HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-02/06/2014 Hearing
1
1 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
COUNTY OF SUFFOLK: STATE OF NEW YORK
2 X
3 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
4
5 X
6 Southold Town Hall
Southold, New York
7
8 February 6, 2014
9:40 A.M.
9
10 Board Members Present:
11
12 LESLIE KANES WEISMAN - Chairperson/Member
13 ERIC DANTES - Member
14 GEORGE HORNING - Member (Left at 2:19 P.M.)
15 KENNETH SCHNEIDER - Member
16 JENNIFER ANDALORO - Assistant Town Attorney
17 VICKI TOTH - Secretary
18
19 GERARD GOEHRINGER - Member (Excused)
20
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 BREEZY SHORES COMMUNITY INC,
6 (STEVEN FLOTTERON), #6704 3-3
7 SUZANNE S. COLEMAN, #6688 3-38
8 ANDREW & SARAH OLSEN, #6723 38-45
9 CHRISTOPHER PAVONE, #6720 45-51
10 DANIEL & CAROLINA MCGOEY, #6721 51-58
11 PATRICIA ANN GILCHRIST-MANCINO, #6717 58-64
12 NICHOLAS & BARBARA PALLANTE, #6718 65-73
• 13 SOUNA KOOLIK, #6719 73-81
14 MELANIE BELKIN, #6710 81-98
15 JARRED FIELD, #6715 98-114
16 BETTY DEROSKI REVOCABLE TRUST, #6707 114-122
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
• 25
FEBRUARY 6, 2014 REGULAR MEETING 3
• 1 HEARING #6704 - BREEZY SHORES
2 COMMUNITY, INC. (STEVEN FLOTTERON)
3 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: So motion to
4 adjourn this application to April 3rd at
5 9:30 a.m.
6 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Second.
7 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: All in favor?
8 MEMBER DANTES: Aye.
9 MEMBER HORNING: Aye.
10 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye.
11 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Aye.
12 (See Minutes for Resolution.)
13
14 HEARING #6688 - SUZANNE S. COLEMAN
15 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Let the record
16 show that Member Horning has recused
17 himself from the following application
18 for Suzanne S. Coleman, No. 6688. This
19 was adjourned from December 6th. There is
20 no need to read the legal notice. Let me
21 just tell both of you this morning, that
22 each of the Board members received these
23 two documents. One from (In Audible)
24 Moore and of course we're going to need
• 25 some time to read them.
FEBRUARY 6, 2014 REGULAR MEETING 4
• 1 MS. MOORE: Understand.
2 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Since you are
3 all here, we will take some testimony
4 and see if both of you have some points
5 that you would like to make. We will
6 have to adjourn and digest this and
7 review some things. We want to see what
8 the other one has submitted also.
9 MS. MOORE: Well, we actually
10 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I'm sorry, Pat.
11 I need you to state your name.
12 MS. MOORE: Patricia Moore on behalf
13 of the Coleman's.
14 MR. HAM: Stephen Ham on behalf of
15 Fisher's Island Utility Company.
16 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Thank you. Go
17 ahead, Pat.
18 MS. MOORE: I think we are here to
19 respond to a couple of different things
20 in his affidavit and so unless the
21 Board is going to have questions, I am
22 hoping that we can resolve the hearing
23 today.
24 MR. HAM: I am - yeah, I have
• 25 nothing besides I briefly went through
FEBRUARY 6, 2014 REGULAR MEETING 5
• 1 Mr. Coleman's affidavit that your office
2 sent to me the other day, and to me, it
3 was nothing really quite the same. I
4 think I have made my case. I just want
5 to make two points to the Board.
6 MS. MOORE: Okay. The first thing
7 that I have to do is, yesterday's Fed-Ex
8 we waited to deliver the papers until
9 Fed-Ex came in, but unfortunately they
10 didn't come in on time. They are not
11 quite so good in the snow. I am going
12 to switch off, if permissible, to one of
• 13 the affidavits. I have an original
14 here. And if I could get back one of the
15 copies that I gave you. The other
16 bookkeeping issue, we do have the
17 revised Notice of Disapproval from
18 January 2, 2014. The Building Department
19 reconsidered the setback requirements at
20 the time the pool house was constructed,
21 and the applicable setback is 3 feet.
22 Not the 10 or 15 that had been
23 previously believed. So I noticed that
24 in your advertising, it didn't refer to
• 25 that dated Notice of Disapproval, but
FEBRUARY 6, 2014 REGULAR MEETING 6
• 1 the new date is January 2°d. You should
2 have that in your file. So I would like
3 to begin. What I have given you in the
4 affidavit is a copy of the original
5 invoices for the work that was done on
6 the pool house. We believe it
7 unequivocally shows that the structure
8 was finished at the time the Building
9 Department issued a Certificate of
10 Occupancy. So he saw the as-built
11 structure and his notation, I believe
12 was get electrical and plumbing
• 13 certificate, and my client did in fact
14 get those certificates. They were
15 misplaced by the Building Department.
16 They were obtained again, but
17 nonetheless, he did complete what the
18 Building Department requested. So I
19 would assert that the interpretation
20 that there was nothing there and that
21 the work was done some time after the
22 date of the issuance of the C of 0 is
23 contradicted by the original invoices
24 that show everything including fans and
• 25 tile work and everything that was done
FEBRUARY 6, 2014 REGULAR MEETING 7
• 1 to the building. So I would I know I
2 had submitted all of this to the
3 Building Department, to the Board by way
4 of affidavit, but given the imputing of
5 my character, I want it to be sure that
6 we have proof of the basis of my
7 affidavit that I submitted and is now
8 backed up by the documents that Mr.
9 Coleman still has unbelievably, he
10 still has the packet of invoices. All
11 attached as Exhibit C to his affidavit.
12 I also want to emphasize that the
• 13 administration of the Building
14 Department five years ago. I am sure
15 that you know from experience on the
16 Board and personally in the past, 25
17 years ago is much less professional,
18 less regulated and less careful.
19 Particularly when it dealt with Fisher's
20 Island issues, the separation between
21 Fisher's Island and Southold (In
22 Audible) what would ordinarily be
23 administration of a Building Department.
24 So we want to emphasize that. As to the
25 affidavit that was submitted by Mr. Ham
FEBRUARY 6, 2014 REGULAR MEETING 8
• 1 as somehow evidence of in opposition to
2 this application, we would object to the
3 use of these affidavits. They deny the
4 Coleman's the opportunity to question
5 the source. And I would begin with Mr.
6 Marshall's affidavit. Mr. Marshall's
7 affidavit is both irrelevant and
8 disturbing. He will say and do anything
9 and he has proven that by prior written
10 statements he gave to the Building
11 Department. We assert that Mr. Marshall
12 was a liar and this affidavit should
• 13 be given the weight it deserves, which
14 in our opinion, should be no weight
15 whatsoever. With respect to the previous
16 Wald affidavit that had been submitted
17 by Mr. Ham. Mr. Coleman tried to work
18 with Mr. Wald. Mr. Wald insisted
19 throughout the years of trying to
20 resolve this that he had conflicts of
21 interest with his former being former
22 president of Fisher's Island Utility
23 Company. He initiated the trespass
24 claims against Mr. Coleman. He was a
25 former Building Inspector. He asserts
FEBRUARY 6, 2014 REGULAR MEETING 9
• 1 that he didn't work as a Building
2 Inspector project. He was employed at
3 one time, and he admits to that, by the
4 Coleman's. Him and my clients attempted
5 to work things out. He asserted
6 conflicts of interest. After asserting
7 that conflict of interest, participate
8 in this process. So that is what we
9 thought was quite surprising when we saw
10 that affidavit. With respect to Mr.
11 Fineman's affidavit, that is attached to
12 this submission. He was asked to take
• 13 pictures. We acknowledge that is the way
14 it looks. The issue of the bulkhead is a
15 civil matter. Mr. Coleman had contacted
16 two separate contracts, Mr. Richard
17 Greevy and B&B, both of them advised him
18 that there would be a need for some
19 heavy equipment. In particular, because
20 there is large boulder that sits right
21 next to their bulkhead whether it's a
22 retaining wall or bulkhead, the
23 recommendation made by those contractors
24 is that it would need to be removed and
• 25 regraded. Mr. Coleman is going to help
FEBRUARY 6, 2014 REGULAR MEETING 10
• 1 me here.
2 MR. COLEMAN: During this process
3 here, I asked Mr. Wald to come over and
4 look at the constructions, which he did.
5 Then we stood over the bulkhead
6 structure I discussed with him that we
7 would do anything that he needs us to
8 do. And he had a conflict and he really
9 couldn't get into it. It was out of his
10 hands. I had sent two other contractors
11 over to meet to discuss what we would
12 like to have accomplished and it was out
• 13 of his hands. I was more than ready to
14 do anything. The problem with the whole
15 thing, how do I go and bring a big piece
16 of equipment on there and regrade on
17 someone else's property without proper
18 instructions. We haven't had any
19 directions or instructions om behalf of
20 the utility company or the Town or
21 whomever on what to do. So I am just
22 waiting on that. As soon as I have it, I
23 am happy to do it. I don't want to get
24 into any more conflicts. I hope that I
• 25 explained it. I am sorry, I am tired.
FEBRUARY 6, 2014 REGULAR MEETING 11
• 1 MS. MOORE: So with respect to that
2 retaining wall, it would certainly be
3 removed. It is not structural and as I
4 said, it's civil matter that can be
5 worked out between the parties. There
6 are multiple ways of resolving things
7 like this. We might actually do a
8 boundary line agreement but to say that
9 not to require significant regrading.
10 Please look at the photographs that
11 Mr. Fineman attached to his affidavit.
12 You will see the big rock that is
• 13 somewhat covered in snow, but you could
14 see them. We are prepared, as
15 Mr. Coleman said to correct that. With
16 respect to Diane Dexter, she asserts
17 that she saw a television in the pool
18 house and therefore it is a dwelling.
19 That is not the case. Mr. Coleman
20 refutes that. He did not build a
21 dwelling or use it as a second dwelling.
22 That too can be assured with any CO's
23 and be acknowledged that it's not a
24 dwelling. I do want to provide for the
• 25 Board, in our memo, we do refer to this
FEBRUARY 6, 2014 REGULAR MEETING 12
• 1 variance. Ms. Dawson makes a big issue
2 that this pool house will affect the
3 character of the neighborhood and affect
4 her property. In 1966, her and Albert
5 Dawson submitted an application to the
6 Zoning Board in which they ask for a (In
7 Audible) to build their single-family
8 dwelling on a property that already had
9 two properties on it. Today, it is all
10 one piece of property. It has three
11 dwellings. Two of which are rented and
12 the other one she lives in, and there is
• 13 a garage or an out building, in which
14 the landscapers use to run his business.
15 So you know, Ms. Dawson's objection
16 should be considered in light of the
17 activities that are going on in her own
18 property. The fact is that had we placed
19 the pool my client had placed the
20 pool in the backyard, which again, would
21 have to make a choice between the west
22 side of the tennis court that was there
23 or the east side of the tennis court, it
24 would have been right next to Ms. Dawson
• 25 and all her commercial activity. Here is
FEBRUARY 6, 2014 REGULAR MEETING 13
• 1 a copy of the ZBA decision, if you would
2 like. With respect to the purchase of
3 the additional 750 square feet, Mr.
4 Ham's affirmation does not tell the
5 whole story I believe. I have my copy of
6 communications between Mr. Ham and
7 myself, e-mail communications, which led
8 to a contract. And ultimately, Mr. Ham
9 had said that Fisher's Island Utility
10 Company is willing to give us the same
11 deal that they offered us before, which
12 was give us all your rights, the 750
• 13 square feet of land in exchange for
14 essentially just not acknowledging
15 that there are no roads, no
16 incumbrances. That the Coleman's would
17 never have a right to make a claim on
18 here. That is just not right, and that
19 is why the proposal was not accepted.
20 Ms. Coleman signed the contract. Sent
21 them the down payment check that was
22 requested. They were prepared to move
23 ahead. There was no budging. They were
24 offering us the deal was a direct
25 an offer that was being taken advantage
FEBRUARY 6, 2014 REGULAR MEETING 14
• 1 of the situation that we were being
2 presented with. So we
3 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: That is one of
4 the questions that the Board wanted to
5 talk to you about, the potential for the
6 applicant to actually increase that rear
7 yard setback by purchasing a strip of
8 land from the utility company. Now you
9 said that has been discussed?
10 MR. HAM: Yeah, it's in my
11 affirmation. I am sorry, I didn't get
12 that earlier. I don't I think I was
• 13 pretty thorough in describing
14 MS. MOORE: Well
15 MR. HAM: Let me give you my account
16 and then you can correct me.
17 MS. MOORE: No, I don't think
18 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Hold on.
19 MR. HAM: Ms. Moore and I negotiated
20 a contract. As I said in my memorandum,
21 there was an issue that she wanted to
22 preserve rights for the Coleman's over
23 utility department land. Ms. Moore on
24 behalf of the Coleman's wanted to make
• 25 sure that if we conveyed 750 square feet
FEBRUARY 6, 2014 REGULAR MEETING 15
• 1 to increase their land, that would not
2 have any effect in terminating any other
3 rights that the Coleman's might have
4 over utility company land. An 1878 map
5 showed a roadway going through there. So
6 in order to get the deal done, I and Ms.
7 Moore, I contended to a provision, which
8 is attached to my affirmation to the
9 affect that it would not extinguish
10 rights, with the language that I state.
11 The Coleman's did sign that contract for
12 the price of $25,000.00. They would do
• 13 the variance work. We would do the lot
14 line change work, and it had that
15 provision in it. I did not, not being
16 fully aware of the history between the
17 utility company and the Coleman's. You
18 know, you have heard some of that with
19 trespasses and so forth over the years.
20 When the Board found out about the
21 language that I had presented it to,
22 they had refused to sign the contract.
23 And said what rights? We were told by
24 Dick Straus, the surveyor that there was
• 25 nothing there. I did some research on
FEBRUARY 6, 2014 REGULAR MEETING 16
• 1 it, and in a detailed letter dated
2 July 29, 2013 to Ms. Moore, also
3 attached to my memorandum, so you will
4 see, I go through in quite a bit of
5 detail the research that I was able to
6 come up with, that showed that they had
7 absolutely no rights over Glenmoore
8 Avenue. At that point, the utility
9 company said, we spent a lot of money on
10 this. Send it back to them. Say that we
11 have had trouble with them in the past.
12 We don't want any litigation over this.
13 We want it clear that any rights that
14 they did have would be extinguished and
15 wouldn't be giving up anything by
16 agreeing to that provision based on
17 research, and with the additional
18 expense for me and the title insurance
19 company, they wanted an additional
20 $5,000.00. So the price went from
21 $25,000.00 with no extinguishment of any
22 potential rights to $30,000.00 with a
23 formal extinguishment of anything. That
24 would also preclude any litigation by
• 25 the Coleman's to preserve some play over
FEBRUARY 6, 2014 REGULAR MEETING 17
• 1 utility company land. The deal is on the
2 table today. I mentioned it to Ms. Moore
3 before. They are not asking anything
4 more for it. As you know, I have spent
5 quite a bit of time. They will go back
6 to that counter offer that I made by
7 letter of July 29th to Ms. Moore, which
8 is attached to my memo.
9 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Thank you.
10 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: I just have a
11 question. What would the 750 square feet
12 of purchase accomplish?
• 13 MR. HAM: It would eliminate the need
14 for any setback. It would eliminate the
15 need for the Coleman's to remove the
16 concrete footing, which you could see
17 from the survey and that is attached to
18 my memo. So you would not need to do
19 any setback variance.
20 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: That would be
21 for the rear yard. You would still need
22 to do a rear yard?
23 MS. MOORE: And there would also be a
24 need for an area variance for a lot line
• 25 change.
FEBRUARY 6, 2014 REGULAR MEETING 18
• 1 MR. HAM: I disagree with that.
2 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: I have a
3 question. So the deal on the table for
4 the 750 square feet, that would permit
5 them for the 3 foot rear yard?
6 MR. HAM: No, it would give more
7 than the 3 feet. It would eliminate the
8 need for a setback variance.
9 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: By what years
10 code?
11 MR. HAM: By any years code.
12 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: So it would be
• 13 by today's standard?
14 MR. HAM: Yes. There would be no
15 encroachment and no setback variance.
16 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: So that deal is
17 still on the table right now?
18 MR. HAM: Right now.
19 MS. MOORE: That is only based on his
20 opinion. We have consulted the title
21 company and he has consulted his other
22 lawyers in the city and we found the
23 maps for the Glenmoore Avenue Road.
24 There is a road that appears on a
• 25 historic map of Fisher's Island. When it
FEBRUARY 6, 2014 REGULAR MEETING 19
• 1 comes to roads appearing on maps, it's
2 not so clear that they are distinguished
3 by merger or whatever. It may require an
4 entitlement of title by action by
5 Fisher's Island Utility Company. It is
6 an opinion. Mr. Ham, he may have done
7 very thorough research but there is
8 always two sides to a story and that is
9 why there is usually more than one
10 lawyer in a community. There are it
11 is not black and white when it comes to
12 these type of particular issues. For
• 13 Fisher's Island Utility Company to tie
14 in that condition and what was a 750
15 square foot site has no relation to one
16 to the other. It was really
17 objectionable to my client to give up
18 any right that they may have. The
19 language that we asserted was that we
20 may have. We have not asserted a claim.
21 We
22 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Do you think
23 that you will preserve more by denying
24 this deal? I mean, it seems to me like
• 25 an opportunity to really get rid of a
FEBRUARY 6, 2014 REGULAR MEETING 20
• 1 fairly agreegence problem that is
2 substantial setback variance.
3 MS. MOORE: I recognize your belief
4 and your opinion
5 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Well in the
6 balancing test
7 MS. MOORE: The balancing
8 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Of whether
9 there are reasonable alternatives.
10 MS. MOORE: I understand that, but
11 that alternative has to be reasonable.
12 What you are asking my client to do is
• 13 give up rights
14 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I am not asking
15 your client to give up anything.
16 MS. MOORE: What I have given you is
17 an abundance of information. The
18 allegation that it's changing the
19 community is so outrageous from the
20 existing facts. Had we come to the
21 agreement that was originally my client
22 signed for the contract, we would have
23 avoided the three hearings, the
24 application before the Board. We would
• 25 have needed the variances for the side
FEBRUARY 6, 2014 REGULAR MEETING 21
• 1 yard and other variances that were 3
2 foot and 3 foot at this point from the
3 property line. The variance that Mr. Ham
4 says that we would need, I would refute
5 that in the past, the Building
6 Department has taken position that on a
7 lot line change, even if you increase
8 the size of the lot, in other words, the
9 nonconforming lot, here we have a lot
10 that is more than an area, 55,000 square
11 feet. It's in a two acre zoning
12 district. So I want to say that we have
• 13 a nonconforming lot by way of acreage.
14 So the fact that we are adding 750
15 square feet would have required us to
16 get an area variance for this lot as
17 well as the other variances that are
18 before this Board. It only took the
19 issue of the setback to the property
20 line to the table but every other
21 variance was still in play.
22 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: The issue over the
23 utility property, that is over this
24 deal
25 MR. HAM: You will see from my
FEBRUARY 6, 2014 REGULAR MEETING 22
• 1 research. They have nothing for
2 research. If you think it's unreasonable
3 for that, give the Board and me a memo
4 showing that you have rights of
5 Glenmoore Avenue?
6 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: So I just have a
7 question. These issues over the rights,
8 this issue will still be maintained
9 whether you take this deal or not?
10 MS. MOORE: No, that is what they are
11 asking to give us.
12 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: The question of
• 13 your rights still exist. It exist
14 whether you take the deal or not.
15 MS. MOORE: No. If you take the
16 deal, it is specifically making us waive
17 any rights that we may have. So in other
18 words, we're extinguishing those rights
19 as of the moment we close.
20 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: You must have some
21 proof of these rights in other words you
22 wouldn't be "fighting" for them.
23 MR. HAM: Exactly. And there is no
24 proof.
• 25 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Do you have them
FEBRUARY 6, 2014 REGULAR MEETING 23
• 1 available?
2 MS. MOORE: I don't have them
3 specifically with me.
4 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Then how do you
5 make that argument?
6 MS. MOORE: We did title search way
7 back that showed that road.
8 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Okay.
9 MR. HAM: I addressed this in my
10 affidavit. Attached is a letter to
11 Ms. Moore with a counteroffer. It's
12 about three or four pages single spaced,
• 13 addressing this Glenmoore Avenue.
14 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Okay.
15 MR. HAM: From what I have been able
16 to find out from Dick Straus who is a
17 surveyor for the past 40 years, that
18 there are no rights. That they are
19 giving up nothing. Glenmoore Avenue is
20 shown on a 1878 map but it's not part of
21 the subdivision. I will just be
22 repetitive. I will save you the time.
23 It's laid out in very fine detail in my
24 affidavit and the attachment. And I
• 25 think that we would not need a lot area
FEBRUARY 6, 2014 REGULAR MEETING 24
• 1 variance. We are not making the utility
2 company nonconforming by selling the 750
3 square feet.
4 MEMBER DANTES: What is the current
5 condition of this Glenmoore Avenue?
6 MS. MOORE: Well, it's now overgrown
7 but it had been opened and cleared. When
8 Mr. Coleman purchased the property,
9 there had been roads that came through
10 the Fisher's Island Utility Company
11 showing on the old photographs. So those
12 roads were existing. There was drainage
13 that was there. One of the culverts is
14 showing up on the Dawson property.
15 MR. HAM: Where is the proof of this?
16 MS. MOORE: It's not my job
17 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Hold on.
18 Mr. Coleman wanted to say something and
19 I will give you one second to do that.
20 This line of questioning is obviously
21 we will read it thoroughly. This is only
22 related to our efforts to see what
23 alternatives exist for a very
24 substantial variance to be extinguished.
• 25 Now, let's talk about substantiality.
FEBRUARY 6, 2014 REGULAR MEETING 25
• 1 You have come back with another notice
2 that applies to a 1989 code as opposed
3 to today's code. Frankly, whichever code
4 you apply, you either have a 66% or an
5 80% variance. Are you able to provide
6 the Board, because you basically almost
7 said it, well, there are lots of
8 variances on Fisher's Island. Can you
9 provide specific rear yard setbacks on
10 Fisher's Island in that area, where
11 Mr. Coleman's property is, with that
12 level of substantial relief?
• 13 MS. MOORE: I would have to go back
14 and look. I did all the variance
15 research on accessory structures and I
16 have my working sheet with color
17 coded on a tax map, other variances that
18 were in that area. There were
19 significant variances issued on the
20 church property. There was a front yard
21 variance that was a significant
22 variance. When you talk about character
23 of the area, I wanted to give this to
24 you on the record, that Fisher's Island
• 25 Utility Company property has a
FEBRUARY 6, 2014 REGULAR MEETING 26
• 1 freshwater wetlands that actually is not
2 and the title wetland map has that
3 property map of which it encumbrances.
4 It's undeveloped. It has freshwater
5 wetlands that will prohibit development.
6 There are title wetlands on this
7 property that would prohibit and inhibit
8 this development. Particularly right
9 next door to these structures. So we
10 have gone through multiple (In Audible)
11 to show you what the utility company is
12 using this process as more as a
• 13 punishment to Mr. Coleman rather than
14 being reasonable. Reasonable would be
15 that we would give them a boundary line
16 agreement. And say that we are not
17 making a claim. That is how any other
18 property owner with this issue would be
19 dealing with any type of encroachment
20 like this.
21 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I will take
22 whatever you have. Is the utility
23 company property a buildable lot?
24 MR. HAM: Yes, it is. I was just
• 25 about to say that I know for a fact that
FEBRUARY 6, 2014 REGULAR MEETING 27
• 1 they have already started plans to
2 create, I believe it's 3 lots out of
3 that 7 acres that they have. Years ago,
4 they saved a little piece of the
5 cemetery, but that has to be cleared up
6 with the Health Department first. They
7 consider that a subdivision. Yes, they
8 actually have plans to develop. Nothing
9 has been submitted yet but Mr. Straus
10 has prepared some plans. I know they are
11 under review. I am not involved with
12 that.
• 13 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: And let me ask
14 you a question. Are there any views at
15 the moment for that second floor? What I
16 would like to know is whether or not if
17 there are any scenic easements to
18 preserve the view in place?
19 MS. MOORE: No. That is why in
20 fact, when I got interrupted, these are
21 the communications that were occurring
22 with the Fisher's Island Utility
23 Company. I had proposed because my
24 experience with the Planning Board is,
• 25 that they prefer not to see bites. They
FEBRUARY 6, 2014 REGULAR MEETING 28
• 1 prefer to see straight lines. So at this
2 time, I don't know how this Board acts,
3 but this present Planning Board, where
4 lot lines changes have been in the past,
5 required this is the line that I had
6 proposed.
7 MR. HAM: This is completely
8 irrelevant.
9 MS. MOORE: No, it's not. They have
10 tried to force us and you have tried to
11 force us to buy the 750 square feet, and
12 I am prepared to come
13 MR. HAM: My client was not willing
14 to sell.
15 MS. MOORE: Exactly. Your clients are
16 not willing to sell it and my clients
17 are not willing to buy it.
18 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Hey, c'mon.
19 MR. HAM: Ms. Moore seems to believe
20 that the Planning Board likes straight
21 lines and I agree with her, but that
22 doesn't mean that they won't approve
23 this box that we are willing to sell. If
24 they do, then we will go back to the
• 25 drawing board again and come up with
FEBRUARY 6, 2014 REGULAR MEETING 29
• 1 something else.
2 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Mr. Coleman,
3 did you want to say something?
4 MS. MOORE: Well, one more thing.
5 He points out that there is a free lot
6 but he's not providing it and the Board
7 is not asking for it. If it's a 3 lot
8 plan then maybe you should know if the
9 lots have anything to do adjacent to
10 this property. Are they trying to
11 develop right on top of freshwater
12 wetlands? Titled wetlands?
• 13 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: That is so way
14 beyond the scope of what we are doing
15 here. The Board is not I only asked
16 if it was developable. Not if it was
17 being developed. It's important to
18 understand the property adjacent to
19 something that has a large structure
20 encroaching if in fact that property
21 that is adjacent could be developed some
22 time in the future because it would then
23 have a future impact. That is all that
24 we are asking.
0 25 MS. MOORE: I would respectfully
FEBRUARY 6, 2014 REGULAR MEETING 30
• 1 submit that the way that that question
2 is asked, is it developable. The Board
3 knows full well that the land that is
4 subject to development is less wetlands
5 and bluff and slopes and any easements
6 or encroachments. So maybe one house can
7 be placed on the property but it's still
8 to be analyzed of whether more houses
9 could be on that property. There are 40
10 foot trees that are providing a buffer
11 area between his and my clients
12 property. The Chairman has already made
• 13 up her mind that it's substantial. The
14 fact of the
15 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I only
16 indicated by anybody's standards, that
17 you decided in your best interest to
18 change the date on the Notice of
19 Disapproval, which the Board could
20 interpret of which to apply but
21 nevertheless, we are talking about 66%
22 variance relief from the code. Even by
23 those standards, my point was that it's
24 a substantial variance. There is no
• 25 question about it. When you say that I
FEBRUARY 6, 2014 REGULAR MEETING 31
• 1 have made up my mind, all I was doing
2 was presenting into the record the fact
3 that there is 66% if relief that is
4 being asked for. Even by the 89
5 standards.
6 MS. MOORE: The record will speak for
7 itself.
8 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The whole
9 purpose of a public hearing is to remain
10 open and fair and hear all supporting
11 testimony and then making a complete
12 determination. We have material to read
• 13 from both of you.
14 MS. MOORE: And
15 MR. HAM: It's actually 700.
16 MS. MOORE: And I would submit that
17 variances on Fisher's Island are
18 routinely
19 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: That is what I
20 had asked for earlier
21 MS. MOORE: And I will provide that.
22 I don't have it with me, but I will
23 provide it.
24 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The fact that
• 25 you said you will provide it makes it
FEBRUARY 6, 2014 REGULAR MEETING 32
• 1 very helpful.
2 MS. ANDALORO: Which is traditionally
3 asked for by the Board, is it not?
4 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Of course.
5 MS. MOORE: But not this particular
6 request. In the past, I thought it was
7 location the Board at the last
8 hearing asked me, did the Building
9 Department issue and well I had asked
10 the Building Department but not
11 formally. So I did it formally and the
12 Building Department agreed that the 3
• 13 foot setback was the legal setback. So I
14 did my job.
15 MS. ANDALORO: Whether we use today's
16 code or the code from 1989, it is a
17 substantial variance. You have not put
18 anything in the record, other than
19 general statements that that is not the
20 case. You have not listed anything in
21 the record with respect to character of
22 the community. We just asked you for
23 that.
24 MS. MOORE: I would really dispute
• 25 that because I have given you affidavits
FEBRUARY 6, 2014 REGULAR MEETING 33
1 that across from Mr. Coleman is business
• 2 zoning. There are multiple businesses
3 right across his property. I have given
4 you a variance that the Zoning Board had
5 in the 60's for the Dawson's who are
6 creating this issue of the pool house
7 and how it affects the character in her
8 property. I have given you and the
9 Board knows that the church next door
10 has encroachments of its own. That is
11 that is the neighbor to the pool house.
12 The church also received a substantial
• 13 front yard variance to put their
14 building on Crescent.
15 MS. ANDALORO: I am sorry. In the
16 instance of controlling time. The Board
17 is asking you to provide information
18 into the record with respect to the
19 variances and they have received none.
20 If you have already done so, then you
21 don't have to provide it.
22 MS. MOORE: It concerns me when their
23 counsel is saying that I have provided
24 no evidence on the character of the
• 25 neighborhood. I have spent three
FEBRUARY 6, 2014 REGULAR MEETING 34
• 1 MS. ANDALORO: I misspoke.
2 MS. MOORE: I will get you that
3 information, I will do that.
4 MR. HAM: And for a structure of that
5 size as well. I think that's important.
6 MS. MOORE: I will get you all the
7 variances with respect to what has been
8 asked and the degree of the variances. I
9 think what you generally find is
10 significant variances for front yards
11 more than rear yards. It depends on the
12 particular property. Many of the
• 13 properties have wetlands and require the
14 buildings to be moved. It's not as if he
15 went and built something without any
16 CO's. We are not talking about a
17 structure that didn't have permits.
18 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Look in the
19 interest of time, we have really taken
20 lots of testimony. We have lots to read.
21 I would like to ask Mr. Coleman if he
22 would like to say something. He has been
23 patiently waiting. Then I want to wrap
24 this up and I will see if Mr. Ham has
• 25 anything to say. I will adjourn this to
FEBRUARY 6, 2014 REGULAR MEETING 35
• 1 the Special Meeting to give us further
2 time to review and if we have further
3 questions, we will adjourn to another
4 regular meeting. If we don't, then we
5 will start the proceedings at the
6 Special Meeting. What we get, and what
7 we read.
8 MR. COLEMAN: I would appreciate if
9 Mr. Ham could conclude with whatever he
10 has to say and then I would like the
11 privilege to say what I can say?
12 MR. HAM: There is so much stuff
• 13 here. Diane Dexter is the daughter. She
14 is the daughter of the Dawson's. She saw
15 a light from a television. She didn't
16 say she saw a television. If you read
17 the affidavit attached to my December
18 memo. I know my client would be very
19 surprised to know that there are roads
20 in their property. There are paths that
21 have been created by Mr. Coleman himself
22 to the water from his property, but as
23 far as I know, there are no roads
24 through there. They are not giving up
• 25 anything if they agree. My client is
FEBRUARY 6, 2014 REGULAR MEETING 36
is 1 concerned about past relations, that's
2 why he wanted to terminate this once and
3 for all. Again, it's in writing and I
4 don't need to repeat it. I will defer to
5 Mr. Coleman.
6 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Thank you.
7 MR. COLEMAN: There is a lot of bad
8 will in this whole procedure. And for
9 that, I am sorry. We are not interested
10 in creating any more problems. We are
11 here to resolve a mistake. And we will
12 listen to whatever it is that you ask
• 13 us. As far as all the accusations, when
14 we purchased this property, we were told
15 that there is a town drain into the
16 harbor, and they would appreciate it if
17 we would keep it clean. So that there
18 would be no debris that would get into
19 this drain. It is adjacent to the pool
20 house. So it's in everybody's interest
21 to do that. That is why we had a path
22 there. The path was cut by a
23 professional contractor on Fisher's
24 Island. We are attempting to get this
• 25 resolved. In order to get this resolved
FEBRUARY 6, 2014 REGULAR MEETING 37
• 1 I understand what Mr. Ham is saying
2 and he has to understand what we have.
3 You know, there is as far as the
4 roads are concerned, I am not an expert
5 but Glenmoore Avenue is referred to on
6 three deeds. There is a boundary. And
7 there is a road into the property that
8 was used to bring the oil trucks in.
9 This doesn't mean anything to us. We
10 are not trying to do any harm. We are
11 trying to get something resolved. We
12 spent a fortune to try and get there.
• 13 But please, rather than accusing the
14 Coleman's of being criminals or whatever
15 it is and putting us on trial, how about
16 somebody coming up with a reasonable
17 proposal? I am not a surveyor. It's a
18 very complicated and unfortunate
19 circumstance and I would appreciate any
20 bit of advice to get this resolved. And
21 I appreciate you being helpful.
22 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Thank you. Is
23 there anyone else in this audience that
24 would like to address this application?
• 25 (No Response.)
FEBRUARY 6, 2014 REGULAR MEETING 38
• 1 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Hearing no
2 further questions, I am going to make a
3 motion to adjourn this to the Special
4 Meeting to February 20th
5 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Second.
6 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: All in favor?
7 MEMBER DANTES: Aye.
8 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye.
9 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Aye.
10 (See Minutes for Resolution.)
12 HEARING #6723 - ANDREW AND SARAH OLSEN
• 13 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The next
14 application before the Board is for
15 Andrew and Sarah Olsen, #6723. Request
16 for variance from Article III Section
17 280-15 and the Building Inspector's
18 January 7, 2014 Notice of Disapproval
19 based on an application for building
20 permit for two-story addition to
21 existing single family dwelling, at 1)
22 upon completion of construction existing
23 in-ground swimming pool will be located
24 in the side yard, located at: 375
• 25 Fairway Drive in Cutchogue.
FEBRUARY 6, 2014 REGULAR MEETING 39
• 1 Is someone here to represent that
2 application? Please come to the podium
3 and state your name.
4 MR. OLSEN: My name is Andrew Olsen.
5 I live at 375 Fairway Drive in
6 Cutchogue. This is my wife Sarah. Good
7 morning. We are we have an existing
8 ranch home in Fairway Farms that was
9 actually built on a slab. It does not
10 have a basement. And we would like to
11 convert our preexisting garage, which is
12 attached to the house into a family
• 13 room. And build a new two and a half car
14 garage, that would have a mud area, an
15 office and upstairs space with a
16 playroom for the children. One of the
17 things that we are very focused on this
18 project is actually the natural light to
19 be created in the family room that we
20 are going to be building. There is quite
21 a number of different constraints in our
22 case. We had a number of very uniquely
23 shaped lot in that, Fairway Drive wraps
24 around the front of our property. And
• 25 the back of the property is like the
FEBRUARY 6, 2014 REGULAR MEETING 40
• 1 half of the triangle. The other thing
2 is, the pool is a preexisting pool. We
3 didn't build the pool. When we purchased
4 the house, the pool was already there.
5 It had a CO, and you know, obviously we
6 are not moving the pool. The setbacks in
7 relationship to the new garage all
8 conform with the Town Code. In addition
9 to that, we have letters from five of
10 the neighbors surrounding us supporting
11 the request for relief. And I had a
12 verbal conversation with Edward Riley
• 13 who is my neighbor immediately next to
14 me two days ago. He would be traveling
15 but that him and his wife Mary don't
16 have any issues of what we are
17 attempting to do. So that's it.
18 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay. By the
19 way, we all have been out to the site
20 and inspected the property. We do that
21 for every application just because it's
22 good for us to be in reality and we
23 could see what the neighbors look like.
24 We were not trespassing.
• 25 MR. OLSEN: We did put stakes out so
FEBRUARY 6, 2014 REGULAR MEETING 41
• 1 you could see them. The other thing is,
2 we do have a builder who is ready to go.
3 We are all set. We are ready to start
4 the interior space. We didn't want to do
5 that without the outcome of your
6 decision.
7 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: It appears that
8 you are going to be maintaining a large
9 portion of your existing driveway; is
10 that correct?
11 MR. OLSEN: The driveway will
12 basically stay the same.
• 13 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: As a benefit with
14 this particular configuration that you
15 are proposing.
16 MR. OLSEN: We have a very long term
17 view of what we want to do with this
18 house. We want to, you know, live there
19 for a very long time. You know, again, I
20 didn't want to have to move my driveway.
21 The biggest issue for my son is where
22 the basketball hoop is going to go. That
23 is all he cares about.
24 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Eric, any
• 25 questions?
FEBRUARY 6, 2014 REGULAR MEETING 42
• 1 MEMBER DANTES: Sure. What are the
2 covenants and restrictions that you have
3 to work around from the Fairway Farms?
4 MR. OLSEN: Fairway Farms actually
5 has very strict covenants and
6 restrictions, which is one of the thing
7 that actually attracted us to buying a
8 house there. One of the most significant
9 ones is that each car must have at least
10 a one-car garage, and the reason for
11 that is so people could store things
12 like bikes and basketballs and things.
• 13 So having that one-car garage is in the
14 covenants and restrictions. The setbacks
15 which are more severe than the Town
16 Code, but we are adhering everything to
17 the Town Code. We met with the Board
18 right from the beginning and we shared
19 the plans with them and they approved
20 everything for us. I have that in
21 writing and that should be in your
22 packet. That was on September 26th of
23 2013.
24 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: George?
• 25 MEMBER HORNING: I believe I heard
FEBRUARY 6, 2014 REGULAR MEETING 43
• 1 you say something that the existing
2 house is on a slab?
3 MR. OLSEN: Correct.
4 MEMBER HORNING: Are you going to
5 have a foundation put in for this
6 proposed addition?
7 MR. OLSEN: No. The preexisting
8 garage space will have flooring it
9 would be leveled with the house. Right
10 now you step up about four inches into
11 the house. We are going to be putting
12 wood floors there. And in the new
• 13 space, I believe there is a new little
14 bit of a not much of a foundation but
15 a few inches.
16 MEMBER HORNING: You are going to
17 have footing? And a crawl space?
18 MR. OLSEN: Correct. There will be no
19 crawl space.
20 MEMBER HORNING: It's going to be
21 sort of a similar layout as the
22 foundation
23 MR. OLSEN: Right. And when you
24 drive into the garage it would obviously
• 25 be level.
FEBRUARY 6, 2014 REGULAR MEETING 44
• 1 MEMBER HORNING: The previous owner
2 got a building permit to put in a pool
3 in 1998. At that time, everything was
4 legally done and there was a C of O
5 obtained for the pool after the pool was
6 put in. Do you concur with that?
7 MR. OLSEN: Yes.
8 MEMBER HORNING: Because of the way
9 the code determines, this new
10 construction would change the location
11 of your pool technically. From the rear
12 yard to now a new side yard that has
• 13 been created by the addition. Do you
14 concur with that?
15 MR. OLSEN: A portion of the pool.
16 Not the entire pool.
17 MEMBER HORNING: I concur with that.
18 How feasible is it for you to move the
19 pool to a conforming rear yard
20 location?
21 MR. OLSEN: It would be possible for
22 us to move the pool if we had an extra
23 $100,000.00 to do that. So it's not
24 feasible at all.
• 25 MEMBER HORNING: Okay. Thank you.
FEBRUARY 6, 2014 REGULAR MEETING 45
• 1 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Is there anyone
2 in the audience who would like to
3 address application?
4 (No Response.)
5 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Hearing no
6 further questions or comments, I am
7 going to make a motion to close this
8 hearing and reserve decision to a later
9 date. Is there a second?
10 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Second.
11 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: All in favor?
12 MEMBER DANTES: Aye.
• 13 MEMBER HORNING: Aye.
14 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye.
15 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Aye.
16 (See Minutes for Resolution.)
17
18 HEARING 46720 - CHRISTOPHER PAVONE
19 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The next
20 application before the Board is for
21 Christopher Pavone, #6720. Request for
22 variance from Article XXIII Section
23 280-124B and the Building Inspector's
24 November 15, 2013 Notice of Disapproval
• 25 based on an application for building
FEBRUARY 6, 2014 REGULAR MEETING 46
• 1 permit for partial demolition, additions
2 and alternations to existing single family
3 dwelling, at; 1) more than the code
4 permitted lot coverage of 20%, located at:
5 560 Village Lane, Orient.
6 Is there someone here to represent
7 this application?
8 MS. MARTIN: Good morning. Amy
9 Martin of Fairweather & Brown. I am
10 here to represent Christopher Pavone and
11 Natalie McIntosh, who are the owners of
12 this property. Basically everything is
• 13 in the backyard. There is an existing
14 23% lot coverage that was allowed when
15 23.4% allowed
16 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: 22.5 is what
17 is permitted and I think what you are
18 proposing is 23.4?
19 MS. MARTIN: Yes. The only
20 difference being there is a whole
21 bunch of different add-on structures
22 that are (In Audible). The proposal is
23 to replace it with new one-story
24 slightly different configuration that
• 25 looks better for the living space but
FEBRUARY 6, 2014 REGULAR MEETING 47
• 1 almost the same exact footprint and does
2 not effect the Historic District. It
3 effects three neighbors and they are all
4 in favor of it. They would like to see
5 it improved.
6 MEMBER HORNING: You were about to
7 give a date
8 MS. MARTIN: There was a 2004 deck
9 that was added and then there was
10 they all have CO's. And there was also a
11 two-car garage that was added with the
12 previous owners.
• 13 MEMBER HORNING: What caused that
14 and when do you think it was?
15 MS. MARTIN: The property card, I
16 believe it says
17 MEMBER HORNING: And this is the
18 first variance for lot coverage; isn't
19 it?
20 MS. MARTIN: Yes. It was allowed
21 without a variance.•I believe it was the
22 deck, but it may have been the garage.
23 The deck was in 1990 and the garage was
24 in '72. I have two copies of the here
• 25 it is. Addition was in '69. They were
FEBRUARY 6, 2014 REGULAR MEETING 48
• 1 all with the previous owner. I would
2 assume that the garage did it.
3 MEMBER HORNING: It happened 20
4 years ago.
5 MS. MARTIN: Yes, and it was the
6 previous owners. So basically what they
7 have asked in the design is a new space
8 to provide the kitchen it's not any
9 more bedrooms. It's not anything to
10 change the character of the house. It is
11 just actually they are everyday use
12 space for the kids to play and what not.
• 13 It's an open interior front end kind of
14 family room. And it's not taking any
15 more lot coverage then what we
16 previously asked to do. As I said, three
17 neighbors who were noticed, called and
18 asked for clarification and I showed
19 them photos and documents and they were
20 in favor of what we were asking to do,
21 as long as they didn't do any damage to
22 the back of the property. It's going to
23 be in the corner. It won't be effected.
24 MEMBER HORNING: On the site plan you
• 25 submitted where you show in the rear
FEBRUARY 6, 2014 REGULAR MEETING 49
• 1 yard existing and to be removed and you
2 have a line there, I was wondering if
3 you had to know what that setback was?
4 It looks like increasing the rear yard
5 setback a little bit?
6 MS. MARTIN: Yes, it's a little
7 toward the rear yard. Now it's 49. I
8 think it's about to scale, we are
9 talking about 2 feet shorter. It just
10 squares it off a little better.
11 MEMBER HORNING: You don't happen to
12 have.the existing?
• 13 MS. MARTIN: Not currently.
14 MEMBER HORNING: And on the side
15 then, you have a 23
16 MS. MARTIN: Yes.
17 MEMBER HORNING: What is the
18 existing?
19 MS. MARTIN: 23.10 of that little
20 deck, sticks out that part there.
21 MEMBER HORNING: How about in the
22 front of the building where it says
23 existing one or two-story frame house,
24 do you have a distance for the setback
• 25 there?
FEBRUARY 6, 2014 REGULAR MEETING 50
• 1 MS. MARTIN: No, we haven't. I can
2 get that. 17.8 is on the survey.
3 MEMBER HORNING: Okay. That's to
4 the corner of the existing house. The
5 intentions are to maintain the existing
6 setback; is that correct? More or less?
7 MS. MARTIN: Or decrease them, yes.
8 We are really only here for the lot
9 coverage.
10 MEMBER HORNING: All right. Have you
11 done any research for the neighborhood
12 lot coverage's?
• 13 MS. MARTIN: I have not.
14 MEMBER HORNING: And any variances
15 for lot coverage granted in the area?
16 MS. MARTIN: I have not.
17 MEMBER HORNING: Can you give us
18 some research on that?
19 MS. MARTIN: Sure.
20 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Ken?
21 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: No questions.
22 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Eric?
23 MEMBER DANTES: No.
24 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I have none.
• 25 It will make a nice improvement on the
FEBRUARY 6, 2014 REGULAR MEETING 51
• 1 house.
2 Is there anyone else in the audience
3 who wishes to address this application?
4 (No Response.)
5 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Hearing no
6 further comments or questions, I am
7 going to make a motion to close the
8 hearing subject to receipt of
9 information regarding lot coverage for
10 variances along Village Lane.
11 Is there a second?
12 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Second.
• 13 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: All in favor?
14 MEMBER DANTES: Aye.
15 MEMBER HORNING: Aye.
16 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye.
17 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Aye.
18 (See Minutes for Resolution.)
19
20 HEARING #6721 - DANIEL AND CAROLINA
21 MCGOEY
22 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The next
23 application before the Board is for
24 Daniel and Carolina McGoey, #6721.
• 25 Request for variances from Article
FEBRUARY 6, 2014 REGULAR MEETING 52
• 1 XXIII Section 280-124 and Article XXII
2 Section 280-116B and the Building
3 Inspector's December 6, 2013 amended
4 January 7, 2014 Notice of Disapproval
5 based on an application for building
6 permit for additions and alterations to
7 an existing single family dwelling, at;
8 1) less than the code required minimum
9 side yard setback of 10 feet, 2) less
10 than the code required combined side
11 yards of 25 feet, 3) more than the
12 maximum code allowable lot coverage of
• 13 200, 4) less than the code required
14 bulkhead setback of 75 feet, located at:
15 1050 Oak Avenue, adjacent to Private
16 ROW, Un-named Street and Goose Creek in
17 Southold.
18 Hi again, Amy.
19 MS. MARTIN: Hi. Amy Martin,
20 Fairweather & Brown for the McGoey's.
21 This is a little more complicated. They
22 want a second-story addition. They have
23 three children. It is a one-story
24 cottage on a very small piece of
• 25 property and has a lot of strange
FEBRUARY 6, 2014 REGULAR MEETING 53
• 1 sidewalks all around it and patios, and
2 a hard-scaped driveway. All of which
3 will be removing. As we will follow from
4 here to the wetlands for the Trustees.
5 With the exception of the proposed
6 existing concrete patio, all the
7 setbacks were preexisting nonconforming.
8 On three sides, the second-story will be
9 smaller on two sides, the
10 second-story will be smaller than the
11 existing footprint. And before we we
12 should have increased the existing wood
• 13 deck on the west side of to be
14 conforming. So we would I can bring
15 you a new site plan showing that at
16 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: What was
17 that?
18 MS. MARTIN: We are proposing a
19 seaward deck that will wrap around the
20 existing deck that is on the west side.
21 And that addition that needs to be
22 rebuilt, we will gladly bring that back
23 to the 10 foot and eliminate one of the
24 nonconforming pieces right off the bat.
. 25 They are also making a slight reduction
FEBRUARY 6, 2014 REGULAR MEETING 54
• 1 in lot coverage.
2 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The notice
3 indicates a 62.7 foot bulkhead setback.
4 That is to the deck. I believe to the
5 house it's 68.7?
6 MS. MARTIN: Yes.
7 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: And we are at
8 lot coverage of 21.9 and it's currently
9 19.1%.
10 MS. MARTIN: Only because concrete
11 isn't considered. Patios at-grade are
12 not considered as lot coverage. We are
• 13 removing all of these concrete areas and
14 just making a wrap around deck. It will
15 be 5 inches shorter on the west end.
16 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: That would
17 actually make the drainage better.
18 MS. MARTIN: It will. We will be
19 removing all of this concrete I am
20 not saying all, but most of everything.
21 I don't know if someone was a mason in
22 whoever owned this house but there is
23 concrete every where. They want a real
24 cottage feel and a lot of pervious
• 25 surfaces. They are actually removing the
FEBRUARY 6, 2014 REGULAR MEETING 55
• 1 concrete driveway, which is in bad
2 repair. In the front is where the
3 upgraded septic system is going to be
4 going. It now just has the one leaching
5 pool kind of septic system on the water
6 side. We are bringing that all up to
7 grade.
8 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The LWRP says
9 that it's consistent but one of the
10 questions that I have, what is that
11 thing that is on the seaward side that
12 is labeled and circled "MH"?
• 13 MS. MARTIN: That is the wrong label
14 on it. It should be a leaching pool. And
15 that is the only septic there is for
16 this cottage. We're abandoning that, and
17 our draftsman obviously didn't change
18 the letters. That's an error. There will
19 be a very consistent septic system by
20 covenant by the Health Department by the
21 front yard, towards the street. And
22 we're moving the water line over to the
23 side to accommodate that. So we're going
24 to all the agencies.
• 25 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: What is the
FEBRUARY 6, 2014 REGULAR MEETING 56
• 1 size of the deck?
2 MS. MARTIN: The dimensions are
3 obviously not on the site plan, which is
4 ridiculous. I wish I would have seen
5 that before. I believe it's 9 feet, and
6 I think the new proposed that joins into
7 the side yard is 27 feet. 5 inches
8 shorter on the side. So I would like to
9 bring you a new site plan with those
10 markings.
11 MEMBER HORNING: What is the
12 existing setback to the bulkhead?
• 13 MS. MARTIN: To the house is 68.7. I
14 believe with that second story is 4
15 feet. I will put all of those dimensions
16 on and get it back to you.
17 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Eric, do you
18 have questions?
19 MEMBER DANTES: Now, I am confused.
20 There is a 9 foot buffer?
21 MS. MARTIN: This is from the
22 proposed second story addition and
23 existing distance from the bulkhead to
24 the existing patio and proposed deck,
• 25 it's about 16 feet. I will get those
FEBRUARY 6, 2014 REGULAR MEETING 57
• 1 dimensions on there.
2 MEMBER DANTES: Okay. Was there any
3 thought about making the deck smaller
4 and the lot coverage under 20%?
5 MS. MARTIN: There hasn't been. It's
6 sort of what a 9 foot deck would have a
7 family sitting and a table and that is
8 what they hoped for. It's what the patio
9 was.
10 MEMBER DANTES: So the deck would be
11 the same elevation?
12 MS. MARTIN: Yes. The deck would be
• 13 when you go out that little door to
14 the side part, and it would be at the
15 same elevation so that there isn't a
16 step down.
17 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Anything else?
18 MEMBER DANTES: Nope.
19 MS. MARTIN: I will bring you the
20 written drawings.
21 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: You know, if
22 you are able to in addition to the site
23 plan to determine what some finality,
24 specifically what the lot coverage is
• 25 going to be?
FEBRUARY 6, 2014 REGULAR MEETING 58
• 1 MS. MARTIN: Okay.
2 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Just to save
3 some time.
4 MS. MARTIN: I will do that.
5 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Is there
6 anyone else in the audience who wants to
7 address this application?
8 (No Response.)
9 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay. Hearing
10 no further comments or questions, I am
11 going to make a motion to close this
12 hearing subject to receipt of an updated
• 13 site plan with dimensions and some
14 evidence of various lot coverage
15 variances.
16 Is there a second?
17 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Second.
18 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: All in favor?
19 MEMBER DANTES: Aye.
20 MEMBER HORNING: Aye.
21 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye.
22 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Aye.
23 (See Minutes for Resolution.)
24
• 25 HEARING #6717 - PATRICIA ANN
FEBRUARY 6, 2014 REGULAR MEETING 59
• 1 GILCHRIST-MANCINO
2 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The next
3 application before the Board is for
4 Patricia Ann Gilchrist-Mancino, #6717.
5 Request for variance from Article
6 XXIII Section 280-124 and the Building
7 Inspector's November 18, 2013 Notice of
8 Disapproval based on an application for
9 building permit to demolish and rebuild a
10 porch addition to existing single family
11 dwelling; 1) less than the code required
12 minimum rear yard setback of 35 feet,
• 13 located at: 15 Fourth Street, adjacent to
14 Great Peconic Bay.
15 Good morning.
16 MR. ANDREWS: Good morning. Brian
17 Andrews, of counsel to William Goggins
18 for the applicant. Mr. Goggins had
19 provided the affidavit of his client's
20 posting.
21 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Let me give
22 you a copy of this showing that this
23 application is exempt.
24 MR. ANDREWS: The application needs
• 25 to do some demolition (In Audible) the
FEBRUARY 6, 2014 REGULAR MEETING 60
• 1 deck. They would also like to extend the
2 porch as per the application by 2 feet,
3 which is minimal, which is for enjoyment
4 of their bay front porch. The
5 application is actually (In Audible)
6 property owners, Mr. Goggins and has had
7 no objections from any of the other
8 neighbors. It will be minimal impact on
9 the neighborhood. It's very reasonable
10 for this application for the variance to
11 be granted.
12 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: We are looking
• 13 at a porch addition with a 2.7 foot rear
14 yard setback. It is essentially the
15 function of a side yard. So the front
16 actually faces the bay, because it's at
17 the end of the street. Just wanted to
18 clarify that for the record. I have a
19 question. The wall that is perpendicular
20 to the rear yard setback, is that the
21 neighbor's? Do you know what wall I am
22 talking about?
23 MR. ANDREWS: I am not that familiar
24 with it. I have been to the site.
25 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: There is a
FEBRUARY 6, 2014 REGULAR MEETING 61
1 little bitty thing of concrete wall on
2 the survey, and what that does is, goes
3 off the property and continues on to the
4 adjacent property. Even though that
5 some of that work was done by the
6 neighbor. It's the same stone that's
7 on the chimney. I was just wondering
8 what that was. You're not able to
9 answer.
10 MR. ANDREWS: I'm not sure.
11 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: What is the
12 existing porch size? Do you know how
• 13 much bigger it's being proposed? How
14 much square feet?
15 MR. ANDREWS: I just received this,
16 because Mr. Goggins was unavailable. If
17 I can get the information to you?
18 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Well, the
19 proposed porch is 8x52.6 feet. I was
20 just wondering. It's not noted here.
21 It's very possible this is what is
22 existing and this is what is proposed.
23 So the existing is 6.3, and the proposed
24 is 8.
• 25 MEMBER HORNING: I have a technical
FEBRUARY 6, 2014 REGULAR MEETING 62
• 1 question for my colleagues. On the short
2 form environmental form, there is four
3 pages and I only have three. I am
4 missing a page.
5 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: As stated in
6 the LWRP that the action is exempt, but
7 I have some concerns that I would like
8 to bring up based on the
9 recommendations. There are two concrete
10 covers on the waterside that are
11 unidentified, we would like to know what
12 those are.
• 13 MR. ANDREWS: I'm sorry, that was on
14 the site plan?
15 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: On the site
16 plan. If you look here. There is one
17 there and one there. One by the hay
18 bales and one seaward of that.
19 MR. ANDREWS: Is that pertinent to
20 the application?
21 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Yes, because
22 it's part of our balancing of
23 environmental impact.
24 MEMBER HORNING: And then my
• 25 question relating to that, changing the
FEBRUARY 6, 2014 REGULAR MEETING 63
• 1 porch or whatever with the new
2 construction, do they have to make the
3 whole building conform to the stormwater
4 drainage?
5 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Well, yes, any
6 improvement would have to be upheld to
7 Chapter 236. And then actually the only
8 other question the coordinator had, was
9 that some of the structures on the
10 seaward side, the only thing you have a
11 permit for is (In Audible) 2001 well,
12 they didn't clarify what it is. We
• 13 emailed them about this and they said
14 that they don't have any concerns at the
15 moment, and that any of these issues
16 that we are bringing up today would be
17 addressed at their particular hearing.
18 If you could the survey that the
19 Trustees have on file was approved in
20 2009. That supercedes the 2001 LWRP
21 Coordinator aerial analysis. The only
22 thing that we would like to know is what
23 the concrete covers are. If you could
24 find out from the applicant, and you can
• 25 get back to the office?
FEBRUARY 6, 2014 REGULAR MEETING 64
• 1 MR. ANDREWS: That's fine.
2 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Ken, do you
3 have any questions?
4 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: No.
5 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: George?
6 MEMBER HORNING: I'm all set.
7 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Eric?
8 MEMBER DANTES: No questions.
9 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Is there
10 anyone else in the audience that would
11 like to address this application?
12 (No Response.)
• 13 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay. Hearing
14 no further questions or comments, I am
15 going to make a motion to close this
16 hearing subject to receipt on
17 information to what the two concrete
18 covers that are on the survey are.
19 MEMBER HORNING: Second.
20 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: All in favor?
21 MEMBER DANTES: Aye.
22 MEMBER HORNING: Aye.
23 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye.
24 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Aye.
• 25 (See Minutes for Resolution.)
FEBRUARY 6, 2014 REGULAR MEETING 65
• 2 HEARING #6718 - NICHOLAS AND BARBARA
3 PALLANTE
4 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The next
5 application before the Board is for
6 Nicholas and Barbara Pallante, #6718.
7 Request for variances from Article
8 XXII Code Section 280-116 and Article IV
9 Code Section 280-18 based on an
10 application for building permit and the
11 Building Inspector's December 10, 2013
12 Notice of Disapproval concerning a
• 13 permit for partial demolition and
14 reconstruction of a single family
15 dwelling; 1) proposed construction at
16 less than the coe required bulkhead
17 setback of 75 feet, 2) less than the
18 code required minimum front yard setback
19 of 50 feet located at; 4302 Wunnewetta
20 Road, adjacent to Wunnewetta Pond in
21 Cutchogue.
22 Is there someone here to represent
23 this application? Can you state your
24 name for us?
• 25 MR. KIMACK: Hi, how are you doing?
FEBRUARY 6, 2014 REGULAR MEETING 66
. 1 My name is Mike Kimack. I am the agent
2 for Nicholas and Barbara Pallante.
3 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Would you just
4 state your name for the record?
5 MR. KIMACK: K-I-M-A-C-K.
6 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Thank you. Let
7 me give you a copy of the LWRP
8 recommendation, which the proposed
9 action is consistent. So we are looking
10 at a partial demo and reconstruction,
11 with a 54 bulkhead setback, where the
12 code requires 75 feet, and a front yard
• 13 setback of 31 feet, where the code
14 requires 50.
15 MR. KIMACK: That is correct. The
16 existing dwelling setback is 35.2 foot
17 on the front yard and 67.2 foot from the
18 bulkhead. With the addition, we would go
19 up to 4392 square feet, representing
20 11.2%.
21 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Just so you
22 are aware, we had to use a plow to get
23 in there.
24 MR. KIMACK: It's a beautiful piece
• 25 of property.
FEBRUARY 6, 2014 REGULAR MEETING 67
• 1 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: It sure is.
2 Thankfully we saw the mailbox to find
3 the street number.
4 So what is the increase in the
5 additional footprint?
6 MR. KIMACK: It went from 2782
7 the original dwelling, the patio and the
8 porch was 2782 square feet, and with the
9 addition and with the roof covered
10 porches on the side, the west side and
11 the north side, and the attached garage,
12 it goes to about 4392 square feet or
• 13 from 7.7% to 11.20.
14 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Lot coverage?
15 MR. KIMACK: Lot coverage.
16 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay. We have a
17 current front yard setback of 35.2 and
18 the proposed porch will be at 31 feet?
19 MR. KIMACK: That is correct.
20 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: And the
21 bulkhead setback is 67.2 and you
22 proposed a garage addition that would be
23 at 54 feet?
24 MR. KIMACK: Yes. Actually to the
• 25 bulkhead it's at 59 feet. The extra 5
FEBRUARY 6, 2014 REGULAR MEETING 68
• 1 foot is for the kick back to the back
2 shower there. If you look at the porch
3 and the back of the lot, it really falls
4 pretty much at the 59 foot line. This is
5 the 8 foot porch in the back. Most of
6 the majority is at 59.
7 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: On the survey,
8 it's very deceiving.
9 MR. KIMACK: I was saying, if I can
10 read it, they can read it. My eyesight
11 is not that good anymore.
12 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: So it looks
• 13 like the current house is brick?
14 MR. KIMACK: It's brick faced cedar
15 house. There is two bedrooms upstairs.
16 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: You are going
17 to do shingles, it looks like?
18 MR. KIMACK: Yes. We are going to
19 strip the outside and put in all new
20 windows. Renovate the inside first
21 floor. Put a complete second floor.
22 L-shape the property. This is the
23 mudroom.
24 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay. Can you
• 25 talk about adding a new septic and
FEBRUARY 6, 2014 REGULAR MEETING 69
• 1 drywell?
2 MR. KIMACK: Yes. The application is
3 actually it has public water on the
4 property.
5 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The LWRP
6 suggest to test the water quality of the
7 surface water. The property slopes
8 towards Wunnewetta. Prohibit
9 fertilizers, pesticides on the parcel.
10 MR. KIMACK: I don't think that
11 would be a problem at all. I know
12 Nitrogen is the big culprit.
• 13 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Yes, it is. I
14 am bringing it up, although it's
15 consistent, we are concerned with
16 protecting the water quality and so on.
17 So I just wanted to get your response.
18 MR. KIMACK: I can speak to them
19 directly. But if there is a
20 recommendation in there, I am sure that
21 they would find it acceptable.
22 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: We are quoting
23 from Policy 5, to protect the water
24 quality. Increasingly, we have seen
• 25 recommendations that the properties are
FEBRUARY 6, 2014 REGULAR MEETING 70
• 1 inconsistent.
2 Eric, do you have questions?
3 MEMBER DANTES: Yes. I have your
4 previous variances, it looks like you
5 covered half the of the neighborhood.
6 It looks like you covered variances for
7 the neighborhood pretty well. Have you
8 considered any other options or
9 alternatives that would limit the use of
10 variances?
11 MR. KIMACK: We are already
12 nonconforming. Whatever we did, we would
• 13 still require a variance. We're
14 nonconforming on the front and the rear.
15 To have a covered porch, you know, to
16 enjoy that piece of property, is
17 perfect. If you look at the back side,
18 everything slopes so quickly on the back
19 side. We are having difficulty placing
20 the septic system in the driveway
21 because that is where the high point is.
22 We are going to need a variance for
23 that. You can't put it down any further
24 because the groundwater comes up pretty
• 25 high.
FEBRUARY 6, 2014 REGULAR MEETING 71
• 1 MEMBER DANTES: Okay.
2 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Ken?
3 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: No questions.
4 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: George?
5 MEMBER HORNING: Yes, on alternative
6 plan ideas, the existing setback now to
7 the bulkhead is
8 MR. KIMACK: 7.2.
9 MEMBER HORNING: And you are
10 proposing to reduce that?
11 MR. KIMACK: Yes. To reduce it to
12 the majority being 59 and because of the
• 13 kickback of the shower, 54.
14 MEMBER HORNING: Right. Which is a
15 relative substantial reduction in
16 distance to the setback. I will ask if
17 they have considered any alternative
18 plans, where they can maintain the
19 existing setback?
20 MR. KIMACK: I can't answer that
21 question directly. That would be between
22 the architect and the homeowner.
23 Basically in order to preserve the
24 walkway and the driveway, the garage is
• 25 about 24x28. And then also, it keeps it
FEBRUARY 6, 2014 REGULAR MEETING 72
• 1 away from the septic system. The two
2 leaching pools and septics are within
3 that driveway there. That is the only
4 place where we could put it.
5 MEMBER DANTES: How do you plan on
6 draining the shower?
7 MR. KIMACK: Through drywell's. We
8 will have a drywell for that. I know
9 it's not on the plan.
10 MEMBER DANTES: Thanks.
11 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: It's really
12 hard to read this.
• 13 MR. KIMACK: I can make it bigger,
14 it's not a problem.
15 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Do you want
16 that?
17 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Yes, I think we
18 should.
19 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay. Anybody
20 else?
21 (No Response.)
22 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Anybody else
23 in the audience who would like to
24 address this application?
. 25 (No Response.)
FEBRUARY 6, 2014 REGULAR MEETING 73
• 1 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Hearing no
2 further comments or questions, I am
3 going to make a motion to close this
4 hearing subject to receipt of a larger
5 survey.
6 Is there a second?
7 MEMBER DANTES: Second.
8 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: All in favor?
9 MEMBER DANTES: Aye.
10 MEMBER HORNING: Aye.
11 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye.
12 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Aye.
• 13 (See Minutes for Resolution.)
14
15 HEARING #6719 - SOUNA KOOLIK
16 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The next
17 application before the Board is for Souna
18 Koolik, 46719. Request for variance from
19 Article XXIII Section 280-124 and the
20 Building Inspector's December 18, 2013
21 Notice of Disapproval based on an
22 application for b for partial demolition,
23 reconstruction and additions to an
24 existing dwelling, at; 1) less than the
• 25 code required front yard setback of 40
FEBRUARY 6, 2014 REGULAR MEETING 74
• 1 feet, 2) less than the code required
2 minimum side yard setback of 15 feet,
3 3) less than the code required combined
4 side yards of 35 feet, located at: 1200
5 Sandy Beach Road, adjacent to Sterling
6 Creek.
7 Please state your name for the
8 record.
9 MS. KRAMER: My name is Meryl
10 Kramer.
11 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Thank you.
12 MS. KRAMER: As you can see from the
• 13 survey most of our nonconformity comes
14 from the fact that it's a preexisting
15 nonconforming house. Therefore, we are
16 increasing the degree of nonconformity
17 on the second floor addition. We are
18 staying exactly within the footprint of
19 the side yard setback there. We are
20 actually having only a 6 foot knee wall
21 there. So the second-story won't
22 actually be a full second-story on that
23 side.
24 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Which side is
• 25 that? The east side?
FEBRUARY 6, 2014 REGULAR MEETING 75
• 1 MS. KRAMER: Yeah. On the side that
2 has the 11.6. On the left side, we're
3 keeping within the preexisting
4 nonconforming and it will maintain the
5 one-story roof line, but we are adding a
6 shower. It will be 6 feet. And then on
7 the front yard setback, obviously we're
8 encroaching 2.2 more feet than we should
9 because we're doing a two-car garage.
10 And we have to do it on the landward
11 side because of all of the environmental
12 restrictions. Although I looked at other
• 13 alternatives, they weren't practical
14 from an environmental standpoint. We are
15 keeping with very high quality
16 materials, in terms of impacting on the
17 neighborhood. We are using cedar
18 shingles and raised beams. We're doing a
19 metal roof and a flat roof. Double-hung
20 windows. This will be one the nicer
21 properties in the neighborhood. We are
22 doing, in terms of environmental, we're
23 doing all the stormwater management
24 required by code. We're upgrading the
• 25 septic systems. We have mass public
FEBRUARY 6, 2014 REGULAR MEETING 76
• 1 water as well. I am not sure if you have
2 any questions for me.
3 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: You said you are
4 going to be maintaining the existing
5 side yard setbacks well, actually,
6 there is only one nonconforming side
7 yard setback. So you will be
8 maintaining that. That is going to be
9 at a single-story?
10 MS. KRAMER: No, it's at a
11 second-story. And it's also important
12 to know to be very clear about what is
• 13 on the survey here, the existing
14 foundation and first floor framing are
15 going to remain. We don't know if we're
16 going to keep the walls. We don't know
17 until. We will try, but they might be
18 easier for the contractor to take them
19 all down and reconstruct in place and in
20 kind.
21 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: On the existing
22 foundation?
23 MS. KRAMER: Yes. Correct. So to
24 answer your question, it will be a
• 25 second-story addition but a 6 foot knee
FEBRUARY 6, 2014 REGULAR MEETING 77
• 1 wall. So it's not a full second-story
2 there but almost.
3 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: And that's a
4 poured foundation?
5 MS. KRAMER: Right in that area there
6 is previously the garage. So we are
7 going to create a new wood floor to
8 match the height of the existing house.
9 It will be a crawl space. A very, very
10 small crawl space. A foot and a half.
11 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: And the front
12 yard setback is not substantial?
• 13 MS. KRAMER: I don't think so.
14 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: It's 2.2 feet.
15 We couldn't add onto the back because
16 I am seeing the dimension line here of
17 53 feet from the front corner, but I am
18 not sure why it's going to that corner.
19 Do you see the line where I am referring
20 to?
21 MEMBER HORNING: I have the small
22 version.
23 MS. KRAMER: May I come up?
24 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Yes.
• 25 (Whereupon, Ms. Kramer approached
FEBRUARY 6, 2014 REGULAR MEETING 78
• 1 the Board.)
2 MEMBER HORNING: I see it. And I
3 want to ask you about the west side side
4 yard setback. That is the one that is
5 getting reduced?
6 MS. KRAMER: Because of the shower?
7 MEMBER HORNING: Yes. The side yard
8 setback on the west is going to remain
9 except for the shower?
10 MS. KRAMER: Correct.
11 MEMBER HORNING: And that's 20.5?
12 MS. KRAMER: 20.5.
• 13 MEMBER HORNING: And you're reducing
14 it to?
15 MS. KRAMER: 16.9.
16 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Do you know also
17 of any variances in the area that are
18 similar that were approved?
19 MS. KRAMER: I did not do that
20 research.
21 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Can you get us
22 that research?
23 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: They are
24 pretty minor variances.
• 25 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: I don't know.
FEBRUARY 6, 2014 REGULAR MEETING 79
• 1 Eric, what do you think?
2 MEMBER DANTES: I don't know.
3 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: George?
4 MEMBER HORNING: If it's just for
5 the shower, then we may not have to look
6 at other variances in the neighborhood,
7 if it's just for the shower. Otherwise,
8 the setback is conforming.
9 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I don't
10 require it.
11 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Okay.
12 MEMBER HORNING: What do we have
• 13 from the LWRP?
14 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: That it's
15 consistent. Mark Terry is just
16 suggesting to protect the water quality
17 and prohibiting Nitrogen, pesticides and
18 fertilizers.
19 MS. KRAMER: I would imagine that
20 would be something that the Trustees
21 would put into
22 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: You know, they
23 get a report and we get a report too. If
24 it's the same issue, we're going to make
• 25 the same application.
FEBRUARY 6, 2014 REGULAR MEETING 80
• 1 MS. KRAMER: Okay.
2 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: It's an
3 important issue that we bring up because
4 we care about the quality of the
5 water
6 MS. KRAMER: Right. I can't speak for
7 them, but I am pretty sure that they
8 would agree. They are doing all
9 sustainable
10 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Right.
11 MS. KRAMER: So that would be
12 consistent with the property as well.
• 13 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Thank you.
14 All right. Any other questions from
15 anybody?
16 MEMBER DANTES: I do. This doesn't
17 really apply to the application. It's
18 for my own personal knowledge. I am
19 looking at your septic system here, is
20 that what is required by the code or the
21 Town?
22 MS. KRAMER: It has a shower water
23 cable, and the system that was designed
24 actually, I am not that familiar with
• 25 it, but it's something that they are
FEBRUARY 6, 2014 REGULAR MEETING 81
• 1 going to more. It's a rectangular I
2 think it's actually resin material. I
3 was just looking into it because I was
4 not that familiar with it. Robb Hermann
5 and Nate Corwin were working together to
6 do that. I am not an expert on septic
7 systems.
8 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Anybody else?
9 (No Response.)
10 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: All right.
11 Hearing no further questions or
12 comments, I will make a motion to close
• 13 this hearing and reserve decision to a
14 later date.
15 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Second.
16 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: All in favor?
17 MEMBER DANTES: Aye.
18 MEMBER HORNING: Aye.
19 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye.
20 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Aye.
21 (See Minutes for Resolution.)
22
23 HEARING #6710 - MELANIE BELKIN
24 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The next
• 25 application before the Board is for
FEBRUARY 6, 2014 REGULAR MEETING 82
• 1 Melanie Belkin, #6710. Request for
2 variance from Article III Section 280-15
3 and the Building Inspector's
4 September 24, 2013 Notice of Disapproval
5 based on an application for building
6 permit for an accessory in-ground
7 swimming pool and shed at; 1) proposed
8 location other than the code required
9 rear yard, located at: 1700 Cedar Beach
10 Road in Southold.
11 Is there anyone here for the
12 applicant? Do you have any green cards?
• 13 MR. IGNETOW: No, I have a list on
14 why I did not get them back. I never
15 received any green cards back.
16 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Would you
17 please just state your name for the
18 record?
19 MR. IGNETOW: Sure. My name is
20 Richard Ignetow, I-G-N-E-T-O-W.
21 Landscaped architect, 91 Green Street,
22 Huntington, New York.
23 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Now, let's see
24 what we have here. It's an in-ground lap
• 25 pool and shed, located with a code
FEBRUARY 6, 2014 REGULAR MEETING 83
• 1 required rear
2 MR. IGNETOW: We are proposing to
3 put the pool in the side yard, as
4 opposed to a legal rear yard.
5 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: So you have a
6 36 foot rear yard setback. 100 front
7 yard setback. Lap pool is 40x15. The
8 shed is 15x15; is that correct?
9 MR. IGNETOW: The lap is 40x14. I
10 have a new drawing.
11 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay. 40x14.
12 Just so you are aware, sir, all of us
• 13 have visited the site and inspected it.
14 I have a couple of questions, but Eric,
15 do you want to start?
16 MEMBER DANTES: You can go.
17 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: When I was out
18 there taking a look, the property seems
19 to be closer to wetlands and a basin
20 that is owned by Southold Town.
21 MR. IGNETOW: Across (In Audible)
22 road that acts as the adjacent neighbor.
23 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: When you are
24 out in the field, it's a little
• 25 difficult to know where the property
FEBRUARY 6, 2014 REGULAR MEETING 84
• 1 lines are. I know there was two stakes
2 there with the pink ribbon.
3 MR. IGNETOW: The property line is
4 on the survey and it touches it.
5 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: This is a site
6 plan drawn by you?
7 MR. IGNETOW: Yes. And that
8 indicates that there is a property
9 between us and that road, and that does
10 not belong to us.
11 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Yes.
12 Understood.
• 13 MR. IGNETOW: And the wetlands are
14 on the other side.
15 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The wetlands
16 are, I guess where that driveway is?
17 MR. IGNETOW: To the east of the
18 driveway.
19 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Generally, the
20 Board will accept in lieu of a surveyor,
21 a site plan by an architect or
22 landscaped architect with a seal on it,
23 but I don't see it on here.
24 MR. IGNETOW: It's not? I'm sorry, I
• 25 forgot to do that then. I think the ones
FEBRUARY 6, 2014 REGULAR MEETING 85
• 1 that I gave to the Village
2 MEMBER HORNING: There it is.
3 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay. Let's
4 talk about what about environmental
5 impacts might take place as a result of
6 excavation and coming fairly close to
7 these wetlands. You do have a drywell in
8 there for pool dewatering or is that a
9 septic?
10 MR. IGNETOW: That septic is to the
11 right, and that is actually one of the
12 arguments in why we're requesting the
• 13 variance. That area it's the only
14 rear yard we have because the house is
15 set back so far from the road. It's
16 really the crux of our issue.
17 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Do you have
18 are you going to rebuild those?
19 MR. IGNETOW: No. Those three trees
20 are proposed to be removed.
21 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: And a drywell?
22 MR. IGNETOW: We are not proposing a
23 drywell. In the past, filters needed a
24 drywell for backwashing. The filter that
• 25 we have don't backwash.
FEBRUARY 6, 2014 REGULAR MEETING 86
• 1 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Well, unless
2 you can provide actual specifications on
3 what you are installing
4 MR. IGNETOW: Yeah, we can do that.
5 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The Board will
6 require a drywell.
7 MR. IGNETOW: Okay.
8 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: There are
9 certain kinds of things that the Board
10 always goes with.
11 MR. IGNETOW: This one does not.
12 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: On the shed,
. 13 are you really proposing a flat roof
14 like that, a box?
15 MR. IGNETOW: We have with us the
16 designer of the shed. Basically, true.
17 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: 16 feet tall?
18 MR. IGNETOW: That is what they are
19 requesting.
20 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: And what is
21 the purpose of such a height?
22 MR. IGNETOW: Basically storage.
23 MS. KRAMER: My name is Meryl
24 Kramer. I have been brought on as the
• 25 architect for the shed after the
FEBRUARY 6, 2014 REGULAR MEETING 87
• 1 application was made. So we have been
2 having a dialogue about the design of
3 the shed to determine that the 15 feet
4 is too high, but we have not come to a
5 definitive height of what it's going to
6 be. He wants to maximize the storage
7 that it can have in it. So we want to
8 have a loft in addition to a ground
9 floor storage, and more likely than not,
10 (In Audible) roof instead of a flat
11 roof. So I believe for purposes of
12 I don't want to I don't want to
• 13 interfere with the granting of the
14 hearing, but we were thinking that I
15 would need to get the okay from the
16 owner on this, but we were thinking that
17 it would be a single story on one side
18 and then a story and a half on the
19 other. Maybe a 14 foot max height and
20 broken down to a 9 feet on the other
21 wall.
22 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: What is the
23 use of the storage shed?
24 MS. KRAMER: Storage. It has to be
• 25 storage. There is no septic. There is
FEBRUARY 6, 2014 REGULAR MEETING 88
• 1 no water or anything like that. It's not
2 going to be used for habitable.
3 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: No heat?
4 MS. KRAMER: Yeah. No heat. No
5 water. The owner in the existing house
6 has no attic and no basement. So there
7 is very little storage in the house. So
8 this is strictly being used for storage.
9 And it would be for pool stuff and patio
10 furniture and that kind of thing.
11 Storage for the house.
12 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay. Let's
• 13 see what other questions the Board has.
14 MEMBER DANTES: Do you know anybody
15 that this Board has granted recent
16 variances for?
17 MR. IGNETOW: I don't know.
18 MEMBER DANTES: Is it typical to
19 have these in the side yards?
20 MR. IGNETOW: This, I think the
21 property itself is unique. The house is
22 unique in that it's so far set back. I
23 don't know if there are other neighbors.
24 I haven't researched that.
• 25 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: One of the
FEBRUARY 6, 2014 REGULAR MEETING 89
• 1 things that we evaluate is character of
2 the neighborhood. So one of the things
3 that we like is substantiation of other
4 variances of neighbors that have
5 clinical side yards and nonconforming
6 locations.
7 MR. IGNETOW: All right.
8 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: That would
9 indicate that swimming pools are typical
10 of the neighborhood and that would help
11 us in our determination.
12 MR. IGNETOW: Okay.
• 13 MEMBER DANTES: I am looking at the
14 site plan, and do you have a rear yard?
15 MR. IGNETOW: The house is mostly
16 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Well, you are
17 proposing a pool slightly in the rear
18 yard.
19 MS. KRAMER: My observation from
20 looking at the ground when it was
21 opened, I think the septic system is in
22 the area, and it's south it's further
23 south as well, because it's coming off
24 the house. Directly easterly. And that
• 25 area has had to been dug up in the past.
FEBRUARY 6, 2014 REGULAR MEETING 90
• 1 So we know the septic in that area. So
2 we can't propose I guess, we could,
3 but dig up the septic system and then
4 place a pool and then relocate the
5 septic in another location. It's very
6 rigid and planted, and also has a higher
7 elevation.
8 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: In the back
9 it's very sloping.
10 MEMBER HORNING: Can you verify this?
11 Since you have a very large front yard,
12 why wouldn't the septic be there?
• 13 MR. IGNETOW: (In Audible.)
14 MEMBER HORNING: What is that circle
15 there?
16 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: That is the
17 septic.
18 MEMBER HORNING: The septic. Have
19 you considered an alternative location
20 for the shed and/or the pool, and please
21 explain what you considered and why you
22 have this proposal instead of the shed?
23 MR. IGNETOW: Two things, I didn't
24 want to (In Audible) to the front yard.
• 25 So once that line is struck 105 feet
FEBRUARY 6, 2014 REGULAR MEETING 91
• 1 from Cedar Beach Road, it would be much
2 more difficult thing to pool a front
3 yard. So that was a lot. The septic
4 system. The use of the pool would be
5 most beneficial, obviously to the
6 homeowner if it's there because there is
7 an existing patio. So if they want to
8 use the patio with the function of the
9 pool. At one point we had it further
10 forward, but the shed ended up in the
11 front yard, and we felt that was a
12 little too far.
• 13 MS. KRAMER: May I ask a question?
14 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Sure.
15 MS. KRAMER: What is the Board's
16 opinion? Is there a preference for the
17 shed? Is it in a side yard rather than a
18 front yard or are they equally
19 nonconforming?
20 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Well, it seems
21 to me that a side yard is a better
22 place. Since the rear yard you are
23 suggesting because of the slope and
24 wooded quality, as well as the location
• 25 of the septic is not a feasible location
FEBRUARY 6, 2014 REGULAR MEETING 92
• 1 for either the shed or pool; is that a
2 correct summary?
3 MR. IGNETOW: Yes.
4 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I don't think
5 there is anything you are still going
6 to be nonconforming anyway.
7 MR. IGNETOW: Yes. No matter what.
8 Across the street from us is a house and
9 they have grandfathered a shed in the
10 front yard.
11 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: They must have
12 gotten a variance for it.
• 13 MR. IGNETOW: I have seen it. We
14 certainly don't have an objection to it.
15 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Do you know
16 the property address? It's on your
17 notices?
18 MR. IGNETOW: Hold on. That would
19 be, yes, 1665 Cedar Beach Road.
20 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: I have a
21 question. If you can refer to your tax
22 map. Now the side yard, the parcel that
23 would be to the north, the adjoining
24 parcel, Lot #3 on the tax map, is that
• 25 the same owner as 5.1?
FEBRUARY 6, 2014 REGULAR MEETING 93
• 1 MR. IGNETOW: Yes.
2 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: So what is Lot #3
3 primarily used for? Is that for
4 driveway?
5 MR. IGNETOW: It's separate parcels
6 but it's not used.
7 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: There is no house
8 built on that, and the house, the people
9 in the rear wouldn't be effected by that
10 side yard variance?
11 MR. IGNETOW: No, other than that's
12 their driveway. No, he's not effected by
• 13 it.
14 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: I have no other
15 questions, except that I would like to
16 see a drawing of the shed, completed.
17 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: George, any
18 questions?
19 MEMBER HORNING: No, I just don't
20 quite understand why the shed couldn't
21 be in the rear yard, and I have a hard
22 time visualizing a septic system
23 situated in a heavily wooded upland
24 slope up from the house, generally when
• 25 they have to drain down. With the snow
FEBRUARY 6, 2014 REGULAR MEETING 94
• 1 on the ground, you can't get a very good
2 look. I mean, if you found room in the
3 shed for the rear yard, you would
4 eliminate one of the variances. Part of
5 our job is to reduce the need of the
6 variances.
7 MR. IGNETOW: I understand that.
8 That rear yard is higher.
9 MS. KRAMER: We are in the process
10 of getting a survey with topography on
11 it. I am wondering if it would be
12 helpful to the Board, I don't know
• 13 whether it's possible or not to get the
14 approval for the swimming pool and table
15 the shed until we give you further proof
16 by way of the survey with topography,
17 that the rear yard is not practical for
18 the shed?
19 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I think while
20 you are in the process of getting that
21 and also finalizing plans the actual
22 design itself, we would be better to
23 adjourn until we have that information.
24 So that if we have any questions, we can
• 25 ask them of you, or we can simply make
FEBRUARY 6, 2014 REGULAR MEETING 95
• 1 it subject to receipt of anything, but
2 then that prohibits our ability to ask
3 questions if we have any. So that would
4 be the best bet to do that, adjourn the
5 matter. If we grant them from the
6 distances of what we have here and we
7 send them over, that's it.
8 MR. IGNETOW: We will adjourn.
9 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Yes, we will
10 just adjourn this to another date to
11 give you time to get this finished.
12 MS. KRAMER: May I just confer with
• 13 the owner for one moment?
14 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Sure. You can
15 look at other pools and where they are
16 located and see if they got any
17 variances.
18 MR. IGNETOW: Okay.
19 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: We can't base
20 character on illegal structures.
21 MR. IGNETOW: How far should we go?
22 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Whatever it is
23 that is going to help you.
24 Is there anything else from the
• 25 Board at this time?
FEBRUARY 6, 2014 REGULAR MEETING 96
• 1 (No Response.)
2 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Is there
3 anything else that anyone else would
4 like to say?
5 MS. KRAMER: I have no comment. I
6 just wanted to check with the owner to
7 make sure they understood what was
8 happening.
9 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Sure. Now how
10 much time do you think you want? Do you
11 want to come back next month?
12 MR. IGNETOW: Yes.
• 13 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: So what I will
14 do is make a motion to adjourn this to
15 March 6th.
16 MEMBER DANTES: Just so you know, we
17 generally require pool equipment to be
18 in a sound proof enclosure.
19 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: You are going
20 to bring us some information back that
21 you don't require a pool drywell. We are
22 going to look at some more specific
23 drawings. And what we will do, if we
24 don't have any specific questions, we
• 25 will simply close the hearing. If you
FEBRUARY 6, 2014 REGULAR MEETING 97
1 submit everything to us, then we will
2 read it into the record and there would
3 be no need to take any testimony. You
4 know, if one of you could be here, in
5 case there are some questions.
6 What you also might want to do is
7 take some photographs from Cedar Beach
8 Road.
9 MS. KRAMER: The owner would like
10 the shed to be compatible with the
11 house. So it's not going to be a shed
12 that is an eyesore. It's going to be
• 13 something that is architecturally nice.
14 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: We often will
15 condition privacy screening, evergreen
16 screening. Usually applicants want to do
17 that because they don't want to be
18 exposed. We don't do that unless it's
19 necessary to the neighbors. In this
20 case, I don't think that it's necessary.
21 We don't always require it. We do
22 require a drywell as well as sound proof
23 enclosure. And those are prefabricated
24 on your own.
• 25 MR. IGNETOW: Okay.
FEBRUARY 6, 2014 REGULAR MEETING 98
• 1 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: So we are going
2 to adjourn to next month, March 6th at
3 1:30. So I am going to make that
4 motion.
5 MS. KRAMER: You want drawings of
6 the shed?
7 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Yes, drawings
8 of the shed. Information on the pool.
9 Drawings. If you could confirm in any
10 way more information about the septic
11 location.
12 Is there a second on my motion to
• 13 adjourn?
14 MEMBER DANTES: Second.
15 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: All in favor?
16 MEMBER DANTES: Aye.
17 MEMBER HORNING: Aye.
18 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye.
19 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Aye.
20 (See Minutes for Resolution.)
21 **t***************++*****+***
22 HEARING #6715 - JARRED FIELD
23 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The next
24 application before the Board is for
• 25 Jarred Field, #6715. Applicant request a
FEBRUARY 6, 2014 REGULAR MEETING 99
• 1 Special Exception under Article III,
2 Section 280-13B(13). The applicant is
3 the owner requesting authorization to
4 establish an accessory apartment in an
5 accessory structure, located at: 37470
6 County Road 48, aka North Road and
7 Middle Road in Peconic.
8 Would you please state your name for
9 the record.
10 MR. FIELD: Hi, I am Jarred Field. I
11 am the property owner, at 37470. So I
12 guess, you are looking for me to tell
• 13 you a little bit about this project and
14 what I am going to do here?
15 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: We can start
16 with some questions. You are looking to
17 place 660 square foot one bedroom, one
18 bath accessory apartment above a new
19 two-car garage. The accessory apartment
20 is to be on the second floor. Now, you
21 are proposing a new sanitary system.
22 The parking is fine. The CO on the
23 original structure, which we have seen
24 we have all been to the site by the
. 25 way. We have all seen the house and
FEBRUARY 6, 2014 REGULAR MEETING 100
• 1 accessory structure and we have
2 photographs of it. It would appear that
3 your architect (In Audible) actually
4 repair the 2008 Certificate of
5 Occupancy, by preserving the square
6 footage that is partial exterior
7 walls, that they are proposing to
8 improve in a new three-car garage and
9 then create a new apartment on top of
10 that; is that correct?
11 MR. FIELD: Yes. So if you all look
12 at the site plan, the modular home that
• 13 is already on the property. The existing
14 structure, I wanted to renovate this
15 garage (In Audible) accessory apartment
16 above it, and I purchased this property
17 last spring. And as it sits now, it has
18 a commercial type of feel to it. It has
19 a commercial setting. My plan is to
20 conform the property to a more elegant
21 northfork setting. So with this
22 reconstructed garage, it allows me to
23 really create (In Audible) on the
24 property. Make it a little more (In
• 25 Audible) then what it is already.
FEBRUARY 6, 2014 REGULAR MEETING 101
• 1 Myself, I am a carpenter. I build
2 architecture components. I am really
3 going to highlight some of my work, like
4 my own personal home. It will be nice.
5 Being this modest 700 square foot
6 garage, I really want to have a have a
7 nice setting for myself, and at the same
8 time, for my brother, who is disabled,
9 has been living at the existing home.
10 You know, this allows me to separate
11 from him so that we're not roommates in
12 the same house.
• 13 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay. Here is
14 what the code permits. The code permits
15 the creation of an accessory apartment
16 in an existing accessory structure to be
17 converted in whole or in part. The
18 difficulty there is that none of the
19 existing structures is used for an
20 accessory structure. It is in tune,
21 framing (In Audible) within a three-car
22 garage. Now, you do have other choices.
23 You could use the existing accessory
24 structure, renovate it in-place and
. 25 in-kind and so on, and use that. That
FEBRUARY 6, 2014 REGULAR MEETING 102
• 1 can be for an apartment. As of right,
2 you can build yourself a new garage on
3 the property. You have room probably
4 without lot coverage issues. If that is
5 what you chose to do. You also have the
6 option as of right to create an
7 accessory apartment with a separate
8 entrance on your principal dwelling, and
9 expand the existing foundation up to
10 25%. You don't even come to this Board
11 for a variance. You go to the Building
12 Department and get it done that way. The
• 13 code currently does not permit you to
14 create a grandall construction on top of
15 what is essentially (In Audible). Even
16 if you argue that by doing this you are
17 preserving the date from the original
18 CO, it still isn't relevant to the
19 apartment because we're not using that
20 for the apartment.
21 MR. FIELD: Okay. Obviously, I have
22 the option of making this a separate
23 apartment on the existing home. I really
24 don't want to. The existing home is
• 25 semi-historical, with the shape and the
FEBRUARY 6, 2014 REGULAR MEETING 103
• 1 siding. With new construction, we would
2 have to take that all done, and put new
3 soffits and siding. So the idea of
4 having an accessory apartment in the
5 garage was more appealing to me. What
6 you are telling me is, in order for this
7 to happen, it has to happen
8 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: You would have
9 to use the existing accessory structure.
10 If it's so de-habilitating and it cannot
11 reasonably be converted, then that is
12 that. You can't do it. So I am certainly
• 13 not telling you what to do, but only
14 what the law allows you to do. Perhaps,
15 Tom, you want to address this?
16 MR. SAMUELS: Yes. That was not
17 clear in our understanding of the code.
18 Now, I apologize. So it's the accessory
19 apartment is only permitted in an
20 accessory structure, not above. Well, we
21 were saying that this structure is
22 existing and actual space that is in the
23 accessory must be the accessory
24 apartment. We would need to come back to
• 25 you though for that accessory apartment
FEBRUARY 6, 2014 REGULAR MEETING 104
• 1 still?
2 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Yes, you
3 would.
4 MR. SAMUELS: Do we have to pay that
5 $900.00 again?
6 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: You know what,
7 I can discuss it with the Board, if you
8 want to come in an amend this
9 application for the Special Exception,
10 we will waive additional fees. If you
11 want to take a look at what you can
12 possibly do, then that is at least
• 13 consistent with what the law would
14 allow.
15 MR. SAMUELS: I understand.
16 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: If you think
17 you can save it, partially rebuild
18 in-place and in-kind, then you can
19 certainly what is the existing square
20 footage, do you know?
21 MR. FIELD: The existing is probably
22 around 400. I did some quick math.
23 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Right now, the
24 code doesn't address additions. We have
• 25 done one very minor, De Minimus, in one
FEBRUARY 6, 2014 REGULAR MEETING 105
• 1 "as-built" accessory structure, above a
2 garage. They were about 20 square feet
3 over the maximum 750. It goes between
4 minimum 450 and maximum 750, and it's
5 defined as an apartment. Now, you
6 certainly don't want to grant a variance
7 for smaller then that because that is
8 something you can't live in. We have
9 granted a tiny bit more than 750.
10 MR. SAMUELS: I am not as much
11 concerned as the 750 as can we add to
12 that existing. There is no foundation.
• 13 So we would have to support it all. Put
14 a poured foundation in and put it back
15 done. Support the framing. The framing
16 would be there, but it would be in
17 tuned. You know, legitimate framing.
18 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: That would be
19 something that I would want to talk to
20 the Building Department on, you know,
21 the preservation and the CO. We are
22 going to be, at some point, revisiting
23 this entire code but not right now.
24 Soon. It has been in place long enough
• 25 to look at how it is working and what we
FEBRUARY 6, 2014 REGULAR MEETING 106
• 1 might need to look at, change and tweak
2 and so on.
3 MR. SAMUELS: Okay.
4 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: So at the
5 moment, perhaps the thing to do is look
6 at what could be done with it, if that
7 is how you want to go. Forget about
8 putting it above the garage because it's
9 simply not permitted. However, if you
10 can preserve in-place and in-kind, we
11 don't generally look at proposed
12 additions to the square footage of an
• 13 accessory structure. We haven't been,
14 let's put it that way.
15 What is the existing footprint? Do
16 we know?
17 MEMBER HORNING: I don't have a copy
18 of the CO for that.
19 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: We have it. It
20 refers to the house and the accessory
21 garage.
22 MEMBER HORNING: All right. I didn't
23 see accessory building.
24 MR. SAMUELS: 536.
• 25 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Just for your
FEBRUARY 6, 2014 REGULAR MEETING 107
• 1 floor plan. It might not be a bad idea
2 and just go to the Building Department
3 and I think the thing to do is come
4 to us with what you think you can do.
5 You have 536 square feet to work with in
6 terms of your existing footprint. See
7 what you can do with that. The addition
8 is another question, and I don't know
9 how to answer that until we see what
10 size addition you will be proposing. If
11 it's very small, we have a precedent
12 without even requiring variance relief
. 13 from the application. As a courtesy we
14 did it, with these Special Exception
15 permits. You do know that these permits
16 do not run with the land? It is granted
17 to the applicant and based on specific
18 circumstances. If you were to sell the
19 property or your brother was to move
20 out, you're going to have to rent one of
21 the units. You are going to have to be
22 full-time resident in one of those units
23 and the other to a family member or
24 someone, who you could chose by the way,
• 25 who is on the Affordable Housing
FEBRUARY 6, 2014 REGULAR MEETING 108
• 1 Registry.
2 MR. FIELD: What I still don't
3 understand is, am I allowed to make the
4 structure larger?
5 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Not according
6 to the existing code. What we are saying
7 is the Board has some latitude in
8 granting variance relief. Not for (In
9 Audible). There are certain things for
10 parking and that's that. We do have
11 within our variance relief, our ability
12 to take a look at reasonable change.
• 13 MR. SAMUELS: What about changing
14 the roof line?
15 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: That does not
16 challenge the code. You want to change a
17 roof pitch. Just use the footprint and
18 what you can salvage to preserve the CO.
19 Okay?
20 MR. SAMUELS: Okay.
21 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I think that is
22 a much more reasonable and viable
23 approach.
24 MR. SAMUELS: Okay. One other thing
• 25 is, it encroaches now on the side yard
FEBRUARY 6, 2014 REGULAR MEETING 109
• 1 and that is one of the items that we are
2 looking for relief on, but there is no
3 foundation. We would our intention is
4 to leave it right there. I guess if we
5 propose a foundation, we could slide it
6 over a little bit, but only if you
7 thought it was necessary and better than
8 leaving it where it is?
9 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Well, you know
10 what, if it has a pre-CO, which it does,
11 I believe you have, as of right, of just
12 leaving it where it is. If you put a
13 foundation on it, you have a right to
14 leave it where it is. I believe that is
15 true.
16 MS. ANDALORO: Ultimately, the
17 Building Department has to look at that
18 issue first.
19 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: You have a big
20 property. That is why I was saying that
21 you could build yourself a whole new
22 garage.
23 MR. FIELD: Yeah, I just a
24 two-car garage was something that I was
• 25 looking for. At the same time, I was
FEBRUARY 6, 2014 REGULAR MEETING 110
• 1 looking to have a space for myself. I
2 wanted the garage with toolboxes and
3 then an apartment above it. That was my
4 mindset.
5 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Well, I can
6 appreciate that but the law doesn't
7 allow it. We have certain wiggle room
8 which we just talked to Tom about, but
9 we can't grant what the law doesn't
10 permit.
11 MR. FIELD: Because of the second
12 floor?
• 13 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: It's a brand
14 new apartment on a brand new garage and
15 it does not address the intent of an
16 accessory apartment within an accessory
17 structure. So that should flush that out
18 right now, and to give you some time to
19 digest this and as a courtesy, to come
20 back to us, based upon what we just
21 said. Now, if you want to avoid a side
22 yard variance from the Building
23 Department, I think you are being very
24 thoughtful about as long as you have to
• 25 put in a foundation anyway, if you can
FEBRUARY 6, 2014 REGULAR MEETING 111
• 1 take the existing structure and slide it
2 onto that foundation and preserve a
3 significant portion of it, and again,
4 you have to come back to us and we will
5 send it back to the Building Department.
6 We have to look at floor area and
7 understanding of the preservation of the
8 2007 CO.
9 MR. SAMUELS: Does this 25%
10 preservation make any difference in this
11 instance? When we did the calculation
12 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: This demo law
• 13 is being assessed once again by the Town
14 Board because since we have changed from
15 the 50% to the 25%, people have
16 calculated that preservation and
17 variances and my understanding, it's
18 meant to preserve volume, you know,
19 square footage of habitable space. And
20 in this case, as you all know, we all
21 remember Kimogenor very well, the intent
22 was not to preserve some of the frame,
23 but some of the structure had to be
24 viable enough to remain. So if you can
• 25 preserve exterior walls in-place and
FEBRUARY 6, 2014 REGULAR MEETING 112
• 1 then make other changes that make sense,
2 at least we have enclosure. Volume of
3 things remain. I think that when we send
4 it over to Building, they would look
5 more favor in that. I do understand what
6 you are trying to do and preserve the
7 CO. Otherwise, you wouldn't have any
8 basis for coming here.
9 MR. SAMUELS: It's hard to understand
10 when they talk about structure.
11 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Well, what they
12 mean by structure is building. Not
• 13 framing. They mean building.
14 MR. SAMUELS: Okay.
15 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: So I understand
16 why you did it this way, but it's not
17 the way Building Department would
18 suggest preserving a part of the
19 habitable space or even storage space.
20 But the intent here is to occupy the
21 existing structure. So say that there is
22 inventory out there and habitable. Let's
23 bring them in and legalize it. If it's
24 for the intent of a family member or
• 25 someone on the Affordable Housing
FEBRUARY 6, 2014 REGULAR MEETING 113
• 1 Registry, this is a way to promote
2 affordable rental units. Keep the family
3 together. Elderly family members.
4 MR. SAMUELS: Understood.
5 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Well, we might
6 in time hear from the Town Board that
7 they can convert into it.
8 MR. FIELD: You are sending us to
9 the Building Department and then how
10 else can we proceed
11 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Come back to
12 us. We will send it over to Building for
• 13 an interpretation. For what is preserved
14 and livable.
15 MR. FIELD: And are you just keeping
16 this hearing open?
17 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Yes. We will
18 just adjourn it. It's still for an
19 accessory apartment. So we won't have to
20 re-advertise. You won't have to pay any
21 more fees, and we will just wait for you
22 to come back to us with Plan B. Tell us
23 how long you think you need, two months?
24 MR. SAMUELS: Yes.
• 25 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Do you want
FEBRUARY 6, 2014 REGULAR MEETING 114
• 1 April?
2 MR. SAMUELS: Yes.
3 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Is that enough
4 time?
5 MR. SAMUELS: Yes.
6 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: You can always
7 call us and adjourn it to May or
8 whatever else you need.
9 MR. SAMUELS: Thank you very much.
10 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: So I am going
11 to make a motion to adjourn to April 3rd
12 at 9:50.
• 13 Is there a second?
14 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Second.
15 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: All in favor?
16 MEMBER DANTES: Aye.
17 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye.
18 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Aye.
19 (See Minutes for Resolution.)
20
21 HEARING #6707 - BETTY DEROSKI
22 REVOCABLE TRUST
23 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The next
24 application before the Board is for
• 25 Betty Deroski Revocable Trust, #6707.
FEBRUARY 6, 2014 REGULAR MEETING 115
• 1 This was adjourned from the hearing on
2 1/9/14 and the Special Meeting. So I
3 don't need to read the legal notice.
4 Can you just state your name for the
5 record, please?
6 MS. HOEG: Sure. Karen Hoeg, from
7 the Law Firm of Toomey, Latham, Shea.
8 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Ken, do you
9 want to start with questions?
10 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Yes, I guess I
11 will start. Can you explain in detail
12 the relationship of Blaire McBride to
13 the slide to the Deroski's?
14 MS. HOEG: Sure. He was the very
15 first family friend. He had rented a
16 house on Oak Street for many years and
17 was a personal friend of both Robert and
18 Betty Deroski. He helped them maintain
19 their property. When Robert died in
20 2007, he pretty much took care of Betty.
21 He took her shopping. He took her to
22 doctor's appointments. He ran local
23 errands for her, and things that needed
24 to be done around the house, he took
• 25 care of. He wasn't a live-in house-aide
FEBRUARY 6, 2014 REGULAR MEETING 116
• 1 but was close as family could get.
2 Betty really relied on Blaire McBride
3 and wherever she needed to go.
4 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Where does he
5 live?
6 MS. HOEG: He lived on Oak Street
7 for a period of time.
8 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Where?
9 MS. HOEG: The exact address in Oak
10 Street where he rented, I don't have.
11 When Betty had passed away, he had moved
12 into the house.
• 13 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Does Blaire
14 McBride take care of any other people or
15 just Betty?
16 MS. HOEG: No, just Betty. He was a
17 good friend and he took care of her.
18 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: And he is
19 specifically outlined in her trust?
20 MS. HOEG: Yes. She had transferred
21 the trusts without considerations. He
22 has been traveling, otherwise he would
23 be here.
24 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: And the Lot 24.1,
• 25 is the address on that 260 Oak Street?
FEBRUARY 6, 2014 REGULAR MEETING 117
• 1 MS. HOEG: The address on the lot,
2 actually there is a little confusion
3 with the Town records. You can see on
4 one of the documents, the lot has two
5 separate numbers, 260 and 275 but it's
6 the same parcel.
7 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: I am referring to
8 the Trust, and I guess it refers to that
9 specific lot of 260 Oak Street?
10 MS. HOEG: Right. On the Town
11 records, it's identified as 275 but they
12 are the same lot.
• 13 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Okay.
14 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: That makes
15 things complicated.
16 MS. HOEG: Yes. That's probably why
17 they never realized there was all these
18 transfers and the property had merged
19 back when it did.
20 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: So through the
21 deed, Blaire McBride never received that
22 lot, 260 Oak Street because the deed
23 requested the property to be sold?
24 MS. HOEG: Yes.
• 25 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: So he received
FEBRUARY 6, 2014 REGULAR MEETING 118
• 1 the two lots.
2 MS. HOEG: Right. This lot is 24.1,
3 Oak Street, has the garage on it and
4 also an old pool house, which we are
5 willing to take down.
6 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: And you spoke
7 to the potential buyers?
8 MS. HOEG: Yes. They are okay with
9 that. We told them that it would have
10 to come down and he told us that would
11 be fine.
12 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Now, how are
• 13 you in terms of the contract of sale?
14 How far are you along? What's going on
15 with that?
16 MS. HOEG: Everything is contended
17 on us, with us being able to unmerge the
18 lots. Otherwise everything is fine.
19 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Well, one can
20 argue that they were not treated as
21 separate lots because there are
22 accessory structures on the property,
23 which would I mean, McBride is now
24 living in this house?
• 25 MS. HOEG: Yes.
FEBRUARY 6, 2014 REGULAR MEETING 119
• 1 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: And he has
2 taken possession of it in the Trust?
3 MS. HOEG: Yes.
4 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The reason why
5 we ask about the nature of the
6 relationship is because the code as it's
7 currently written, indicates that it
8 should not be transferred to any
9 unrelated individual. However, we are
10 trying to determine what the nature of
11 that relationship is. We are looking at
12 how this might be enlarged under certain
• 13 standards, like Trust. Well, she's not
14 in a position to know whether McBride
15 intends to
16 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Well, McBride
17 never took ownership
18 MS. ANDALORO: (In Audible.)
19 MS. HOEG: No, I don't believe that
20 is the intent.
21 MS. ANDALORO: The Board may
22 condition the approval
23 MS. HOEG: Right.
24 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: And part of
• 25 the benefit here, and this is even more
FEBRUARY 6, 2014 REGULAR MEETING 120
• 1 complicated the fact that, if the Waiver
2 of Merger were to be granted that was
3 intention upon, you have a contract for
4 sale dependent upon the Waiver of
5 Merger, however it's contention upon
6 remerging itself. So we are trying to
7 look at the neighborhoods benefit as
8 well as McBride.
9 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: When was Lot 24.1
10 purchased?
11 MS. HOEG: It was purchased back in
12 1979 by the Deroski's. In November,
• 13 1979, it was purchased from a Jean
14 Denner and Muriel Smith.
15 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: And who is
16 proposing to purchase it?
17 MS. HOEG: Andrew Spanner, who is
18 lot owner of 2725 Harbor Lane. By
19 operation of law, it would merge.
20 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: One of the
21 things that we looked at is dividing the
22 Waiver of Merger conditioned upon the
23 sale and then the remerger and then it
24 gets complicated. That, in a sense is
• 25 what we have been talking about. The
FEBRUARY 6, 2014 REGULAR MEETING 121
• 1 applicant does have the option to get a
2 subdivision.
3 MS. HOEG: Right.
4 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: So we're
5 juggling them all around to see how we
6 can make them come out okay.
7 MS. HOEG: This is why we had Blaire
8 McBride sign the application of what we
9 were supporting to do. I know that he is
10 a personal friend of Mr. Spanner.
11 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Do you have any
12 more questions, Ken?
• 13 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: No.
14 MS. ANDALORO: The lot that is being
15 merged, is that a conforming lot?
16 MS. HOEG: No. It needs this lot to
17 conform.
18 MS. ANDALORO: Okay.
19 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: It will be,
20 when the two are joint together, by
21 sale. What counsel has just pointed out,
22 the intent of the Merger Law is to
23 create conforming lots. So by unmerging
24 and remerging, you're creating a
• 25 conforming lot.
FEBRUARY 6, 2014 REGULAR MEETING 122
• 1 MS. HOEG: Yes.
2 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay. Anything
3 else from anybody?
4 (No Response.)
5 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay. Hearing
6 no further questions or comments, I am
7 going to make a motion to close the
8 hearing and reserve decision to a later
9 date.
10 Second?
11 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Second.
12 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: All in favor?
• 13 MEMBER DANTES: Aye.
14 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye.
15 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Aye.
16 (See Minutes for Resolution.)
17
18
19 (Whereupon, the February 6, 2014,
20 Regular Meeting of the Zoning Board of
21 Appeals concluded at 2:47 P.M.)
22
23
24
• 25
FEBRUARY 6, 2014 REGULAR MEETING 123
1
2
3 C E R T I F I C A T I O N
4
5
6 I, Jessica DiLallo, certify that the
7 foregoing transcript of tape recorded
8 Public Hearings was prepared using
9 required electronic transcription
10 equipment and is a true and accurate
11 record of the Hearings.
12
• 13
14 _ r
15 S i g n a t u r e._
16 ss:a qD1allo
v
17
18
19 Jessica DiLallo
Court Reporter
20 PO Box 984
Holbrook, New York 11741
21
22 Date: February 20, 2014
23
24
• 25