt road. It's really
14 the two access to a huge subdivision in
15 the back. And you know, I am just saying,
16 2.6 feet. It is the main thoroughfare
17 through three except for Orchard Lane.
18 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: You know what,
19 there is another way to go. We have
20 conditions (In Audible) for a long time.
21 If all that is in there is that, rather
22 than changing everything, we could simply
23 say, remove that and put it in a sound
24 deadening container. Just leave
• 25 everything where it is. Remove the outer
December 5, 2013 Regular Meeting 101
• 1 housing, we will call it because it's
2 tall. It's not considered just a
3 container. So I think if you just remove
4 that and put a sound deadening around the
5 pool equipment, that would take care of
6 one thing but it doesn't really take care
7 of when it comes to that other shed. Now,
8 certainly moving it to a more conforming
9 location, even it becomes a side yard
10 opposite where the swimming pool shed is
it now. It's kind of a rear yard there. Do
12 you see what I am saying everybody? Just
• 13 stick in that corner right there. So it's
14 kind of behind the house.
15 MS. MOORE: I see what you are saying.
16 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: If you move that
17 shed over to this corner, you are probably
18 going to be very close to a conforming
19 location. Just pick it up and move it
20 over.
21 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: I don't really see
22 any difference if we put it in that corner
23 or leave it where it is right now.
24 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I see what you
• 25 are saying. This is a front yard. If you
December 5, 2013 Regular Meeting 102
• 1 put it back here, it's behind the house.
2 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Less of a traveled
3 road.
4 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: There is no road
5 there. Let me show you. There is no plans
6 to develop anything on the wooded section?
7 MS. MOORE: No.
8 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay. Is there
9 anyone in the audience who wishes to
10 address this application?
11 MS. SWEENEY: Hi. My name is Theresa
12 Sweeney, and on behalf of my husband, John
• 13 Cushner, we have been living next door
14 adjacent to the Papastefanou for nearly 20
15 years and everyone maintains the property
16 the way that they do, there would be no
17 law. Because they have been beyond (In
18 Audible) in every way. We just recently
19 met Mr. Papamichael's.
20 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: It's so nice to
21 hear nice comments.
22 MS. SWEENEY: Their property is
23 regularly maintained. I cannot say enough.
24 Thank you.
• 25 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay. Hearing no
December 5, 2013 Regular Meeting 103
• 1 further questions or comments, I am going
2 to make a motion to close the hearing and
3 reserve decision to a later date.
4 MEMBER DANTES: Second.
5 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: All in favor?
6 MEMBER DANTES: Aye.
7 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye.
8 MEMBER HORNING: Aye.
9 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye.
10 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Aye.
11 (See Minutes for Resolution.)
12 ***+*****+*+*+***+**++++*t+++*
• 13 HEARING #6688 - SUZANNE S. COLEMAN
14 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay. The final
15 application before the Board is Coleman,
16 Mr. & Ms. Coleman, and it was adjourned
17 from the October 3rd Public Hearing. So
18 there is no need to read the legal notice
19 again. We have received the transcript,
20 which everyone here has read from the
21 first hearing. And we have received a
22 memorandum from the attorney from the
23 Fisher's Island Utility Corporation, which
24 is recently received. So why don't we
• 25 begin what we would like for you to do
December 5, 2013 Regular Meeting 104
is 1 is enter some information into the record
2 and respond to it.
3 MS. MOORE: Sure. Good afternoon. I
4 have Mr. Coleman here with me.
5 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Just mention
6 your name for the record.
7 MS. MOORE: Sure. Patricia Moore on
8 behalf of Mr. Coleman and his family.
9 Mr. Coleman just alerted me that he is
10 waiting for phone call. He has a sick
11 family member and he may have to step out.
12 Just to let you know. Certainly, we want
• 13 to put all of this into prospective, which
14 is a good way to start this hearing. What
15 1 have presented to the Board is a
16 memorandum, which essentially narrows the
17 issues and focuses on what we should be
18 here for. Not a strenuous animosity and
19 there is certainly no love loss between
20 the neighbors. But that is somewhat
21 irrelevant very irrelevant to the
22 entire application. So what we would
23 rather than get ourselves into the musk of
24 he said, she said, I will go into the
• 25 memorandum to some of the statements that
December 5, 2013 Regular Meeting 105
• 1 were made and we were accused of in the
2 memorandum. I don't want to respond to it
3 other than specific questions you might
4 have. But I want to address the specific
5 issues. I am giving you new information
6 today with respect to what the code read
7 in 1988. And it's extremely important that
8 we understand what the code said at the
9 time of the pool house and the pool
10 permits. Here we are dealing with
11 structures and the pool house was issued a
12 building permit and issued a certificate
• 13 of occupancy. Regardless of what that
14 limitation was on the CO, which nobody
15 quite understands why that was there or
16 certainly my client has already stated
17 previously in papers and at the last
18 meeting and we will state again today on
19 the record and swear him in, that there
20 was never an intention anything other than
21 a pool house, a completed pool house. To
22 show only certificate of occupancy still
23 doesn't make sense to anybody. That is
24 partly why my original submission was to
• 25 explain what the timing of chronology was
December 5, 2013 Regular Meeting 106
• 1 because it left us completely baffled as
2 to what the permitting that was done.
3 Let me start to what the code specifically
4 says. And what I have done is, in my
5 memorandum, I have exhibits. The stuff
6 that we are dealing with, with accessory
7 structures here, is not the 15 that the
8 code presently has. It's not even the 10
9 which I think what Mr. Tulhill believed
10 when reviewing the code, and I didn't find
11 to the contrary, until I started looking
12 at the Zoning Board variance applications
• 13 from 1988, that were from Fisher's Island,
14 all around the same time that the
15 structure was completed. And I have those
16 particular cases. That information
17 clarified that the setback in the Town
I
18 Code was three feet from the property
19 line. So it was three feet from the rear
20 and three feet from the side was the
21 setback requirement for accessory
22 structures. That's the variance. That's
23 the request that we should be addressing.
24 It is not the 15 feet that is today. We
• 25 have a CO for the structure. It was
i
December 5, 2013 Regular Meeting 107
1 built. Arguably, there was an error made
• 2 and pointing fingers still doesn't get us
3 anywhere because the surveyors and
4 affidavits says "it wasn't me." The
5 previous documentation that the Building
6 Department filed with the contractor and
7 Mr. Marshall said, "it wasn't me." My
8 client built with contractors and the
9 professionals that were involved.
10 Mr. Ham's observations, "well, somebody
11 should have noticed." No one noticed.
12 Including the Building Department. So it
• 13 doesn't get us anywhere today. So with
14 respect to the setbacks, given that it's a
15 3 foot setback. What we are talking about
16 is a 0.09 error of the location of the
17 pool house, completed structure. Whether
18 it's a shell or not, the exterior of the
19 entire structure got a C of 0. Just as it
20 looks today. And it is it was the
21 proper height at the time. Two-story
22 accessory structures were permitted. Pool
23 house's were permitted. The amenities in
24 pool houses were less restrictive than
• 25 they are today, and we are prepared to
December 5, 2013 Regular Meeting 108
• 1 stipulate that it is a pool house. That it
2 will continue as a pool house. It will not
3 be a second dwelling. Unless the code
4 changes somewhere down the line 20 years
5 from now and this community or Fisher's
6 Island decides, you know, guest houses for
7 our kids would be nice but until then,
8 it's a pool house and remains a pool
9 house. As to the particular criteria of
10 the area variance. The adjacent property,
11 the Fisher's Island Utility Company has 7
12 acres. It is unimproved 7 acres. I believe
• 13 it's R-80. So any development of that
14 property is going to be no more than three
15 lots. The wetlands are going to trigger
16 through the (In Audible) subdivision
17 requirements. Clustering because there is
18 mandatory clustering. Lots that are 6
19 acres 7 acres or more. The subdivision of
20 the utility company property which was the
21 professed concern about the placement of
22 the structure, will be absolutely
23 unaffected by the existence of this
24 structure. Having been placed at three
• 25 feet from the property line, there would
December 5, 2013 Regular Meeting 109
• 1 be absolutely no visual difference or no
2 one would be able to distinguish between
3 the 0.09 from the 3 feet that could have
4 been located at legally. So we are
5 fighting over a lot of irrelevant issues,
6 but we have to focus back on what was the
7 law at that time and that law is still
8 valid as far as grandfathering the
9 placement of the structures today. I do go
10 through extensive discussion about how it
11 will not affect the change in character of
12 the neighborhood on the sense that the
• 13 structure has been there for 20 years. The
14 character of the community has not changed
15 in 20 years and the impact on the adjacent
16 property owners, again, has not changed
17 because the (In Audible) remains vacant.
18 The Dawson's, where the animosity between
19 the Dawson's and the Coleman's is palpable
20 and evident in all of the communication
21 between Ms. Dawson and this Board, and
22 previous controversies between them, but
23 that has nothing to do with this Board.
24 Whether at a prior hearing, we had a
• 25 lovely neighbor thought wow, somebody here
December 5, 2013 Regular Meeting 110
• 1 in support of an application. What a
2 lovely thing. We see it so rarely. The
3 fact that a neighbor supports this or
4 opposes it, is irrelevant to your
5 determination. So we move forward with
6 the request based on the law and the facts
7 as they are. The benefits sought by the
8 applicant cannot be achieved by some other
9 method. The pool house was built, as a
10 pool house. I disagree or dispute, but
11 Mr. Ham said in his paperwork, because if
12 you look at the application to the
• 13 Building Department, the application said
14 pool house. The code at the time and this
15 is another exhibit that I have attached at
16 the time, is that in 1988, and that's
17 Exhibit 3, in 1988, the Building
18 Department had issued building permits
19 whether wisely or not, based on hand drawn
20 descriptions on the back of the permit.
21 Not much more than a paper napkin. If the
22 change as the construction occurred (In
23 Audible) final product, and as long as the
24 Building Department felt that the process
• 25 that the structure was still in conformity
December 5, 2013 Regular Meeting 111
• 1 with the law, via in this station, you had
2 a pool house. Changed a little bit in the
3 design. Certainly changed in its location
4 on the survey, it could go as close as 3
5 feet to the property line. The Building
6 Department never made an issue of it and
7 issued a Certificate of Occupancy. The
8 Building Department did not ask for plans
9 as part of their building permit process.
i
10 Amazing that that would occur but that was
11 the law at the time we could all we all
12 know, maybe one or two of you, are old
• 13 enough to remember the Building
14 Department, in particular, Fisher's
15 Island, was very causal. We are dealing
16 with causally issued permits even today
17 because of space and so on. You are
18 getting them on a regular process. To the
19 extent that we insinuated or Mr. Wall
20 Wall was the acting Building Inspector,
21 that was our understanding because of
22 Mr. Wall's later appointment as an acting
23 Building Inspector. Which again, is
24 irrelevant because the permit was issued.
• 25 The permit was issued on the structure. So
December 5, 2013 Regular Meeting 112
• 1 I have now presented to you that the fact
2 that the paperwork was legal. No plans had
3 to be submitted on the file. The law
4 required an accessory structure at three
5 feet from the property line. In fact, the
6 final law that I found and it's very
7 interesting in looking at the old
8 regulation. That when we are dealing with
9 the pool and the only variance that the
10 Building Department has cited in the
11 Notice of Disapproval of the pool is those
12 placement in the side yard. That
• 13 requirement in 1988 was not relevant. The
14 Building Department allowed accessory
15 structures or said that accessory
16 structures may be in a rear yard. So that
17 main language was interpreted by the
18 Building Department. I don't know if it
19 was interpreted by the Zoning Department.
20 Mr. Goehringer was around at the time and
21 1 didn't see any side yard variances on
22 Fisher's Island during that period of time
23 but I didn't I have the time to look at
24 every single variance that was ever
• 25 granted, certainly the one's in the 88-89.
December 5, 2013 Regular Meeting 113
• 1 The relevant period of time. The Building
2 Department would allow structures if the
3 property was suitable to place the
4 structure in the side yard. And I know
5 this or we all know this by the
6 legislation that was adopted by Local Law
7 61990. Public hearing on the Local Law,
8 surprisingly the Planning Board, which you
9 think half the time they support Town
10 Board initiative, actually stated on the
11 record or adopted a resolution in 1991
12 when "may" was changed to "shall." So they
• 13 are no longer giving the Building
14 Department the option of where to place
15 the structure other than the required rear
16 yard. The Planning Board issued a
17 resolution that said it's not wise. This
18 is not good. The property should have
19 flexibility to place accessory structures
20 in depending on the size and the
21 configuration of the property in a side
22 yard. If you have a property, some lots
23 have almost no rear yard, the property
24 you have seen today in prior hearings,
• 25 where properties have three front yards
December 5, 2013 Regular Meeting 114
1 because of their technical road frontage.
•
2 The Building Department in 1988 was
3 permitted to use some discretion to
4 determine, you know what, we're going to
5 call the rear yard here but we're going to
6 allow the accessory structure in a side
7 yard. The Zoning Board on a regular basis
8 was issuing variances for structures in a
9 front yard based on the street. I really
10 did not see again, I couldn't research
11 every application. I didn't see variances
12 during this time on a side yard. So I have
• 13 given you the language and the law that
14 1990 was very active in cleaning up and in
15 a sense reeling in the interpretations,
16 the Building Department's issuance of
17 permits got much more rigorous and I guess
18 more professional. In a sense of asking
19 for more paperwork similar to what we do
20 here today. Again, at the time that these
21 structures were issued, building permits
22 and CO's were different. And as I said,
23 Fisher's Island was even more casual. With
24 respect to the Notice of Disapproval that
• 25 requires us to get a variance, I disagree
December 5, 2013 Regular Meeting 115
• 1 with that, in a sense that it was legal
2 when it was issued. It obtained all of the
3 requirements. The Board has the right to
4 determine that there is no variance
5 required in this instance. You have
6 rejected applications
7 MS. ANDALORO: If you would like to
8 make that application for the Board, then
9 you should just make that application to
10 the Board.
11 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: For a code
12 interpretation?
• 13 MS. ANDALORO: For a code
14 interpretation or there is a box in the
15 corner let me see.
16 MS. MOORE: At the time that I made
17 this application, we were under an
18 impression that the code
19 MS. ANDALORO: The Building Department
20 should get the first crack at this.
21 MS. MOORE: The first crack was with
22 the Building Department. I did explain to
23 him that
24 MS. ANDALORO: You just said that you
• 25 found out this information recently. I
December 5, 2013 Regular Meeting 116
• 1 don't believe that the Building Department
2 has had this information.
3 MS. MOORE: Whether it was 10 feet or 3
4 feet
5 MS. ANDALORO: Right now you are here
6 for a variance for a pool in a side yard.
7 MS. MOORE: If I have to amend the
8 application to include that, I think based
9 on the law itself, we don't have variance
10 applications that are necessary here. I
11 would rather what I did here, in my
12 memorandum, I said, in the alternative, if
• 13 you disagree with me, you will come up
14 with your own interpretation. If you don't
15 agree with me, then I have given you the
16 basis for the area variances given the
17 circumstances and given where the
18 structures are. My last exhibit that I
19 have attached is an affidavit by William
20 Moore, who is my vintage. He was actually
21 on the Town Board in the 90's. We know
22 from our own secretary, we know from
23 various representations with clients, that
24 CO's for pools were not rigorously
• 25 pursued. When people got their building
December 5, 2013 Regular Meeting 117
• 1 permit, as long as they provided proof
2 that the fence was put up and have
3 electrical underwriters was provided, you
4 were fine. Eventually the Building
5 Department, got the CO. It didn't mean
6 that the structure was illegal or needed
7 or a variance needed to be issued. We
8 would clean that up and get a CO and close
9 out the meniscal paperwork of issuing the
10 CO's, because the actual paperwork and
11 actual compliance with the code on the
12 pool for example, was met. We have
. 13 provided previously underwriters
14 certificates that were in the file. Some
15 were lost but they were ultimately found
16 from the 80's and reissued. And when the
17 Building Department contacted Mr. Coleman,
18 he would initiate contact with a
19 contractor up island and say, "Please,
20 would you do whatever the Building
21 Department wants." He got underwriters
22 certificates. He received a plumbing's
23 certificate. So efforts were being made to
24 close out the permits and it just fell on
• 25 it seems on deaf ears and wasn't going
December 5, 2013 Regular Meeting 118
• 1 anywhere. And I want to correct or clarify
2 my Previous slip in comment about faith in
3 the system. I was trying not to be
4 critical of the Building Department. I
5 guess, throughout this whole process,
6 which conflicted in the paperwork mess.
7 Fisher's Island, as I have pointed out is
8 a small community. You don't build a pool
9 without the whole island knowing about it.
10 Certainly, you don't build a pool house
11 without the entire island knowing where
12 your flooring is. So it baffles my mind
• 13 that we are here 20 years later trying to
14 clean it up. You see that on a every
15 meeting you end up with one or two
16 applications that are clean-ups. Here we
17 are. I do want to confirm with the Board
18 or verify with respect to the paperwork
19 that I have, the pool was in fact
20 completed by 1988. I have a bounty of
21 services that are charging my client to
22 winterize the pool or blowing out the
23 pool. So you don't winterize a pool that
24 hasn't been built. So we are confirming
• 25 the fact that it was built. You have
December 5, 2013 Regular Meeting 119
• 1 surveys that show it was built and
2 completed by 1988, when the CO certainly
3 for the pool house had been issued. And
4 finally, the last exhibit that I have is a
5 photograph, and I am going to ask
6 Mr. Coleman to describe the photograph
7 because it was taken by him or his family.
8 MR. COLEMAN: Regarding the pool
9 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Please state your
10 name, Mr. Coleman.
11 MR. COLEMAN: Robert Coleman,
12 C-O-L-E-M-A-N.
• 13 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Thank you. What
14 would you like to tell us?
15 MR. COLEMAN: I have a photograph here
16 of the pool of when it was originally
17 built and the confusion between the
18 inspector at the time, Robert Wall was his
19 name, unfortunately mentioned the first
20 time. It wasn't his first time. It was
21 Clarence Thornton. And Clarence Thornton
22 completely inspected the pool and his only
23 request was to complete the fence. And in
24 the back of the pool so that it was
• 25 enclosed on all four sides. And the reason
December 5, 2013 Regular Meeting 120
• 1 for that was, that the pool house was
2 about to be built and enclosed. He asked
3 for the fence to be built and completely
4 fenced in. And that was what we needed for
5 our CO for the pool. Also, the second
6 time that we got a CO for the pool was
7 later on yet another request, and
8 Robert Wall was the Building Inspector at
9 that time. He suggested that we used Walt
10 Construction, which is another local
11 Fisher's Island contractor to perform the
12 work and the services that were designated
• 13 to be performed by the Building
14 Department. The builders were complete and
15 paid, and I was assured by both and the CO
16 was again, reissued. That is the only
17 thing that I can tell you about the pool.
18 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Can you tell us
19 when the gazebo was built?
20 MR. COLEMAN: I am afraid I made that
21 mistake, it was approximately in the same
22 period. The gazebo wasn't actually built.
23 It was prefabbed and already set up. It's
24 not something that was built.
I
• 25 MS. MOORE: (In Audible).
' I
December 5, 2013 Regular Meeting 121
• 1 MR. COLEMAN: We knew we needed the
2 shade. The pool was built for my wife's
3 health. I can't accurately comment on
4 that, sorry.
5 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Before we
6 proceed, I am just going to enter into the
7 record, what the specific relief requested
8 is in the Notice of Disapproval. You have
9 addressed it, Pat, but I am just going to
10 reiterate it. One has to do with the pool
11 house, which is "as-built" alterations to
12 an existing pool house that was for a
• 13 shell only, no electric or plumbing, 1989.
14 Interior finished space with electric and
15 plumbing. Secondly, proposed at originally
16 8 feet setback, built at a 0.9 square feet
17 setback. The side yard setback was or is
18 7.8 feet. The code requires 15 feet. That
19 is what the Notice of Disapproval states.
20 With regards to the swimming pool, it was
21 built in a side yard. The code requires a
22 rear yard, 1988. The building permit was
23 issued in error because of a nonconforming
24 error. So no CO had been issued without a
• 25 variance. And third, the "as-built" gazebo
December 5, 2013 Regular Meeting 122
• 1 is in a side yard and needs a variance for
2 a nonconforming location. I am summarizing
3 in the Notice of Disapproval.
4 MS. MOORE: When I was trying to focus
5 this down on what we needed to get
6 variances for, what I analyzed on this
7 Notice of Disapproval was that the
8 completed structure of the pool house, not
9 that it's a garage or an accessory
10 structure. It's a pool house. So it's a
11 variance from the placement of the
12 structure from the property line. Not the
• 13 fact that it's a pool house because the
14 building permit and CO was for a pool
15 house. That is what my client paid for and
16 expects to get at the end of the process
17 or are we debating the use of the pool
18 house as the use of a pool house.
19 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: There is some
20 consideration that the pool house
21 constitutes as a second dwelling on the
22 property. That it has not been used for
23 what it typically a normal pool house,
24 which is typically a place to get out of
• 25 the sun, recreation space. Maybe a wet bar
December 5, 2013 Regular Meeting 123
• 1 and a half bath. No showers are permitted
2 in a pool house. There is not two-story
3 structures
4 MS. MOORE: I
5 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I am just
6 telling you.
7 MS. MOORE: I am glad you are putting
8 this on the record because it would be
9 based on 1988.
10 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I am not talking
11 about the size. The size of the accessory
12 structure is changed.
• 13 MS. MOORE: Yes. In 2000.
14 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: So we're not
15 talking about the square footage. We are
16 talking about the height and the use. It
17 was the CO that describes it as no
18 plumbing and no electric in 1989. Clearly,
19 it has been used for habitable space for a
20 long time. There is two setback issues.
21 Originally it was proposed at an 8 foot
22 setback but it was built with a 0.9 foot
23 setback. And that there is a side yard
24 setback of 7.8, where the code required a
• 25 15 foot minimum. Those are the things in
December 5, 2013 Regular Meeting 124
• 1 the discussion with the Notice of
2 Disapproval on the pool house. It's simply
3 in a nonconforming location and the pool
4 itself is in a nonconforming location. It
5 was built in the side yard. There was a
6 building permit and but they're now
7 saying that it was issued in a
8 nonconforming location. You can't get a CO
9 on the swimming pool without a variance,
10 that is my understanding of what the
11 Notice of Disapproval says. I just thought
12 it would be important to reclarify what
• 13 the Notice of Disapproval to us, was
14 saying. So if the Board has no comments on
15 that, I think it's fair to go to Mr. Ham
16 and see what he has to say.
17 MR. HAM: I just got her memorandum.
18 Steven Ham, 38 Nugent Street. I represent
19 Fisher's Island Utility Company. The
20 neighbor across, on the north. I have the
21 original affidavits, which copies are
22 attached to my memorandum.
23 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: We can put them
24 in our file but we do have copies.
• 25 MR. HAM: So I just received this
December 5, 2013 Regular Meeting 125
• 1 memorandum this morning. I am not going to
2 comment on that. I would like the
3 opportunity to reply to it.
4 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Sure.
5 MR. HAM: I am just going to make a
6 few observations. The argument I have
7 made in the memorandum, I think it's
8 incredible for Ms. Moore to say that the
9 character of the neighborhood has not
10 changed. The character of the
11 neighborhood is impacted. Ms. Dexter is
12 directly affected by this structure. As
• 13 you can see from the affidavit. That is
14 one comment. Also, Ms. Moore talks about
15 all the irrelevant things but she brings
16 them up. They were issued a building
17 permit for a pool house. No plumbing or
18 wiring. Same thing. The Building
19 Department just casually issues permits
20 well, then they must have reviewed this
21 carefully if they put that qualification
22 on it. And when it came to issuing the
23 CO, the same thing, no plumbing or
24 electrical. It was issued for a one-story
• 25 structure. The question is, is this a
December 5, 2013 Regular Meeting 126
• 1 variance I put this at the end of my
2 memorandum. Would you grant this variance
3 if someone came to you before the fact and
4 if not, are the circumstances so
5 extenuating in this case that you would be
6 obliged to grant it now? I focused on,
7 and Ms. Moore did not, I am sure she did
8 in her memorandum, is the issue of self
9 created hardship, and I think you ought to
10 consider that seriously in this case.
11 Just again, they are saying that they made
12 efforts to close out the permits for the
• 13 swimming pool. They got notices from the
14 Building Department on a couple of
15 occasions and never obtained a CO. Finally
16 came to a criminal proceeding in the
17 Justice Court because further notices from
18 the Zoning Inspector were ignored. I
19 haven't heard anything but did the
20 Coleman's take any responsibility for
21 anything here or is it the Town and the
22 surveyor and the contractor whose fault
23 this all is?
24 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: All right. Let me
• 25 do this
December 5, 2013 Regular Meeting 127
1 MS. MOORE: Well, I need to respond to
• 2 a couple of things. There are some points
3 that I want to make and then there is
4 something that Mr. Coleman, I think wants
5 to say. With respect to the neighboring
6 opposition from Ms. Dawson or Dexter. The
7 Dawson property. The objection has to be
8 reasonable. She is 600 feet away from that
9 structures. All of the structures are as
10 far away from Ms. Dawson that it can
11 possibly be placed. So if she had come in
12 with objections at the time of these
• 13 structures were built, you would have
14 analyzed it no differently than today,
15 which is, keeping it as far away from this
16 lady as you can get. Okay, you don't like
17 the Coleman's. There are multiple issues.
18 MR. HAM: She just didn't want them
19 living there as a second residence.
20 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Hold it. You both
21 obviously, there is testimony that this
22 structure has been used well beyond a
23 typical pool house. Mr. Coleman just
24 stated that the gazebo was built to get
I
• 25 out of the sun. Usually a pool house is
December 5, 2013 Regular Meeting 128
1 what gets you out of the sun. I am sorry,
2 you have to
3 MS. MOORE: Let me just finish. I was
4 interrupted. So issue No. 1 was, the
5 objection. And as far as occupancy that
6 can be addressed extremely easily by the
7 Coleman's. You have his representation
8 that it wasn't used as a second dwelling.
9 Issue No. 2, the building permits did not
10 have a limitation of no plumbing or
11 wiring. I am going to unless you can
12 point to it, it says pool house. It says
• 13 nothing about no wiring or no plumbing. So
14 please point out to me? I did not
15 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: We have it.
16 MS. MOORE: Yes. You have it. So
17 please, very carefully look at it. I
18 believe that that is a misrepresentation
19 of the application.
20 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I want to let
21 Mr. Ham
22 MR. HAM: Building Department
23 application? What about the building
24 permit? What is more they may have
• 25 applied for something and issued a permit
December 5, 2013 Regular Meeting 129
• 1 the Building Department noted on that.
2 MS. MOORE: No. The Building Department
3 did not note it.
4 MR. HAM: Well, they noted it on the
5 CO.
6 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: You have to
7 speak you know you both need to speak
8 to the Board.
9 MS. MOORE: Yes.
10 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: So please
11 MS. MOORE: The documents will speak
12 for themselves. Please do not take
• 13 Mr. Ham's interpretation of the document,
14 when the document says pool house. Which
15 one is that you are looking at? I have
16 them all.
17 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: This is an
18 application for pool house. And on it, it
19 says under No. 8, dimension, 24 back, 24
20 rear, 24 depth. Height 17 feet.
21 MS. MOORE: But it doesn't say it's not
22 a pool house.
23 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: No basement
24 noted. On the bottom it says, intended use
• 25 and occupancy. This is 2.8. Pool house.
December 5, 2013 Regular Meeting 130
• 1 Shell only.
2 MS. MOORE: The application says shell
3 only?
4 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: That is what it
5 says.
6 MS. MOORE: That is not what my form
7 says.
8 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: This came from
9 the Building Department.
10 MS. MOORE: I will pull out the one
11 that I have.
12 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Did you want to
• 13 respond?
14 MR. HAM: That is what it was issued.
15 So it's irrelevant for all these other
16 uses. They improved it. They violated the
17 terms of their CO. That is why we are
18 here.
19 MS. MOORE: Okay.
20 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: There are two
21 things. Pat, I think you have done a very
22 thorough job. We have a new memorandum
23 from you today that all of us need to look
24 at. We have a memorandum, from you,
• 25 Mr. Ham, that is very thorough with lots
December 5, 2013 Regular Meeting 131
• 1 of documents. That is okay. That you still
2 need more time to digest that and respond
3 in writing. And Pat, if you want to
4 respond to what Mr. Ham submitted, that is
5 your option of course. I want to see if
6 any of the Board members have any specific
7 questions of either of you at this point.
8 Ken, gerry, Eric, any questions or any
9 comments?
10 MEMBER DANTES: I do have one comment.
11 One application says pool house only and I
12 have another that says, it's a photocopy,
• 13 it says pool house. This is the
14 underwriters.
15 MS. MOORE: (In Audible).
16 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: You have to come
17 back up here.
18 MS. MOORE: What date is that
19 application?
20 MS. ANDALORO: It's the Building
21 Inspector's Inspection Report.
22 MS. MOORE: That is the inspection
23 report.
24 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: One thing that is
• 25 clear, the size and the use of that
December 5, 2013 Regular Meeting 132
i
1 structure exceeded the Building
• 2 Department's assumptions about it.
3 MS. MOORE: No. I would professionally
4 disagree with that because the Certificate
5 of Occupancy was completed. And it's not
6 uncommon
7 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The Certificate
8 of Occupancy says shell only.
9 MS. MOORE: Even if it's shell only,
10 it's a two-story shell.
11 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Shell only. No
12 plumbing. No electric. It's a finished
. 13 conditioned habitable space. Very, very,
14 very close to the property line. As a
15 matter of fact, until recently, it was
16 over the property line.
i
17 MR. HAM: Not completely. There is
18 some concrete footings and steps still on
19 the utility companies property.
20 MS. MOORE: I would ask you to please
21 look at the permit that is submitted and
22 completed form, that is dated
23 September 25, 1988. It is not for a shell
24 only of a pool house. It says intended
• 25 use and occupancy, pool house. I don't
December 5, 2013 Regular Meeting 133
• 1 know if the Building Department is giving
2 me one document and you another but that
3 is the document that I am working off of.
4 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Just wait a
5 minute. We have the same thing.
6 MS. MOORE: The original request was
7 for one-story but then it changed during
8 construction. That's the way the Building
9 Department even operates today, which is
10 based on the construction that is taking
11 place. I gave you invoices or photocopies,
12 but the invoices were there and they were
• 13 during the inspection. So for the Building
14 Department to put that condition on it
15 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: So it was
16 ignored?
17 MS. MOORE: No. It was ignored by the
18 Building Department. If the Building
19 Department is seeing it and it's occurring
20 the instruction is not being done
21 properly.
22 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I want to ask
23 you a legal question, actually.
24 MS. ANDALORO: There was a certain
• 25 time period that your clients could have
December 5, 2013 Regular Meeting 134
1 challenged the CO; correct? Or amended the
• 2 CO and have what is accurately reflected
3 on the property. That never happened.
4 Your client owns the property.
5 MS. MOORE: Yes.
6 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Hold one. It's
i
7 one person at a time. I believe this
8 gentleman wanted to say something. So let
9 him speak.
10 MR. COLEMAN: I just want to say that
11 Ms. Coleman and I vehemently object to any
12 (In Audible) that we postponed anything or
13 that we did not try to comply with
•
14 anything or that we created all of this.
15 Now we are referred to in Mr. Ham's memo,
16 as being in court. We never knew about
17 court. The first notice that we got was
I
18 in December, I believe in 2009, on our
19 50th some off anniversary during Christmas
20 time. Immediately called Robert and asked
21 him about this situation. We couldn't get
22 an answer. We called Mr. Wall's and
23 couldn't get an answer. We then hired
24 counsel, Mr. Tulhill to correct whatever
• 25 needed to be corrected. We have had
December 5, 2013 Regular Meeting 135
• 1 counsel since. We have spent in excess of
2 $34,000 to date to get everyone the
3 materials that were requested in order to
4 accomplish this. We came here to try and
5 resolve this thing not to cast aspirations
6 on each other. We're trying to be
7 cooperative. Trying to work with the Town.
8 I cut the railing outside without anyone
9 telling us. I took the tub upstairs and
10 broke it up without anyone telling us. We
11 are trying to be cooperative.
12 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: How did you know
• 13 to do that?
14 MR. COLEMAN: We were told that it
15 should be out. So we took it out.
16 MS. MOORE: I advised them. That the
17 Zoning Board (In Audible) without having
18 some building permit.
19 (Speaker not near a microphone.)
20 MS. MOORE: on interior showers.
21 There is nothing about toilets or sinks.
22 So we were trying to address or
23 accommodate the interior spaces. Given the
24 fact that they were all finished in the
• 25 80's. Since the day that I got involved,
December 5, 2013 Regular Meeting 136
• 1 we were trying to resolve this without
2 having to come to the Board for variances.
3 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: That is one
4 criteria. There is substantiality.
5 MS. MOORE: (In Audible).
6 MR. HAM: I would call it a 200%
I
7 variance, please.
8 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Even if your
9 numbers are accurate, 66% variance from
10 the code is substantial. Those are the
11 standards that this Board
12 MS. MOORE: Absolutely. I also gave you
• 13 all the background. Mr. Coleman has
14 already stated on the record that he has
15 been trying to correct it. That this is an
16 honest mistake. That we don't even
17 understand.
18 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Let me just stop
19 you for one second. The legal question
20 that I am going to ask, when someone owns
21 property, yes, there are all kinds of
22 people that get impacted. There are
23 contractors. Building Department's,
24 Building Inspector. There is a presumptive
• 25 knowledge that a property owner must have
December 5, 2013 Regular Meeting 137
• 1 of what is going on with their property.
2 To me, a property owner is liable to what
3 happens on their property even though
4 someone else made the error. That is why
5 we get numerous requests for De Minimus
6 changes because the surveyor put it here
7 and you know, builder put it over there.
8 Now, if it's really De Minimus, then that
9 is not an issue but we're talking about
10 substantial issues here. This is by no
11 means De Minimus. As Mr. Coleman has
12 pointed out, this has been going on for
• 13 years. The intent is to resolve it. That
14 is why we are here. We're a Court of
15 Appeals.
16 MS. MOORE: Yes. We are trying to
17 resolve. What is the remedy here
18 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: That's
19 irrelevant.
20 MS. MOORE: It's extremely relevant
21 based on it's a setback error.
22 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: You know what,
23 Pat, the Board has lots of written and
24 oral testimony. We will evaluate
• 25 everything with an open mind. The Board
December 5, 2013 Regular Meeting 138
• 1 will determine what is relevant and the
2 Board will evaluate all the materials
3 submitted from the hearing and in writing.
4 And it's out responsibility to interpret
5 the relevance of any and all material.
6 And only take that from the submission
7 that we believe are relevant to what is
8 before us. You have been waiting
9 patiently.
10 MR. HAM: Yes. Just two things from
11 what Mr. Coleman said and they are
12 addressed directly in my memorandum by the
• 13 way, in exhibits. He didn't get called
14 back. If you look at Exhibit A, it's the
15 first notice in 2009 and two weeks later,
16 there is a response from Damon telling the
17 Coleman's what they should do. Damon told
18 me that he never heard from them again.
19 And my Exhibit B is the notice when they
20 finally decided to take legal fees.
21 Secondly, had he known to remove the
22 balcony and the bilco door, if you look at
23 Exhibit H, is a letter from the utilities
24 company attorney telling him various
25 encroachments and trespassing. There is no
December 5, 2013 Regular Meeting 139
• 1 doing that on his own. Maybe he took the
2 shower out on his own advice, but the
3 other parts of his testimony are not
4 accurate.
5 MS. MOORE: No, I will actually state
6 on the record that I advised them with
7 respect to the balcony and the bilco
8 because the Zoning Board would not be able
9 to entertain a structure that is
10 encroaching. The Board takes the position
11 that they could not sanction, in a sense,
12 an encroachment. So the way to come to
• 13 this Board was to clean up the
14 encroachment just to be able to get in the
15 door.
16 MR. HAM: He was in notice of it in
17 2010.
18 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Mr. Coleman,
19 when did you engage in it?
20 MR. HAM: That's less than a year.
21 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The point is,
22 you were informed by the Building
23 Department. You know what, none of these
24 are related to these comments are
• 25 related to the variance standards that we
December 5, 2013 Regular Meeting 140
• 1 need to apply to make a decision. So I
2 would like us to really focus on those
3 issues, because this kind of stuff, while
4 maybe personally interesting, it's not
5 going to get us to the right place.
6 MR. HAM: To the extent of
7 credibility.
8 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Yes.
9 MR. COLEMAN: I would like to comment.
10 We hired an attorney immediately because
11 we felt unqualified with all the requests
12 that were being made to us. We are not in
• 13 the building process. We are not familiar
14 with all the codes and necessities. And we
15 have been paying for that advice from Day
16 1. If any of that was not responded to, I
17 will have Mr. Tulhill come in and explain
18 to us, because he was paid for it. So
19 there is a lot of complications here. I
20 don't think it does much good for you to
21 get into them.
22 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Sir, we wanted
23 the record to once indicate what this
24 Board's jurisdiction is. What it is that
• 25 we are really trying to look at. We will
December 5, 2013 Regular Meeting 141
• 1 be trying to resolve this matter once and
2 for all, one way or another or two or
3 three ways or another, depending on the
4 outcome. But that is our job and that is
5 why you are here. Our jurisdiction is to
6 grant minimal relief, when justified. So
7 we will take it from there. Is there
8 anything else that you would like to say?
9 MR. HAM: I will be away in January.
10 So if we are keeping this open, I would
11 appreciate a February date.
12 MS. MOORE: Is there going to be any
• 13 more meetings?
14 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Well, I was
15 going to poll the Board. We have already
16 had two meetings and have heard much as we
17 can from interested parties. Obviously you
18 need time to respond in writing, to each
19 others memorandums in writing. Possibly
20 what we could do, is carry this over to
21 the Special Meeting or we could adjourn to
22 February, so that if we have ongoing
23 questions, we could ask. But I don't know
24 if we need a third public hearing. I think
• 25 we can close the hearing subject to
December 5, 2013 Regular Meeting 142
• 1 receipt of information giving you as much
2 time as you need and then the clock starts
3 when we have everything.
4 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Can I make a
5 suggestion that we close the hearing at
6 the regular January meeting just in case
7 there are some particular issues that are
8 brought up in the back and forth
9 situation. We would not have the hearing.
10 We would just close the hearing at that
11 point.
12 MR. HAM: I am leaving on the 22nd and
. 13 I am going to be very busy for the next
14 couple of weeks. I am back on the 13th.
15 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I want to close it
16 at the regular meeting. That's all.
17 Unless something happens, and then you
18 still have it open.
19 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: We just want to
20 make sure that all of the facts that you
21 want to submit to us are you have the
22 time to do it to your satisfaction.
23 MR. HAM: Just so you know, I am
24 probably not going to be able to respond
• 25 until I get back on the 13th, to
December 5, 2013 Regular Meeting 143
• 1 Ms. Moore's memorandum.
2 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Well, if we know
3 for a fact that he's not I will tell
4 you what, let's just adjourn it to the
5 February meeting on the assumption that
6 you will not need a public hearing. That
7 we will close it in February subject to
8 any additional material you wish to
9 submit. Whatever else is to have been
10 presented to us, we will receive. It will
11 all be in writing of course.
12 MS. MOORE: Some of the items that
• 13 Mr. Coleman has provided are some
14 photographs go ahead.
15 MR. COLEMAN: The statement that
16 Ms. Dawson made about cutting the trees is
17 inaccurate. We didn't cut the trees. They
18 were working on our property and asked
19 them to trim around the front. We were not
20 there. Ms. Dawson went to her attorney and
21 asked for $2500.00 for these trees that
22 were destroyed. We paid promptly. I am
23 going to give you a photograph of those
24 trees. Those trees are not 30 foot high.
• 25 They were not damaged. I just think that
December 5, 2013 Regular Meeting 144
• 1 we should have it corrected.
2 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay.
3 MR. HAM: She claims, and I will put
4 this into the record, that the Coleman's
5 planted some trees on her property.
6 MS. MOORE: It's completely
7 irrelevant.
8 MR. HAM: All right. It's all
9 irrelevant.
10 MR. COLEMAN: The prior complaint that
11 we didn't plant the trees (In Audible) and
12 search that and they came back with a
• 13 memo, that was submitted and they didn't
14 find it. We don't talk to Ms. Dawson. They
15 have never been happy that we were on the
16 property. Mr. Dawson was the underbidder
17 on the property. We outbid them. It has
18 been bitter ever since.
19 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Once again, we
20 have been patiently listening to these
21 things. Both of these attorneys it's a
22 balancing test.
23 MR. COLEMAN: We are not very happy
24 with some of the comments that have been
• 25 made. We think they are inappropriate and
December 5, 2013 Regular Meeting 145
is 1 unnecessary. We do not wish to engage in
2 that unless we have to. I felt that we
3 have been on trial since the beginning
4 instead of trying to resolve the issue.
5 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: This is not a
6 trial.
7 MR. COLEMAN: Every time we make a
8 move, Mr. Ham says we are irresponsible
9 people. How can we be irresponsible people
10 if we have spent over $35,000.00 to get
11 everyone the necessary information and we
12 can't get an answer. They feel that we
. 13 shouldn't have heat in the pool house. Who
14 can tell a neighbor that they shouldn't
15 have heat in the pool house? If there is
16 so much dampness, you can get sick on
17 Fisher's Island from mold.
18 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: A pool house is
19 usually related to a swimming pool. And
20 that is seasonal. In which case, the pool
21 house doesn't have heat. It doesn't have a
22 kitchen.
23 MR. COLEMAN: Let's be fair about it,
24 we don't have no kitchen. We have no
• 25 kitchen. That is not fair.
December 5, 2013 Regular Meeting 146
• 1 MR. HAM: It's called the Zoning Code.
2 MR. COLEMAN: Whatever the Zoning Code
3 wants, we will comply. We have been trying
4 for three years.
5 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Fair enough.
6 MR. COLEMAN: I thank you all.
7 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Thank you. I am
8 so sorry it's so stressful.
9 Okay. I am going to make a motion to
10 adjourn this hearing to February 6th at
11 9:50.
12 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second.
• 13 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: All in favor?
14 MEMBER DANTES: Aye.
15 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye.
16 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye.
17 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Aye.
18 (See Minutes for Resolution.)
19
20
21 (Whereupon, the December 5, 2013
22 Zoning Board of Appeals Regular Meeting
23 Public Hearing's concluded.)
24
•
December 5, 2013 Regular Meeting 147
• 1
2 C E R T I F I C A T I O N
3
4
5 I, Jessica DiLallo, certify that the
6 foregoing transcript of tape recorded Public
7 Hearings was prepared using required electronic
8 transcription equipment and is a true and accurate
9 record of the Hearings.
10
11 Signature: 609
12 Jess ca DiLall
• 13
14
15 Jessica DiLallo
Court Reporter
16 PO Box 984
Holbrook, New York 11741
17
18 Date: December 21, 2013
19
20
21
22
23
24
• 25