HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-01/09/2014 Hearing
1
1 TOWNOF 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
7 Southold Town Hall
Southold, New York
8
9 January 9, 2014
9:42 A.M.
10
11
12 Board Members Present:
13
14 LESLIE KANES WEISMAN - Chairperson/Member
15 ERIC DANTES - Member
16 GERARD GOEHRINGER - Member
17 GEORGE HORNING - Member
18 KENNETH SCHNEIDER - Member
19 VICKI TOTH - Secretary
20 JENNIFER ANDALORO - Assistant Town Attorney
21
22
23 Jessica DiLallo
Court Reporter
24 P.O. Box 984
Holbrook, New York 11741
25 (631)-338-1409
2
• 1
2 INDEX TO HEARINGS
3
4 Hearing Page
5
6 Willem Kooyker & Judith Ann Corrente,
7 #6716 3-26
8 Richard & Lorraine Burden #6712 26-45
9 Robert Walsh, #6708 45-57
10 Betty Deroski Revocable Trust, #6707 57-71
11 Walter Murphy (Estate of), #6713 71-85
12 Carolyn R. Ameen, #6711 85-93
• 13 Steven & Susan Bloom, #6709 93-98
14 Mladen Bay, #6714 98-118
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
I
22
23
24
• 25
January 9, 2014 Regular Meeting 3
• 1 HEARING #6716 - WILLEM KOOYKER &
2 JUDITH ANN CORRENTE
3 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The first
4 application before the Board is for
5 Willem Kooyker and Judith Ann Corrente.
6 Request for variance from Article XXII
7 Section 280-116A(1) and the Building
8 Inspector's December 5, 2013 Notice of
9 Disapproval based on a building permit
10 for partial demolition and additions and
11 alterations to existing single family
12 dwelling, at; 1) less than the code
• 13 required setback of 100 feet from the top
14 of the bluff, located at: 7832 Claypoint
15 Road, adjacent to Fishers Island Sound in
16 Fishers Island.
17 Is there someone here to approach the
18 Board on this application? Please state
19 your name for us, for the record.
20 MR. LARK: Yes. Richard Lark, Main
21 Road, Cutchogue, New York.
22 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Before you get
23 started, I will give you a copy of the
24 LWRP recommendation report. We just
• 25 received this yesterday. It's quite
January 9, 2014 Regular Meeting 4
. 1 lengthy. A report from Suffolk County
2 Soil & Water. We will give you time to
3 look that over.
4 MR. LARK: Okay. The affidavits, you
5 have the affidavits of the postings on
6 the property. The one that didn't come
7 back was Ms. Williamson, who is the
8 adjacent property to the west, and she
9 has spoken to my office and
10 Mr. Fitzgerald. The architect is here.
11 He will speak more about things when he
12 comes up and speaks about the details and
• 13 everything. Okay. The applicants bought
14 this property in October of 2013 for the
15 very purpose of which you have the
16 application before you. To renovate the
17 property and the residence on it, to
18 create a different look to fit in with
19 the neighborhood and also with their
20 lifestyle. They own a house and
21 property, two properties to the west of
22 this. And when this property became
23 available, they decided to buy it because
24 they have three children who are young
• 25 and recently married and presently with
January 9, 2014 Regular Meeting 5
• 1 three grandchildren and more on the way.
2 The sole purpose of this whole project is
3 to renovate the house because this is
4 where the kids will spend the summers,
5 their children. And the grandchildren
6 will be able to visit with the
7 grandparents and not have the babies
8 under (In Audible) all the time. So that
9 was the whole purpose of the whole
10 renovation of what you have before you.
11 Now, the subject parcel is 25.7, which is
12 the original designation when they dated
• 13 the development back in the 1920's.
14 Currently, under the zoning as you know,
15 it's zoned, R-120. And this lot is 2.02
16 acres or 87,921 square feet, which under
17 the zoning ordinance calls for a front
18 yard of 60 feet, a side yard of minimum
19 of 20 feet, 45 combined. A rear yard of
20 75. This lot does comply with the aspect
21 of the side yard; however, under why we
22 are here today, is that there is also a
23 requirement since the property is
24 adjacent to Fishers Island Sound, that
• 25 the residence has to be set back 100 feet
January 9, 2014 Regular Meeting 6
• 1 from the cress of the top of the bluff.
2 The house as it stands presently was
3 built in what I could determine,
4 1958-1959. And at that time, it met all
5 the clearing of zoning and requirements
6 because we didn't have the prohibitions
7 or restrictions today. And so, in
8 effect, there is a lot to the change of
9 zoning, and as I cited, one requirement
10 that it doesn't fulfill is the 100 feet
11 setback from the cress at the top of the
12 bluff. So that is really why we are here
• 13 specifically today, but it's my
14 understanding also, when Mr. Fitzgerald,
15 the architect reviewed the whole plan
16 with you, the Building Department wanted
17 the Board of Appeals, an approval within
18 the 100 foot area, the removal of the
19 existing garage, removal of the pool
20 house, the removal of the pool you
21 know, all of that. He would cover the
22 details. The precise reason why we are
23 here, there is a little add-on on the
24 westerly side of the house which is 191
• 25 square feet add-on, and it is closest
January 9, 2014 Regular Meeting 7
• 1 point, 63.75 feet from the top of the
2 bluff. Curiously enough two feet on the
3 westerly side of the house where this
4 add-on is, it's 89.4 because of the
5 curvature of the bluff. The bluff has
6 been very stable. It hasn't moved at all
7 from what I could determine from aerial
8 photographs when the house was built in
9 1959. So that has been very stable.
10 Even though we draw lines on our zoning
11 maps and everything, it's the actual
12 physical bluff when you look at it. It's
• 13 irregular. I thought that it was odd
14 that it was 89 at a few feet and then
15 with the curvature it was 63 feet, but
16 that is specifically why we are here for
17 the variances. As I understand from the
18 code. Considering the balancing effect
19 that you require from the law to address
20 when you are considering applications
21 like this, I think it is fairly obvious
22 when you do decide to grant the variance,
23 it will not produce an undesirable change
24 in the neighborhood. It's going to be an
• 25 upgrade. The architect after I spoke to
i
January 9, 2014 Regular Meeting 8
1 him and he in return spoke to architect
• 2 of record, we are trying to achieve
3 symmetry in modernizing and
4 reconstructing the house. And they are
5 trying to achieve a balance, and that is
6 why this little protrusion is out. They
7 felt that it was necessary to do so.
8 It's obvious that in doing the request,
9 the home, whether you look at the whole
10 thing, the removal of the pool, the pool
11 house, the shed, the existing garage, and
12 so on and so forth or you just consider
• 13 this little protrusion itself, in and of
14 itself, it's not substantial. That is
15 also fairly obvious. It was also clear,
16 as I see it, the stability of the bluff
17 and everything on the property. It is
18 pretty well stabilized there. It will
19 not have any adverse effect on the
20 environment. I was worried about how
21 they were going to do all that pool
22 removal and pool house stuff and
23 disturbing that area and so is the
24 neighbor to the west. And Mr. Fitzgerald
• 25 is going to address that. Finally, the
January 9, 2014 Regular Meeting 9
1 request is of course, self created. So
•
2 we can't get around that in any way,
3 shape or form, but I will now turn this
4 over to Mr. Fitzgerald, the architect and
5 have him explain the details of the
6 project for your consideration.
7 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: While you are
8 doing that, let me just explain to you
9 some of the information that I just
10 handed to Mr. Lark from Suffolk County
11 Soil & Water. Just so the record
12 reflects, and I am sure you're about to
• 13 answer the same thing, the report is very
14 thorough in evaluating the site and
15 conditions of the site. It certainly
16 supports the removal or the proposed
17 removal of the accessory structures.
18 Basically, describes in consider detail
19 best management practices in regard to
20 deconstruction or removal. Heavy
21 equipment.
22 MR. FITZGERALD: Right.
23 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Soil conditions
24 and so on. Certain erosions coming off
• 25 the bluff. Gutters and leaders.
~I
January 9, 2014 Regular Meeting 10
• 1 MR. FITZGERALD: Sure.
2 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay. Having
3 said that, please proceed.
4 MR. FITZGERALD: Okay. My name is
5 Sam Fitzgerald. I am an architect and I
6 do a fair bit of work on Fishers Island,
7 where I maintain an office. I should say
8 that I am not the designer of the project
9 or the architect of record. That is (In
10 Audible) Taylor Architects, also in
11 Greenwich. They have done a fair bit of
12 work on Fishers Island as well. I have
• 13 been hired by the owners to act as their
14 agent as their guide to the through
15 the permitting process. What I would
16 first like to do is describe the existing
17 conditions of the property. Then
18 describe the proposed work and then a
19 brief explanation as far as the design.
20 The project is on Fishers Island Sound.
21 In the photograph here north to the
22 sound. So on the north side of the
23 island, as Mr. Lark said, the house was
24 built around 1959. There are several
• 25 buildings on the property now. There is
January 9, 2014 Regular Meeting 11
• 1 the main house, which is a one-story
2 frame house. There is a detached
3 two-story two car garage and here is a
4 complex, which includes a pool cabana,
5 fairly detailed (In Audible) structure
6 here. There is a storage building here.
7 I think everyone knows the house pretty
8 well and yes, they want this house for
9 their kids and their grandkids. What's
10 really nice about this, we don't
11 necessarily have to have the same foot
12 structure or stuff that a family might
• 13 like to have for a summer house which is
14 a pool. We don't need a pool house. We
15 don't need a large outdoor living area.
16 That is all going to happen at the
17 parents house. So we don't need any of
18 that. What we are going to do, we're
19 going to fill it and restore the natural
20 grade. That is the general scope of the
21 work. I was just talking to
22 Ms. Williamson. She is a great old lady.
23 She is rally thrilled about the project.
24 She said she had been complaining to her
• 25 family privately over the years. So she
January 9, 2014 Regular Meeting 12
• 1 is actually delighted that the pool is
2 going away. So that is just one
3 component of the project. The other is
4 that we would like to make the main house
5 larger in order to accommodate the
6 extended family. There are three
7 children. Each of the children have
8 their own quarters in the house. As we
9 have added onto the house, there will be
10 a net reduction in the total building
11 area of the property. Even with the
12 additions, there will be a reduction. So
• 13 currently the building area on the
14 property is 4800 square feet. And we
15 will be reducing it to 4200. Even with
16 the addition. Let me just turn this
17 over. The scope of work is first. Then
18 they would like to take the existing
19 detached garage and remove it and build a
20 new garage onto the main house. There
21 are several benefits to this. First of
22 all, it reduces the nonconformity.
23 Second, it's a light side yard setback.
24 It makes the building less long and
• 25 certainly more compact. And lastly, the
January 9, 2014 Regular Meeting 13
• 1 garage here, would be considered illegal
2 today. So we don't want to go through
3 that hassle and they just want to get rid
4 of that problem. So that is all good.
5 The plan for the house is to create three
6 separate sleeping quarters for the three
7 children. We would keep the center here
8 as the common rooms. And keep the
9 sleeping quarters here. So that is what
10 we're doing here. Over here, what we
11 would like to do is add a second floor to
12 the east wing. So that would be over the
13 existing footprint. So they wouldn't be
•
14 adding to the existing footprint at all.
15 Here, would be another sleeping quarters.
16 To make it really function well, we need
17 to bump this wail out a little bit. We
18 understand that we're building in the
19 direction of the bluff; however, I think
20 with the elimination of the pool complex
21 and the garage building, I think that it
22 would be a significant benefit to the
23 property. Even with the addition. Also
24 with the addition, it will not extend
• 25 pass the north face of the house at all.
January 9, 2014 Regular Meeting 14
• 1 Our intention is to along the north wall
2 with the existing wall, line it up so
3 there won't be any new extension on the
4 water side of the house. You know, in
5 the design, we try and work two different
6 angles to make it function. And this
7 actually works out well in both. It
8 creates symmetry on the water side of the
9 house. Also, it gives some architecture
10 to the house as well. Architecturally, I
11 think if you look in your packets there,
12 you will see some photos of the existing
13 house. The existing house is a one-story
14 long house. And with the garage piece,
15 it appears even larger. There is also
16 this larger roof on the house. It
17 extenuates the length of the house. We
18 are eliminating that garage piece and
19 tucking in a new garage. So the house is
20 getting smaller and less wide, but also
21 with the second floor additions, the
22 house appears taller. So instead of the
23 house being long and low, this house is
24 shorter and appears to be taller. Not
• 25 actually taller. The ridge line will be
January 9, 2014 Regular Meeting 15
• 1 existing. So there is no change in
2 height.
3 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Excuse me.
4 With all do respect. This is a very
5 wonderful presentation and program for
6 aesthetic reasons. The Board, however,
7 is primarily concerned with the setback
8 and how you're going to handle the
9 construction process. We just want to
10 make sure that it's clearly the
11 removal of those structures is a great
12 benefit. Small proposed additions is
13 mitigated by the removal of these
14 structures. However, what we want to
15 ensure is that during the construction
16 process, which is major, that you would
17 be complying with recommendations from
18 Soil & Water. So if you could fast
19 forward a little bit. It's a beautiful
20 design. I wish I could move in but I
21 can't.
22 MEMBER HORNING: I have to thank the
23 Chairperson for interrupting. Could we
24 move onto asking questions because we're
• 25 going to be pressed for time and maybe it
January 9, 2014 Regular Meeting 16
• 1 would be helpful if we could ask some
2 questions, particularly on the setbacks.
3 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Why don't we do
4 that. George you had some questions?
5 MR. FITZGERALD: Sure.
6 MEMBER HORNING: I just wanted to
7 review the setbacks.
8 MR. FITZGERALD: Sure.
9 MEMBER HORNING: They are not quite
10 clear on the survey. Starting from the
11 eastern end of the house. Now we have a
12 100 foot top of the bluff setback as
• 13 shown. Then you have an 85 foot setback,
14 I presume it's to that little bump out
15 that is next to that called stone
16 area
17 MR. FITZGERALD: Correct. I think
18 that is sort of informational only.
19 MEMBER HORNING: No, it's relevant.
20 And as we know, the 100 foot required
21 setback is a small portion of the
22 existing portion, is beyond that 100 feet
23 as you can see. The proposed new bump
24 out; correct?
• 25 MR. FITZGERALD: Correct.
January 9, 2014 Regular Meeting 17
• 1 MEMBER HORNING: What is the existing
2 setback to that corner there? You have
3 that 89.4, you mentioned that earlier.
4 MR. FITZGERALD: He was putting
5 dimensions at the top of the bank. So
6 it's actually 70.5, I believe. It's in
7 the application.
8 MEMBER HORNING: It's not.
9 MR. FITZGERALD: I apologize for
10 that.
11 MEMBER HORNING: Let's just be clear
12 on that.
• 13 MR. LARK: (In Audible).
14 MEMBER HORNING: There is a
15 discrepancy there. I am asking for the
16 same setback.
17 MR. FITZGERALD: It's 70 feet.
18 MEMBER HORNING: It's just a little
19 confusing in that area.
20 MR. FITZGERALD: It's approximately
21 70 feet. He defined it differently, I am
22 sorry.
23 MEMBER HORNING: Moving over to the
24 garage, it struck me to ask you, what is
• 25 the existing setback of the existing
I
January 9, 2014 Regular Meeting 18
• 1 garage?
2 MR. FITZGERALD: The existing setback
3 is actually 20 feet, I believe.
4 MEMBER HORNING: It has to be in that
5 70 area.
6 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: From the bluff
7 or the side yard?
8 MEMBER HORNING: From the bluff and
9 also from the side yard. I was just
10 wondering what that distance was.
11 MR. FITZGERALD: The side yard is
12 actually, is a little bit less than 20
• 13 feet. So it's not conforming.
14 MEMBER HORNING: That one corner is
15 70.5 feet from the top of the bluff. If
16 you go over and see that slight outline
17 with the garage and it's lined up with
18 the house. So it has to be
19 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Well, yes, it's
20 not conforming. It's going to be
21 removed.
22 MEMBER HORNING: It's not shown.
23 Usually we see existing setbacks. What is
24 the side yard setback of the existing
• 25 garage?
January 9, 2014 Regular Meeting 19
• 1 MR. FITZGERALD: That one is 19 feet.
2 MEMBER HORNING: You did mention that
3 you are increasing
4 MR. FITZGERALD: Yes. And the new
5 setback is 20.75 feet.
6 MEMBER HORNING: Thank you. You have
7 shown the lot coverage's. So let's go
8 through the reasons a little bit.
9 MR. FITZGERALD: Sure.
10 MEMBER HORNING: And one of the
11 things that you are actually doing is
12 reducing the lot coverage?
• 13 MR. FITZGERALD: Correct.
14 MEMBER HORNING: There was a prior
15 reasons one, I had looked at that. In the
16 middle towards the bottom. The new
17 addition of the garage would be further
18 down on the property line then the
19 existing structure. And you just gave
20 me those setbacks. So that verifies that.
21 The lot coverage is being reduced, which
22 is a positive thing to this application,
23 probably. And we I will mention that
24 we did have a prior appeal, I don't know
• 25 if have that research?
January 9, 2014 Regular Meeting 20
• 1 MR. FITZGERALD: Yes.
2 MEMBER HORNING: We had one other
3 another applicant, who was trying to
4 avoid having a fence for a pool. There
5 used to be a fence. So I don't know what
6 happened. I think years and years ago.
7 MR. FITZGERALD: Really? That's
8 interesting.
9 MEMBER HORNING: I worked out there.
10 I remember a fence. Can you go through
11 the reasons quickly, change?
12 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Mr. Lark
• 13 already did that in the beginning.
14 MEMBER HORNING: Okay. And that is
15 probably all I have for questions. Other
16 than this report from the Soil
17 Conservation is quite comprehensive.
18 MR. FITZGERALD: It is. We will we
19 have no interest in not following all
20 recommendations. As you can see, there
21 are issues of bluff protection and
22 currently, there are no drywells. That
23 would be corrected. As part of the
24 demolition goes, there is a haybale line,
• 25 all the downward of all the construction.
January 9, 2014 Regular Meeting 21
• 1 For the removal of the pool, it's going
2 to be very difficult not to use heavy
3 equipment for that. However, we are going
4 to be as sensitive as possible, so that
5 we could disturb as little as possible.
6 There is a storage shed right down here
7 that is on the top of the bluff. So our
8 intention is, first take down the
9 two-story garage and then we will have
10 access into this area here. We will then
11 work our way back. This would be more of
12 a sensitive demolition. We will have to
• 13 do it an environmentally sensitive way. I
14 don't know how we would do that but we
15 will have to be done with equipment.
16 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: What I am
17 hearing is that you have no objection to
18 following the practice that is outlined
19 in Suffolk County Soil and Water?
20 MR. FITZGERALD: Absolutely.
21 MR. LARK: The contractor doing the
22 job, has the job, if approved. He has had
23 experience with removing pool almost in
24 an identical situation to this. This is
• 25 15 or 20 feet lower, where the other one
January 9, 2014 Regular Meeting 22
• 1 was 40 or 50. What they found is, yes, by
2 using skid roaders, going in and
3 attaching and pulling away, they didn't
4 have to get close to the bluff with heavy
5 machinery. Then they were able to do with
6 jack hammers to defuse concrete debris.
7 Because of the heavy machinery, I don't
8 care how many haybale's you have near the
9 bluff, you're going to disturb it. We are
10 well aware of that. The owners were quite
11 persistent in how you were going to do
12 that so that you don't disturb the bluff
• 13 without a big erosion problem created.
14 They don't want to get involved with the
15 DEC and get that squared away. And I did
16 notice, they are sensitive, especially
17 Mr. Frasier who is the supervisor of the
18 building of this type of work. He said
19 drywells are all going to be put in.
20 That's a given because they are all
21 broken. Curiously, I asked a question and
22 I said, "where are they dumping the
23 discharge in the pool?" They think they
24 found a line. Because you know where that
25 is going, it's going over the bluff. You
January 9, 2014 Regular Meeting 23
• 1 know it and I know it. It's just a
2 question where. It was hidden apparently
3 in the shrubbery there. So that will all
4 be eliminated. That's a good thing. As
5 they get close to the bluff, there is
6 talk about proposing haybale's. I also
7 proposed a silk fence form because it's
8 more permanent, especially if any
9 construction is going to be done. The
i
10 silk fence is much more effective with
11 keeping everything down. You know, that
12 type of thing.
• 13 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: They actually
14 went as far as to suggest construction in
15 May or April or October of September
16 because of the opportunity to seed.
17 MR. LARK: Yes. If they can get the
18 work done in March, they can seed it in
19 April and May, because they are going to
20 put all lawn in there. That is clear. The
21 other thing that the only thing that I
22 saw an issue with and there is not an
23 erosion problem or not an environmental
24 problem with sprinkler systems if they
• 25 are properly managed. They can't be on
January 9, 2014 Regular Meeting 24
1 24/7. You have to put timers and
•
2 everything. And with that expansive lawn
3 and everything, I don't know how else you
4 would keep it green, for lack of a better
5 word without irrigation. That is the only
6 issue that I took with it. I think the
7 sensitively with the removal of the pool
8 and done by hand, we were okay with. The
9 erosion that they found was on the
10 eastern end and we're not going to be
11 working on the eastern end. So I thought
12 that was a plus. That's about
13 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: So you would
14 have no difficulty, I would take it just
15 because we could avoid lengthy verbiage
16 this way, if we make reference in the
17 decision to the applicant to conform to
18 regulations and maybe not the irrigation
19 systems, but to conform to the best
20 practices in the letter. We are not going
21 to spell out in the decision about the 20
22 points that they are making.
23 MR. LARK: There would be no question
24 of that. The owner would approve of that
• 25 because it gives a management tool with
January 9, 2014 Regular Meeting 25
• 1 their supervisors in keeping. When you
2 are doing a project like this, they told
3 me it's going to be up to a million
4 dollars by the time that they are done
5 with this, they obviously have owners
6 representative on the property. So this
7 would be a handbook or guideline. So I
8 appreciate that.
9 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Even better, we
10 can e-mail you a copy of a document that
11 we received. This was the condensed
12 version.
• 13 MR. LARK: Oh. I didn't know that.
14 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Yes. We got a
15 35 page document. They really did a
16 thorough job.
17 MR. LARK: They did.
18 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: So we will give
19 you that.
20 MR. LARK: Okay.
21 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Let me see if
22 the Board has any other questions. Gerry?
23 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No.
24 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Ken?
25 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: None.
January 9, 2014 Regular Meeting 26
• 1 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Eric?
2 MEMBER DANTES: No questions.
3 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay. Is there
4 anyone else in the audience who would
5 like to address this application?
6 (No Response.)
7 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Hearing no
8 further questions or comments, I will
9 make a motion to close the hearing and
10 reserve decision to a later date.
11 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Second.
12 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: All in favor?
• 13 MEMBER DANTES: Aye.
14 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye.
15 MEMBER HORNING: Aye.
16 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye.
17 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Aye.
18 (See Minutes for Resolution.)
19
20 HEARING #6712 - RICHARD & LORRAINE
21 BURDEN
22 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The next
23 application before the Board is for
24 Richard and Lorraine Burden, #6712.
• 25 Request for variances from Article XXII
January 9, 2014 Regular Meeting 27
1 Section 280-116B, Article XXIII Section
2 280-124 and the Building Inspector's last
3 updated December 4, 2013 Notice of
4 Disapproval based on an application for
5 building permit for "as-built" deck
6 additions and in-ground swimming pool,
7 at, 1) less than the code required
8 bulkhead setback of 75 feet, 2) less than
9 the code required rear yard setback of 50
10 feet, 3) less than the minimum code
11 required side yard setback of 15 feet,
12 located at: 2800 Old Jule Lane, corner of
• 13 Channel Lane, adjacent to dredged canal
14 in Mattituck.
15 Good morning. Is there anyone to
16 address the Board? If you could come to
17 the podium and state your name for the
18 record, please.
19 MR. BURDEN: My name is Richard
20 Burden. I am the owner of the property at
21 2800 Old Jule Lane and the adjacent lot
22 next door.
23 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Let me just
24 enter into the record the specifics of
• 25 this application. It would appear that
January 9, 2014 Regular Meeting 28
• 1 the LWRP I will give you a copy of
2 that letter.
3 MR. BURDEN: I think I have that. I
4 am not familiar is that the LWRP; is
5 that what you're talking about?
6 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Local Waterfront
7 Revitalization Board.
8 MR. BURDEN: I went down to Town Hall
9 yesterday and I pulled up on the computer
10 the original Trustees permit, and the
11 first one says the first one is
12 there was two things. There was a
• 13 landscaped buffer and the other one was
14 the area in the back (In Audible) jetting
15 out. I looked at and I have it here for
16 you. It's there. It shows it on the map.
17 He claims that it's not there. I pulled
18 up and printed it and the (In Audible) is
19 there. It was there when I bought the
20 house 30 years ago.
21 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Let me walk you
22 through this a little bit. It would
23 appear from the original permit that the
24 "as-built" pool and deck, it's somewhat
25 different then what was described in that
•
January 9, 2014 Regular Meeting 29
• 1 original permit. It was a wetlands
2 permit. And the recommendation of the
3 LWRP there were additional structures.
4 There was also a drywell that was shown
5 on that permit for the Trustees that's
6 not there. That was for pool dewatering.
7 MR. BURDEN: It's there.
8 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: It needs to be
9 confirmed where that is. The landscaping
10 between the bulkhead and the pool deck
11 I am just going over what the issues are.
12 I am not concluding anything. The LWRP
• 13 recommendation right now, is looking at
14 that as a landscaped buffer. Prohibition
15 of pesticides and fertilizers. The
16 concern is that it's incredibly close to
17 the channel. Now what you are before this
18 Board is, the "as-built" deck, with a
19 34x14 pool, the deck is 3.8 feet from the
20 bulkhead. The code requires 75 feet.
21 The rear yard setback is at 23 feet. The
22 code requires 50 feet. The side yard
23 setback is at 8.8 feet, the code requires
24 a minimum of 15 feet. And those are the
• 25 three areas of variance relief that the
January 9, 2014 Regular Meeting 30
• 1 Board is looking at. There are no CO's
2 or building permits for the deck or the
3 pool that we could find; is that
4 correct?
5 MR. BURDEN: 20 years I went and did
6 the DEC work. I did the Trustees work. At
7 that time, I went into the Building
8 Department and filled out some paperwork
9 and told I was okay to go. And that is
10 why I did the project. It wasn't like I
11 just ignored the people. You know, I did
12 the hard work. The DEC and the Trustees
• 13 were the hardest part. The reason why the
14 pool was behind the house like that, if
15 you look at the map, when I bought this
16 house, I inherited a lot of problems with
17 it. My property line, on the left side of
18 the house, literally I have an issue
19 where my property line runs along the
20 line of the gutter on the what would
21 be considered the south side of the
22 house. My house is literally on the
23 property line. And I looked this all up.
24 When I went down and asked these
• 25 questions, (In Audible) the previous
January 9, 2014 Regular Meeting 31
• 1 owner already had the house built before
2 he owned the lot next door. And so I
3 have no side yard clearance, technically
4 on that side of the house. So I had no
5 place to put the pool except on the back
6 of the house.
7 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: It would appear
8 that those two lots are merged?
9 MR. BURDEN: No, never happened.
10 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Well, I think
11 that the Building Department will
12 disagree with that. That's not what is
• 13 before us.
14 MR. BURDEN: Can you tell me when
15 they were merged because they were in
16 separate names the whole time?
17 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I know. Lots of
18 things have happened where people thought
19 the property they ended up being
20 merged in the long run. There is no deck
21 or pool listed on the property record
22 card either.
23 MR. BURDEN: No.
24 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: It's not on the
• 25 property card in the Assessor's Office.
January 9, 2014 Regular Meeting 32
• 1 MR. BURDEN: Okay.
2 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: If there is a
3 drywell on that property for pool
4 dewatering
5 MR. BURDEN: I can tell you where it's
6 on the picture.
7 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: If you can tell
8 us where you think it is
9 MR. BURDEN: Oh, I know exactly where
10 it is. If you look where the word "P" is
11 and pool.
12 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Are we looking
I
. 13 at this survey, sir?
14 MR. BURDEN: Yes.
15 (Whereupon, Mr. Burden approached the
16 Board.)
17 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: All right. Let's
18 see what other people have and if there
19 are any questions from the Board.
20 Do you have any questions?
21 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No.
22 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Ken?
23 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: No, not at this
24 point.
• 25 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: George?
January 9, 2014 Regular Meeting 33
• 1 MEMBER HORNING: When was the pool
2 built?
3 MR. BURDEN: When I was looking
4 yesterday, I thought it was 15 years ago,
5 but the application said that it was
6 1994.
7 MEMBER HORNING: And that is when you
8 think the pool was built?
I
9 MR. BURDEN: It might had been the
I
10 Spring of 1995, in or around that time.
11 MEMBER HORNING: And you had
12 purchased the property in 1986; correct?
13 MR. BURDEN: Yes. I did all the
14 paperwork myself. It was very time
15 consuming. I did hire someone from the
16 South Fork for the DEC.
17 MEMBER HORNING: And this is one
18 parcel now?
19 MR. BURDEN: Well, I did a lot I
20 don't believe. It's two lots. You are
21 taking a lot of value away from me. I own
22 both properties, and my wife and I own
23 the house. I did the research the other
24 day. It has two tax map numbers. The lot
• 25 is bigger the lot to the west is
January 9, 2014 Regular Meeting 34
II
• 1 actually bigger than the lot that the
2 house is on. It was always in separate
3 names. In fact at the closing, I had to
4 buy it from the estate. It has always
5 been in separate and single tax maps.
6 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Well, the Merger
7 Law changed. In 1958, the Zoning Board
8 approved a variance on that lot to build
9 an accessory garage. It's the same garage
10 that is on there?
11 MR. BURDEN: Absolutely.
12 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: So you had a
• 13 prior variance relief
14 MR. BURDEN: I had nothing.
15 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I am just
16 looking at the history of the property.
17 MR. BURDEN: In the research that I
18 did, the Town was going to own or buy at
19 that point, it was old (In Audible) boat
I
20 ramp there or anything and June sold the
21 property to an individual, and it's now
22 owned by the County of Suffolk. Okay.
23 So
24 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Those issues
• 25 are related to the property. They are
i
January 9, 2014 Regular Meeting 35
• 1 not what is before us at this point. It's
2 the setbacks that are nonconforming.
3 MR. BURDEN: I had no other place to
4 put the pool, unless I put it in my front
5 yard.
6 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay. On
7 waterfront properties, pools are
8 permitted in front yards by code, for
9 obvious environmental reasons. The fact
10 is, it's there. The question is, what do
11 we do about it? Clearly you need to get a
12 certificate of occupancy for it.
• 13 MR. BURDEN: Yes, ma'am.
14 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: And that is why
15 you are before us. We have to find ways
16 of mitigating, which is very substantial
17 setback. Very substantial. More than 500
is for the rear yard setback. It looks like
19 a 95% setback from the bulkhead. In
20 terms of the percentage of relief. It's
21 not that we can't grant those things. We
22 have to find ways of mitigating them. One
23 of the things that you would be required
24 is an updated or amended permit from the
. 25 Trustees, and that would be a part of
January 9, 2014 Regular Meeting 36
• 1 this decision. Just so you are aware of
2 it. They will pick up where we left off
3 and see what could be done with
4 environmental impacts. Clearly, at this
5 point, the removal of the swimming pool
6 is going to cause severe land disturbance
7 and so I don't know how realistic that
8 is at this point. It requires heavy
9 equipment and a lot of land disturbance.
10 MR. BURDEN: Several houses down,
11 there is another pool. Not quite as close
12 but the same thing. Same situation. Same
• 13 lot size. One of things we did when we
14 built this, we raised the bulkhead four
15 or five feet with the DEC and Trustees
16 permission. We dredged the creek at that
17 point. You know, I don't have anything
18 back there that has fertilizer. When you
19 come and look at my yard, people laugh
20 because it's all green and then it's all
21 yellow.
22 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Of course their
23 biggest concern is that the environmental
24 impact gets minimized.
• 25 MR. BURDEN: I understand.
January 9, 2014 Regular Meeting 37
• 1 MEMBER DANTES: The only question
2 that I had is, I am looking at the LWRP
3 and No. 6, dredging and that the highway
4 department dumps topsoil
5 MR. BURDEN: Yeah, I didn't want to
6 bring that up here. When we had those
7 floods, the Halloween storm and the
8 storms before the Town actually bought
9 a (In Audible) as you come to my house
10 and what had happened is, and it's a
11 little scary thought. The Town used to
12 have a machine or fire department truck
• 13 and they would pump the water from Old
14 Jule Lane to the Creek across my property
15 without my permission. All of a sudden, I
16 come home and there is a hose across my
17 yard. Old Jule Lane, was a collection. I
18 had worked with the Highway Department
19 previous to that and did a little. They
20 did two drains at the bottom and it
21 didn't really do nothing. Now they have
22 four or six drains up the street and it
23 has made a tremendous difference. So
24 anyway, the house across the street got
• 25 FEMA money and it had to be raised 11
January 9, 2014 Regular Meeting 38
• 1 feet on concrete blocks. When they did
2 this, a whole pile probably enough to
3 fill this area right here, filled with
4 debris and sediment. I called the Highway
5 Department. I said, you trespassed
6 against my yard. You brought a hose
7 across my yard. They had to come and
8 remove it. There was nothing there except
9 gook and debris. They said that they came
10 down and dumped two loads of topsoil into
11 the creek. Right into that pile. This has
12 ruined my backyard waterfront. I did
• 13 nothing wrong to deserve this punishment.
14 Now, I have lost my waterfront property.
15 I find out from my neighbors that there
16 is a hose on my property pumping up the
17 street and then I call the department to
18 complain and you know
19 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Well, you would
20 get a chance to address the Trustees.
21 MEMBER HORNING: Going over your
22 reasons for the appeal. And you are
23 stating that there won't be any
24 undesirable change in the neighborhood.
• 25 The pool was done with DEC and Trustees
January 9, 2014 Regular Meeting 39
• 1 approval. You came upon the date of 1994
2 of when you did this. I am asking you to
3 submit some information to us of other
4 nonconforming pools for variances granted
5 for pools, nonconforming pools in the
6 immediate neighborhood.
7 MR. BURDEN: I can give you two.
8 MEMBER HORNING: So give us on paper,
9 if you would. Do some research of other
10 pools in the neighborhood.
11 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: What's
12 important is, whether those pools
13 received variance relief to build it. You
14 know, a pool was installed
15 MR. BURDEN: It was after mine. It was
16 within the same period. I can tell you
17 one was
18 MEMBER HORNING: We need this on
19 paper.
20 MR. BURDEN: No problem.
21 MEMBER HORNING: You can't achieve
22 this by any other method. No other place
23 to install on the property. That is what
24 you say. No. 3, the amount of relief that
• 25 is requested is not substantial. And you
January 9, 2014 Regular Meeting 40
• 1 are stating that there was no bulkhead
2 setback requirement at that time. I am
3 stressed to think that there was no
4 bulkhead setback requirement?
5 MR. BURDEN: I wrote that because I
6 figured there was a setback requirement,
7 that the DEC's would be all over it. They
8 gave us approval.
9 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: That doesn't
10 mean that the code wasn't there or in
11 place. They gave you approval and relief
12 from the code.
13 MEMBER HORNING: I am questioning
14 that response that you have. I would like
15 to know what the code requirement was for
16 setback requirements? And also, one
17 other topic that I wanted to mention,
18 another variance granted in 1968, the
19 Chairperson already mentioned it, the
20 granting of a garage with a nonconforming
21 side yard setback.
22 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: It's 1958.
23 MEMBER HORNING: There is two. The '58
24 one was road frontage. Ten years later in
• 25 1968, another owner applied for a
January 9, 2014 Regular Meeting 41
1 variance to put a garage on the property
•
2 and with a nonconforming setback of
3 Channel Lane
4 MR. BURDEN: No, that is
5 MEMBER HORNING: Listen to me for a
6 second, sir. Because I want to cover this
7 complete. I just want to mention, that I
8 think by code you can't have an accessory
9 on a lot without a principal dwelling. Am
10 I correct with that?
11 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: You're correct.
12 MEMBER HORNING: I am thinking that
• 13 that was the code. I am requesting, for
14 your information, because I don't think
15 that code allows for an accessory
16 building on a lot by itself. So
17 therefore
18 MR. BURDEN: I think you made a
19 mistake. I think there is a typo there.
20 You're saying 168.
21 MEMBER HORNING: There is two
22 variances, sir.
23 MR. BURDEN: Well, they can't be for
24 the same building.
• 25 MEMBER HORNING: They are not. One is
January 9, 2014 Regular Meeting 42
1 a lot frontage on Old Jule Lane. One is
•
2 for a nonconforming front yard setback
3 for a garage. It doesn't mention anything
4 about
5 MR. BURDEN: Channel Lane; correct?
6 MEMBER HORNING: Yes.
7 MR. BURDEN: But Channel Lane is a
8 nonexistent paper road
9 MEMBER HORNING: Sir, what I am saying
10 is that it doesn't mention anything about
11 granting a variance for an accessory
12 building on a vacant lot. So my
• 13 assumption is and I have been looking at,
14 is that this is one lot. That's all I am
15 going to say.
16 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: There are
17 instances back in the day when adjacent
18 properties did receive relief for the
19 creation of an accessory structure even
20 without a principle dwelling. I would
21 suggest that you go to the Building
22 Department just to confirm it yourself.
23 MR. BURDEN: I have spoken to the
24 supervisor about this and separate lots
• 25 and I was told that I have separate lots.
January 9, 2014 Regular Meeting 43
• 1 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Well, I would
2 suggest that you go to the Assessor's
3 Office and the Building Department
4 because our records indicate they are
5 one. However, that is not before us. And
6 I think we have covered the issues with
7 regard to the pool and the deck.
8 MR. BURDEN: So you need a letter
9 from me showing other pools in the area
10 and variances like this, where the
11 situation that people got relief?
12 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: If there are
• 13 variances in the neighborhood that have
14 received variance relief and CO's, then
15 we would like to know about it.
16 MR. BURDEN: Absolutely.
17 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Because it then
18 goes along to define character of the
19 neighborhood, which is one of the
20 standards.
21 MR. BURDEN: What else do you want
22 from me?
23 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: That is all
24 that I think that I would require. We
• 25 just took testimony from you where you
January 9, 2014 Regular Meeting 44
• 1 believe the drywell is for the pool. It
2 probably would be a good thing to get
3 that updated on the survey. Have it
4 identified by a surveyor and put on the
5 survey. You are going to need to have
6 that information for the Trustees anyway.
7 So that will save you some time. I am
8 asking you to take your existing survey
9 let me show you.
10 MR. BURDEN: I understand. You want
11 it updated.
12 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay. Any other
• 13 comments from the Board?
14 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I just want to
15 know when the timber walkway was built,
16 was that after the pool?
17 MR. BURDEN: Yes. The kids can't just
18 walk down there. So I just took boards
19 and laid them down.
20 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Is there anyone
21 else in the audience that would like to
22 address this application?
23 (No Response.)
24 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay. Hearing
• 25 no further questions, I am going to make
January 9, 2014 Regular Meeting 45
• 1 a motion to close this hearing subject
2 receipt of documentation of nonconforming
3 pools with CO's and variance relief in
4 the subject neighborhood and an updated
5 survey showing the pool drywell.
6 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Second.
7 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: All in favor?
I
8 MEMBER DANTES: Aye.
9 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye.
10 MEMBER HORNING: Aye.
11 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye.
12 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Aye.
• 13 (See Minutes for Resolution.)
14
15 HEARING #6708 - ROBERT WALSH
16 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The next
17 application before the Board is for
18 Robert Walsh, #6708. Request for
19 variances from Article X Section 280-46
20 and Article III Section 280-15 and the
21 Building Inspector's October 15, 2013,
22 amended October 22, 2013 Notice of
23 Disapproval based on an application for
24 building permit for additions and
• 25 alterations to existing single family
January 9, 2014 Regular Meeting 46
• 1 dwelling and an accessory garage, at 1)
2 less than the code required minimum front
3 yard side yard of 15 feet for dwelling
4 additions, 2) accessory garage proposed
5 in a location other than the code
6 required rear yard, located at: 780 King
7 Street, corner of Second Street in New
8 Suffolk.
9 MR. SCARPULLA: Good morning,
10 everyone. My name is Joseph Scarpulla.
11 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Could you spell
12 your last name?
• 13 MR. SCARPULLA: Sure.
14 S-C-A-R-P-U-L-L-A.
15 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Thank you.
16 MR. SCARPULLA: I am here for my
17 applicants, Mr. And Mrs. Walsh. They
18 bought the property earlier this year. It
19 is an older home that is built in the
20 early 1930's. It's an older home. A lot
21 of additions was done to it in the early
22 70's. They purchased the home for a
23 purpose of a summer home and eventually a
24 retirement home. They have two children.
• 25 One is in college and one is in high
January 9, 2014 Regular Meeting 47
• 1 school. We are here for two separate
2 variances. One is for the main structure.
3 The existing house is nonconforming. The
4 original survey of the property (In
5 Audible).
6 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: You said the edge
7 of the pavement to the property line is
8 about what, 10-15 feet?
9 MR. SCARPULLA: About 10 to 15 feet.
10 MEMBER HORNING: That would be Town
11 property that you're referring to, sir?
12 MR. SCARPULLA: Yes. (In Audible).
• 13 MEMBER HORNING: And that is reducing
14 the front yard setbacks to what the
15 Building Department is
16 MR. SCARPULLA: Right.
17 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Just so you're
18 aware, we do record this. We're required
19 by law to have a transcript and we just
20 want to make sure that you speak into the
21 mic as much as possible, so we can be
22 sure to get it and be accurate. Just so
23 you're aware, all the Board members have
24 been there and did a site inspection.
• 25 There is a front yard of 5 feet from
January 9, 2014 Regular Meeting 48
• 1 Kings Street, where a minimum of 15 foot
2 is required by code. And proposed
3 accessory garage partially in a front
4 yard, on Second Street. The code requires
5 a rear yard. You're maintaining the
6 required 15 foot rear yard setback on
7 Second Street. I did have some quick
8 questions. The accessory garage that
9 you're proposing has an exterior
10 staircase to a second story attic?
11 MR. SCARPULLA: Yes, that is correct.
12 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: And the proposed
• 13 use is what? Just storage?
14 MR. SCARPULLA: Mostly storage. Off
15 season equipment, boating equipment. The
16 Walsh's have a train collection. So he is
17 considering putting that up there. Mostly
18 storage.
19 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Any heat or
20 plumbing or finishing's?
21 MR. SCARPULLA: No.
22 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: And the interior
23 of the garage is for cars?
24 MR. SCARPULLA: Correct.
• 25 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: What is the
January 9, 2014 Regular Meeting 49
• 1 proposed height for the accessory
2 garage?
3 MR. SCARPULLA: 22 feet.
4 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay. I ask
5 that simply because there is another
6 property fairly close by and it could
7 have the height, not the setback but the
8 height could have an impact on that
9 property.
10 MR. SCARPULLA: I was going to say
11 that it is heavily wooded and screened in
12 that area.
• 13 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: But again, that
14 is why I asked about the height. Is it
15 higher than the existing evergreens or it
16 will be.
17 MR. SCARPULLA: I am just going to
18 see if the Board has any questions.
19 Gerry, do you have any questions?
20 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I was just
21 concerned about the volume aspect of
22 putting another second story well, it
23 already is a second story and any
24 encroachment on the front yard area. It
25 is my understanding that prior to the
•
January 9, 2014 Regular Meeting 50
• 1 owner that owns is, was a store. It was
2 a deli and then it was a store.
3 MR. WALSH: Robert Walsh. I am the
4 owner of the property. The house that
5 was the store, the old Agway, is across
6 Second Street. This house was never a
7 store.
8 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: You think it was
9 actually across the street?
10 MR. WALSH: Yes. It's on the other
11 side of Second Street. It's a longer
12 house. So that was the old Agway. This
• 13 house I was told it was a residence.
14 That is as far as I know.
15 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I never said it
16 wasn't residential.
17 MR. WALSH: Okay.
18 MEMBER HORNING: Can I ask about the
19 house across the street that was an
20 Agway. What was the zoning?
21 MR. WALSH: I don't know.
22 MEMBER HORNING: Where is the plus or
23 minis 5 foot nonconforming side yard
24 setback? Where is that exactly shown on
• 25 the information that we have?
January 9, 2014 Regular Meeting 51
• 1 MR. SCARPULLA: (In Audible.) I have
2 it as 5.8, but it's a plus or minus.
3 MEMBER HORNING: Then I will
4 follow-up with, alternative plans. Did
5 you think of any alternatives to actually
6 that you could decrease the already
7 existing nonconformity?
8 MR. SCARPULLA: Well, we did start
9 with leaving the house with the existing
10 floodplain of the building and where it
11 is. It is just very flat.
12 Architecturally, it wasn't very pleasing.
• 13 Flat walls. It's just very flat. There
14 is no portico entry covering. The entry
15 covering is sort of a nice thing to have.
16 It softens the facade by doing it. It's
17 not I dont' need it for space,
18 necessarily. It's really doing it to
19 soften the facade.
20 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I understand
21 you wanting to probably keep on a small
22 lot, the maximum rear yard for
23 recreational purposes. Given the height
24 of this proposed accessory garage and the
• 25 proximity to the neighbor, would you
January 9, 2014 Regular Meeting 52
• 1 consider the possibility of moving that
2 over to 15 feet to the side yard?
3 MR. SCARPULLA: The side yard?
4 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Yes.
5 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: It's 10 to the
6 staircase?
7 MR. SCARPULLA: Yes. That's correct.
8 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I just want to
9 make sure that we're reading this
10 correctly. It's 10 feet from the
11 staircase?
12 MR. SCARPULLA: From the staircase.
• 13 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: So the
14 staircase is a little less. So if we
15 bumped it over a little 5 feet more,
16 there would be a little more breathing
17 room and have the opportunity, if it came
18 up, if there was lack of privacy, you
19 could plant some evergreens. Now, are
20 there evergreens on your property or are
21 they on the neighbor's property.
22 MR. WALSH: They're actually on both.
23 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay. They're
24 straddling the property line.
• 25 MEMBER HORNING: Sir, what was there
January 9, 2014 Regular Meeting 53
• 1 in the site where you are proposing the
2 garage? Was there a structure there?
3 MR. SCARPULLA: We think that there
4 was a garage there originally or a barn.
5 Some structure was there.
6 MEMBER HORNING: And did the
7 Chairperson ask you whether or not you
8 could make the garage setback less
9 nonconforming or you know partially,
10 you are proposing to put it in the front
11 yard? Could you put it more in the side
12 yard?
• 13 MR. SCARPULLA: Well, I think we just
14 agreed to move it 5 more feet from the
15 side yard. If we move it another 5 feet,
16 it would be 18 feet.
17 MEMBER HORNING: You are proposing to
18 do that?
19 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I just asked
20 him to do that. The important thing to
21 note here is that almost every lot in
22 that area is nonconforming. Almost every
I
23 structure on every lot is nonconforming.
24 Most of the structures that are there are
• 25 seasonal and small lots. Nonconforming
January 9, 2014 Regular Meeting 54
• 1 setback issues.
2 MR. BURDEN: I just wanted to show
3 you a photograph of the area. And in the
4 photograph, you can see that there are
5 structures that are very close to the
6 street. And I am sure, even closer than
7 the 15 foot. Directly across the street,
8 you will see there is a structure that is
9 even closer to King Street then we are.
10 MR. WALSH: Robert Walsh. They just
11 recently started doing a renovation.
12 They're putting a wrap around porch. So
• 13 I assume they came before you, the Board,
14 as well.
15 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: We have had
16 several. It would be useful if you could
17 submit a letter with whatever variances
18 that were granted for front yards and
19 accessory garages. I know, there is
20 Orchard.
21 MEMBER HORNING: Right across the
22 street. They did a nice job too.
23 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Yes. There are
24 several. That kind of information is
• 25 very helpful to the Board as well. It
January 9, 2014 Regular Meeting 55
1 helps with the various standards that we
• 2 have to do and the character of the
3 neighborhood. The code does allow one to
4 look at setbacks of a given street and
5 take an average and define that as an
6 average.
7 MR. SCARPULLA: Yes.
8 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That is really
9 done by a surveyor.
10 MR. SCARPULLA: I just wanted to
11 mention that the size of that lot in that
12 zone is 20,000 square feet. So the lot
• 13 is you know, half the size of this
14 one. This one here, is very, very close
15 to the property line. That is on Second
16 Street.
I
17 Is the Second Street not much of an
18 issue as the King Street?
19 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Yes, I think
20 so.
21 Okay. Does the Board have any other
22 questions?
23 MR. WALSH: When I did the mailing,
24 three came back out of the four. They
• 25 asked me to get tracking on the fourth
January 9, 2014 Regular Meeting 56
• 1 one. I printed out the tracking.
2 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Vicki will take
3 that. Thank you. Let me ask you, it
4 would probably expedite things if you
5 agree to amend your accessory garage
6 location. If you could submit an amended
7 site plan locating it where we just
8 discussed.
9 MR. SCARPULLA: Absolutely.
10 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Then we can
11 stamp that.
12 Is there any other questions?
• 13 (No Response.)
14 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Is there anyone
15 in the audience who wishes to address
16 this application?
17 (No Response.)
18 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Hearing no
19 further comments or questions, I will
20 make a motion to close the hearing and
21 reserve decision to a later date, subject
22 to an variances in the area and an
23 amended site plan.
24 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Second.
• 25 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: All in favor?
January 9, 2014 Regular Meeting 57
• 1 MEMBER DANTES: Aye.
2 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye.
3 MEMBER HORNING: Aye.
4 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye.
5 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Aye.
6 (See Minutes for Resolution.)
7
8 HEARING #6707 - BETTY DEROSKI
9 REVOCABLE TRUST
10 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The next
11 application before the Board is for
12 Betty Deroski Revocable Trust, #6707.
• 13 This is a request for Waiver of Merger
14 under Article II, Section 280-10A, to
15 unmerge land identified as SCTM#
16 1000-136-1-24.1, based on the Building
17 Inspector's October 30, 2013 Notice of
18 Disapproval, which states adjoining
19 conforming or nonconforming lots held in
20 common ownership shall merge until the
21 total lot size conforms to the current
22 bulk schedule, minimum 40,000 square feet
23 in this R-40 Residential Zone District,
24 this lot is merged with lots 1001-1-21 &
• 25 22, located at: 275 Oak Street, 2835 and
January 9, 2014 Regular Meeting 58
• 1 2855 Harbor Lane in Cutchogue.
2 Is there someone here to represent
3 this application?
4 MS. HOEG: Yes. Karen Hoeg from
5 Toomey, Latham. I am here on behalf of
6 Jay Quatararro as the trustee of the
7 Estate of Betty Deroski who died
8 October 14, 2009. I have a copy of the
9 appointment of Mr. Quatararro for the
10 Board.
11 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Could you just
12 repeat your name for the record?
• 13 MS. HOEG: Sure. Karen Hoeg, H-O-E-G.
14 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Thank you.
15 MS. HOEG: Pursuant to Betty Deroski
16 trust dated February 29, 2000 and
17 reinstated on January 29, 2009, Blair
18 McBride, her neighbor and caretaker
19 received property at 2835 Harbor Lane
20 which is lots 28 and 22 outright. That is
21 set forth on Page 4 Section B. That
22 stated that 24.1, which is the Oak Street
23 property was to be sold with proceeds
24 distributed to various entities including
• 25 local charities. By way of background, in
January 9, 2014 Regular Meeting 59
1 2010 when Betty died, lot's 21 and 22
• 2 were transferred to Blaire McBride
3 pursuant to the trust, including the
4 title to sell lot 24.1 which was the Oak
5 Street property. It came to our attention
6 that in 1986, Robert Deroski, Betty's
7 husband, held all three lots in common
8 ownership. Robert and Betty had put all
9 lots in Robert's sole name in 1986. And
10 what we are seeking to do here is unmerge
11 lot 24.1 from lot's 21 and 22, the lot's
12 that were gifted to Blaire McBride by the
• 13 trust. Mr. McBride (sic) signed a waiver
14 and given consent to unmerge 24.1 from
15 his property. Lot 24.1 is nonconforming
16 under current zoning and tax map and CO
17 (In Audible). The CO is for a habitable
18 structure that was issued in 1979. We are
19 asking for the unmerger of lot 24.1 so it
20 can be sold pursuant to the trust
21 directive. Also asking that 24.1 be
22 merged with property located at 2725
23 Harbor Lane, which abuts the lot. The lot
24 only has value to the neighboring
25 parcels, which is also nonconforming
January 9, 2014 Regular Meeting 60
1 under current R-40 Zoning. The lot that
• 2 we're seeking to merge with is 36,839
3 square feet and merging this lot with
4 24.1 will make it conforming. In regards
5 to the standards set forth in the Town
6 Code Section 28.11, the lot proposed to
7 recognized proposed to be merged with a
8 lot related to the parties of Robert
9 Deroski in 1986 and has always been
10 treated by the Town as a separate lot
11 prior to the zoning. The CO's that were
12 issued for the lot were issued in 1979.
• 13 In 2010, when it was realized that lot
14 24.1 had merged to an unrelated party,
15 Blaire McBride had received the lot
16 through the trust, not as an outright
17 sale. As indicated on the property card,
18 you could see that there was no
19 conveyance for the lot. As evidence on
20 this property card. The Waiver of Merger
21 for lot 24.1 would recognize the lot as
22 comparable in size for the majority of
23 lots in the neighborhood. It has been
24 maintained as a separate lot. There would
• 25 be no adverse impact on the physical and
January 9, 2014 Regular Meeting 61
1 environmental conditions. And for these
• 2 reasons we request that at a minimum, lot
3 24.1 be unmerged from lot 21 and 22, and
4 lot 24.1 be merged with the property at
5 2725 Harbor Lane, which abuts the
6 property. I would be happy to answer any
7 questions that the Board may have.
8 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: We have been in
9 contact with the neighbor, and they are
10 adjacent to lot that the accessory
11 structure is on
12 MS. HOEG: Yes.
• 13 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: And their main
14 concern, from what it appears, what is to
15 happen with these accessory structures
16 that are on there? The accessory
17 structure if this unmerged prior to
18 remerging
19 MS. HOEG: There is a garage on the
20 property.
21 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Is that lot,
22 24.1 an empty lot?
23 MS. HOEG: Is there an accessory
24 structure on that property?
• 25 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: No. Is there a
January 9, 2014 Regular Meeting 62
. 1 dwelling on that property?
2 MS. HOEG: I believe so.
3 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay. If the
4 lots were are merged, then the accessory
5 structures that are currently on 24.1
6 could conceivable be legal, because
7 accessory structures are not permitted on
8 lots without a principal dwelling. The
9 neighbor was concerned that 24.1 would
10 become a building lot with a dwelling on
11 it. And one of the accessory structures
12 is quite dilapidated.
• 13 MS. HOEG: Yes. I believe there has
14 been some recent discussion about
15 demolishing that structure because it
16 can't be secured. I think the garage has
17 been secured.
I
18 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: That is the
19 larger rectangular one?
20 MS. HOEG: Right. I think the intent
21 of the owner is to pick those structures
22 up. So that they are presentable. The
23 intent is to demolish the one structure
24 that is in disrepair.
25 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Well, unless
January 9, 2014 Regular Meeting 63
1 there was an immediate merger, and the
• 2 intent of a dwelling was built, the
3 accessory structures might have to all be
4 demolished in order to merge the
5 properties. If it's going to be remerged,
6 then there would have to be a dwelling on
7 the newly merged lot.
8 MS. HOEG: The (In Audible) have a
9 house on the Harbor Lane property. The
10 property on Oak Street, they are just
11 what you are saying is that if we remerge
12 with the Harbor Lane property, the
• 13 principal dwelling would have to be
14 built
15 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: No. It means
16 that the accessory garage that is
17 currently there would be a legal
18 accessory structure because there is a
19 principal dwelling on the lot. However,
20 it's nonconforming because it's a front
21 yard on Oak Street. Accessory structures
22 are to be in the rear yard.
23 MS. HOEG: Okay.
24 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Is there a CO on
• 25 there?
January 9, 2014 Regular Meeting 64
1 MS. HOEG: Yes. And it's in the
• 2 package as well.
3 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: That's good.
4 MS. HOEG: It was issued in 1979.
5 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: So would your
6 client have a problem with a demolition
7 of the dilapidated building and the
8 unmerger be contingent upon the
9 subsequent merger of the lots?
10 MS. HOEG: I would have to check about
11 the demolition of the one structure.
12 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Is there a CO on
• 13 that structure too?
14 MS. HOEG: No. And I believe it's on
15 concrete blocks. I think it was an old
16 Mattituck Schoolhouse at one point. I
17 think it was prior to the Deroski
18 ownership.
19 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: I have a question
20 here. Looking at the tax map here, the
21 Harbor Lane parcel or lot is referred to
22 as Lot #20?
23 MS. HOEG: Yes.
24 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: So we have tax lot
• 25 #20, 21, 22 and the subject parcel, 24.1.
January 9, 2014 Regular Meeting 65
1 MS. HOEG: Yes.
• 2 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: So presently 24.1
3 is merged with 21 and 22?
4 MS. HOEG: Yes.
5 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: And your desire is
6 to unmerge it from 21 and 22?
7 MS. HOEG: Yes.
8 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: And then merge
9 24.1 with tax lot #20?
10 MS. HOEG: Yes.
11 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: And tax lot #20,
12 there is a dwelling on it?
• 13 MS. HOEG: Yes.
14 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: All right. That
15 clears it up for me.
16 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Can I ask a
17 question?
18 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Sure.
19 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Who are you
20 representing?
21 MS. HOEG: Jay Quatararro, the
22 Trustee of the Estate.
23 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: So you really
24 have nothing to do with lot #20 other
. 25 than the fact that it's going to be a
January 9, 2014 Regular Meeting 66
1 purchase. Do you have a contract with
• 2 them?
And it's
3 MS. HOEG: Yes, we do.
4 contingent upon to unmerge lot 24.1 and
5 merge it with the lot 20.
6 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Not to be
7 redundant, but based upon the Chairman's
8 request, you don't foresee a problem with
9 the demolition of that accessory
10 structure? It's really dilapidated?
11 MS. HOEG: I really don't think that
12 it would be a problem because it's such
• 13 in a state of disrepair, but I would
14 really have to talk to the buyer's
15 attorney about it. If that would be
16 approval of any unmerger and remerger and
17 would be conditioned upon the removal of
18 the dilapidated building.
19 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: So the point in
20 question, where do we go from a point of
21 here in this situation?
22 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Well, part of
i
23 the reason for the demolition, partly
24 because it's dilapidated, is that it was
• 25 never legally established. You have a CO
January 9, 2014 Regular Meeting 67
1 for the framed garage. So we are trying
• 2 to clean up all of their
3 MS. HOEG: Mess. That is something
4 that I could speak to the buyer's
5 attorney this afternoon and send a letter
6 over to counsel, as well as to the Board
7 and advise them if that is something that
8 they would consider.
9 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I actually look
10 at that building as a violation.
11 MS. HOEG: Right. It's under 40,000.
12 36,839.
• 13 MEMBER HORNING: And it is going to
14 be merged with 24.1?
15 MS. HOEG: Yes. Currently, it's in
16 contract. I am assuming the intent is
17 that they are seeking to merge it with
18 their property, they can do it by
19 operation by law. I know the contract
20 was contingent on the lot.
21 MEMBER HORNING: What are the average
22 lot sizes? Lot 20 is quite large.
23 MS. HOEG: 21 and 22 are roughly
24 about 15,000 square feet. They are not
• 25 very large parcels.
I
January 9, 2014 Regular Meeting 68
1 MEMBER HORNING: So then the newly
• 2 merged lots would be very large for that
3 neighborhood.
4 MS. HOEG: They are all
5 nonconforming. If it was merged
6 together, then it would make it more of a
7 conforming lot.
8 MEMBER HORNING: How many of these
9 lots are merged already?
10 MS. HOEG: In looking at records from
11 the Assessor's Office, I don't believe
12 any of those properties are merged. They
13 all hold separate ownership.
14 MEMBER HORNING: Okay.
15 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: So where are we
16 with this? The intent is for you to
17 confirm with your clients.
18 MS. HOEG: I know my clients would be
19 amenable to demolishing the structure
20 that doesn't have the CO on the property.
21 It's the buyer's attorney that I would
22 have to confer with. To see if that is
23 something that they would be willing to
24 do.
• 25 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Well, of course
January 9, 2014 Regular Meeting 69
• 1 this Board can make that as a condition
2 of the merger, and that would take care
3 of that. However, in consideration of
4 the complexity of the transfer of
5 ownership, it would make things easier
6 for you if that would not be an issue.
7 So we could just close subject to
8 receipt. We can close it relative to you
9 saying it's okay or not. We could just
10 rather than closing it now, we could
11 just carry this over to two weeks to the
12 Special Meeting, and we can close that
• 13 meeting at that time. What happens then,
14 it gives us the opportunity to take in
15 letters, correspondence and any questions
16 about it.
17 MS. HOEG: Okay.
18 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: We could likely
19 be prepared to make a decision right
20 after closing. It depends on what and
21 when we get from you.
22 MS. HOEG: Certainly.
23 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: First I have to
24 see if there is anyone in the audience
• 25 that would like to address this
January 9, 2014 Regular Meeting 70
• 1 application. That may raise other
2 issues. Is there anyone here?
3 (No Response.)
4 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: We do have some
5 written correspondence, which I can give
6 you a copy for your file. That's from
7 the neighbor. They were concerned about
8 the accessory structures and they were
9 worried about 24.1 would become a new
10 house. So those were those issues.
11 MS. HOEG: Right.
12 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: So why don't we
• 13 do this, why don't we adjourn this to the
14 Special Meeting and that gives you an
15 opportunity to speak to your clients and
16 so forth. The Special Meeting is on
17 January two weeks from today, the
18 23rd. Okay. So I am going to make a
19 motion to adjourn this meeting to
20 January 23rd, the Special Meeting.
21 Is there a second?
22 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Second.
23 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: All in favor?
24 MEMBER DANTES: Aye.
25 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye.
•
January 9, 2014 Regular Meeting 71
• 1 MEMBER HORNING: Aye.
2 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye.
3 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Aye.
4 (See Minutes for Resolution.)
6 HEARING #6713 - WALTER MURPHY (ESTATE
7 OF)
8 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The next
9 application before the Board is for
10 Walter Murphy, #6713. This is a request
11 for a Waiver of Merger under Article II,
12 Section 280-10A, to unmerge land
• 13 identified as SCTM #1001-110-3-10, based
14 on the Building Inspector's
15 November 25, 2013 Notice of Disapproval,
16 which states adjoining conforming or
17 nonconforming lost held in common
18 ownership shall merge until the total lot
19 size conforms to the current bulk
20 schedule, minimum 40,000 square feet in
21 this R-40 Residential Zone District, this
22 lot is merged with lots 1000-110-3-11,
23 located at: 750 and 830 Eastwood Drive in
24 Cutchogue.
• 25 MR. SILANSKY: Good morning. It's
January 9, 2014 Regular Meeting 72
. 1 Paul Silansky.
2 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Thank you. Do
3 you have any green cards that you can
4 turn in?
5 MR. SILANSKY: Yes. I have the
6 status
7 (Whereupon, Mr. Silansky approached
8 the Board.)
9 MR. SILANSKY: I am working on the
10 Estate with the Executor, of the Arch
11 Diocese of Brooklyn. This is most of
12 Southold Town (In Audible) that were
• 13 retroactive made retroactive back in
14 1983. The proceeds have (In Audible)
15 debilitating illnesses. Primary
16 importance includes the maximizing of
17 proceeds. Purchasing was pursued for life
18 security, for themselves and others.
19 Marketed separately and originally
20 purchased and taxed ongoing, the improved
21 value realized the materials was
22 different. Specifically, the home is in
i
23 needed condition with a good structure.
24 From the time of the 1962 survey, the
• 25 small three bedroom single story ranch
January 9, 2014 Regular Meeting 73
• 1 remains in its original condition and in
2 need of repairs. There is no garage.
3 The value of the property is more about
4 the location itself. The property has
5 impressive beach rights to an association
6 membership and nearby public beach and
7 marina and the beach is available through
8 the association. By itself, a single
9 lot, impressive condition, sold as is,
10 with an asking price of $419,000. The
11 vacant lot, if separate, revealed an
12 asking price of $249,000.00. It's a
• 13 separate building lot. The total is
14 $668,000.00. As a merged property, the
15 asking price of about $519,000.00 may
16 generate enough interest to bring in
17 offers. I give you this information to
18 show there is property rights and has a
19 material impact on the property. The
20 properties combined results in a lot size
21 doubled the norm in the neighborhood. The
22 original neighborhood is mostly small
23 half acre lots. So the property as
24 combined, doubles the norm for the size
• 25 and a 20% lot coverage with a footprint
January 9, 2014 Regular Meeting 74
1 of 8640 feet. And that can be added onto
2 a two-story and doubled in size. That
3 may itself may have an adverse effect of
4 property values. Being over twice the
5 size in the neighborhood. In taking a
6 look at your consideration and your need
7 to balance, No. 1, the proposed waiver of
8 the lot is comparable in size to the
9 majority of the improved lots in the
10 size. No. 2, the lot proposed is to be
11 recognized vacant and has historically
12 been treated and maintained as a separate
• 13 residence since the day it was originally
14 created. The proposed application will
15 not create a negative in the physical and
16 environmental conditions in the district.
17 I think it's doing by merging it, it's
18 doing just that. By merging it and
19 becoming twice the size in the
20 neighborhood is doing just that and a
21 Waiver of Merger would undo that. To my
22 knowledge, there has been no (In
23 Audible) that the owner has accepted the
24 lot as merged, unless he wanted to pursue
• 25 an involuntary and uncontested merger,
January 9, 2014 Regular Meeting 75
• 1 which is always (In Audible). The plot
2 line has remained uncompromising. It has
3 been evidenced by surveys and tax maps.
4 So the lot next door has stayed vacant
5 and no building has taken place. The
6 Town continues to recognize the two lots
7 as separate individual tax entities. The
8 lot was built prior to the merger. And I
9 did do a little bit of research on the
10 surrounding estates. Several codes to
11 what is similar in Southold, have gotten
12 into (In Audible) code. In Massachusetts,
• 13 the Court recognized (In Audible) was
14 buildable by ownership. In New Hampshire,
15 in 2010, they amended their code to
16 prohibit the use of municipalities from
17 merging preexisting subdivided lots or
18 parcels except upon the expressed consent
19 of the owner. It seems to me that the
20 process has been simplified that only a
21 request can be approved by the Building
22 Department in more than accepted
23 neighborhoods.
24 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Just because in
• 25 the interest of time, your arguments are
January 9, 2014 Regular Meeting 76
• 1 about the Southold Town Code Waiver of
2 Merger and so forth. That should really
3 be submitted to the Town Board. We're
4 obligated to operate under the Town Board
5 of the Town of Southold. We can't change
6 the code. So your arguments in how the
7 municipality should handle it, is
8 something that there job should be. We do
9 consider the criteria that you began.
10 Those are the things that we really have
11 to look at in addressing our decision.
12 MR. SILANSKY: Okay.
• 13 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: So I appreciate
14 your research and your thoughts, but its
15 the wrong board.
16 MR. SILANSKY: As you do work with the
17 code, I just want to make one final more
18 point. There are a lot of exceptions to
19 the code and it should be noted it was
20 updated in 2007 in the Town of Southold.
21 They provided exceptions to the code, and
22 one of the exceptions to the code, is
23 that the lots that are described in the
24 formal document are nonconforming has
• 25 been under single and separate ownership
January 9, 2014 Regular Meeting 77
• 1 since January of 1997. Unfortunately,
2 the document that I am referencing is no
3 longer in the code. So there was
4 exceptions to it. On a particular map,
5 which turns out to be a list of
6 neighborhoods in the area, quite a number
7 of them. But that particular document is
8 no longer in the code.
9 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: I have a question
10 on your application, reason #3. Do you
11 want to find it? You wrote, once again
12 mostly resembles the norm for the 280 or
• 13 so family area. Are you referencing 280
14 lots?
15 MR. SILANSKY: Our membership is
16 around 220 families.
17 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: What membership?
18 MR. SILANSKY: They are families
19 living in the house.
20 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Okay.
21 MR. SILANSKY: There is a couple of
22 vacant lots left, but not many.
23 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: I see that your
24 application is complete and thorough. I
• 25 have no further questions myself.
January 9, 2014 Regular Meeting 78
• 1 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Eric?
2 MEMBER DANTES: No.
3 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: George, do you
4 have any questions?
5 MEMBER HORNING: My only question is
6 that I thought there was a discrepancy in
7 the address listed in the Notice of
8 Disapproval. The address in your
9 application and the address that is
10 listed in the Certificate of Occupancy. I
11 was out there earlier this morning, and
12 if I hadn't researched it, I would never
• 13 have found the place because your address
14 on the Notice of Disapproval is 750 and
15 830 Fleetwood Drive.
16 MR. SILANSKY: It's Eastwood Drive.
17 MEMBER HORNING: The application that
18 you submitted actually has the same
19 reference, which is maybe how the
20 Building Department got confused, and yet
21 it's not there. It's Eastwood
22 MR. SILANSKY: The property is at
23 110-3-10 and 11, and one of them being
24 750 and one of them being 830.
• 25 MEMBER HORNING: How did the
January 9, 2014 Regular Meeting 79
• 1 discrepancy come about? The Notice of
2 Disapproval
3 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I think it was
4 an error at the Building Department.
5 MR. SILANSKY: We picked that up at
6 the Building Department.
7 MEMBER HORNING: Okay. You know, I
8 don't live in that neighborhood. So I
9 don't know.
10 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Gerry, do you
11 have any comments or questions?
12 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No.
• 13 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Is there anyone
14 in the audience that would like to
15 address this application? Please come
16 forward to the podium and state your name
17 for the record.
18 MS. DUMASKE: My name is Carolanne
19 Dumaske. Do you want me to spell that?
20 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Please.
21 MS. DUMASKE: D-U-M-A-S-K-E. And we
22 live at 610 Eastwood Drive. We're
23 directly north of this second parcel that
24 wants to be unmerged. Can I ask the Board
• 23 a question, please? Why was it first put
January 9, 2014 Regular Meeting 80
1 in that you merged adjacent properties?
• 2 What was the reason behind that?
3 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Primarily to do
4 with the Town wanting to reduce
5 overdevelopment. In consideration in
6 trying to make them conforming. So
7 properties that were held by the same
8 person and were adjacent, were merged
9 unless they were conforming in size or
10 held in separate names. Quite possibly
11 that when either the wife or husband
12 passed away, there was a Waiver of Merger
13 upon death and then the wife or the
14 husband inherited that property. There is
15 a provision now if there is a Waiver of
16 Merger upon death. So that was the code.
17 MS. DUMASKE: To the first point you
18 made, it was put in place that the Town
19 wanted to maintain or diminishing the
20 overdevelopment. Am I right?
21 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: That is the
22 intent.
23 MS. DUMASKE: So then the unmerging
24 of these parcels would create two lots in
• 25 which two more houses could be built.
i
January 9, 2014 Regular Meeting 81
• 1 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Well one?
2 MS. DUMASKE: If you unmerge them.
3 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Yes. One of them
4 already has a house on them.
5 MS. DUMASKE: All right. I live there
6 and we have been there ten years. Just
7 about every parcel developed and it no
8 longer has that rural feel that we were
9 seeking when we moved from Nassau County.
10 It would not be a burden; however, that
11 much less. It's my feeling that when you
12 have undeveloped woods this is a
• 13 beautiful wooded area. You have deer and
14 beautiful turtles in that area. Once that
15 is developed and gone, it's gone forever.
16 The other thing that I would like to
17 address, we were friends, and he told us
18 that he had a will that absolutely forbid
19 development of the property. That it was
20 supposed to be the little cottage was
21 supposed to be used by the nuns and
22 priests of his parish for rest and
23 relaxation. Now this is the first that we
24 are hearing that it's supposed to be sold
• 25 and the proceeds used for rehabilitation
January 9, 2014 Regular Meeting 82
• 1 home. I would love to see that will. He
2 talked to us and several other neighbors.
3 He's a very friendly man. He specifically
I
4 said it was never to be developed. He
5 told my husband Ken, that you never have
6 to worry about having a next door
7 neighbor because that would never be
8 developed.
9 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I couldn't
10 possibly answer your question. Maybe he
11 can -
12 MS. DUMASKE: He's real estate. So I
• 13 would say that his interest is not the
14 same as mine.
15 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: You have to come
16 to the podium and you need to address the
17 Board, please.
18 MR. SILANSKY: I can make a request,
19 if they want to provide a copy of the
20 will to Ms. Dumaske. That's the best that
21 I could do. I don't know what their
22 answer would be. The only way that I
23 could see if that property that that lot
24 not get developed is if someone purchased
• 25 it and left it the way that it was.
i
January 9, 2014 Regular Meeting 83
1 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: To your
• 2 knowledge, is there a covenant on this
3 particular parcel that says it cannot be
4 built?
5 MR. SILANSKY: No. You can't have
6 things that are offensive are the only
7 restrictions on the property.
8 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Our
9 responsibility is to look at what the
10 code requires and qualifies as a Waiver
11 of Merger or not. It is carefully spelled
12 it. It's either it does or it does not.
• 13 So that is the procedure, legally, that
14 this Board is going to have to follow.
15 It's actually on our website, on the ZBA
16 website, but we would be happy to provide
17 you with additional information on what
18 that is. We appreciate the feelings that
19 you have expressed and along with other
20 people. We also have to balance property
21 rights in this district.
22 MS. DUMASKE: Thank you.
23 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: You're very
24 welcome. Are you next to the wooded
• 25 parcel?
January 9, 2014 Regular Meeting 84
1 MS. DUMASKE: I am.
• 2 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Is there anyone
3 else that would like to address this
4 application?
5 (No Response.)
6 MR. SILANSKY: I would like to
7 address the comments on Father Murphy's
8 request for the nuns and the priests' for
9 a place for them to come and relax.
10 Earlier in my conversation with the Arch
11 Diocese of Brooklyn, we talked a little
12 bit about the use of the property. The
• 13 suggestion was made, you know, it would
14 make a wonderful retreat. And it would.
15 It would be a place for people to go.
16 They said it was really outside of their
17 control. Thank you.
18 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Anybody else?
19 (No Response.)
20 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Hearing no
21 further comments or questions, I will
22 make a motion to close this hearing and
23 reserve decision to a later date.
24 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second.
• 25 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: All in favor?
January 9, 2014 Regular Meeting 85
1 MEMBER DANTES: Aye.
•
2 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye.
3 MEMBER HORNING: Aye.
4 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye.
5 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Aye.
6 (See Minutes for Resolution.)
7
8 HEARING #6711 - CAROLYN R. AMEEN
9 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The next
10 application before the Board is for
11 Carolyn R. Ameen, #6711. Request for
12 variance from Article XXII Section
• 13 280-116B and the Building Inspector's
14 October 10, 2013 Notice of Disapproval
15 based on an application for building
16 permit for additions and alterations to
17 existing single family dwelling, at:
18 1) less than the code required bulkhead
19 setback of 75 feet.
20 Please state your name for the
21 record?
22 MR. JUST: Glen Just.
23 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Let me give you
24 a copy of the LWRP recommendation. What
• 25 we have here is a additions and
January 9, 2014 Regular Meeting 86
• 1 alterations to a single family dwelling
2 with 60.4 bulkhead setback where the code
3 requires 75 feet. We have a letter from
4 the DEC indicating nonjurisdiction. And
5 we have a 1959 prior appeal, #140,
6 right-of-way to access the rear lot. And
7 the LWRP indicates inconsistency and
8 makes recommendations to install a 20
9 foot perpetual landscaped buffer landward
10 from marine wetlands. And No. 2, to
11 verify the location of the sanitary
12 system on the site. That is the
• 13 background. So you can proceed with what
14 you would like to state for the
15 application?
16 MR. JUST: The sanitary system itself
17 is noted on the survey. It's concrete
18 covered in the brick patio in the rear of
19 the home. That is the sanitary system.
20 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay. Do you
21 have any idea of when it was installed?
22 MR. JUST: I don't.
23 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay. To your
24 knowledge, does the Department of Health
• 25 required to get involved
January 9, 2014 Regular Meeting 87
• 1 MR. JUST: No.
2 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: All right.
3 Please simply tell us what you want to
4 do.
5 MR. JUST: Basically, the addition
6 would be the second floor with two
7 existing bedrooms being converted to one.
8 First floor additions involve two
9 bedrooms that are going to be enlarged.
10 Basically, that is what it is.
11 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: My notes show
12 we have 10X12 addition on crawl space and
• 13 a two story additions 10x12
14 MR. JUST: Yes.
15 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: A second story
16 deck with 8x38.3 feet, a pool (In
17 Audible) and a garage at 25x28 foot. A
18 63.4 bulkhead setback to the second floor
19 deck, which is over an existing brick
20 patio. The house, it looks with the
21 expansion, it looks like it's a bulkhead
22 setback at one corner at 71 foot and
23 another at 71.9 feet? Am I in the wrong
24 on that?
• 25 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: 63.4.
January 9, 2014 Regular Meeting 88
• 1 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: It's at an
2 angle.
3 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The only one that
4 is noted is the 63.4.
5 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Right.
6 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Mr. Just, is
7 there any intention at any point to put a
8 roof over that second story? It's going
9 to be left open to the sky; correct?
10 MR. JUST: Yes. Just going back to
11 the addition in the rear of the house, it
12 is 71.9. That would be the setback.
• 13 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Yes, that is
14 what I have. Well, I just wanted to point
15 out that it's not consistently at the
16 same setback. The LWRP indicates a
17 recommendation of a 20 foot wide
18 landscaped buffer landward of any marine
19 wetlands. I know part of the property
20 does slope towards the creek.
21 MR. JUST: My first time before the
22 Board, does it want a passive
23 restoration? Or does it want plantings
24 done?
• 25 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The definition
January 9, 2014 Regular Meeting 89
• 1 of landscaped buffer is in the code. It's
2 basically native plants, Rosa Rugosa,
3 Grass and so on. Things that are drought
4 tolerant and that will absorb runoff.
5 They are pretty, functional and an
6 excellent protection against runoff. We
7 can't grant any relief from anything that
8 is not consistent with LWRP. So what we
9 have to do to grant relief, we have to
10 find ways to mitigate what you are
11 proposing to do. And a landscaped buffer
12 is one of the ways to minimize.
• 13 MR. JUST: Okay.
14 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I notice that
15 the house next door has a pool. They have
16 a large bulkhead setback. It was
17 difficult to find out where the property
18 lines are. I happened to go on a day when
ill 19 I plastered to the house by the wind.
20 It's an interesting property up there.
21 Gerry, do you have questions on this?
22 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No. Just to note
23 that the only thing that is before us for
24 that setback that I discussed. And have
• 25 indicated where the cesspool was and you
January 9, 2014 Regular Meeting 90
• 1 have discussed with him the buffer.
2 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: How have you
cover is a
3 verified that that concrete
4 sanitary system?
5 MR. JUST: It was inspected.
6 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: It was. And when
7 did that take place?
8 MR. JUST: (In Audible.)
9 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Which was what
10 year? Could we get a copy of that? Do you
11 have a copy of that inspection? I'm
12 sorry, would you kindly come forward and
• 13 just state your name for the record? We
14 are recording everything. So we have to
15 hear everybody.
16 MR. FORBES: Neil Forbes. I live at
17 755 Lupton Point Road.
18 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Your last name
19 is what?
20 MR. FORBES: Forbes, F-O-R-B-E-S. We
21 just purchased the house in April and we
22 had all the inspections done on the house
23 before the sale of the house. They came
24 in and did top to bottom of the entire
• 25 yard. The sanitary system was checked and
January 9, 2014 Regular Meeting 91
• 1 pumped before we did bought the place.
2 I think we still have that inspection in
3 the file.
4 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: That would be
5 great to have a copy. We're trying to be
6 very diligent with the sanitary system
7 and have the ability runoff is really
8 a big problem with runoff into bays and
9 creeks, and we want to keep the water as
10 healthy for everyone. So that would be
11 very happy to have that in the record.
12 You are one of the few people that we
• 13 asked and had the information. Okay.
14 George?
15 MEMBER HORNING: Yes. Just to conclude
16 the discussion on the bulkhead. The
17 existing setback is 63.4; is that
18 correct? It's the same thing as the
19 proposed setback and there is no forward
20 expansion towards the stonewall in the
21 bulkhead during the construction; is that
22 correct?
23 MR. JUST: Correct.
24 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: You don't have
• 25 any problems with a restriction or a
January 9, 2014 Regular Meeting 92
• 1 statement that you will not put a roof
2 over the second story?
3 MR. JUST: No.
4 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay. Anyone
5 else? Eric, questions? Comments?
6 MEMBER DANTES: No.
7 MR. FORBES: There is no roof
8 structure over the second floor. What
9 about a retractable awning?
10 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: That's fine.
11 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That's fine.
12 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Is there anyone
• 13 else in the audience that wants to
14 address this application?
15 (No Response.)
16 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Anything else
17 from the Board?
18 (No Response.)
19 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Hearing no
20 further questions or comments, I am going
21 to make a motion to close this hearing
22 subject to receipt of a copy of the house
23 inspection verifying the location and
24 functionality of the septic.
• 25 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second.
January 9, 2014 Regular Meeting 93
1 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: All in favor?
• 2 MEMBER DANTES: Aye.
3 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye.
4 MEMBER HORNING: Aye.
5 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye.
6 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Aye.
7 (See Minutes for Resolution.)
8
9 HEARING #6709 - STEVEN & SUSAN BLOOM
10 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The next
11 application before the Board is for Steve
12 and Susan Bloom, #6709. Request for
• 13 variance from Article III Section 280-15
14 and the Building Inspector's
15 November 15, 2013 Notice of Disapproval
16 based on an application for building
17 permit for an accessory in-ground
18 swimming pool, at, 1) proposed location
19 other than the code required rear yard,
20 located at: 7800 Peconic Bay Boulevard,
21 adjacent to Great Peconic Bay in Laurel.
22 Good afternoon.
23 MS. MARTIN: Good afternoon. Amy
24 Martin for Steven and Susan Bloom, the
• 25 owners at the property noted. This is a
January 9, 2014 Regular Meeting 94
1 large property that the Bloom's bought in
• 2 1999. And we were involved with the
3 renovations for them and an addition to
4 an office in 2012, again. They are about
5 to retire. In fact, Ms. Bloom has
6 retired. But they are just enjoying their
7 grandchildren and have decided that they
8 would like a pool. They have a
9 waterfront home. There really is no place
10 to place the pool on the waterfront side,
11 and would like to put it in the western
12 yard, which is a big area adjoining the
• 13 side porch. The house to the west of them
14 is not positioned it's placed
15 considerable towards their western line.
16 So it's not in an area that would cause a
17 tremendous amount of disturbance to the
18 west of them. The front yard is really
19 all driveway and whatever and trees
20 there, and they really wouldn't get any
21 sun for the pool if it was placed there.
22 So in considerations for placement, this
23 is only the reasonable placement to put
24 it. They want to have a very minimal
• 25 brick and patio surround. They want to
January 9, 2014 Regular Meeting 95
1 keep it as nature and unobtrusive as
• 2 possible. There will be a fence
3 according to code, and shrubbery to hide
4 fencing. And keep it as private. The pool
5 equipment will be because the pool
6 designer hasn't been chosen yet. They
7 would like to have in or as close to the
8 garage as possible. It's close to the
9 street side of the house and way away
10 from the neighbors property line, and it
11 won't be obtrusive to anybody. So we
12 don't have any lot coverage issues. We
• 13 will be 96.8 from the bulkhead. The
14 fence will be 86 feet from the bulkhead.
15 That's about it.
16 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Let me give you
17 a copy of the LWRP. He found it
18 consistent, but he did indicate a drywell
I
19 for pool dewatering. I don't see it on
20 the survey.
21 MS. MARTIN: We just have to locate
22 that with the septic system and make sure
23 that we don't have any issues.
24 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: There are
• 25 already evergreens there for screening.
January 9, 2014 Regular Meeting 96
• 1 Ken, questions?
2 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: You proposed to
3 put some screening there along the right
4 of way?
5 MS. MARTIN: There is already a
6 privet hedge along the right away, and I
7 believe there will be a vegetated buffer
8 along the inside or the outside of fence
9 that will be to code.
10 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: What is the
11 proposed height?
12 MS. MARTIN: I think, again it would
• 13 be privet and four foot to match the
14 fence.
15 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: So you want to
16 screen the fence?
17 MS. MARTIN: Yes. We have done it
18 before, where we plant it in such a way
19 where we hide the fence. It's much more
20 attractive.
21 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Have you
22 investigated any more locations for the
23 pool?
24 MS. MARTIN: Yes. This is really the
• 25 only place that works for the fence and
January 9, 2014 Regular Meeting 97
• 1 the lot.
2 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Have you tried
3 turning it 90 degrees and putting it in
4 your rear yard or backyard?
5 MS. MARTIN: That is where the trees
6 are.
7 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Then you have an
8 issue with the bulkhead. As far as I am
9 concerned, since there is a substantial
10 distance from the property in the side
11 yard, the far more sustainable way to do
12 this would put this in a side yard.
• 13 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Yes. I was just
14 asking her if she looked for that and the
15 reasoning. I have no further questions.
16 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: George?
17 MEMBER HORNING: I don't have any
18 questions.
19 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Gerry?
20 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I met Ms. Bloom.
21 She was very kind to show us the location
22 and explain exactly what you have said.
23 They have owned the house for 30-40
24 years. I will tell you on the record that
• 25 is probably the only location where it
January 9, 2014 Regular Meeting 98
• 1 could go.
2 MS. MARTIN: Yes. It's a lovely
3 piece of property. The neighboring
4 properties are similar in size. Now, they
5 are low-key people, it's not like it's
6 going to be a giant party house. This is
7 young grandchildren.
8 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Eric, do you
9 have any questions?
10 MEMBER DANTES: No, I don't.
11 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I know there is
12 no one in the audience.
• 13 All right. Hearing no further
14 questions and comments, I will make a
15 motion to close the hearing and reserve
16 decision to a later date.
17 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second.
18 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: All in favor?
19 MEMBER DANTES: Aye.
20 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye.
21 MEMBER HORNING: Aye.
22 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye.
23 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Aye.
24 (See Minutes for Resolution.)
• 25 * *********+************t***++**+
January 9, 2014 Regular Meeting 99
• 1 HEARING #6714 - MLADEN BAY
2 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The next
3 application before the Board is for
4 Mladen Bay, #6714. The Request for
I
5 variance from Article XXIII Section
6 280-124 and the Building Inspector's
7 November 25, 2013 Notice of Disapproval
8 based on an application for building
9 permit for construction of a garage and
10 porch addition, at; 1) less than the
11 code required combined side yard setback
12 of 35 feet located at: 475 Hill Road,
i
• 13 adjacent to Jockey Creek in Southold.
14 Is there someone here to represent
15 this application? Would you please just
16 state your name for the record?
17 MR. BAY: Mladen Bay.
18 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Thank you. Let
19 me give you a copy of the memorandum from
20 the LWRP Coordinator. This is the Local
21 Revitalization Waterfront Program, and
22 that you are practically exempt from the
23 LWRP. Let me just enter into the record
24 that the expanded garage and covered
• 25 porch is on the garage are proposed with
January 9, 2014 Regular Meeting 100
• 1 a combined side yard setback of 26 feet,
2 where the code requires 35 feet. That is
3 why you are before the Board.
4 MR. BAY: (In Audible) was based on
5 the front dimension on the front side,
6 and that was the (In Audible) back of the
7 house.
8 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The combined
9 side yard setback is what?
10 MR. BAY: One foot less.
11 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: 25 rather than
12 26. Would you please approach so we can
• 13 look at the survey together with whatever
14 corrections. All right. So we have this.
15 We have 15 and 11.5. It's a combined. So
16 it's correct.
17 MR. BAY: Okay.
18 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Now, you have
19 just handed us a packet. Would you like
20 to explain what's in here?
21 MR. BAY: There is some variances
22 that you previously granted by Jockey
23 Creek, which set up a basis for possibly
24 granting me a variance. I am sure you are
• 25 familiar with them because you reviewed
January 9, 2014 Regular Meeting 101
• 1 them. So I don't think there is a need
2 for me to go through them.
3 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay.
4 MS. TOTH: Could you pull that
5 microphone up a little bit.
6 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Yes, just a
7 little bit louder.
8 MR. BAY: Do I need to repeat?
9 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: No, I think we
10 got it on tape. Okay. So these are
11 variances granted. Are they side yard
12 variances or combined side yard?
• 13 MR. BAY: Some of them are. There was
14 one of them that had a rejection and that
15 was based on not being the right solution
16 for the neighborhood and I thought the
17 language was critical and for my reason
18 why I think that I should be granted for
19 my variance.
20 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay. Why don't
21 you tell us that for the record. We're
22 recording these proceedings.
23 MR. BAY: What I am asking for is a
24 variance to comply with the side yard
• 25 requirement of a lot which is one half
January 9, 2014 Regular Meeting 102
• 1 acre or less. And my lot is sightly over
2 a half acre Also the relative side yards
3 or relative street frontage lot width is
4 more consistent with the smaller lots. I
5 have a deep lot. So there are two ways I
6 could solve this problem and also get the
7 space that I am looking for. The first
8 would be to build a detached structure
9 which would result in a 10 foot side yard
10 and it would also go in front of the
11 house. This would be a large structure in
12 front of the house with a 10 foot side
• 13 yard, which is 5 feet less than what I am
14 proposing. And the other way would be to
15 also the second way I would not
16 need a variance for ether these two ways.
17 The second way is to build an attached
18 garage in front of the house with my
19 front yard being 83 feet, I could go out
20 as much as 43 feet. These two options
21 would basically result in a bad look to
22 the house. It would just you know,
23 relationship. You would have this
24 structure and this sticking out, I think
25 it would not look right and wouldn't be
•
January 9, 2014 Regular Meeting 103
• 1 right for the neighborhood. So the third
2 option is what I am proposing. To build
3 a garage on the side of the house and the
4 side if you look at the second sheet
5 in my packet, which is the Google sky
6 view, you could see that my side yard is
7 one of the larger side yards in those
8 group of houses that were basically
9 around a half of acre. And those lots
10 are all similar sizes. I know it's a
11 small picture and hard to look at.
12 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Can you come up
• 13 and point it out?
14 MR. BAY: Yes. This one. So when you
15 look at the three options, I feel that my
16 proposal is the best for the
17 neighborhood. It maintains the character
18 of the neighborhood. The line of homes.
19 And it's it's the least objectionable
20 to all of these. My lot is basically a
21 little bit over a half acre. And while
22 the houses are all similar size and size
23 acres and houses, I am hoping that you
24 guys will consider my application and
• 25 agree with me and approve this request.
January 9, 2014 Regular Meeting 104
• 1 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Now you indicate
2 the proposed expansion of the garage was
3 for a hobby of cars that you are
4 collecting?
5 MR. BAY: I have some classic cars. I
6 would like to be able to store them. My
7 neighbor happens to have these huge
8 Evergreen trees which are constantly
9 blocking and leaving sap on the cars. I
10 don't know if you know it but sap burns
11 paint. You know, I have a lot invested in
12 them and I would like to be able to store
• 13 them safely.
14 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: And would you be
15 doing anything else in this garage
16 besides storing the cars? What is it
17 actually that you are doing?
18 MR. BAY: Just storing. If they need
19 something, I try and fix it.
20 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Is this proposed
21 to be heated?
22 MR. BAY: No.
23 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Any plumbing?
24 MR. BAY: No.
• 25 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: What is the
January 9, 2014 Regular Meeting 105
• 1 height of the existing and the proposed
2 garage?
3 MR. BAY: The existing garage is
4 attached to the house. It's a two-story
5 house. It's a standard garage and would
6 roughly be 16-17 feet.
7 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: One story
8 structure?
9 MR. BAY: Yes. One story structure.
10 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Similar to what
11 is there now?
12 MR. BAY: Yes. Actually, no. The
• 13 garage, as I said is in the house. It's
14 part of the house.
15 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Right. Eric,
16 questions?
17 MEMBER DANTES: Where are the septic
18 tanks located?
19 MR. BAY: Front yard. I think in the
20 original application it shows the septic
21 tank locations. It's in the front of the
22 house. The drywells are outside in the
23 yard.
24 MEMBER DANTES: And the current side
• 25 yard setback is 17 feet?
January 9, 2014 Regular Meeting 106
• 1 MR. BAY: Yes. I don't have that
2 survey.
3 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Would you like
4 to come and look at this?
5 (Whereupon, Mr. Bay approached the
6 Board.)
7 MEMBER DANTES: And the other
8 properties in the neighborhood, are they
9 all about a half acre?
10 MR. BAY: Pretty much all the ones
11 that are in the Google sky view are the
12 same thing. They have been subdivided and
• 13 the same shape.
14 MEMBER DANTES: Have you considered
15 making the garage narrower?
16 MR. BAY: You really need two-car
17 lengths otherwise you can't move around.
18 MEMBER DANTES: Okay. That's all the
19 questions that I have.
20 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Ken?
21 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: In looking at
22 this, the 15 side yard setback would be
23 to an open porch?
24 MR. BAY: Yes.
• 25 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: That's it. That's
January 9, 2014 Regular Meeting 107
• 1 the only question I had.
2 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: George?
3 MEMBER HORNING: No questions.
4 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Gerry?
5 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No questions at
6 this time.
7 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Let me see if
8 there is anyone in the audience who wants
9 to address this application?
10 MS. GEASA: My name is Janet Geasa. I
11 am an attorney with Wickham, Bressler and
12 Geasa located on Main Road right here in
• 13 Mattituck. We represent the neighbors to
14 the west of the applicant, the (In
15 Audible) and I have prepared a letter and
16 I would be happy to distribute some
17 copies. I will give one to the applicant.
18 There are some other neighbors here who
19 object. There is a Richard Sahm who
20 wishes to speak after I am finished, and
21 another neighbor who indicated that she
22 does not wish to address you but wants
23 you to know her objection to the
24 application. My clients have several
. 25 objections. We believe that this
January 9, 2014 Regular Meeting 108
• 1 application would result in an
2 undesirable change to the neighborhood.
3 It would give it a very crowded look. The
4 way that the property is designed, he has
5 narrowed side yard to the inlet. This
6 would just compound that problem. Also
7 access to the water would be obstructed I
8 believe on the easterly side of the
9 applicants property, I don't see it on
10 his survey. In person, there is a shed
11 that blocks the easterly access. So that
12 by narrowly restricting the western
• 13 access for emergencies that there could
14 be a problem. I believe there was a
15 picture in the file of what the
16 applicant's property looks like on the
17 westerly side of the applicant's
18 property, which adjoins my clients
19 property. There is cars I think the
20 applicant said he collects cars. They are
21 covered with tarps and whatever it is
22 that they use. So the complaint that my
23 client's trees, the sap are ruining his
24 cars is without basis. He has a very
• 25 large boat. It's already cluttered
January 9, 2014 Regular Meeting 109
• 1 already. The benefit, which is really for
2 storage of his cars, should be appeased
3 in another way. That is what people who
4 have hobbies of cars or other sorts do.
5 In addition, I would note that the
6 property I would suggest that the
i
7 property already has is too small for the
8 use of this hobby. I also want to address
9 the statement that he only intends to use
10 the proposed expansion for storage. I
11 have here a friend of my clients. Her
12 name is Rita Cohen. She has been at my
• 13 clients house on several occasions and
14 heard the sound of large machinery
15 ongoing. We don't know for a fact of what
16 the current use is there or what it will
I
17 be. The concern is that there will be the
18 use of big machinery and cause greater
19 concern to the neighborhood. The
20 applicant also indicated that he a lot
21 of the houses that he showed you were in
22 the same size. The neighbor that is here
23 that is across the street from my clients
24 property, she has a lot that is an acre
• 25 in size. The requested variance is
January 9, 2014 Regular Meeting 110
1 substantial. It's a 26% variance and
• 2 would reduce the required side yard on
3 our side of about 4 or 5 feet. We are
4 also concerned about precedent. There is
5 a vacant lot to the my clients to
6 the west of my clients. We are concerned
7 that there might be some way to give
8 consideration for further reduced side
9 yards. Again, making an overly crowded
10 look in the area. We have a line along
11 our property line, adjoining the
12 applicant. A very large line of trees,
• 13 and we are concerned that any
14 construction or repair might impair or
15 destroy the root system. And that is
16 their concerns. Most of this is self
17 created. The last time someone was there,
18 there were seven cars and two boats. It
19 appears that the problem is that the
20 applicant wants to create a larger use of
21 his property.
22 MR. SAHM: Richard Sahm, 335 Hill
23 Road. On the eastern side of the Bay's. I
24 am here for myself and the estate of my
• 25 mother. I am the executor.
January 9, 2014 Regular Meeting 111
• 1 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Could you just
2 spell your last name for us?
3 MR. SAHM: S-A-H-M, as in Mary. I am
4 here to advocate against the proposed
5 extension of Mladen Bay. Since I have an
6 interest in retaining the nature of the
7 community, I feel that this size of the
8 structure is not going to fit within the
9 view of the area. It's going to make it
10 stand out and then it's not going to
11 work. You know, like we all know the area
12 should be. Second, last year, the Bay's
• 13 added a very nice shed to their rear
14 yard. Then they recently added an
15 extension to the shed right up to the
16 property line with a six foot high
17 stockage fence. As far as I know, you are
18 only allowed four foot high in the front
19 yard. Next would be the fact I would
20 want assurances that the that it would
21 be stored in the rear yard as required
22 too. Maybe there is enough room. Maybe
23 there isn't. That would be my biggest
24 concern there. And my other thing is,
• 25 since the Building Department has already
January 9, 2014 Regular Meeting 112
• 1 reviewed this and said that there is
2 issues, I mean that shows there are
3 things that have to be dealt with before
4 this is considered. Is it going to be up
5 to par with codes in the area. That's it.
6 Thank you.
7 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Anybody else?
8 (No Response.)
9 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Would you like
10 to address any of the comments that you
11 just heard?
12 MR. BAY: Yes. I think one of the most
• 13 important things that the (In Audible)
14 have failed to recognize (In Audible) in
15 my front yard. So out of everything that
16 we can look at here, it's in my mind,
17 it's the best solution for the
18 neighborhood and for my property. With
19 regard to Sal's trees. They are actually
20 dying. That is why they are dropping sap.
21 They are a hazard to my property. They
22 are going to come down one of these
23 storms. The woodpeckers attack the
24 trees
• 25 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Could you just
January 9, 2014 Regular Meeting 113
I
• 1 come more to the microphone, please.
2 MR. BAY: The woodpeckers attach the
3 trees and punch holes in their life
4 structure. You can see that they are
5 bleeding all over. The sap that is
6 bleeding out of these trees. And you
7 know, I cover my cars with tarps, and
8 yes, I do have hobbies. I like to do
9 things with my hands. I enjoy that. It
10 keeps me busy. I do have a table saw in
11 the garage, which I slide out
12 occasionally to cut a couple of pieces of
• 13 wood. This is all for personal use.
14 Personal lifestyle. I enjoy doing it. To
15 rent up space that is by my house, it
16 wouldn't work because you know, I am with
I
17 family. I wouldn't want to be away and be
18 someplace else. I can go in and out of
19 the house and have everything that I
20 need.
21 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Do you do wood
i
22 working from time to time?
23 MR. BAY: I do basically the shed
24 that was mentioned, I built. It's a very
• 25 nice shed. I try and do the right thing.
January 9, 2014 Regular Meeting 114
• 1 To try and make it look nice. Look like a
2 real miniature house.
3 MEMBER DANTES: How big is this shed?
4 MR. BAY: It's 8X11, thereabout. If I
5 remember correctly.
6 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Should this
7 addition be permitted, we would certainly
8 want to make sure that those side yards
9 remain unobstructed by any
10 MR. BAY: Yes.
11 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: No boats. No
12 cars. No nothing. It's a fire access.
• 13 MR. BAY: Well, the cars are intending
14 to go in the garage. And the boat, I will
15 figure something out with. Either I will
16 put it some place in the back or figure
17 something else out. In fact, my wife is
18 trying to get me to see it.
19 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay. Ken,
20 questions?
21 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: No questions.
22 MR. BAY: I should probably go over
23 my notes. I probably missed something.
I
24 When there were other lots mentioned, I
• 25 only mentioned the lots that are along
January 9, 2014 Regular Meeting 115
• 1 the water and the lots that were
2 subdivided pretty much around the same
3 time. And the lot which is an acre that
4 was mentioned, that is across the street.
5 So I think that I would stay in the
6 character with my lots on my side of the
7 street. I also want to mention setbacks.
8 If Sal applied for a variance when I
9 moved into the neighborhood, we moved in
10 around the same time. If he applied for a
11 building permit to enclose his porch, he
12 would have been required to go for a
• 13 variance at that time. He didn't do that.
14 He did it on his own. I realized that
15 now. Back then, I was moving into my
16 house and not paying attention to what
17 was going on. So his setbacks are
18 actually nonconforming right now for the
19 side yard. And that is my case, I guess.
20 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: George, any
21 questions?
22 MEMBER HORNING: No.
23 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Gerry?
24 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No.
• 25 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Eric?
January 9, 2014 Regular Meeting 116
• 1 MEMBER DANTES: No.
2 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Is there anyone
3 else that would like to address the
4 Board?
5 MS. GEASA: First, I would just like
6 to say that the (In Audible) would have
7 been here but they're attending to family
8 issues out of state. That is why they
9 asked us to appear on their behalf.
10 Second just to address some comments.
11 Those trees, I respectfully disagree,
12 they are not dying. They have been there
• 13 quite a long time. We would like to
14 preserve them. Also with regard to the
15 porch, I was just advised that that porch
16 has been there when they purchased the
17 property. They simply closed it. That is
18 not the subject of today. I certainly
19 don't appreciate the applicant's
20 suggestion that the Board should consider
21 (In Audible) almost seems like an implied
22 threat. I think he called it an ugly
23 structure. That would have to be dealt at
24 the time the application was made. We
• 25 need to focus on the application that is
January 9, 2014 Regular Meeting 117
• 1 before the Board today and whether it
2 should be approved in light of the
3 comments that I have made today.
4 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Just one
5 comment. The Board does have standards
6 that we adhere to, to see if the
I
7 applicant does have any other reasonable
8 alternative. Other than seeking variance
9 relief. In that sense I think its very
10 germane that the applicant address other
11 options.
12 MS. GEASA: I understand that and
• 13 thank you for pointing that out. My only
14 objection is to the comment that was made
15 about putting a ugly structure up. That
16 is not helpful.
17 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay.
18 MR. BAY: That really wasn't intended
19 as a threat. I respect my property way
20 too much to do something like that. I am
21 just trying to do the right thing.
22 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: All right.
23 Anything else from anybody?
24 (No Response.)
• 25 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: All right.
January 9, 2014 Regular Meeting 118
• 1 Hearing no further comments or
2 suggestions from anybody, I am going to
3 make a motion to close this hearing and
4 reserve decision to a later date.
5 Second by anyone?
6 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second.
7 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: All in favor?
8 MEMBER DANTES: Aye.
9 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye.
10 MEMBER HORNING: Aye.
11 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye.
12 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Aye.
• 13 (See Minutes for Resolution.)
14
15
16 (Whereupon, the January 9, 2013,
17 Regular Meeting of the Zoning Board of
18 Appeals concluded at 1:50 P.M.)
19
20
21
22
23
24
• 25
January 9, 2014 Regular Meeting 119
• 1 C E R T I F I C A T I O N
2
3
4 I, Jessica DiLallo, certify that the foregoing
5 transcript of tape recorded Public Hearings
6 was prepared using required electronic
7 transcription equipment and is a true and accurate
8 record of the Hearings.
9
10 Signatu4Jssica 11 DiLallo
12
13
14 Jessica DiLallo
Court Reporter
15 PO Box 984
Holbrook, New York 11741
16
17 Date: January 19, 2014
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
• 25