HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-03/06/2014 Hearing
1
I TOWN OF SOUTHOLD ZONING BOARD OF APPEAL
COUNTY OF SUFFOLK: STATE OF NEW YORK
2 X
3 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
4
5 X
6
7 Southold Town Hall
Southold, New York
8
9 March 6, 2014
9:45 A.M.
10
11
12 Board Members Present:
13 LESLIE KANES WEISMAN - Chairperson/Member
14 GERARD GOEHRINGER - Member
15 GEORGE HORNING - Member
16 KENNETH SCHNEIDER - Member
17 ERIC DANTES - Member (Excused)
18
19 VICKI TOTH - Secretary
20 JENNIFER ANDALORO - Assistant Town Attorney
21
22 Jessica DiLallo
Court Reporter
23 P.O. Box 984
Holbrook, New York 11741
24 (631)-338-1409
25
2
• 1
2 INDEX TO HEARINGS
3
4 Hearing Page
5 Robert & Maryann Amabile, #6726 3-15
6 Vincent Bertault #6729 15-35
7 Fordham House, #6725 35-46
8 L. Patrick & Jennifer Higgins, #6730 47-52
9 Dennis P. & Maryann Schlessinger, #6724 52-64
10 George Curis, #6722 64-87
11 Joseph & Cynthia Schafer, #6727 87-98
12 Frederick C. Scofield, Jr., #6728 98-114
• 13 Melanie Belkin, #6710 114-120
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
• 25
March 6, 2014 Regular Meeting 3
• 1 HEARING #6726 - ROBERT AND MARYANN AMABILE
2 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The first
3 application before the Board is for Robert
4 and Maryann Amabile, #6726. Request for
5 variances from Article IV Code Section
6 280-18 and Article XXII Code Section
7 280-16 and the Building Inspector's
8 October 24, 2013, amended
9 November 8, 2013, amended January 6, 2014
10 Notice of Disapproval based on an
11 application for building permit for
12 addition to existing single family
• 13 dwelling (raised patio with in-ground
14 swimming pool), at ; 1) less than the code
15 required minimum side yard setback of 15
16 feet, 2) less than the code required 100
17 foot setback from top of the bluff,
18 located at: 1365 Aquaview Avenue, adjacent
19 to Long Island Sound in East Marion.
20 Is there someone here to represent
21 this application?
22 Please come to the podium and state
23 your name and spell your name for us.
24 MR. DELVAGLIO: CJ Delvaglio,
. 25 D-E-L-V-A-G-L-I-O.
March 6, 2014 Regular Meeting 4
• 1 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Thank you very
2 much. Let me give you a copy of the Local
3 Waterfront Revitalization Program Review
4 finding the proposed action consistent
5 with the LWRP. It would appear that we are
6 looking at additions to a single family
7 dwelling, which is on an on-grade patio
8 with an in-ground 16x34 swimming pool and
9 a single side yard setback of 5 feet,
10 where the code requires 15 foot minimum
11 and a 67 foot bluff setback, where the
12 code requires a 100 foot minimum. It's in
• 13 the side and front yard.
14 MR. DELVAGLIO: Correct.
15 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: What would you
16 like us to know about this application?
17 MR. DELVAGLIO: Well, we originally
18 wanted to site the pool in the backyard
19 and we had a preliminary site visit by the
20 Board of Trustees and they told us that
21 that was probably not going to be
22 acceptable and that we should move it to
23 the side yard. So that is what we're
24 trying to do.
• 25 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Just so you're
March 6, 2014 Regular Meeting 5
• 1 aware, all of the Board members have made
2 a site inspection. So we are familiar
3 with the site and where the garage is and
4 so on and so forth. This is not
5 specifically related to the pool, I would
6 like to raise the fact that our office
7 researched to find a permit for the upper
8 deck to the seaward side of the house, but
9 there is no permit or CO for the lower
10 wood deck as it encroach's the bluff line
11 on piers. And there is no setback noted
12 from the top of the bluff to that deck
• 13 either. More importantly, I would like to
14 point out that the deck is in the Coastal
15 Erosion Hazard area, as a consequence the
16 code does not permit more than 200 square
17 feet in that area. That deck is quite
18 large. So somehow we need to address that.
19 MR. DELVAGLIO: I researched two other
20 properties. Just give me a moment.
21 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Please just state
22 your name.
23 MR. AMABILE: My name is Bob Amabile.
24 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Good morning.
• 25 MR. AMABILE: Good morning. We just
March 6, 2014 Regular Meeting 6
1 purchased the home in August and we had
• 2 all the CO's. I don't have them with me
3 but I can get for you.
4 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay.
5 MR. AMABILE: Yeah, we didn't install
6 that deck. That deck had been there.
7 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay. If there is
8 a CO or a Pre-CO, that would be helpful.
9 The issue for us is that it's a danger,
10 it's in a very high velocity zone, and
11 likely create bluff erosion.
12 MR. AMABILE: I will look into that
• 13 and get that for you.
14 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Thank you.
15 George, do you want to start with any
16 questions?
17 MEMBER HORNING: You first mentioned
18 that you wanted to put it seaward
19 MR. DELVAGLIO: Correct.
20 MEMBER HORNING: Where were you
21 thinking of having it?
22 MR. DELVAGLIO: We had wanted it in the
23 where the distance to the house is
24 made, the 30.3 feet from the house and be
• 25 about 6 feet off of that and run parallel
March 6, 2014 Regular Meeting 7
1 to the house.
• 2 MEMBER HORNING: I see. When you
3 approached the Trustees, they said that
4 was not a very viable idea?
5 MR. DELVAGLIO: That's correct.
6 MEMBER HORNING: Did you look at any
7 other alternatives?
8 MR. DELVAGLIO: The other side yard is
9 too small, and it's believed that the
10 septic is in the front yard. Although it's
11 not indicated here, we believe that is
12 where the septic is.
• 13 MEMBER HORNING: And is there any way
14 that you can show us where the septic is?
15 MR. DELVAGLIO: I don't know to be
16 honest with you.
17 MR. AMABILE: Off the corner of the
18 garage is a well, and then to the left of
19 that is the electric service.
20 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: So we have the
21 electric service and possible septic.
22 MEMBER HORNING: Can we get a survey
23 with that stated on there?
24 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: What we're
• 25 attempting to do is see if this can be in
March 6, 2014 Regular Meeting 8
1 a conforming location and if that would be
• 2 feasible. That is why we are approaching
3 it this way for the record. A front yard
4 location is permitted in a conforming
5 location for waterfront properties. So
6 what we're trying to do is find an
7 explanation as to why that is not
8 feasible. So with a septic system and
9 electric in the front yard, that would
10 provide an answer to that question. So you
11 say you are looking for the septic because
12 you do not know where that is?
• 13 MR. AMABILE: (In Audible).
14 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I hope you do.
15 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Can I just ask a
16 question? Did you go to the basement to
17 find out where the discharge line is
18 going?
19 MR. AMABILE: Yeah, it's going out to
20 the side of the home. Along with the
21 water. The water comes out through the
22 front yard.
23 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The question is,
24 which side of the house?
• 25 MR. AMABILE: On the opposite side of
March 6, 2014 Regular Meeting 9
• 1 the house.
2 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Of where the
3 proposed pool is?
4 MR. AMABILE: Correct. The pipeline
5 goes around from the corner of where the
6 well is around the side.
7 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Thank you.
8 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I just asked our
9 Board assistant to make a copy for you of
10 Soil & Water.
11 MR. DELVAGLIO: Thank you.
12 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Just so we can
• 13 talk about it a little bit. There are some
14 recommendations in here to prevent bluff
15 erosion. Primarily at the moment, one of
16 the things that was of some concern, the
17 house is fitted with gutters and leaders.
18 There is no drywell to discharge and it
19 goes right onto the site. They are
20 recommending that a drywell be installed
21 onto the property to prevent water runoff
22 for the gutters and leaders on the house.
23 So we need to explore that with you. You
24 will need to comply with Chapter 236 of
• 25 the Stormwater Drainage Code in any case.
March 6, 2014 Regular Meeting 10
• 1 That is just something that is going to
2 have to be done.
3 MR. DELVAGLIO: We discussed that with
4 the owner and he is okay with that. We
5 discussed that
6 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Oh, you have a
7 copy of the letter?
8 MR. DELVAGLIO: Yes.
9 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Good. I didn't
10 know you had a copy.
11 George, do you have any other
12 questions before we move onto Gerry?
13 MEMBER HORNING: Sure. Again, there is
14 a couple of Cherry Trees that I think you
15 mentioned in the documentation, you have
16 to remove both of those Cherry Trees; is
17 that correct?
18 MR. DELVAGLIO: Yes. One for access and
19 one for the pool of where it's going to be
20 situated.
21 MEMBER HORNING: And in addressing
22 character of the neighborhood, we would
23 like you to submit some information
24 relating to any variances granted within
• 25 the neighborhood for pool locations, side
March 6, 2014 Regular Meeting 11
• 1 yards or whatever.
2 MR. DELVAGLIO: I have some variances
3 that were granted. They are not all pools.
4 There is one pool, bluff, side yard
5 variances. If you guys want to take a
6 look at these?
7 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Sure. The
8 swimming pool is the most important. There
9 is one bluff variance somewhere factored
10 in?
11 MR. DELVAGLIO: Yes.
12 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Can I ask a
13 question?
14 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Sure.
15 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: On the deck
16 situation, is there any way that that deck
17 can be decreased on that side yard so as
18 to create a better setback?
19 MR. DELVAGLIO: We can reduce it
20 probably 5 feet. It needs to be a walk
21 around. So we can probably take 5 feet
22 off. 5 feet off would be safe walking
23 distance around the pool.
24 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: 5 feet is a little
. 25 narrow to get any type of emergency access
March 6, 2014 Regular Meeting 12
1 to get to the opposite side.
• 2 MR. DELVAGLIO: Okay.
3 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Can you tell me
4 what the elevation of that is when you
5 have to raise that
6 MR. DELVAGLIO: Sure. It's less than 2
7 feet.
8 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Ken, questions?
9 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: No. He's going to
10 show where the septic system is on the
11 survey?
12 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I am not sure.
• 13 They can certainly locate where the well
14 is at this point; correct?
15 MR. DELVAGLIO: Correct.
16 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I am okay with
17 having it noted on the survey, rather than
18 having to go through the whole process of
19 getting a new one. If you have confirmed
20 it. You can certainly note it. With regard
21 to septic, if you have somebody come in,
22 have somebody note in and put a stake in
23 it and just note it in here. Since you
24 have agreed to make a more conforming side
• 25 yard, we could ask you to submit a survey
March 6, 2014 Regular Meeting 13
1 showing that. I guess you are going to
• 2 have to do that anyway for the Building
3 Department or if that is going to take
4 longer, we can grant alternate relief.
5 You applied for 5, we would give you a 10
6 foot side yard. Do you understand what I
7 am saying?
8 MR. DELVAGLIO: Yes.
9 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: You would still
10 have to prepare that information for the
11 Trustees.
12 MR. DELVAGLIO: Okay.
• 13 MEMBER HORNING: I have another
14 question.
15 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: George?
16 MEMBER HORNING: Addressing the concept
17 of alternate locations, I mentioned a
18 front yard location. Did you in any way
19 look at the idea of turning the pool and
20 putting it in between the house and the
21 garage? The distance isn't noted on the
22 survey from the corner of the house to the
23 back of the house. I was wondering if
24 there was room in there to have the pool
• 25 sort of parallel to the back of the
March 6, 2014 Regular Meeting 14
• 1 garage. Did you all look at that idea?
2 MR. DELVAGLIO: We have not looked at
3 that.
4 MEMBER HORNING: You would still need
5 a side yard variance. We are trying to
6 explore ideas that you would need less
7 variances.
8 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: One final
9 question, have you thought about any
10 landscaped screening? From some angles,
11 you can see the pool. Mostly from the
12 garage. You really can't see it from the
• 13 front. There are hedges in place.
14 MR. DELVAGLIO: Yes. And we will do
15 the front as well.
16 MEMBER HORNING: And you said you are
17 going to provide a CO for the wooden deck?
18 MR. AMABILE: We have all the CO's.
19 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay. Anyone in
20 the audience who wishes to address this
21 application?
22 (No Response.)
23 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Hearing no
24 further questions or comments, I am going
• 25 to make a motion to close the hearing
March 6, 2014 Regular Meeting 15
• 1 subject to receipt of notating on the
2 survey the electric, well and the septic
3 and a CO or Pre-CO for a deck and the
4 dimension from the corner of the house to
5 the back of the garage.
6 Is there a second?
7 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second.
8 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: All in favor?
9 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye.
10 MEMBER HORNING: Aye.
11 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye.
12 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Aye.
• 13 (See Minutes for Resolution.)
14
15 HEARING #6729 - VINCENT BERTAULT
16 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The next
17 application before the Board is for
18 Vincent Bertault, #6729. Request for
19 variance from Article III Section 280-15
20 and the Building Inspector's
21 October 15, 2013, renewed January 24, 2014
22 Notice of Disapproval based on an
23 application for building permit for
24 relocation of existing accessory.
• 25 Is there anyone here to represent
March 6, 2014 Regular Meeting 16
• 1 that application this morning? Can you
2 please state and your spell your name for
3 the record?
4 MR. O'CONNOR: Gary O'Connor, G-A-R-Y
5 R. 0-'-C-O-N-N-O-R.
6 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: So we have a
7 preexisting accessory building on a
8 nonconforming 19,950 square foot lot with
9 two front yards. They are currently in a
10 nonconforming front yard. You are
11 proposing to move them to the other
12 nonconforming front yard. Just so you are
• 13 aware, I believe the Notice of Disapproval
14 has been amended to reflect any such
15 action would require approval from
16 Landmark Preservation Commission.
17 MR. O'CONNOR: I understand.
18 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: All right. What
19 would you like to tell us?
20 MR. O'CONNOR: Well, as you mentioned,
21 it's an existing nonconforming. The
22 owner is here as well. And we are looking
23 to basically reposition the barn so we can
24 get vehicular access from the road. So he
• 25 right now does not have access from a
March 6, 2014 Regular Meeting 17
1 vehicle to get to the barn. And to make
• 2 better use of the barn on the property and
3 as you mentioned, it's nonconforming.
4 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: You are
5 proposing a 20 foot front yard setback
6 from Willow's Street?
7 MR. O'CONNOR: The average setbacks
8 along Willow Street, as you can see from
9 the survey is 4.1, and it's also a very
10 similar situation on Navy Street. You
11 will see on Page 2, there are a number of
12 existing carriage house/barns or garages
• 13 that are pretty much right on the road.
14 The nearest one just being on the left on
15 Willow Street. Right on this intersection
16 here. There are four carriage houses that
17 are right on top of the property line.
18 Here we are asking are asking for 20 feet.
19 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: And do you want
20 to say anything about the shed?
21 MR. O'CONNOR: The shed is a small
22 storage shed. That is 20 feet off the
23 right hand property line. It's not shown
24 on the property line, but there is some
• 25 bamboo screening on the neighbors property
March 6, 2014 Regular Meeting 18
• 1 to the right. You can't even see the
2 shed.
3 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Just so you are
4 aware, all the Board members have been out
5 to the site. They inspected the
6 neighboring properties and looked at the
7 character of the neighborhood.
8 MR. O'CONNOR: With the snow on the
9 ground, did the flags show up?
10 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The flags showed
11 up just fine.
12 Ken, questions?
• 13 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: What is with
14 relocating these old structures? Can these
15 be easily relocated? It seems to be in a
16 little disrepair.
17 MR. O'CONNOR: Part of the plan is to
18 bring the barn back to restore the barn
19 is also part of the work. Moving older
20 builders is not uncommon.
21 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: What is the present
22 use of the one and a half story barn?
23 MR. O'CONNOR: Primarily storage at
24 this point. Mr. Bertault would like to
25 have the storage of his vehicles in
March 6, 2014 Regular Meeting 19
• 1 there.
2 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: What is the use of
3 the second floor?
4 MR. O'CONNOR: Storage.
5 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: And are you
6 primarily going to use it for storage?
7 MR. O'CONNOR: Yes.
8 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: George?
9 MEMBER HORNING: Your idea is to
10 somehow lift the entire barn, structure?
11 Put it on skids or something? Swivel it
12 around, turn it completely? And do you
• 13 have clear access to Willow's Street? I
14 mean, you will be able to put a driveway
15 in?
16 MR. O'CONNOR: Presently there is no
17 curbing on Willow Street.
18 MEMBER HORNING: Because the property
19 has two front yards, wherever it will be,
20 will be in a front yard; is that right?
21 MR. O'CONNOR: Right. Zoning doesn't
22 recognize three lots. So that is why we
23 were disapproved.
24 MEMBER HORNING: And we have a letter
• 25 and maybe you have a copy of it, from a
March 6, 2014 Regular Meeting 20
• 1 neighbor, Thomas Mitchell. I would like
2 to locate on our survey where that
3 location is. Is there a Mr. Mitchell
4 here?
5 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: No. They're in
6 Florida. Their attorney send that on
7 their behalf, objecting to the
8 application.
9 MEMBER HORNING: I was just wondering
10 where that is.
11 MR. O'CONNOR: We have not received
12 that letter.
• 13 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: We can get you a
14 copy. The letter doesn't say much. It
15 just says since it doesn't conform to the
16 code, we object. But we will give you a
17 copy of it.
18 Gerry, do you have any questions?
19 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Where is the shed
20 being located? That is the location?
21 MR. O'CONNOR: Yes.
22 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Thank you.
23 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay. Let me see
24 if there is anybody in the audience who
• 25 would like to address this application, if
March 6, 2014 Regular Meeting 21
• 1 so, please come to the podium and state
2 your name for the record.
3 MS. MOORE: Good morning. Patricia
4 Moore on behalf of William Gesell.
5 Mr. Gesell is here. Mr. Gesell and his
6 family are the adjacent property owner.
7 They are on the east side where that
8 essentially right next to where the
9 relocated barn would go. It's on Willow
10 Street. Their house faces Willow's Street.
11 When reviewing this application, it seems
12 to me that some variances had not been
• 13 addressed. The first variance deals with
14 the location variance in the front yard.
15 The requirements for setbacks are 35 feet.
16 From the street you must maintain a
17 principal setback. While this has a
18 location variance in the front yard, it
19 should also include a variance for 35 feet
20 from a principal structure setback. It
21 was surprising to me that that had not
22 been listed. Secondly, there is a
23 variance required for accessory buildings
24 that exceed 660 square feet. This
• 25 structure actually is 850 square feet. So
March 6, 2014 Regular Meeting 22
• 1 there should be a variance in this
2 structure.
3 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I think they
4 have a Pre-Co on it.
5 MS. MOORE: But once you pick it up,
6 the Building Department has treated it as
7 a new structure. I know I have been here
8 before the Board for preexisting variances
9 that did not meet conforming size or
10 height requirements, which includes the
11 height variance on this structure as well.
12 I know there were variances that I had to
• 13 address on similar variances that were not
14 addressed on here. The third issue, which
15 I noticed is, the structure would be
16 placed in a flood zone, AE-6, which means
17 that the finished floor elevation will
18 have to be at 8 feet. I know that as an
19 accessory structure there are lesser
20 restrictions if it's non-habitable space.
21 However, it's not very clear to the
22 community. Their concern is if the
23 structure is relocated, certainly that
24 there is an ability to convert the second
• 25 story space.to habitable space or
March 6, 2014 Regular Meeting 23
• 1 accessory apartment or whatever the future
2 plans might be. So here you have a
3 situation where you are relocating the
4 height of the foundation might be an
5 impact to the community here as well.
6 Since your finished floor elevation will
7 require a raising of the foundation. That
8 is not clear in this application of what
9 the height of this application might be.
10 As I reviewed, this property was actually
11 from Gerry Woodhouse, Mr. & Mrs. Woodhouse
12 subdivision. And I know them, and George
• 13 John, I'm sorry. I know Mr. & Mrs.
14 Woodhouse, they came to seek out area
15 variances. Their variances were Appeal
16 #5218. I know there was a lot of
17 controversy through the process. They were
18 not sure if they were a merger or an area
19 variance. They ended up getting an area
20 variance, but in the transcript of the
21 Zoning Board and a great deal of testimony
22 was taken with respect to the historic
23 character of this property and these
24 structures themselves. The barn was built
• 25 sometime in 1906 and 1920 based on the
March 6, 2014 Regular Meeting 24
• 1 testimony that was provided, as part of
2 that hearing. And the importance of the
3 structure, isn't limited to the structure
4 itself but also the location.
5 Mr. Woodhouse did provide some passionate
6 testimony in the desire to maintain the
7 structures and the historic nature of the
8 structures. So ultimately the community
9 was supportive of that application. I
10 don't believe that the community and they
11 can speak for themselves, but the
12 community is not supportive of the
• 13 movement of the barn, given it's historic
14 placement. And how the lifting of the
15 structure might compromise itself. I am
16 not so confident that Landmark
17 Preservation is going to approve this. I
18 explained to the client, it's a little
19 chicken and the egg will come first. So
20 there are technical problems with this
21 application, as well as the character
22 issues. I have raised some issues which I
23 have in written letter. My clients have
24 provided me with some photographs today.
• 25 The letter that I prepared has attached to
March 6, 2014 Regular Meeting 25
• 1 it the transcript of the Zoning Board
2 hearing, and also the exhibits. Jenny
3 Gould who was providing Gerry Woodhouse at
4 the time, she had provided some relevant
5 information about the history of the
6 application. Appeal #5218, and the
7 application was approved by the Board in
8 2003, and then went back to the Board for
9 subdivision approval.
10 MEMBER HORNING: Can you show us on
11 this where your clients property is?
12 There is two of them on there. Are you
• 13 representing both of them?
14 MS. MOORE: Yes. I can e-mail you the
15 transcript as well as the letter
16 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Pat, yes, I
17 think we all want to be reviewing this.
18 You will provide us more copies also, Pat?
19 MS. MOORE: I didn't know if I could
20 provide that to you in e-mail format.
21 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Is that okay for
22 Pat to send us e-mail of the letter and
23 transcript? Yes. That's fine. We have a
24 hard copy for the file anyway.
• 25 1 do want to make two comments. Should
March 6, 2014 Regular Meeting 26
• 1 the Board decide to take action and
2 should the Board decide to approve, we can
3 always condition an approval based on
4 Landmark Preservation approval. In other
5 words, if they don't approve, our
6 determination would be null and void.
7 Just so the people are aware of the
8 process of what it would be. Also, any
9 application for an accessory apartment
10 would have to come back to this Board for
11 a new application for a complete hearing
12 and again, with public testimony and so
• 13 on. It does qualify to be used for an
14 accessory apartment, either for a family
15 member or someone who qualifies or is
16 already on Affordable Housing Registry.
17 That's it. It can't be a rental apartment
18 at market rate or anything like that. And
19 this is just information for you to all
20 understand. That's it.
21 You are going to need to come to the
22 mic and state your name, please.
23 MR. O'CONNOR: (In Audible).
24 MR. BERTAULT: Vincent Bertault. I am
• 25 the owner. I get water on a regular basis
March 6, 2014 Regular Meeting 27
• 1 during the winter. There is usually
2 about five or six inches of water. So that
3 is one of the reasons why I would like to
4 move that barn and preserve the character
5 of the architecture and restore the barn.
6 Gerry Woodhouse, I remember when I bought
7 that property there was a huge commitment
8 that I give to them to preserve and
9 restore the barn. I am an architect
10 myself. So I fully understand that. The
11 fact that I promised to preserve the
12 house, I haven't done anything wrong. That
• 13 is my intentions to do the same with the
14 barn.
15 MEMBER HORNING: This is listed as
16 seasonal. Is it currently still?
17 MR. BERTAULT: No, it's my primary
18 residence because I cannot live there
19 because of the damage from Sandy until it
20 is repaired.
21 MEMBER HORNING: And again, the house
22 was built before 1957?
23 MR. BERTAULT: Yes, I have been told
24 that it's probably the late 1700's.
• 25 MEMBER HORNING: And the barn you
March 6, 2014 Regular Meeting 28
• 1 mentioned, 1920.
2 MR. BERTAULT: I think the structure
3 is a little bit older than that. At the
4 end of the 1800's.
5 MEMBER HORNING: Okay.
6 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Is there anyone
7 else in the audience who wishes to address
8 this application?
9 MS. MCNEELY: Hello, my name is Ellen
10 McNeely and I own the two properties near
11 this particular one. Particularly it is
12 directly across the street from Willow and
• 13 Vincent, which has an accessory garage on
14 the street practically. When I bought the
15 house I needed to raise it. I raised it
16 two and a half feet. My building is
17 considerably smaller than the barn. The
18 price it was $21,000 in 1994. Just the
19 cost of lifting this structure and turning
20 it around and moving it to questionable
21 positions is startling. The condition of
22 the barn is at least two feet high and
23 seems to have a crawl space underneath it
24 already. The house, however, which I also
• 25 looked at prior to the subdivision, (In
March 6, 2014 Regular Meeting 29
• 1 Audible) covered front porch and it has
2 a nice one. I went to that house for
3 creating a foundation. We looked at that
4 foundation and it is collapsing, yellow
5 stone. The basement itself is not really a
6 basement. It's a pond when groundwater
7 rises. So why just always puzzled me
8 when this came up and why the financial
9 activity is not being directed to the
10 major house itself. It's an older
11 property. It really needs the efforts
12 extended to this. So I stand confused and
• 13 that is my view.
14 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Perhaps the
15 applicant or the applicant's agent can
16 address that for you?
17 MR. BERTAULT: Sure. The financial
18 involvement
19 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: You both have to
20 address the Board.
21 MR. BERTAULT: I think you have raised
22 a couple of interesting points. The reason
23 of the financial and my decision to do
24 that, and whatever amount of money is
• 25 necessary to move that barn and install
March 6, 2014 Regular Meeting 30
• 1 the value the barn is in worse
2 condition. And we have raised the barn
3 that was recommended.
4 MR. O'CONNOR: (In Audible.)
5 (Whereupon, the speaker was not near a
6 microphone.)
7 MR. BERTAULT: The foundation of the
8 house, I am asking in relationship with
9 FEMA and my home insurance, which are
10 going to take care of the funds because
11 Sandy destroyed a lot of the stone
12 foundation and the pools in the back of
• 13 the houses. So we want to restore the
14 foundation to the way that they were and
15 just waiting till we receive it.
16 MS. MCNEELY: That's good to hear.
17 This seemed to be a little confusing to
18 me.
19 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Hold on. You
20 need to direct comments to the Board.
21 Ellen, I understand your concern of the
22 restoration but what is before this Zoning
23 Board is moving from one nonconforming
24 front yard to another nonconforming front
• 25 yard. That is really all that we can
March 6, 2014 Regular Meeting 31
• 1 address. What an applicant choses to do
2 with that property financially, it really
3 is up to the applicant. It is really not
4 related to what this Board can address.
5 I do think what Ms. Moore has stated
6 that the Notice of Disapproval is
7 incorrect and the front yard setback
8 should have been looked at. They just
9 looked at the fact that it wasn't in a
10 rear yard.
11 MR. O'CONNOR: The average setback on
12 that street is 4.1. Another reason why we
• 13 selected 20 feet.
14 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Let me point out
15 what is certainly legal in the
16 principal setback is 35 feet but if you
17 take the average setback along those
18 adjacent streets of structures and average
19 them together, that would be considered
20 conforming for the character of that
21 neighborhood. That is allowed by code. So
22 you can look at the setbacks along Willow
23 and along Navy and average them and see
24 how close to the 20 feet they come in. I
• 25 mean, you would have to do the math. You
March 6, 2014 Regular Meeting 32
• 1 have a 4.1 average setback and you are
2 proposing 20. You have a 17.1 average
3 setback on Navy Street, front yard
4 setback. So you have done your homework.
5 Thank you.
6 MEMBER HORNING: Is there question
7 about the side yard setback because it
8 wasn't cited on the Notice of
9 Disapproval?
10 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: It wouldn't be
11 because it's 20 for the shed and 15
12 it's 15 and 10. So it's conforming.
• 13 Is there anyone else in the audience
14 that would like to address this
15 application?
16 MEMBER HORNING: I would like to ask a
17 few more questions. What would the new
18 foundation be?
19 MR. O'CONNOR: Concrete footing,
20 concrete block and then concrete wall and
21 then concrete slab on grade.
22 MEMBER HORNING: And do you have to be
23 FEMA compliant or not?
24 MR. O'CONNOR: My understanding, the
• 25 flood elevation is 16.0 and we are
March 6, 2014 Regular Meeting 33
• 1 required to be 1 foot above the
2 pre-board. Excuse me, 2 feet. Again, this
3 is an accessory building. I don't believe
4 it has the same criteria as a principal
5 dwelling.
6 MEMBER HORNING: So you don't intend
7 to raise it to EEMA compliance?
8 MR. O'CONNOR: We're raising it to
9 7 feet, which is several more inches. I
10 can make it try to make a large ramp
11 up.
12 MEMBER HORNING: The intention is to
• 13 keep the barn as a storage space only and
14 a garage and a barn for storage?
15 MR. BERTAULT: One car and a little
16 space to store some things.
17 MEMBER HORNING: Thank you.
18 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Providing that this
19 appeal is granted, is it your long term
20 goal to relocate the principal dwelling to
21 a more conforming dwelling and reconstruct
22 that as well?
23 MR. O'CONNOR: It was constructed
24 before Sandy and certainly yes, it would
• 25 be better if moved forward. So our
March 6, 2014 Regular Meeting 34
1 intention would be to redo the foundation
• 2 and move the principal dwelling.
3 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: In-place and
4 in-kind, so where it is now basically?
5 MR. O'CONNOR: The location is not
6 expected to change.
7 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: It was just a
8 question. If you were to be afforded this
9 appeal, it would give you a better
10 opportunity to have a more conforming
11 location.
12 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Thank you.
• 13 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Hearing no
14 further questions or comments, I think
15 what I would like to do is adjourn to the
16 Special Meeting in two weeks and that
17 gives us a chance to read what Ms. Moore
18 has submitted. She can send it to you
19 too. If you have any written response to
20 that, then you can submit it to our
21 office, and you can address anything that
22 she addresses. If we have no questions,
23 then we can close this matter in two weeks
24 from today, at our Special Meeting.
• 25 Apparently, Vicki has checked with the
March 6, 2014 Regular Meeting 35
1 Building Department and the Notice of
• 2 Disapproval did not address moving it.
3 It's still in a nonconforming location.
4 So I am going to make a motion to
5 adjourn to the Special Meeting which is
6 two weeks from today, 3/20.
7 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second.
8 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: All in favor?
9 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye.
10 MEMBER HORNING: Aye.
11 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye.
12 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Aye.
• 13 (See Minutes for Resolution.)
14+**+**+*++*+****+++**+*+++*++*
15 HEARING #6725 - FORDHAM HOUSE, LLC.
16 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The next
17 application before the Board is for
18 Fordham House, LLC, #6725. Request for
19 variance from Article IV Code Section
20 280-18 based on an application for
21 building permit and the Building
22 Inspector's January 9, 2014, amended
23 January 16, 2014 Notice of Disapproval
24 concerned a permit to construct a new
• 25 single family dwelling at, 1) lot
March 6, 2014 Regular Meeting 36
1 coverage more than the code permitted 200,
• 2 located at: 5205 The Long Way, adjacent to
3 Long Island Sound in East Marion.
4 Good morning.
5 MS. BISHOP: Good morning.
6 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Do you have an
7 affidavit?
8 MS. BISHOP: I do. I apologize.
9 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay. So here we
10 go again. Would you please just state your
11 name for the record?
12 MS. BISHOP: Sure. Stacey Bishop, 150
• 13 Waterview Drive in Southold.
14 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Thank you,
15 Stacey. We have a new single family
16 dwelling proposed at 25.9% lot coverage,
17 where the code permits a maximum of 20%.
18 Now, you have a copy of the LWRP report?
19 MS. BISHOP: Sure.
20 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I know Vicki
21 communicated with you that the survey did
22 not list the setback and the 50 foot
23 non-disturbance buffer?
24 MS. BISHOP: I do have corrected
• 25 surveys for you.
March 6, 2014 Regular Meeting 37
1 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Great. Thank
• 2 takes care of one of them. While we are
3 talking about LWRP, one of the
4 recommendations was to relocate the 8x8
5 drywell landward of the non-disturbance
6 buffer.
7 MS. BISHOP: Yes, I did ask them to
8 move that over to the west side. That is
9 something that we can stipulate that to.
10 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Where are you
11 proposing to move it?
12 MS. BISHOP: To the west. There is no
• 13 retaining wall required. So if we could
14 move it in between, that would handle the
15 drainage.
16 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay. Is this
17 still a modular building?
18 MS. BISHOP: Yes. Mr. Vallone, I was
19 left a voicemail that the project is now
20 compliant with regards to the Homeowner's
21 Association. They have no objections that
22 would be required on the survey or what we
23 proposed to do. So we worked with the
24 Board as far as their Architectural Review
• 25 Committee and so on and so forth. So this
March 6, 2014 Regular Meeting 38
1 project will proceed as modular.
• 2 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Can I ask a
3 question when you are done?
4 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Why don't you ask
5 it now, Gerry.
6 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: This has come a
7 long way, and I just wondered if there was
8 any chance in reducing the lot coverage in
9 any way, even if it was from a 0.9
10 situation?
11 MS. BISHOP: Well, I did have this
12 conversation with the client and I think
• 13 it's really suggestive as well. The
14 square footage of the lot itself is 33,000
15 square feet. So you know, when you take
16 it into that view, it's compliant. It's
17 within the 200. When you look at it from
18 the top of the bluff, it's another figure.
19 So it depends on what figure you are
20 looking at. When you go from the Coastal
21 Erosion Hazard Line, it is just over 5%.
22 It's conforming when you take into
23 consideration of the whole square footage
24 of the lot. We have the 100 feet from the
• 25 top of the bluff. So even though the
March 6, 2014 Regular Meeting 39
1 square footage may be off a little bit, it
• 2 is still conforming.
3 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: You do realize
4 that you are proposing more lot coverage
5 than what was denied in the previous
6 variance?
7 MS. BISHOP: What happens in that
8 regard, we did shrink the house. As you
9 may recall, the house was much larger from
10 the previous hearing. So we did get that
11 reduced. The issue becomes the topography
12 of the backyard. This gentleman has small
• 13 children. What he is trying to do is come
14 up with a feasible use for this backyard.
15 The problem with the topography appears to
16 be man made. The adjacent neighbor seems
17 to have brought in a tremendous amount of
18 fill. So he is left with this, the left
19 side and the right side. No matter how we
20 put this house up, we are going to have
21 some degree that is exposed. They just
22 want to have a level space that could be
23 used. As you recall from the previous
24 hearing, we got approval for the balcony
25 and fixed windows at 4 feet. There are
March 6, 2014 Regular Meeting 40
• 1 going to be columns to support that
2 balcony. I kind of drew out a rough
3 schematic of the house.
4 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I just wanted to
5 make a statement. It's just my theory. You
6 know, you need three votes to carry a
7 resolution, but let's assume at the
8 Special Meeting that a Board member
9 proposes 24.5. Some figure less than what
10 the 25.9 is, and I mean, the chopping is
11 going to have to take precedence on your
12 part. If for some reason, you can reduce
• 13 this 1%, it would make life easier and
14 that situation might not occur. That is
15 where we are and that is what I am
16 suggesting to you. And I realize that
17 everything that you have said is
18 absolutely correct. I am just warning you
19 that that may happen. That has been done
20 before.
21 MS. BISHOP: Sure. I understand.
22 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Stacey, is there
23 any way that you can cut down that front
24 covered porch because frankly that is just
• 25 decorative?
March 6, 2014 Regular Meeting 41
• 1 MS. BISHOP: It is. It has been cut
2 back. It's actually only three feet deep.
3 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The edges
4 MS. BISHOP: That's just by default.
5 Just the way the house is. We actually
6 tried to but because there are covenants
7 and restrictions with the house, the
8 garage is going underneath and it doesn't
9 line up. It is decorative and it is it
10 really doesn't serve anything other than a
11 decorative. It's the front elevation of
12 the design. Given the design of the
• 13 house, the right and left, it gives them
14 the design so that it doesn't look like a
15 complete square.
16 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I am wondering
17 the two squares on either side of the
18 house, I understand it's to make it look
19 symmetrical, but if both of those were
20 eliminated I don't know what those
21 would amount to. It wouldn't really
22 accomplish much.
23 MS. BISHOP: It wouldn't look very
24 appealing.
• 25 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Here is the
March 6, 2014 Regular Meeting 42
• 1 thing, the original Trustees permit
2 already granted a conforming house.
3 Conforming setbacks and conforming buffer
4 and so on, and since it's not new, I don't
5 understand why you just can't build a
6 conforming structure. So I understand the
7 need for some outdoor space. I understand
8 the slope and the grade and you are not
9 going to be able to enjoy the space. The
10 only way you would be able to do that is
11 make the house a little bit smaller and
12 the kept the deck the way that you want
• 13 it. There are issues, I suppose with a
14 modular construction that don't permit too
15 much flexibility. I guess we are trying to
16 inform you of the fact that you no longer
17 are going to have a third story?
18 MS. BISHOP: Correct. That has been
19 thrown away. If we can configure the rear
20 deck and make it a little smaller. Maybe
21 angle the corners off a little bit because
22 you see how the projections come out. You
23 have to maintain the 3 feet. Maybe we can
24 cut off around the size to reduce the
• 25 square footage.
March 6, 2014 Regular Meeting 43
• 1 MEMBER HORNING: I don't have the
2 prior application in the file, but you are
3 aware of it, and in that, what the Board
4 said is that you applied for a lot
5 coverage 24.2% and it was denied because
6 the Board's logic at the time because
7 there was no reason why you couldn't have
8 conforming lot coverage of the building.
9 Now, the survey dimensions and all of this
10 are all the same
11 MS. BISHOP: No, when we were here
12 before that was to get closer to the
• 13 bluff.
14 MEMBER HORNING: The parcel has not
15 changed in size?
16 MS. BISHOP: That's correct.
17 MEMBER HORNING: And the lot area that
18 you are saying is upland, has not changed;
19 is that correct?
20 MS. BISHOP: That's correct.
21 MEMBER HORNING: And that is the basis
22 for the 20% lot coverage; isn't that
23 correct also?
24 MS. BISHOP: That's correct.
• 25 MEMBER HORNING: And you are saying the
March 6, 2014 Regular Meeting 44
• 1 house was shrunk?
2 MS. BISHOP: That's correct.
3 MEMBER HORNING: So then is that
4 surmising then the thing that increased
5 the lot coverage is the deck?
6 MS. BISHOP: Correct.
7 MEMBER HORNING: So it makes us wonder
8 why if we denied it at 24.2°%, why you come
9 back with 25.9% proposal lot coverage with
10 a proposed smaller footprint, but it
11 really isn't smaller footprint. The house
12 is larger.
• 13 MS. BISHOP: If my client wanted to
14 make the application to the Board because
15 now the differential is that everything is
16 compliant with respect to the setbacks and
17 what not. He is looking for some sort of
18 space in the back and this is what he is
19 proposing to be constructed. This is what
20 he is putting before the Board; however,
21 he is willing to make some amendments to
22 the rear deck to get to a square footage
23 allotment that would be more appealing to
24 the Board. This is what he wants to do. He
• 25 is presenting to you his wishes.
March 6, 2014 Regular Meeting 45
1 MEMBER HORNING: If he had a lot
• 2 coverage of 20%, then he wouldn't even be
3 here; is that correct?
4 MS. BISHOP: True.
5 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Is there anyone
6 else in the audience that would like to
7 address this application?
8 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: If you could, if
9 you could think about it and get us
10 something back in the next two weeks
11 MS. BISHOP: I will go back again and
12 take another look at the front. I will
• 13 certainly make recommendations to my
14 client. We have gotten things approved in
15 the past years, and I will see what he is
16 willing to do.
17 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Why don't we do
18 this, why don't we adjourn to the Special
19 Meeting in two weeks so you can work out
20 whatever details you can, so that you can
21 provide an amendment to lot coverage. And
22 then we could look at it there are no
23 guarantees.
24 MS. BISHOP: Absolutely.
• 25 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: We will see if
March 6, 2014 Regular Meeting 46
• 1 that is something that the Board will
2 entertain or not. Does that sound
3 good?
4 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I just don't see
5 any relief greater than 22.4%.
6 MS. BISHOP: Everything is conforming.
7 The Homeowners Association is a little bit
8 up in there of where do you want to put
9 and what do you want to do.
10 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay. Anything
11 else?
12 (No Response.)
• 13 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Hearing no
14 further comments or questions, I am going
15 to make a motion to adjourn this hearing
16 to the Special Meeting on March 20th for
17 consultation of potential amended lot
18 coverage.
19 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Second.
20 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: All in favor?
21 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye.
22 MEMBER HORNING: Aye.
23 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye.
24 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Aye.
25 (See Minutes for Resolution.)
March 6, 2014 Regular Meeting 47
1
• 2 HEARING #6730 - L. PATRICK & JENNIFER
3 HIGGINS
4 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The next
5 application before the Board is for
6 L. Patrick and Jennifer Higgins, #6730.
7 Request for variances from Article XXII
8 Section 280-122A and Article III Section
9 280-15F and the Building Inspector's
10 December 23, 2013 Notice of Disapproval
11 based on an application for building
12 permit for additions and alterations to
• 13 existing non-conforming accessory garage,
14 at; 1) proposed increase in
15 non-conformance, 2) less than the code
16 required side yard setback of 25 feet,
11 located at: 410 Jackson Street, adjacent
18 to Great Peconic Bay in New Suffolk.
19 Would you just state your name,
20 please.
21 MR. SAMUELS: Tom Samuels of behalf of
22 the Higgins who is also here this morning.
23 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Here is LWRP,
24 it's consistent. Now, you did submit a
• 25 corrected survey because the Notice of
March 6, 2014 Regular Meeting 48
• 1 Disapproval said the side yard was 11.5
2 and in your application you said 22. So it
3 conflicted. In any case, the survey is now
4 consistent with 11.4 1/2 feet side yard
5 setback. The code requires 25. But that is
6 the current side yard setback.
7 MR. SAMUELS: Correct.
8 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Just a couple of
9 questions here and then we will go down
10 the line. You have storage proposed. What
11 are you planning to store in there?
12 Storage stuff?
• 13 MR. SAMUELS: The Higgins are very
14 active people. There is a lot of boating,
15 dingy's. Obviously the cars in the garage.
16 All of the outdoor furniture things. There
17 is no significant basement in the house.
18 There is no attic. So this is very limited
19 for stuff. The sail. They do all these
20 things. There is a pull down stairs but
21 you go up there, it's very stuffy and
22 small. So they can do what they need to do
23 and keep their lifestyle underway. Having
24 a half bath helps them so they can work
• 25 on these boats and cars. They have a lot
March 6, 2014 Regular Meeting 49
1 of things.
• 2 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: You also
3 indicated that it's an occasional
4 workshop. What is an "occasional
5 workshop?"
6 MR. SAMUELS: On the boat. Like I
7 said, there is maintenance. Maintenance
8 for their things. To maintain their stuff.
9 Working out. I would especially say the
10 boating stuff and other sporting things.
11 They are very active people.
12 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Are you planning
• 13 to finish the interior? Heat it?
14 MR. SAMUELS: Heating would be helpful
15 for these uses and finished as well,
16 insulated. Treat it like a accessory
17 building.
18 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: And last but not
19 least, LWRP wants to verify the function
20 of the sanitary system and new proposed
21 1/2 bath in accessory
22 MR. SAMUELS: We obviously have to go
23 to the Health Department for that system.
24 The only question now is how we will make
• 25 it into the house. So we are currently
March 6, 2014 Regular Meeting 50
• 1 having the house system surveyed to find
2 out whether it would be amenable to expand
3 the system or link the two together. So we
4 will need Health Department approval and
5 it will be a compliance system.
6 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Ken, questions?
7 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Yes. Do you know
8 what the present square footage of the
9 the lot coverage is?
10 MR. SAMUELS: It's rather small. I
11 don't have that written down but I would
12 say it's less than 50.
• 13 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: And this type of lot
14 would permit an accessory structure within
15 20 of the lot coverage, I believe. So the
16 applicant could build another structure by
17 right.
18 MR. SAMUELS: That is correct, but we
19 are looking at the open side area and to
20 make this structure a little more similar
21 to the house. The siding material. We are
22 looking to improve it, but you are
23 absolutely right.
24 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: The existing ridge
• 25 height?
March 6, 2014 Regular Meeting 51
• 1 MR. SAMUELS: I would say 17 or 18
2 feet.
3 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: It's 18 on the
4 plan.
5 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: And the existing
6 nonconforming side yard that would just be
7 maintained
8 MR. SAMUELS: Correct.
9 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: And this garage has
10 a preexisting CO?
11 MR. SAMUELS: Yes.
12 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Probably one of the
• 13 issues would also be the septic.
14 MR. SAMUELS: It has to comply. It will
15 comply.
16 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: I don't have any
17 other questions.
18 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: George?
19 MEMBER HORNING: I think we all
20 realized there is a lot of nonconforming
21 setbacks and structures in the immediate
22 downtown New Suffolk. Did you look at
23 nonconforming garage setbacks and side
24 yard setbacks along Jackson Street?
. 25 MR. SAMUELS: I didn't do a study of
March 6, 2014 Regular Meeting 52
1 those. I would say that they are probably
• 2 along Jackson, there are a few.
3 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The point is,
4 you have a CO for the 11.5 and you are not
5 changing that other than the roof line.
6 Any other questions?
7 (No Response.)
8 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Is there anyone
9 in the audience that wishes to address
10 this application?
11 (No Response.)
12 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Hearing no
• 13 further questions or comments, I am going
14 to make a motion to close this hearing and
15 reserve decision to a later date.
16 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Second.
17 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: All in favor?
18 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye.
19 MEMBER HORNING: Aye.
20 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye.
21 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Aye.
22 (See Minutes for Resolution.)
23
24 HEARING #6724 - DENNIS P. & MARYANN
• 25 SCHLESSINGER
March 6, 2014 Regular Meeting 53
1 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The next
• 2 application before the Board is for Dennis
3 P. & Maryann Schlessinger, #6724. Request
4 for variance from Article III Section
5 280-15C and the Building Inspector's
6 December 12, 2013 Notice of Disapproval
7 based on an application for building
8 permit for an accessory garage, at; 1)
9 proposed square footage exceeding the code
10 permitted 750 square foot maximum, located
11 at: 2165 Gabriella Court in Mattituck.
12 Good morning.
• 13 MR. SCHLESSINGER: Good morning.
14 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Let me give you a
15 copy of this. This is Suffolk County. All
16 this says that this matter that you are
17 proposing is for local determination.
18 Would you please state your name for the
19 record.
20 MR. SCHLESSINGER: Dennis Schlessinger.
21 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: We have a
22 proposal for a 4-car accessory garage at
23 15x28 feet, which is 1400 square feet. The
24 code permits a maximum of 750. Now, just
• 25 so you are aware, all of the Board members
March 6, 2014 Regular Meeting 54
• 1 have inspected the site personally. I
2 would like to ask you that you currently
3 have on the site an accessory structure in
4 the rear yard. And when we were out there
5 making site inspection, we noticed that
6 there was a door that said, "Employee's
7 Only" and on the other side, "Visitor
8 Parking." Can you tell us what is going
9 on there, please?
10 MR. SCHLESSINGER: That was a joke
11 from one of my friends, the sign on the
12 door. I collect antique cars and that is
• 13 why I am looking for the garage.
14 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Let me ask you,
15 what do you currently use in that
16 structure?
17 MR. SCHLESSINGER: It's storage.
18 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: And what do you
19 currently store?
20 MR. SCHLESSINGER: Antique vehicles.
21 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: So you have
22 antique cars in there already?
23 MR. SCHLESSINGER: Yes.
24 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Do you happen to
• 25 know what your current lot coverage is?
March 6, 2014 Regular Meeting 55
1 MR. SCHLESSINGER: 40,009 square
• 2 feet.
3 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Yes, but the lot
4 coverage of that is what percentage that
5 is covered by structure? I don't see it
6 on your survey. I mean, it wasn't cited in
7 your Notice of Disapproval.
8 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Yes, we would like
9 to know what the lot coverage is for your
10 structure.
11 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: A surveyor can
12 tell you that very easily.
• 13 MR. SCHLESSINGER: I am not sure of
14 the percentage.
15 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: That is what we are
16 asking. I don't see anything from a
17 licensed professional telling us what the
18 lot coverage is of your structure, and
19 that would be good to know that. If you
20 could submit that to us?
21 MR. SCHLESSINGER: Okay.
22 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: So antique cars is
23 your hobby?
24 MR. SCHLESSINGER: Yes.
• 25 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Do you sell and
March 6, 2014 Regular Meeting 56
1 trade them?
• 2 MR. SCHLESSINGER: No, I don't do
3 that. Most of my cars are all complete. I
4 take them to antique shows, 4th of July
5 parade.
6 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: And you propose to
7 build a 4-car garage in a conforming
8 location, 50x28. You know you could build
9 two separate structures
10 MR. SCHLESSINGER: Yes, I know.
11 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: What is your
12 reasoning to build one bigger?
• 13 MR. SCHLESSINGER: Well, to build two
14 structures, it would cost me an additional
15 about $20,000.00. So I can just build
16 one structure. I would prefer to just have
17 one structure and not two.
18 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Has there been an
19 issue with the existing large garage in
20 the back before with neighbors?
21 MR. SCHLESSINGER: No. I don't know if
22 you have been to my site, but you don't
23 see the neighbors. I have no neighbors in
24 the back of me. It's just farm. In the
• 25 front, I have those huge hedges. Nobody
March 6, 2014 Regular Meeting 57
• 1 has complained.
2 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: The rear yard that
3 borders the farm, do you know which farm
4 that is?
5 MR. SCHLESSINGER: I believe the first
6 one is owned by Pindar, and I believe it
7 was I don't know if it is or not, but
8 it was up for sale.
9 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: No other questions
10 for me.
11 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Is it a 4-car
12 garage?
• 13 MR. SCHLESSINGER: Yes, ma'am.
14 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Are you proposing
15 any heat or any plumbing?
16 MR. SCHLESSINGER: No.
17 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: One of the
18 things, we have a series of statutes that
19 we have to address. One of them has to
20 deal with substantiality of the variance,
21 adequate percentage and if it's
22 substantial, what would mitigate the
23 granting of such a substantial variance.
24 What you are proposing is 100%. It's
• 25 double than what the code allows. Is there
March 6, 2014 Regular Meeting 58
• 1 any reasonable justification for a 100%
2 variance other than your hobby and cost
3 effective
4 MR. SCHLESSINGER: It's cost effective
5 for me to do one. I can put up two and I
6 wouldn't need a variance.
7 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Correct.
8 MR. SCHLESSINGER: So to me it makes
9 sense to put up one structure.
10 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: What would happen
11 if you build a 3-car garage?
12 MR. SCHLESSINGER: I would still need
• 13 a variance.
14 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Yes, you would. I
15 am just getting at the substantiality of
16 the variance is very big. If you can get
17 it down, then it would be lesser. Do you
18 understand what I am saying?
19 MR. SCHLESSINGER: Yes.
20 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Let's see what
21 other questions we have. George, do you
22 have anything?
23 MEMBER HORNING: When was the original
24 garage built?
• 25 MR. SCHLESSINGER: The barn?
March 6, 2014 Regular Meeting 59
• 1 MEMBER HORNING: Is that what you are
2 calling it? On the survey it's called a
3 garage. You're using that for storage
4 also?
5 MR. SCHLESSINGER: Yes. There is two
6 cars in there right now.
7 MEMBER HORNING: That was built when
8 the house was built; correct?
9 MR. SCHLESSINGER: No. That was built
10 by the previous owner.
11 MEMBER HORNING: Your C of 0 is for
12 the house.
• 13 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: It's all there.
14 MEMBER HORNING: When was the house
15 built?
16 MR. SCHLESSINGER: 19 years ago, I
17 believe.
18 MEMBER HORNING: Certificate of
19 Occupancy calls for one single family.
20 Attached garage. It's calling it a new
21 dwelling.
22 MR. SCHLESSINGER: That garage is no
23 longer attached to the house.
24 MEMBER HORNING: But the accessory
• 25 garage is what you are calling as a barn?
March 6, 2014 Regular Meeting 60
• 1 MR. SCHLESSINGER: That was built by
2 the previous owner before I bought the
3 house. I believe we have CO's for that.
4 MEMBER HORNING: Okay.
5 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I understand
6 your need for storage but we are obligated
7 to really what the law permits and what
8 kind of reasonable relief from the
9 boundaries that the laws that we can
10 provide. Can you tell us is there are
11 very large accessory structures in your
12 neighborhood?
• 13 MR. SCHLESSINGER: Yes, there is.
14 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Can you provide
15 a list of the extremely large accessory
16 structures?
17 MR. SCHLESSINGER: Sure.
18 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Did any of them
19 come before this Board for variances?
20 MR. SCHLESSINGER: I have no idea.
21 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Many of them may
22 have been built prior to 2007.
23 MR. SCHLESSINGER: I know of one that
24 went up three or four years ago.
• 25 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Maybe they have a
March 6, 2014 Regular Meeting 61
• 1 variance?
2 MR. SCHLESSINGER: I don't know.
3 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Do you know what
4 it's used for?
5 MR. SCHLESSINGER: I have no idea.
6 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: One of the things
7 that we have to address is whether your
8 proposal will have an adverse effect on
9 the character of the neighborhood or is it
10 in keeping with the character of the
11 neighborhood. So if you can describe your
12 neighborhood and get photographs and give
• 13 us information to help us address that
14 obligation to look at various reasoning to
15 grant or deny. We do it on a balancing
16 test. Ultimate the benefit to the
17 applicant outweighs or the other way
18 around. So in a nutshell that is what we
19 look at.
20 MR. SCHLESSINGER: I didn't think
21 that was going to be an eyesore. I have
22 big hedges and I don't even see my
23 neighbors.
24 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Your neighbors
• 25 are screened and/or very far away. Your
March 6, 2014 Regular Meeting 62
• 1 house is situated in such a way that you
2 are proposing it in a conforming rear
3 yard.
4 MR. SCHLESSINGER: Exactly.
5 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: You also need to
6 look at other properties in the
7 neighborhood.
8 MR. SCHLESSINGER: Sure. I can do
9 that.
10 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: George, anything
11 else?
12 MEMBER HORNING: No.
. 13 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I just have to ask
14 this question, it's not meant to be
15 sarcastic in any way. Where are the other
16 cars that you are going to place in the
17 building now?
18 MR. SCHLESSINGER: Some of them are in
19 Mineola and some of them are in Wheatley
20 Heights where I live now.
21 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: So you basically
22 have more cars?
23 MR. SCHLESSINGER: Yes. I just
24 retired. I just sold my home in Wheatley
• 25 Heights and this now is going to be my
March 6, 2014 Regular Meeting 63
• 1 home. I decided to put the barn up
2 instead of renting. I know I can put the
3 cars in the backyard. I don't want it to
4 be an eyesore either. These cars are old
5 cars and to me they are worth a lot of
6 money. My cars are like 1930's and 1940's.
7 I don't want them to leave them outside. I
8 just thought that it would be better to
9 put up one garage instead of two. And then
10 it would save me a lot of money. It would
11 save me $20,000 grand.
12 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Anything else?
• 13 (No Response.)
14 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I am going to
15 make a motion to close your hearing and
16 that is subject to receipt from you, of
17 two things. One is existing and proposed
18 lot coverage on your property and you can
19 get that from your surveyor, and the
20 second is information about other
21 accessory structures in your neighborhood.
22 MR. SCHLESSINGER: Okay. Thank you
23 very much.
24 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Second.
• 25 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: All in favor?
March 6, 2014 Regular Meeting 64
• 1 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye.
2 MEMBER HORNING: Aye.
3 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye.
4 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Aye.
5 (See Minutes for Resolution.)
7 HEARING #6722 - GEORGE CURIS
8 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The next
9 application before the Board is for George
10 Curis, #6722. Request for variance from
11 Article III Code Section 280-15 and
12 Article XXII Code Section 280-116A(1) and
• 13 the Building Inspector's December 4, 2013
14 Notice of Disapproval based on an
15 application for building permit for
16 accessory in-ground swimming pool, at: 1)
17 location other than the code required rear
18 yard. 2) less than the code required 100
19 foot setback from top of the bluff,
20 located at: 3190 North Sea Drive, adjacent
21 to Long Island Sound in Orient.
22 So we're looking at an in-ground
23 swimming pool in a side yard, partially,
24 where the code requires a rear yard for or
• 25 a front yard for waterfront properties.
March 6, 2014 Regular Meeting 65
• 1 And No. 2, existing waterfront bluff
2 setback less than 100 feet. Please state
3 your name, Bruce.
4 MR. ANDERSON: Good morning. Bruce
5 Anderson. Suffolk Environmental
6 Consultants for the applicant, George
7 Curis. As you know from the application
8 before you, the Curis' propose the pool 51
9 feet from the top of the bluff and
10 indicating a required side yard, as per a
11 survey prepared by Nathan Taft Corwin as
12 part of the application. Sitting next to
13 me is Ms. Curis and can answer any
14 questions you might have. So we start
15 with the property is in an R-40 Zone. The
16 parcel is 27,906 square feet and an
17 existing preexisting nonconforming lot at
18 which it lies. The first variance is
19 relief from 280-15, which states that the
20 accessory building structure shall be
21 located in a required rear yard. If you
22 look at the survey you will see that part
23 of the proposed pool is adjacent to the
24 rear deck. It practically falls in the
• 25 side yard. The side yard that I speak of
March 6, 2014 Regular Meeting 66
• 1 would be the unoccupied space from the
2 principal dwelling including the attached
3 deck, and the side lot line. So the
4 southern end of the pool, adjacent to the
5 deck, thereby putting it in a theoretical
6 side yard. However, it's worth noting
7 that the setback provided by the survey is
8 15 feet from the side lot line, where 10
9 feet would be required as per 280-15 of
10 the Town Code. So the actual setback from
11 the side yard exceeds the setback
12 requirement, although a portion of it is
• 13 in what is called a required side yard
14 being adjacent to the deck. The second
15 form of relief is relief from 280-116A(1),
16 which states that all building structures
17 located on lots adjacent to the Sound and
18 pond (In Audible) shall be set back no
19 less than 100 feet from the top of such
20 bluff. So as proposed, the pool would be
21 located 51 feet from the top of the bluff
22 necessitating relief from that particular
23 statute. I am going to hand up a couple
24 of aerial photographs of the neighborhood.
. 25 As we show in our aerials, the character
March 6, 2014 Regular Meeting 67
• 1 of the neighborhood consist all of five
2 lots, all of which are access via North
3 Sea Drive. All are waterfront lots. All
4 of which are similarly situated with
5 respect to bluff setbacks, etcetera. You
6 will notice down to the west, you will see
7 a dwelling with a swimming pool that is
8 Tipperacous and Agrippolous property. In
9 1989, the Tipperacous and Agrippolous
10 requested a variance from this Board to
11 construct that pool. That variance was
12 issued. I will hand up a copy of that
• 13 decision for your records and I will
14 attach the survey. The condition that was
15 granted in relation to that variance was
16 based in part from a neighbor objecting.
17 His objection was that a child might fall
18 into the pool and drown and so forth. So
19 the condition was the pool was to be
20 enclosed by fencing and pool equipment be
21 enclosed. Composed of sound deafening
22 material or wood. The fence today and
23 I would have thought back then that it
24 would have required that anyway and in
• 25 this application, the pool would be
March 6, 2014 Regular Meeting 68
• 1 enclosed by a fence. Thereby making it
2 safe. It will also contain building
3 regulations, self-latching doors. So we
4 would fully comply with the State
5 Regulated Building Code and the fence
6 enclosure. We have also located in a
7 distance. It's up against the side of the
8 house. We are certainly willing to
9 enclose it. We don't think it's going to
10 make a lot of noise. And we have provided
11 for a drywell, four feet, for backwash. So
12 those are the integrated plans. We submit
• 13 that the application will not cause an
14 undesirable change to the nearby
15 properties that surround this property.
16 The neighbors, these five lots are
17 similarly situated. We have a pool two
18 doors down. The pool doesn't effect the
19 neighborhood in any way, shape or form. It
20 was there and it gave us a chance to
21 evaluate what sort of impact it might have
22 had. We submit to you that the benefits
23 sought cannot be achieved by some method
24 feasible for the applicant other than an
• 25 area variance because what we have here is
March 6, 2014 Regular Meeting 69
• 1 a property that has an existing dwelling
2 on it. And with respect to the place of
3 that dwelling at less than 100 feet from
4 the top of the bluff, there is no
5 available space between the house and the
6 water for which a compliant setback from
7 the bluff could be achieved. What we have
8 done with this application is try to match
9 the setback by locating it into that
10 theoretical side yard, necessitating the
11 forming of the variance. We submit that
12 the relief is not substantial in that we
• 13 have requested at less than 500 of the
14 requirement. So 51 feet from the top of
15 the bluff where 100 feet is required. And
16 then we also submit that the variance will
17 not have an adverse effect on the physical
18 environment or conditions of the
19 neighborhood. So in that we have cited the
20 51 feet from the top of the bluff and
21 conditions of the site and the surrounding
22 area are amenable to the placement of the
23 pool. We don't require any grading of the
24 property. We do not require that there be
• 25 any water to place this pool into the
March 6, 2014 Regular Meeting 70
• 1 ground. All the runoff would be
2 controlled to a sediment and erosion
3 control plan, which is what the Town
4 requires now as part of their updated
5 stormwater regulations. We comply with
6 that. We are also receptive to any other
7 conditions that the Board might look to
8 discuss. Obviously two doors down is the
9 Tipperacous and Agrippolous pool. It gave
10 us opportunity to assess impact and we
11 found that although it's 40 feet from the
12 top of the bluff, that is 10-11 feet
• 13 closer than what we would be, it does not
14 appear to have any impact of that bluff as
15 a result of that pool. And so if the pool
16 is 40 feet from the top of the bluff, then
17 we conclude that the pool at 50 feet would
18 have no impact. You should know as far as
19 the application, I have provided you with
20 a letter of non-jurisdiction from DEC,
21 being above the 10 foot contour. That is
22 in your application packet. I want to say
23 that I am grateful for your staff
24 providing me with a copy of a memorandum
• 25 from Mark Terry that was submitted in
March 6, 2014 Regular Meeting 71
• 1 intent with this application. I received
2 it a day or two ago. I greatly appreciate
3 the chance to evaluate what he is saying.
4 So it's given me the time to assess what
5 he is saying, and I respectfully disagree
6 with the statements that were made. What
7 he is saying is that our proposal is
8 inconsistent with Policy 4.1, which states
9 that minimizes losses of human life and
10 structures from flooding and erosion
11 hazards. Minimize loss of human life and
12 structures from flooding and erosion
• 13 hazards (In Audible) specifically (a)
14 minimize potential loss and damage by
15 locating the structures away from flooding
16 and erosion hazard areas. I am going to
17 hand up
18 (Whereupon, Mr. Anderson stepped away
19 from the microphone.)
20 MR. ANDERSON: What it does state is
21 that, at 4.1, basically the criterion is
22 to minimize loss of human life and
23 development of structures and be kept away
24 from flooding and erosion hazards. You are
• 25 aware that we are located outside of the
March 6, 2014 Regular Meeting 72
1 Coastal Erosion Hazard area. So we do not
• 2 need a permit. Also we are located outside
3 of the 100 year floodplain. You will see
4 a memorandum from Mark Terry that he
5 speaks to the floodplain but was not in
6 the 100 year. So probably that standard
7 does not apply. We are not 100 feet away
8 from the bluff and that is why we are
9 here. And a few years ago, the neighbor
10 Antoniastis (phonetic) applied for a
11 permit to (In Audible) his house within
12 100 feet of the bluff. And in that
13 application Mark Terry found that to be
14 consistent with the LWRP. So there seems
15 to be a conflict among the consistency of
16 the properties that are adjacent to each
17 other. The remainder of this memo goes
18 onto describe what a bluff is, and that
19 definition is listed directly from the
20 Town's Coastal Erosion Hazard area, which
21 does not apply in this case. We are not
22 near the Coastal Erosion Hazard area. And
23 then he proceeds to challenge the bluff
24 and gives the definition of the term bluff
25 and contained within the Coastal Erosion,
March 6, 2014 Regular Meeting 73
• 1 which is not applicable here. He is
2 suggesting that the bluff would be located
3 18 foot contour. We are going to say that
4 this is validated by the Coastal Erosion
5 Hazard area.
6 MEMBER HORNING: Mr. Anderson, I am
7 sorry to interrupt you. Do you have the
8 survey that he is citing? The revised
9 October 31, 2013?
10 MR. ANDERSON: Yes, we do.
11 MEMBER HORNING: You do. Do we?
12 MR. ANDERSON: It's with the
• 13 application. So that survey shows the
14 Coastal Erosion Hazard Line which is
15 seaward of the proposed pool. Okay. That
16 line is scaled of about 30 feet landward
17 of the top of the bluff and is consistent
18 with the regulations. So the fact that the
19 line is where the line is and runs to
20 where the top of the bluff is, as shown on
21 the survey. In addition to that, that
22 would be consistent with the determination
23 of the DEC that determined that the
24 jurisdiction extends to (In Audible) feet
• 25 which is within a foot of the bank as
March 6, 2014 Regular Meeting 74
• 1 shown on the survey. And it is also
2 consistent with Suffolk County Soil
3 Conservation Service. That arrived on
4 March 5, 2014. What.it says is, the parcel
5 is an existing home with a well
6 established lawn and most of th rear yard
7 leading to the bluff is flat and slopes
8 gently toward the bluff. So it goes on to
9 say the roof runoff goes onto gutters and
10 exits into the ground and this may be an
11 opportunity to put in a drywell. So we are
12 amenable to that. The Soil Conservation
• 13 goes onto to write that the bluff face is
14 low in elevation and vegetated. What they
15 are saying in this application is that the
16 bluff line is where it is and in essence
17 is agreeing with Mark Terry as to where
18 that bluff line is. Also in the adjacent
19 consistency review, you will notice there
20 is no the bluff is treated with
21 respect to that application, is consistent
22 with the bluff that we show on our survey.
23 The attached survey to the consistency
24 review was done by the same surveyor who
• 25 surveyed this property. It's in the same
March 6, 2014 Regular Meeting 75
• 1 location as we show in this application.
2 Finally, they go onto say that the
3 proposed location of the swimming pool is
4 the only available location to the
5 proposed pool because of the parcel. It is
6 recommended that revisions be made for
7 draining and runoff by a runoff generated
8 by the proposed new construction. So that
9 the surface water is not directly over the
10 bluff. We do that with our drywell's and
11 we will do that in connection with the
12 stormwater erosion plan that the Town is
• 13 going to require of us to do it, in
14 connection with the building permit. It
15 goes onto to say additional considerations
16 is making sure that the top of the bluff
17 is not disturbed with equipment. That is
18 not an issue for us because we are 51 feet
19 from that. They acknowledge our drywell.
20 They say that the drywell is necessary.
21 And that's it. I would characterize the
22 letter as supportive. The second part, as
23 we call it the "Terry Memorandum" to FEMA
24 and it is true that the beach area and the
• 25 bluff area are in a VE Zone. The VE Zone
March 6, 2014 Regular Meeting 76
• 1 is subject to velocity (In Audible) that
2 is upon a structure presumably damaged the
3 structure. It is a 100 year floor event.
4 The X Zone is actually a 500 year event
5 and is really outside the flood zone. So
6 our pool is outside the flood zone. And
7 just so you understand the FEMA won't
8 insure a pool or a deck or bulkhead or
9 outdoor deck or anything other than the
10 principal structure. So the FEMA I
11 guess is trying to say that from the
12 Sound, the property is subject to erosion
• 13 but it really doesn't have anything to do
14 about this application for the pool
15 because we are out of the flood zone in
16 any event. Where that leads us then is
17 out fifth I am going to provide you
18 with some more material. The first aerial
19 is the best resolution that we could find
20 that shows the condition of the property
21 in 1984. The second aerial is from 2013,
22 roughly 30 years later, and the conclusion
23 is, we have a stable bluff. That is the
24 point of that. Now, as to the aspect of
• 25 what could be done to further increase
March 6, 2014 Regular Meeting 77
1 setback. And so I asked the client to
• 2 look at that. My client who rapidly (In
3 Audible) for the Board's consideration.
4 MEMBER HORNING: Turning the pool?
5 MR. ANDERSON: Turning the pool. So we
6 don't think that it's really going to
7 matter whether the pool is 51 feet or 70
8 feet in this site plan that the applicant
9 prepared. There are zoning regulations
10 that provide minimal relief. So we provide
11 that to you in the spirit of that efforts.
12 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Your final punch
• 13 line here is probably everyone's question.
14 Can you rotate the pool, which you have
15 already proposed to do.
16 MR. ANDERSON: And for my final,
17 whether the alleged difficulty is self
18 created, and it is not. The original
19 placement of the dwelling is 65 feet from
20 the top of the bluff leaving no conforming
21 space for the pool that would be 100 feet
22 from the top of the bluff. Balancing it
23 all out, we would say that the benefits
24 for the applicant, if the variance was
• 25 granted, would not outweigh the detriment
March 6, 2014 Regular Meeting 78
• 1 to the health, safety and welfare of the
2 community. Our benefit would be that the
3 applicant can have the use and joy of the
4 property that would be provided by the
5 pool. And we submit that there is no
6 detriment to the health, safety and
7 welfare of the neighborhood. And that
8 concludes my application. If you have any
9 questions, I would be happy to answer
10 them.
11 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The only thing
12 that I noticed was that some of the
• 13 variance the two variance applications
14 that you pointed to, I find that when I go
15 up farther west, the bluff areas are
16 actually higher. Is that the case?
17 MR. ANDERSON: Yes, that is the case.
18 I think you are right about that.
19 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I haven't been
20 down to this location in a long time. I
21 was really surprised to see the lawn as
22 they run down. It was very interesting.
23 And we did have a couple of variances for
24 the next crossroad.
• 25 MR. ANDERSON: We are doing a project
March 6, 2014 Regular Meeting 79
• 1 to the west of here, and the slope is
2 is all carved out. You actually have to
3 take the top of the bluff and cut that off
4 so you can create an angle that is stable.
5 Here we already have that. It's a very low
6 bluff. It is true that the lawn slopes
7 down but in looking at the slope between
8 where the lawn drops off, I calculated
9 that at about 20% slope. Okay. And I put
10 that measurement based onto where the
11 stairs are. Then you look at the slope
12 between the top of the bank and the survey
• 13 and the beach, that is about a 6 foot drop
14 and an 8 feet. And you wind up with about
15 a 65% slope there. The other interesting
16 thing about it is, if you look at the deep
17 profile, it's actually very high. So it's
18 almost like a dune forms in front of the
19 bluff. Very high and very, very stable.
20 And then finally you have Hurricane Sandy.
21 Even on the Sound end, they didn't get
22 direct action. They still had the title
23 surge. It did not go to the top of the
24 bluff and it did not kill any of their
• 25 lawn or any other property. So these
March 6, 2014 Regular Meeting 80
• 1 properties appear to be stable and
2 adequally protected. And I don't have
3 that concern as we would with just a short
4 distance down from that beach to the west.
5 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Thank you.
6 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: So you are
7 proposing this alternative also that you
8 submitted?
9 MR. ANDERSON: Either alternative is
10 acceptable to us. Our preference is the
11 first one, but in spirit with working with
12 the Board, this alternative would work for
• 13 us. We would still have the relief from
14 the side yard.
15 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Let's look at the
16 survey that you submitted to us. I am
17 looking at the setback from the bluff to
18 the existing pool two houses down.
19 MR. ANDERSON: Yep.
20 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: I can't pronounce
21 that name.
22 MR. ANDERSON: It's called Tipperacous.
23 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: There you go. The
24 setback of 40 feet goes to a deck. Do you
• 25 propose a deck to the 51 foot setback
March 6, 2014 Regular Meeting 81
• 1 around the pool?
2 MR. ANDERSON: No.
3 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Now, looking at the
4 survey here, that would be the northeast
5 corner of the pool. Are those a set of
6 steps that go into the pool?
7 MR. ANDERSON: Yes.
8 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: So there will be no
9 decking around the pool otherwise we would
10 have a setback to that?
11 MR. ANDERSON: No. These are the
12 steps down into the pool.
• 13 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Okay. Steps down
14 into the pool. Okay. So the pool would be
15 dug into from the south side.
16 MR. ANDERSON: The steps that you see
17 off of the northeast corner are the steps
18 that are going to go down into the pool.
19 It was part of the pool.
20 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: So there is no
21 decking or patio.
22 MR. ANDERSON: It's a gunite pool.
23 It's going to be a fiberglass pool.
24 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: And the 40 feet
• 25 from the neighboring pool is to their deck
March 6, 2014 Regular Meeting 82
1 and not actually their pool?
40 2 MR. ANDERSON: Right.
3 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Okay. That is deck
4 structure and that is not on grade or
5 anything?
6 MR. ANDERSON: Yes, it is. The
7 neighboring pool and deck is at grade.
8 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Okay.
9 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Anybody else?
10 MEMBER HORNING: On this new
11 submission which is probably a very nice
12 plan in comparison to the other one
• 13 because it does show us that you plan to
14 increase the setback from the top of the
15 bluff or top of the bank. Where is the 18
16 foot elevation on this that Mark Terry
17 refers to?
18 MR. ANDERSON: The 18 foot elevation
19 is at the top of the stairs.
20 MEMBER HORNING: It would be nice to
21 have it on here.
22 MR. ANDERSON: What we would do is
23 take that pool and add it onto this
24 survey. If that is a preferred pool, then
• 25 what we would simply do is take that back
March 6, 2014 Regular Meeting 83
1 to the surveyor and submit the revision.
• 2 MEMBER HORNING: So what you have
3 pointed out to us is that there is a
4 discrepancy. The surveyor has the top of
5 the bank in one location and around 11-12
6 elevation. And Mark Terry is saying that
7 is incorrect. The top of the bank is
8 actually at the 18 foot elevation, which
9 makes the setback totally different.
10 MR. ANDERSON: The reason why we are
11 saying that is that we are saying that his
12 assessment is flat out incorrect. It's
• 13 incorrect for basically five reasons. The
14 first reason is that the DEC tells us
15 there jurisdiction goes to the 10 foot
16 contour line or to the top of the bluff,
17 whichever is more landward. So in this
18 case, the 10 foot contour is the top of
19 the bluff as shown on the survey. And that
20 is in your application packet. So that is
21 reason number one. Reason number two is,
22 Terry says it's 18 feet by virtue of the
23 Coastal Erosion Hazard area line and he
24 actually got that backwards because the
• 25 Coastal Erosion Hazard area line would be
March 6, 2014 Regular Meeting 84
1 25 feet landward from the top of the
• 2 bluff. Now, with these maps, I understand
3 that there is going to be some give and
4 take, but if you scale the Coastal Erosion
5 Hazard area line to the top of the bluff,
6 it comes to 30 feet, which is evidence
7 that the bluff as per the surveyor is
8 properly cited. Then comes the prior
9 determination made for the property next
10 door. The interesting thing about that
11 determination is what it doesn't say. And
12 it is the same bluff. It is the same slope
• 13 in lawn. It was done by the same surveyor.
14 It identifies the same bluff as used in
15 this application, yet in connection with
16 that consistency review, there is no
17 challenge to the line. Finally, you have
18 a Coastal Erosion Hazard area law in this
19 Town, and what that is, is the Town has
20 stepped into the position and is actually
21 implemented the State Coastal Erosion
22 Hazard Area law. The Town accepts the maps
23 that are promulgated to that program. They
24 are not challenging the maps or the lines
• 25 to the bluffs. And the surveyor is
March 6, 2014 Regular Meeting 85
• 1 spotting the Coastal Erosion Hazard area
2 line as per the adopted and accepted map.
3 Therefore all of that would show that the
4 surveyor actually got the setback correct.
5 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay. In the
6 interest of time, because we have an
7 arraignment coming up at 12:30.
8 MR. ANDERSON: I understand.
9 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: What we are
10 asking, you have provided all kinds of
11 testimony as to why what you are proposing
12 is accurate and disagreeing with the
• 13 LWRP's assessment.
14 MR. ANDERSON: And Soil Conservation.
15 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay. The
16 question was, can you tell us, if Mark's
17 line were to considered, what the setbacks
18 to the proposed and now amended location
19 would be?
20 MR. ANDERSON: His line, if you were
21 to adopt that as accurately, we disagree
22 with, would be 32 feet landward of the
23 line, directly adjacent to the south.
24 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay. So what
• 25 would the setback be from his line to the
March 6, 2014 Regular Meeting 86
1 proposed?
• 2 MR. ANDERSON: That would make 38
3 feet.
4 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: That was just a
5 question.
6 MR. ANDERSON: I think it would be
7 more in essence of 40 feet.
8 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay, fine.
9 MEMBER HORNING: We have to tidy up
10 this discrepancy.
11 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: We have a lot of
12 information. We have LWRP, we have Soil
• 13 Conservation. Mr. Anderson has done a very
14 good job and the fact on your own
15 volition, you have submitted an
16 alternative setback, which you have
17 included. Regardless of where that line
18 is, I think it's comprehensive. And again,
19 we have an arraignmient at 12:30.
20 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Just a few things.
21 Number One, you are going to submit this
22 plan to us?
23 MR. ANDERSON: That is correct.
24 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Number Two, the
• 25 setback to the pool on this alternate plan
March 6, 2014 Regular Meeting 87
• 1 from the property line is exactly the same
2 15 feet?
3 MR. ANDERSON: Correct.
4 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Is there anyone
5 else in the audience?
6 (No Response.)
7 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay. I am going
8 to make a motion to close this hearing
9 subject to receipt of a survey showing a
10 70 foot setback that was proposed.
11 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second.
12 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: All in favor?
• 13 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye.
14 MEMBER HORNING: Aye.
15 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye.
16 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Aye.
17 (See Minutes for Resolution.)
19 HEARING #6727 - JOSEPH AND CYNTHIA SCHAFER
20 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The next
21 application before the Board is for Joseph
22 and Cynthia Schafer, #6727. Request for
23 variances from Article XXII Section
24 280-116 and Article III Section 280-124
• 25 and the Building Inspector's
March 6, 2014 Regular Meeting 88
• 1 January 8, 2014 Notice of Disapproval
2 based on an application for building
3 permit for partial demolition and
4 reconstruction of a single family
5 dwelling, at; 1) less than the code
6 required bulkhead setback of 75 feet,
7 2) less than the code required front yard
8 setback of 35 feet, located at: 1030 West
9 Lake Drive, adjacent to Little Peconic Bay
10 in Southold.
11 Please state your name for the record.
12 MR. SCHAFER: Yes. My name is Joseph
• 13 Schafer. And my wife Cynthia Schafer, she
14 is a school teacher and could not make it
15 here today.
16 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay.
17 Mr. Schafer, I am just going to give you a
18 copy from Suffolk County for local
19 determination. It's just for your file.
20 And you already have a copy of the LWRP?
21 MR. SCHAFER: Yes.
22 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: And you're
23 proposing additions and alterations to
24 your house on West Lake. A partial
• 25 demolition with a bulkhead setback of 37.6
March 6, 2014 Regular Meeting 89
• 1 feet where the code requires a minimum of
2 75 and a front yard setback 29.5 feet,
3 where the code requires 35 feet minimum.
4 And we have received some updated
5 information from you on updated
6 elevations with FEMA requirements because
7 of the flood zone. Can you tell me what is
8 the existing front yard setback and the
9 setbacks as of now?
10 MR. SCHAFER: Well, the current
11 setbacks are the house was constructed
12 in 1927, I had it memorized. I just have
• 13 to find it. Roughly 48 feet and change.
14 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: What setback is
15 that?
16 MR. SCHAFER: 48 feet and change from
17 the water.
18 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: So you are
19 proposing to reduce it when you put a
20 porch on the seaward side?
21 MR. SCHAFER: Yes, correct. 8 feet at a
22 minimum, just enough to enjoy the water
23 from the outside of the house.
24 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: And the front
• 25 yard setback?
March 6, 2014 Regular Meeting 90
• 1 MR. SCHAFER: That is just short by 10
2 feet, and the reason why we just
3 determined that was just enough to
4 accommodate the remodeling of the
5 bathrooms because they were too tiny, and
6 for people with diabilities.
7 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay. So what
8 you're talking about the existing is 39.5,
9 proposed at 29.5 because you're adding 10
10 feet, is what you're saying?
11 MR. SCHAFER: Yes, ma'am. With the
12 discretion of the architect, it was
• 13 determined that that would be what I
14 needed.
15 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: And you're
16 proposing to demolish the accessory
17 garage?
18 MR. SCHAFER: The garage that is there
19 right now is leaning. I had the architect
20 take a look at it and see if it was
21 something that could be salvaged and after
22 a lengthy discussion we determined amongst
23 other issues on the property, it was best
24 to remove it.
• 25 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: What is the
March 6, 2014 Regular Meeting 91
• 1 workshop in the attached garage going to
2 be used for?
3 MR. SCHAFER: I am a retired police
4 officer but before I changed careers, I
5 was a graphic artist. So I would like to
6 continue with paintings and artwork.
7 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: All right. Ken?
8 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: So you're going to
9 be installing a new septic system?
10 MR. SCHAFER: Yes, sir.
11 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: In the northeast
12 corner there?
• 13 MR. SCHAFER: Yes.
14 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Did you get a copy
15 of the LWRP report?
16 MR. SCHAFER: Yes, I did, sir.
17 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: And Mark is making
18 a recommendation that perhaps you should
19 look at moving the garage to an X Zone.
20 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Referring to the
21 accessory structure. I think he didn't
22 understand that that garage was going to
23 be removed.
24 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Okay.
• 25 MR. SCHAFER: This has been a learning
March 6, 2014 Regular Meeting 92
• 1 process for me. The last time I bought a
2 home was 25 years ago. The most important
3 thing to this property is that the septic
4 system now is was built in 1930. I had
5 it inspected by a professional of septic
6 systems and said that no matter what you
7 do, I strongly recommend that you fill it
8 with sand and put one in the higher part
9 of the property line. It would be better
10 for your neighbors and yourself. With that
11 proposal, I took it to Ed Lyons at the
12 Department of Health and he made some
• 13 changes to it and two weeks later, I
14 returned to his office and I paid my check
15 for the plans that are in front of you
16 now. So he approved that. In addition to
17 all this, I am not sure if you guys are
18 aware of this, but the house is going to
19 be raised. I have filed a loan application
20 and learned of the fee. Just for
21 $49,000.00 a year to $1200.00 a year for
22 raising the house. I took the advice of
23 the Town and added an additional 2 feet
24 for the height as well. So I added an
• 25 additional 2 feet to that.
March 6, 2014 Regular Meeting 93
1 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: So you're adding
• 2 another 4 feet to the elevation of the
3 house?
4 MR. SCHAFER: Yes.
5 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: That is as per
6 the plans that we have received?
7 MR. SCHAFER: Correct.
8 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: So your septic
9 is now in the front yard?
10 MR. SCHAFER: The proposal for that,
11 correct. That was based on the advice on
12 Ed Lyons and the engineers that I had to
• 13 look at this and Mark. Not that it's not
14 important to the design of the property,
15 but if I move the garage to any other
16 location, my wife and I were concerned
17 with the aesthetic appearance and the
18 neighbors not being able to see the waters
19 that they have saw for years. So by moving
20 the garage and attaching it to the house,
21 there are benefits to that. It increases
22 the view for my rear neighbor to 10 to 15
23 feet that they never had before. They were
24 very appreciative of that.
• 25 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The two drywell's
March 6, 2014 Regular Meeting 94
1 that are in the flood zone
2 MR. SCHAFER: Again, I spoke to Ryan
3 in the department here and as per his
4 suggestion, he said they were perfectly
5 fine because of the elevation. The third
6 drywell as you can see where the garage
7 location was, he signed off on it.
8 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: So you have three
9 that are approved in the flood
10 MR. SCHAFER: Yes, ma'am. And I do
11 have a letter of non-jurisdiction as well
12 from the DEC.
• 13 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay. Proposed to
14 establish a 10 foot landscaped buffer
15 along the bulkhead?
16 MR. SCHAFER: I appreciate what the
17 aesthetic value serves for my neighbors
18 and my wife and I would love to do that.
19 I have a green thumb. I would love to
20 make that look great.
21 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: George?
22 MEMBER HORNING: I had a question
23 about alternative plans but you covered
24 that already in your description.
• 25 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Gerry?
March 6, 2014 Regular Meeting 95
1 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Mine is a little
• 2 bit different. I don't really have an
3 objection to your house in the way that
4 you are planning it. I think it comes out
5 a little forward. I understand the
6 situation with the porch. My main concern
7 is access. That roadway that exist is in a
8 pitiful condition. It is more than
9 pitiful. I have been a fireman for 46
10 years. You need to get in touch with the
11 association and you need to get this thing
12 there is absolutely no body to that at
• 13 all. It needs to be subsurface in some
14 way. The road itself.
15 MR. SCHAFER: I appreciate where you
16 are going with that. The woman that lives
17 behind me I believe is a member of the
18 West Lake Drive Association. I am a member
19 between both associations. My wife and I
20 agreed that whichever we belonged to, we
21 were going to join the other one. So if we
22 could partake in that committee to enhance
23 the road. I am prepared to propose an idea
24 for pavement, which is something that I
• 25 can only do after I get involved with the
March 6, 2014 Regular Meeting 96
• 1 committee. You know, start to develop a
2 report with the neighbors.
3 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The only reason why
4 you are riding on that now is because it's
5 frozen.
6 MR. SCHAFER: Agreed.
7 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: And I want to tell
8 you from a fire insurance point of view, I
9 mean, if emergency vehicles can't get down
10 there, you are going to have a tremendous
11 problem.
12 MR. SCHAFER: Agreed. I can appreciate
• 13 that. It's very important.
14 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Normally what we
15 would do is send this back to the Building
16 Department. In this particular case, I
17 would ask that you speak to your (In
18 Audible) in this particular case.
19 MR. SCHAFER: I appreciate that, sir.
20 Thank you.
21 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: One other thing
22 that I would like you to address, sir, the
23 I am sort of eyeballing it. We know
24 West Lake quite well. Can you provide any
• 25 information on the average bulkhead
March 6, 2014 Regular Meeting 97
1 setback along West Lake and the average
2 front yard setback along West Lake of
3 other properties? Any of the others that
4 got variances? I know Mr. Moy did.
5 MR. SCHAFER: The first thing that I
6 did was have a survey done. So I knew what
7 I had to work with. Shortly thereafter
8 meeting with the architect, it was
9 determined the aesthetic value of the
10 neighborhood and what other neighbors have
11 done. My wife and I felt to keep it to a
12 limited amount, we decided to do a small
• 13 porch and selective plantings. I have also
14 brought a copy of some of the garden
15 designs that I have done for other people,
16 including my own yard, that I would like
17 to do as well.
18 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The question
19 that I asked has to do with something that
20 is already in our file. You submitted a
21 very large packet of other variances. So I
22 don't know why. But thank you, for
23 pointing out the fact.
24 MR. SCHAFER: I just want to make some
25 very minor changes.
March 6, 2014 Regular Meeting 98
1 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Any one else on
• 2 the Board have any other questions,
3 because we have this arraignment coming in
4 any second?
5 (No Response.)
6 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Okay. Hearing no
7 other questions or comments, I will make a
8 motion to close this hearing and reserve
9 decision to a later date.
10 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Second.
11 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: All in favor?
12 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye.
• 13 MEMBER HORNING: Aye.
14 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye.
15 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Aye.
16 (See Minutes for Resolution.)
17+*****+*******+*t***t+******
18 HEARING #6728 - FREDERICK C. SCOFIELD, JR.
19 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The next
20 application before the Board is for
21 Frederick C. Scofield, Jr., #6728. Request
22 for variances from Article XXIII Section
23 280-124 and the Building Inspector's
24 December 26, 2013, amended
• 25 December 30, 2013 Notice of Disapproval
March 6, 2014 Regular Meeting 99
1 based on an application for building
is 2 permit to construct additions and
3 alterations to existing side yard
4 dwelling, at; 1) less than the code
5 required side yard setback of 10 feet,
6 2) less than the code required rear yard
7 setback of 35 feet, located at: 19915 Main
8 Road, aka State Road 25, corner of
9 Stephenson Road and Private Road
10 (Birdseye) in Orient. Would you state
11 your name for the record, please.
12 MS. KRAMER: My name is Meryl Kramer.
• 13 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: We are looking
14 here at additions and alterations. The
15 house is actually got three front
16 yards, Main Road, Stephenson and Birdseye.
17 MS. KRAMER: Yes.
18 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: And we are
19 looking at a side yard setback of 2.4 feet
20 from Birdseye or the private road, but
21 there is no access. The applicant has no
22 access. So it's a side yard and not a
23 front yard technically. No. 2, a rear yard
24 setback of 18.1 feet, where the code
• 25 requires a minimum of 35. The side yard
March 6, 2014 Regular Meeting 100
is 1 code requirement is 10 feet. You are
2 adding an attached garage, screened porch
3 and deck and a second story addition.
4 MS. KRAMER: Yes. So I tried to
5 construct the addition to the house in a
6 more logical way. Obviously I couldn't put
7 the garage in a front yard and there was
8 really no place to put it that would
9 conform. With regards to the garage again,
10 the rear property line is at such an
11 angle, that because the 18.1 is so close.
12 If you actually measure the other corner,
• 13 it actually does make the 35 feet from the
14 western corner of the garage. The rear
15 deck on the eastern side of the property
16 is in the same location as the existing
17 deck. It's actually reducing the setback.
18 I am making it 5 feet instead of the
19 existing setback, which is 2.4.
20 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Now, why did they
21 cite
22 MS. KRAMER: Because I am also doing a
23 screened porch addition. And that is
24 maintaining the existing. It was 2.4 and
• 25 slightly angled. So I am maintaining the
March 6, 2014 Regular Meeting 101
• 1 plain of that part and what I am trying to
2 do there, is trying to keep the same gable
3 and just extending it slight up. So it's
4 minimal impact on that because we are
5 continuing the roof slope. If you want to
6 refer to the drawings, I could show you on
7 A.2 drawing 2, where it says - you could
8 see the line of the existing roof and
9 where the kitchen is and we are continuing
10 up the same plain and then coming back
11 down with a screened porch.
12 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I am really glad
. 13 that you decided to raise that porch
14 because of being so close to that
15 driveway. It's elevated above the ground.
16 I realize it's a quasi access way. But boy
17 is that close.
18 MS. KRAMER: It is close.
19 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: It's look far
20 away from the property line.
21 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: You really can't
22 tell.
23 MS. KRAMER: Because there is a wide
24 grass shoulder from the private road.
• 25 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: And it's also a
March 6, 2014 Regular Meeting 102
. 1 little bit difficult with the snow on the
2 ground.
3 MS. KRAMER: Since they do have the
4 view from the water, that was the
5 placement to be of what will be the
6 deck.
7 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: What is the
8 elevation?
9 MS. KRAMER: I am just looking to see
10 if we have the actual on the survey. It's
11 5 or 6 risers up. So it's about 2 1,2 feet.
12 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: If the corner got
13 knocked out, would that drop?
14 MS. KRAMER: If the corner got knocked
15 out then obviously it's resting on the
16 foundation.
17 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Have you looked
18 at that other side yard or rear yard
19 setback to see maybe what the average is?
20 MS. KRAMER: I did not do that.
21 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The reason why I
22 ask is because I think there are other
23 nonconforming setbacks somewhere along
24 both of those roads, and if you could
• 25 average them, either using Google Earth or
March 6, 2014 Regular Meeting 103
• 1 whatever, the Board can then entertain
2 that as character of the neighborhood. It
3 will potentially and I don't know
4 because I don't have the information, but
5 it would possibly reduce the
6 substantiality of the variance if others
7 are less than the code required setbacks.
8 MS. KRAMER: Okay. My approach, was
9 because it's 15 feet, plus the deck, an
10 additional 10 feet wasn't substantial. If
11 the Board feels that it is, I can look
12 into other properties along the private
• 13 road and see what there is.
14 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Well the garage
15 is fine. It's just a matter of the deck
16 and the porch, which really has the
17 nonconforming.
18 MS. KRAMER: Well, the existing deck
19 is there and I am actually increasing the
20 side yard.
21 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Right.
22 Understood. Is there a Pre-CO on that?
23 MS. KRAMER: I believe there is. I gave
24 the documentation as part of the packet.
• 25 There is a 1973 Certificate of Occupancy.
March 6, 2014 Regular Meeting 104
• 1 There is a patio addition. I don't know if
2 that was a deck in 1977. I don't know if
3 it was really a patio and they called it a
4 deck.
5 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I actually had a
6 question for you. The fencing that was
7 there appears on the survey to be
8 partially in the Town's shoulder. Part of
9 the right of way. Am I reading that
10 correctly?
11 MS. KRAMER: Yes. And when I was
12 there, I was trying to figure that out
• 13 myself. I am sure that as part of the
14 renovation, that we can rectify that.
15 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Yes, because the
16 Board really can't grant stuff that is
17 encroaching on somebody other than the
18 applicant. A condition would be that all
19 fencing be on the property.
20 MS. KRAMER: So are you saying that
21 you need me to provide you with
22 information on the properties before you
23 will consider the application?
24 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: It would
• 25 probably enhance your argument for
March 6, 2014 Regular Meeting 105
• 1 variance relief, if there are other rear
2 and side yard nonconforming setbacks in
3 the area. It speaks to the character of
4 the neighborhood.
5 MS. KRAMER: Can I provide that to you
6 in the interim or how does that work?
7 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Well, let's see
8 what other questions come up. We can close
9 the hearing subject to receipt of that
10 information. We can adjourn to the Special
11 Meeting in two weeks and get the
12 information and if we don't have any
• 13 questions, we can close it.
14 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I would suggest
15 adjourning it in case we have any specific
16 questions. That is just my opinion.
17 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Lets see if
18 there are other questions from the Board.
19 George, anything?
20 MEMBER HORNING: I was wondering if you
21 had considered instead of a porch on the
22 side, whether you considered a front
23 porch, which seems plenty of room to do.
24 In fact, you could probably have a bigger
• 25 porch there? And in light of that
March 6, 2014 Regular Meeting 106
is 1 suggestion, have you considered any other
2 alternative locations for the porch? Can
3 you provide us with some measurements of
4 how wide that the right of way is 50
5 feet?
6 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: It shows 30 feet.
7 That is what it says right here.
8 MS. KRAMER: Can you show me where you
9 see 30 feet?
10 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: It's right here,
11 Meryl. I would say that is correct based
12 on what I saw. I have worked for the
• 13 County for 25 years doing this stuff.
14 MS. KRAMER: So if it looks to me if
15 the lines are 30 feet, you have the stone
16 walls on either side of the pillars. It
17 looks like the road is 15.
18 MEMBER HORNING: Can you get us those
19 measurements? And the other thing is, the
20 Notice of Disapproval was amended,
21 somebody saw it and said this wasn't right
22 because we don't have access
23 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: We did that,
24 George.
• 25 MEMBER HORNING: And on what basis was
March 6, 2014 Regular Meeting 107
is 1 it determined that the applicant doesn't
2 have any access to the private road there,
3 Birdseye?
4 MS. TOTH: It's on the deed.
5 MEMBER HORNING: Okay. So again, I am
6 asking if you looked at alternative
7 location for the screened porch? I think
8 the Chairperson possibly gave some
9 alternatives to some other anything on
10 the east side there. Maybe you could put
11 it on the west side? I would also like to
12 see the measurements. Also, how many
• 13 parcels does that road serve for and any
14 other
15 MS. KRAMER: Which private road?
16 MEMBER HORNING: Birdseye. And are
17 there any undeveloped parcels or
18 everything up in there developed? Is it
19 four or five places and is it always going
20 to be that way?
21 MS. KRAMER: I know these roads are a
22 big community on the hill there. Is that
23 information that you would like me to look
24 at the tax map and give it to you?
• 25 MEMBER HORNING: Yeah. How many people
March 6, 2014 Regular Meeting 108
• 1 do have access to that private road?
2 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: George, are you
3 developing a hypothesis that a fairly
4 limited amount of people would be less
5 impact?
6 MEMBER HORNING: Yes, that is the
7 hypothesis. The more people you have
8 traveling up there, the more likelihood
9 you are going to have somebody smashing
10 into and going off the road.
11 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: All you have to do
12 is put up a guardrail.
• 13 MS. KRAMER: As far as alternate
14 locations, I was trying to keep the
15 structure of the house and the condition
16 of the house as minimally invasive as
17 possible. So a screened porch addition
18 was something that I was trying to tuck
19 into the volume of the house, if you will.
20 MEMBER HORNING: You are expanding the
21 side of the house somewhat dramatically.
22 MS. KRAMER: I would have to speak to
23 the owner and look at another alternative.
24 MEMBER HORNING: I am suggesting, did
• 25 you think of ideas to leave that
March 6, 2014 Regular Meeting 109
• 1 nonconformity in place and or decrease.
2 You have room in the front to have a front
3 porch with probably no variance. And I
4 don't know what either room you have for
5 decking, but I am just asking a question
6 to reduce the nonconformity. I was just
7 asking if you had any alternative plans or
8 that you could think of instead of
9 increasing the degree of nonconformity,
10 decrease the nonconformity or leave it the
11 way it is.
12 MS. KRAMER: The design idea was that
• 13 that side piece wasn't integrated with the
14 design and it felt like a tac-on. I was
15 trying to make it more visually inclusive
16 with the main volume of the house. I was
17 trying to make it more compact.
18 MEMBER HORNING: And you are dealing
19 with a preexisting structure with
20 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The structure
21 already has that nonconformance there.
22 George is right, if you have that porch in
23 the front of the house, you probably don't
24 need a variance. However
25 MS. KRAMER: Then that would me major
March 6, 2014 Regular Meeting 110
• 1 impact.
2 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Yes, it does. It
3 changes the elevation. If you tried to put
4 it on the Stephenson side, then you are in
5 a front yard and trying to create a
6 difference variance.
7 MS. KRAMER: Right.
8 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Right, you are
9 going to need another variance. You need
10 35 feet on that side.
11 MS. KRAMER: Right. I was trying to do
12 what I thought was right.
• 13 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Well, I think
14 nobody is suggesting anything other than
15 let's look at the thinking that went into
16 it and the proposed is that of the
17 proposed in a more conforming place.
18 Ken, do you have any questions?
19 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Yes, just a quick
20 question on elevation, #2. On the left
21 side of it. There is a dormer there,
22 isn't it? Shouldn't there be a dormer
23 there?
24 MS. KRAMER: Yes. There is an
• 25 existing dormer there and we're actually
March 6, 2014 Regular Meeting 111
• 1 making it smaller. I am actually bringing
2 it in.
3 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: That was my
4 question. And I totally understand to get
5 the southerly and westerly exposures.
6 It's nice view advantages from that
7 location.
8 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Gerry, anything
9 else?
10 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I just want to
11 know where we're going?
12 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Just some
• 13 information on existing setbacks and to
14 see if any in particular got any
15 variances. If you could just provide some
16 of that information.
17 MS. KRAMER: Yes, I could do that.
18 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: And as we
19 mentioned, the fencing is going to have to
20 be on the applicant's property.
21 MS. KRAMER: Yes.
22 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: If the applicant
23 can address that and for safety reasons.
24 The cars going up and down the road. The
• 25 house is so close to the road. It meets
March 6, 2014 Regular Meeting 112
• 1 the beginning
2 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: You know what the
3 problem is, you make a left turn or a
4 right turn through that driveway and in
5 order to generate enough power from the
6 automobile or the truck, it's a hill,
7 because it's a constant blind, people can
8 lose control of their vehicle. And the
9 first thing that they're going to do is go
10 left before they go right. I think. I
11 felt it in my truck, and it's a very
12 powerful little truck. It's a 4 liter, 6
• 13 cylinder small truck, and the truck
14 actually went towards the house on the
15 left side towards the house. To be
16 perfectly honest with you, a guardrail
17 would work.
18 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: I have no other
19 questions.
20 MS. KRAMER: Okay. Well, I can discuss
21 this with the owner.
22 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Bear in mind,
23 Birdseye is not paved. It's a dirt road.
24 When I got out and walked around, it
• 25 appeared Vicki is right, it says,
March 6, 2014 Regular Meeting 113
• 1 asphalt road, but it's not. And it really
2 doesn't have a great deal of traffic on
3 it. George is on the right path. Try and
4 see what you can come up with to justify
5 the proximity of the existing house. We
6 can't tell you to take it down but when
7 you're proposing to add more to it on that
8 side. I can understand it from an
9 architect side. Why don't we do this,
10 let's adjourn this to the Special Meeting
11 in two weeks. If you can get us the
12 information that we talked about as quick
• 13 as you can. If we have no further
14 questions, we will close. Vicki will let
15 us know when the stuff is in the office.
16 We can close the hearing and take it from
17 there. If in fact, we do have any
18 questions, we will then continue the
19 hearing at the next month from now. It
20 would be April 3rd. Our Special Meeting is
21 two weeks from today. Give you some time
22 to get some more materials together and
23 kind of beef of your argument.
24 MS. KRAMER: Sounds like a plan.
• 25 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: So I am making a
March 6, 2014 Regular Meeting 114
• 1 motion to adjourn to the Special Meeting
2 to March 20th.
3 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second.
4 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: All in favor?
5 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye.
6 MEMBER HORNING: Aye.
7 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye.
8 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Aye.
9 (See Minutes for Resolution.)
10
11 HEARING #6710 - MELANIE BELKIN
12 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The last
• 13 application before the Board is for
14 Melanie Belkin, #6710. That was adjourned
15 from February 5, 2014, because it's an
16 adjournment I don't have to read the
17 Notice of Disapproval. When we last spoke,
18 you were redoing the plans for the shed
19 and presenting us with a survey that
20 showed the septic location. We do have
21 that information. We have reviewed it. So
22 is there anything else that you would like
23 to tell us?
24 MS. KRAMER: Yes. There has been a
• 25 little changing of the guard here. So I
March 6, 2014 Regular Meeting 115
• 1 just wanted to briefly let everyone know
2 our thinking here. When the pool
3 contractor when Melanie Belkin hired a
4 pool contractor, they were not aware of
5 the fact that wetlands were issued. So in
6 talking to me, I raised that issue and
7 that is when I became involved in this
8 project, and that is when I recommended
9 that they have a survey done. That was all
10 in the works by the time that we had the
11 previous hearing. The previous person who
12 was working on the project was also
• 13 unaware of the issue of wetlands. So
14 because we have wetlands and they were
15 flagged, finally, because the snow was
16 making it impossible to flag the wetlands,
17 they were flagged by the surveyor. He
18 couldn't locate the flagging on here but
19 for your information, it's basically on
20 either side of the driveway to the north
21 of the property. So the location of the
22 shed of where it was, was very close to
23 the wetlands. So we proposed to relocate
24 the shed as shown on the current survey
• 25 that we have and make it smaller, 12x12.
March 6, 2014 Regular Meeting 116
• 1 It's also shorter than what you had
2 originally seen. It's no longer 16 foot
3 tall. And I have submitted a plan and a
4 side view showing it. Basically following
5 the low line roof the house. Significantly
6 lower. Keeping all the same materials. So
7 now the shed is partially in a front yard
8 and partially in a side yard. As you can
9 see we had the septic located and that is
10 right in the rear yard. So because of the
11 location of the wetlands and the location
12 of the septic, the shed really needs to be
• 13 an area where we are showing it now.
14 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: It's 22.3 feet
15 from the closest corner of the proposed
16 pool that is for the property line;
17 correct?
18 MS. KRAMER: Correct. The wetlands
19 are on the other side of this.
20 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Do you have to
21 go to Trustees for this?
22 MS. KRAMER: We are going to Trustees
23 and DEC. We wanted to get the since
24 Zoning is the first stop and Trustees
• 25 won't hear anything anymore, as you well
March 6, 2014 Regular Meeting 117
• 1 know, we wanted to get the Board's
2 approval on the location before we get
3 involved in any of the specifics. Like
4 what kind of equipment we are using.
5 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Gerry,
6 questions?
7 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: As you know, I was
8 not at the last hearing. I have reviewed
9 the site twice.
10 MS. KRAMER: I have also submitted the
11 two variances.
12 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Yes. George?
• 13 MEMBER HORNING: I had them answered
14 already.
15 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Ken?
16 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: No questions.
17 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Would you like
18 to say anything, since you're the
19 audience. You have to come to the podium.
20 MS. BELKIN: Just that I feel very
21 comfortable now with Meryl working on
22 this. I want to be able to do what I
23 would like to do. I spoke to Bob (In
24 Audible) and he said that if one of the
is 25 issues that DEC may bring up is putting in
March 6, 2014 Regular Meeting 118
• 1 wetland plants, and that would be great.
2 I wanted to do that anyway. So as this
3 is evolving, it's going to make the whole
4 place look very wild.
5 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Apparently what
6 you want?
7 MS. BELKIN: Yes.
8 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: When you go to
9 the Trustees, you will be able to address
10 the wetlands issues. Do we have a drywell
11 for the pool?
12 MS. KRAMER: I think we will need one.
• 13 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Is it the kind
14 of pool that needs to be emptied or not?
15 We don't know yet?
16 MS. KRAMER: The previous pool company
17 was going to provide us with the
18 information. We didn't want to do that in
19 vane and wanted to make sure we had the
20 approval for the location first.
21 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Well, in our
22 decision, you are going to have to conform
23 to Chapter 236, which is the Town's
24 Stormwater Drainage Plan, and we are going
• 25 to require that the pool equipment be in a
March 6, 2014 Regular Meeting 119
• 1 sound deadening enclosure and that there
2 be a drywell for pool dewatering, unless
3 you can prove to the Trustees that it's
4 not required. But we will require it.
5 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Is it a gunite
6 pool or
7 MS. KRAMER: We are still exploring
8 the options. I originally had the estimate
9 for a vinyl pool, and I am going to
10 explore gunite and maybe even fiberglass
11 to see what would work best on that piece
12 of the property. There is a high water
• 13 table. I just found out about it today,
14 fiberglass and I have heard great things
15 about it.
16 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Regardless of
17 wetlands, you should really have some
18 dewatering. Just take the water out.
19 Especially when you get the leaves. You
20 don't want to get any of that water into
21 the wetlands.
22 MS. KRAMER: Thank you. I am just
23 exploring that now.
24 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: All right.
• 25 Anything else?
March 6, 2014 Regular Meeting 120
• 1 (No Response.)
2 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I am going to
3 make a motion to close the hearing and
4 reserve decision to a later date.
5 Is there a second?
6 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second.
7 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: All in favor?
8 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye.
9 MEMBER HORNING: Aye.
10 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye.
11 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Aye.
12 (See Minutes for Resolution.)
• 13
14
15 (Whereupon, the March 6, 2014 Public
16 Hearings concluded at 2:00 P.M.)
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
• 25
March 6, 2014 Regular Meeting 121
• 1
2 C E R T I F I C A T I O N
3
4
5
6 I, Jessica DiLallo, certify that the foregoing
7 transcript of tape recorded Public Hearings was
8 prepared using required electronic transcription
9 equipment and is a true and accurate record of
10 the Hearings.
11
12
13 Signature. r
•
14 J Assica DiLallo
15
16
17 Jessica DiLallo
Court Reporter
18 PO Box 984
Holbrook, New York 11741
19
20 Date: March 17, 2014
21
22
23
24
. 25