HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-05/01/2014 Hearing 1
1 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 May 1 , 2014
9 : 15 A. M.
10
11
12 Board Members Present :
13 LESLIE KANES WEISMAN - Chairperson/Member
14 ERIC DANTES - Member
15 GERARD GOEHRINGER - Member
16 GEORGE HORNING - Member (Left at 2 : 15 p .m. )
17 KENNETH SCHNEIDER - Member (Left at 1 : 00 p .m. )
18
19 VICKI TOTH - Secretary
20
21
22
23 Jessica DiLallo
Court Reporter
24 P . O . Box 984
Holbrook, New York 11741
25 ( 631 ) -338-1409
2
1
2 INDEX TO HEARINGS
3
4 Hearing Page
5 Peter M. Boger, #6741 3-17
6 Ralph M. Carbone, Jr . &
7 Lauryn F. Carbone, #6746 17-39
8 Cheryl Meddles-Torres , #6742 39-44
9 Cedars Golf Club, LLC, #6745 44-58
10 Christina Quarty, #6739 58-61
11 John Forestieri, #6740 61-68
12 Gary & Kathleen Zuar, #6743 69-83
13 Karol Filipowski, #6747 83-109
14 Karol Filipowski . #6748SE 83-109
15 Anthony Asch, #6738 109-115
16 Southold Historical Society #6737 116-116
17 Stephan Kalaijian, #6744 116-132
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
• 25
May 1, 2014 Regular Meeting 3
• 1 HEARING #6741 - PETER M . BOGER
2 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The first
3 application before the Board is for
4 Peter M. Boger, #6741 . Request for
5 variances from Article XXIII Section
6 280-124 and the Building Inspector ' s
7 January 28 , 2014 Notice of Disapproval
8 based on an application for building
9 permit for demolition of an existing
10 single family dwelling and construction
11 of a new single family dwelling, at ; 1 )
12 less than the code required front yard
13 setback of 35 feet , 2 ) less than the
14 code required rear yard setback of 35
15 feet , located at : 717 Private Road #12 ,
16 a . k. a . Windy Point Road, adjacent to
17 Corey Creek in Southold.
18 MR. HERRMANN : Rob Herrmann with
19 En Consultants for the applicant , Peter
20 Boger .
21 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So we have
22 demolition and reconstruction of a new
23 single family dwelling on 13 , 580 square
24 foot lot in an R-40 Zone district . And
• 25 a front yard setback of 25 feet, plus or
May 1, 2014 Regular Meeting 4
1 minus , where the code requires 35 , and a
2 rear yard setback at 32 feet , where the
3 code requires 35 feet . The LWRP is
4 consistent . What would you like to tell
5 us? You have DEC approval .
6 MR. HERRMANN : Just to give you a
7 little bit of background and details of
8 the proposal that is before the Board
9 this morning . The property is, as you
10 just described and has been, held by the
11 applicant ' s family since the 1940 ' s . The
12 original CO that was originated in 1957 ,
13 the original cottage has a footprint of
14 987 feet and also contains a shed, which
15 is allowed to be on the property by
16 virtue of a prior variance that was
17 granted by this Board in 2003 .
18 Mr . Boger is here before the Board today
19 because he would like to form a cottage
20 that was used by his family for the past
21 50 years . He wants it to be enjoyed as
22 a year round residence . The property as
23 you can see from the survey and site
24 plan is constrained not only by the size
• 25 and configuration of the lot but also by
May 1, 2014 Regular Meeting 5
1 the presence of tidal wetlands along
2 Corey Creek, the shoreline . That
3 effectively leaves 9 , 500 square feet of
4 the property for land as defined by Town
5 Code . Once he applied for the required
6 wetlands , the State DEC and the Town, we
7 have to keep the house to the far
8 eastern landward side of the property as
9 possible . Meaning that we can ' t build
10 it any farther than we have it . Based
11 on the width of the property, once
12 you ' re in that portion of the parcel , it
13 is really not possible to meet both the
14 front and rear yard setbacks of 35 feet .
15 And the existing dwelling does not do
16 either . So we were presented with some
17 real challenges . The way we met those
18 challenges , we were downsizing . The
19 existing house footprint, we ' re going
20 from one to two-story ' s . The footprint
21 will be reduced from 928 to 824 square
22 feet . So even with the addition of the
23 small 72 foot porch, we are below the
24 existing area . Including all the
. 25 changes on the site, the lot coverage
May 1, 2014 Regular Meeting 6
• 1 will only increase by 15 feet . That is
2 1-5 , 15 square feet . And based on the
3 reduction in the house and it ' s
4 location, we are actually going to
5 achieve a net reduction of the overall
6 nonconforming setback that exist on the
7 property now, with regards to the
8 setbacks . In large part to the space
9 that is required by the sanitary system.
10 The property right now is served by an
11 antiquated and nonconforming septic
12 system sitting in groundwater . And
13 because of that and the high ground
14 water table here, to raise the system
15 and fill and concrete with retaining
16 walls as required by Suffolk County
17 Health Department . So by the time you
18 place that system in the corner of the
19 property where it is proposed, and the
20 cesspools meet the setbacks from the
21 retaining wall and the rear yard setback
22 of 32 feet , which is what we have
23 proposed. That is actually an increase
24 of about 7 feet from the existing rear
• 25 yard setback of 25 feet . That comes at
May 1, 2014 Regular Meeting 7
• 1 a roughly equal slightly lesser of a
2 reduction of the front yard setback
3 which is currently at 38 feet , and
4 proposed is to be 25 . So in a nutshell,
5 your total nonconformity with regards to
6 front and rear setbacks is 14 . 2 feet and
7 we are proposing to reduce that total
8 setback nonconformity to 13 feet . We
9 are just reallocating the nonconformance
10 a little bit to accommodate the
11 nonconforming septic system. As we have
12 explained in our application, we believe
• 13 that the grant of relief to establish
14 this layout will not have an undesirable
15 change to the character of the
16 neighborhood. The inception of a new
17 two story dwelling is a year round use
18 is in fact characteristic of other
19 residential structures in this
20 neighborhood, which has overtime been
21 enhanced and improved . Thereby
22 increasing the value of the dwellings in
23 this area. You can see in some of the
24 photographs that were submitted in the
• 25 application and I will submit them to
May 1, 2014 Regular Meeting 8
• 1 the Board, that is in front of you, the
2 adjacent property, 705 Windy Point Lane
3 contains a two-story dwelling that
4 replaced a one-story cottage . Very
5 similar to what Peter Boger is
6 proposing, with variance relief from the
7 Board. Case #3865 which is way back
8 from 189 . And that was for insufficient
9 side and rear yard setbacks . And then
10 they were also granted the two-story
11 garage constructed with benefit of
12 relief from the Board, Case #4153 in
• 13 1993 . And that actually allowed that
14 two-story garage to be placed 5 feet
15 from side yard setback, which is Peter
16 Boger' s property. So as you can see
17 that two-story garage is very close to
18 the side yard. That variance relief was
19 granted to the subject property. The
20 property located two parcels to the
21 north, which is 635 Windy Point Road,
22 two-story dwelling and attached garage
23 that replaced a significantly smaller
24 one-story cottage for the benefit from
• 25 variance relief with Case #3985 in 1990
May 1, 2014 Regular Meeting 9
• 1 and that was for insufficient side and
2 rear yard setbacks . It is worth noting
3 as I stated in the application, that
4 where the footprint of that dwelling
5 increased substantially as result of a
6 nonconforming dwelling . The subject
7 property here would actually decrease .
8 We believe that the grant of relief will
9 not cause a detriment to nearby
10 properties , because not only would the
11 dwelling be smaller but will remain
12 align with the adjacent nonconforming
• 13 dwelling to it' s north and west on the
14 property. Therefore the dwelling will
15 remain in the same location and the
16 additional height will have no impact .
17 The project also incorporates
18 significant mitigation measures , which
19 is to mention that the LWRP Coordinator
20 recommended that the Board find the
21 project consistent with the LWRP and
22 based on the notes in those notes -- I
23 am not going to get in those in so much
24 detail as we present them in the
25 application but basically in summary,
May 1, 2014 Regular Meeting 10
• 1 the mitigation in the redesign of the
2 house with respect to it a little bit
3 further from the wetlands and a little
4 bit improvement from the setbacks,
5 includes the removal of the sanitary
6 system as I mentioned and installation
7 of a new upgraded system, elevated above
8 groundwater . The raising of the
9 dwelling itself into FEMA compliant,
10 installation of a drainage system of
11 leaders , gutters and drywells . And also
12 the establishment of a buffer area that
• 13 should be established in replace of the
14 existing lawn to the west side of the
15 property. Currently there is a native
16 vegetation and berm that separates the
17 property from the wetlands and the
18 proposed buffer would extend that all
19 the way to the newly proposed driveway.
20 Although I am not sure it' s under the
21 purview of this Board, but the proposal
22 does include a slight shift in the
23 driveway and the right-of-way, which
24 does provide access ( In Audible ) to the
25 south . So if we are able to get all of
May 1, 2014 Regular Meeting 11
• 1 the agency approvals that we are
2 required to obtain, then the relocation
3 of that entrance, that driveway entrance
4 would be accorded. That is really the
5 essence of the application that is
6 before you . We have been working with
7 Peter for the better part of the last
8 two years. As I mentioned, we have
9 obtained wetlands approval from the
10 State DEC, which had to issue their own
11 variance relief to allow the project to
12 go forward. It is a project to improve
• 13 environmentally and the overall
14 character to the neighborhood. Peter is
15 here . Also ( In Audible) Steelman is
16 here if the Board has any questions . We
17 would be happy to field them.
18 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You have
19 covered every base . We have very little
20 to question, including the right-of-way.
21 Is that an easement over the property to
22 the other property?
23 MR. HERRMANN : Actually it' s going to
24 be -- it would be something that would
• 25 have to be changed by deed. The
May 1, 2014 Regular Meeting 12
• 1 beneficiary of it is in the family . So
2 we expect that to run smoothly .
3 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I don ' t
4 think that is anything that we can
5 address .
6 MR. HERRMANN : Correct me if I am
7 wrong, I did include the deed with the
8 application that makes reference to it .
9 Yes, it' s a right-of-way and it' s
10 written into the deed to provide access .
11 I am sure Peter can provide additional
12 information . It' s the only way -- if you
• 13 look at the aerial here . This was
14 Peter' s cousin' s property here .
15 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes . And I
16 did notice on the map that the same
17 name was held in both properties . We
18 had to get there somehow.
19 MR. HERRMANN : Right .
20 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thank you . Let
21 me see if the Board has any questions .
22 Eric, anything?
23 MEMBER DANTES : No .
24 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Ken?
25 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: No questions .
May 1, 2014 Regular Meeting 13
• 1 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : George?
2 MEMBER HORNING : I will ask about
3 the front yard setback then and the
4 rear yard setback . There is a lot on
5 the survey. And on the original survey
6 there is less . It doesn ' t show a rear
7 yard setback. But I believe the rear
8 yard setback of 38 . 8 --
9 MR. HERRMANN : It' s 30 . 8 . The
10 existing rear is 25 . You should have
11 Site Plan l .A, which is a little
12 simpler .
• 13 MEMBER HORNING : Okay. And you ' re
14 proposing to reduce the front yard
15 setback from that 30 . 8 to 25 feet?
16 MR. HERRMANN : That' s correct .
17 MEMBER HORNING : The front yard
18 setback goes to a property line;
19 correct?
20 MR. HERRMANN : That' s correct .
21 MEMBER HORNING : That' s what is a
22 little bit unusual . It' s usually a
23 setback from a right-of-way.
24 MR. HERRMANN : That way that it has
. 25 been interpreted as I understand it, is
May 1, 2014 Regular Meeting 14
• 1 the setbacks have been drawn from the
2 actual northern property line and not to
3 this driveway . If Mike Verity were here,
4 I would ask him. I don' t know the exact
5 reason why that is here, but that is the
6 way that it is . I know what George is
7 getting at . So I am not sure why that is
8 here . I mean, we don' t have much choice
9 one way or the other .
10 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay . Gerry?
11 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Is there any
12 objections from anyone regarding this
• 13 project?
14 MR. HERRMANN : We haven' t . Because
15 it' s such constrained lots and going
16 back a couple of years , we have had site
17 meetings here both with the staff from
18 the State DEC and also the Trustees .
19 Peter was partial and knew that this was
20 going to be a long process and an
21 expensive process . So he wanted to take
22 his time and get a sense of what we
23 would have to do here . We really have
24 had no agency resistance . I don' t think
• 25 that there is anyone here in terms of
May 1, 2014 Regular Meeting 15
• 1 neighboring parcels . These properties
2 here have already done what the
3 applicant is proposing to do . I guess ,
4 the short answer would be, no . We have
5 had support from agencies . I was very
6 happy to see the LWRP' s recommendation
7 because it seems to acknowledge that
8 approach .
9 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : There is no way
10 you can move it .
11 MR. HERRMANN : There is no place else
12 to go . That is why we worked with the
• 13 best that we can do with the DEC
14 requirements and the wetland' s --
15 anyway, that is pretty much where we
16 are .
17 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Thank you .
18 MEMBER HORNING : ( In Audible) .
19 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Would you come
20 to the mic and state your name for the
21 record.
22 MR. BOGER: My name is Peter Boger and
23 I am the applicant . With respect to the
24 road maintenance , it is a dirt road that
• 25 frequently becomes filled with potholes
May 1, 2014 Regular Meeting 16
• 1 and every several years , some of the
2 residence down there will walk around
3 and collect donations for the repair of
4 the road . Most recently it was done
5 three years ago .
6 MEMBER HORNING : Snow removal?
7 MR. BOGER: We don' t seem to get a
8 lot of the snow down there but that is
9 part of the contract .
10 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Thank you .
11 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there
12 anything else? Is there anyone else in
• 13 the audience who would like to address
14 this application?
15 (No Response . )
16 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay . Hearing
17 no further questions or comments , I am
18 going to make a motion to close the
19 hearing and reserve decision to a later
20 date .
21 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second.
22 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor?
23 MEMBER DANTES : Aye .
24 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye .
• 25 MEMBER HORNING : Aye .
May 1, 2014 Regular Meeting 17
• 1 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye .
2 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye .
3 (See Minutes for Resolution . )
4 ****************** *************** *****
5 HEARING #6746 - RALPH . M. CARBONE,
6 JR. & LAURYN F. CARBONE
7 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next
8 application before the Board is for
9 Ralph M. Carbone, Jr . , and Lauryn F.
10 Carbone , # 6746 . Request for variances
11 from Articles III and XXII , Sections
12 280-15 , 280-13 and 280-116A ( 1 ) and the
• 13 Building Inspector ' s January 10 , 2014
14 amended March 17 , 2014 and April 2 , 2014
15 Notice of Disapproval based on a
16 building permit application for an
17 "as-built" accessory in-ground swimming
18 pool and proposed accessory pool house,
19 at : 1 ) "as-built" swimming pool and
20 proposed pool house location in other
21 than the code required rear yard, 2 )
22 more than the code required one dwelling
23 on each lot, pool house by design
24 constitutes as a second dwelling unit,
• 25 3 ) "as-built" in-ground swimming pool
May 1, 2014 Regular Meeting 18
• 1 located ar less than the code required
2 bluff setback of 100 feet , located at :
3 No # East End Road, aka Castle Road,
4 adjacent to Block Island Sound in
5 Fishers Island.
6 Good morning .
7 MR. HAM: Good morning .
8 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We seem to
9 have, this Board, certainly are familiar
10 with the property . It' s Herculean effort
11 to armor the bluff with it' s rip-rap,
12 boulders more like it . The poolhouse is
• 13 partially and "as-built" pool are
14 proposed in the side yard . Front yard on
15 waterfront property or rear yard is
16 conforming location . An "as-built" pool
17 at 18 foot setback from the top of the
18 bluff, which we have all seen . A
19 proposed accessory poolhouse with a 52
20 setback from the top of the bluff .
21 Single house constitutes a second
22 dwelling . So those are the issues before
23 us . I think the setbacks are
24 straightforward.
• 25 MR. HAM: Would you like me to state
May 1, 2014 Regular Meeting 19
• 1 my appearance?
2 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Of course,
3 please do .
4 MR. HAM: Stephen Ham, 36 Nugent
5 Street, Southampton, for the applicant .
6 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Just for the
7 record, let' s note that the LWRP
8 Coordinator was consistent because there
9 was no mitigating circumstances into the
10 property. They couldn ' t really determine
11 when the pool was constructed. They are
12 thinking 1962 - 1978 . Prior to Chapter
• 13 111 .
14 MR. HAM: It was at least 36 years
15 because they were before your Board for
16 a fence issue , I believe .
17 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Given the
18 erosion control and it' s sitting where
19 it was sitting and not that close --
20 MR. HAM: Well, it was overhanging
21 last year. It' s at a safer distance now .
22 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Are you
23 proposing a pool dewatering drywell? Is
24 that on the survey?
• 25 MR. CARBONE : Ralph Carbone, owner .
May 1, 2014 Regular Meeting 20
• 1 Yes, there is a dewatering system there .
2 That ' s been in place .
3 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All right . The
4 proposed poolhouse is in a FEMA flood
5 zone X. And it' s landward of the pool .
6 My primary question has to do with the
7 scope and nature of what is going on in
8 the poolhouse itself .
9 MR. HAM: May I approach?
10 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Sure .
11 MR. HAM: I address all the issues in
12 the memorandum. The side yard issue is
13 unavoidable . If you are going to have an
14 accessory structure, you want it near a
15 pool, which is already there . As far as
16 the bluff setback issue is concerned,
17 the stabilization was completed at great
18 expense . I have a couple of photographs
19 attached to the application . So that is
20 probably the most stable bluff on
21 Fisher' s Island at this point . I did get
22 an opinion from Coastal Engineer who is
23 familiar with the site . I have her
24 memorandum that is attached, which
25 includes that this will have no impact
May 1, 2014 Regular Meeting 21
• 1 on the bluff . The argument in terms - so
2 that really leaves the design issue as
3 the outstanding issue . Our request is to
4 allow the poolhouse to proceed as
5 planned with stipulations of Certificate
6 of Occupancy, conditions to an
7 interpretation and covenants and
8 restrictions that would state that if
9 the Carbone' s were ever to develop the
10 second lot , which they own adjoining
11 this lot, and I have explained that
12 situation in the memorandum, that they
• 13 would remove those features of the
14 poolhouse that would otherwise be a
15 second dwelling . Recently these two lots
16 have finally been assigned two tax lot
17 numbers . That was in connection with a
18 lot line change where thereby the
19 acquired about 17 , 000 square feet from
20 the neighbor . That was after our
21 hearings last year. So what we have here
22 are two building sites , but using them
23 as one . However, the lot that comprised
24 Carbone' s property, this is just south
• 25 of the road . They constitute two
May 1, 2014 Regular Meeting 22
• 1 building sites approved by the Board and
2 approved by the Health Department . As I
3 pointed out, these lots are often
4 assumed into one tax lot number . That
5 does mean that they are not separate
6 building sites unless they merged. Our
7 point is, even if this were a second
8 dwelling, since the other lot is
9 unimproved the policy behind having a
10 singe family dwelling per lot is still
11 observed . Since it would be consistent ,
12 however, this is not even a second
. 13 dwelling . It has extra bathroom and a
14 little more than what you would allow
15 for a poolhouse . However, even if it
16 were a second dwelling, it would be
17 consistent with one singe family
18 dwelling per lot .
19 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Are you saying
20 that where the poolhouse is proposed to
21 be located near the pool, that is a
22 second lot?
23 MR. HAM: No . It' s on the site plan .
24 If you look --
25 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The point is ,
May 1, 2014 Regular Meeting 23
• 1 at the moment is a structure that the
2 Building Department has determined it as
3 habitable dwelling space on the same lot
4 as the principal dwelling?
5 MR. HAM : Correct .
6 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Poolhouses are
7 usually incidental to a swimming pool --
8 probably as I know you know, only one
9 half bath is permitted in an accessory
10 structure . The shower must be located
11 outside of the --
12 MR. HAM: It is a poolhouse . It' s
• 13 called a poolhouse but it' s going to be
14 used for other permitted uses, year
15 round. It has two-story' s . The top floor
16 will be a playroom, an observation area
17 and so forth . So it' s a poolhouse -- the
18 level floor will be used as a
19 traditional poolhouse .
20 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well, it appears
21 to be the Building Department that it' s
22 a full fledged two-story structure,
23 habitable space . It' s going to be
24 conditioned, heated, year round, with
• 25 two full-size bathrooms and what' s
May 1, 2014 Regular Meeting 24
1 called a wet bar, but it is a kitchen .
2 You know, I think the Board understands
3 why the Building Department determined
4 it to be a full --
5 MR. HAM: As I said in the
6 memorandum, you can make a determination
7 that we have a different situation here .
8 We have two building sites, they are
9 willing to stipulate that if the site is
10 developed, that any of the features that
11 led to the Building Department to
12 determine that this is a separate
• 13 residence would be removed . So it would
14 be stripped of any features .
15 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: There is no doubt
16 in my mind that what is before us is
17 something that we don ' t usually see . Nor
18 do we usually see a second lot that is
19 buildable . However, bearing in mind the
20 fact that we don' t know what is going to
21 happen in the future, we would hope that
22 the Carbone Family would occupy both
23 sources . The only true way to deal with
24 this is put a covenant on this -- on the
• 25 removal of XYZ poolhouse . That is the
May 1, 2014 Regular Meeting 25
. 1 only way we could see it .
2 MR. HAM: As you see, I have put that
3 in the memorandum.
4 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: We haven' t seen
5 it . I am putting it on the record .
6 MR. HAM: I offered either as a
7 condition to the zoning or certificate
8 of occupancy or affidavit or whatever
9 you want .
10 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I think that is
11 the way to do it . I mean this is
12 something that should be really worked
• 13 out with a Town Attorney.
14 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It' s a unique
15 situation and it' s certainly far more
16 that a typical poolhouse . There is no
17 reason why a second room can ' t be a
18 bedroom on the plan . Certainly looks
19 like a guest house . This is certainly
20 seasonal .
21 MR. HAM: They can have a year round
22 area with a ping-pong --
23 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes , with a half
24 bath?
• 25 MR. HAM: Right . They have a big house
May 1, 2014 Regular Meeting 26
1 with many, many bedrooms and bathrooms .
2 They are certainly not using it for
3 anything else --
4 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Then why not
5 only put in a half bath? Why a full
6 bathroom? Then it would be code
7 conforming .
8 MS . SLEICHER: Azure Sleiche . The
9 design of the poolhouse as the client
10 requested was to have the living area
11 and playroom, that be over by the window
12 as well as from year round. The
• 13 necessity of a pool bath is in case the
14 elderly people as part of this, would
15 like to be there and don' t have to run
16 back to the house and use the shower .
17 The shower is necessary. Especially for
18 an elderly person who has issues . Not
19 everybody would like to be exposed
20 outside . That is why we have a full
21 bath .
22 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Two of them?
23 MS . SLEICHER: Yes . Because both of
24 them would be used. One would be
• 25 accessed from the courtyard and one
May 1, 2014 Regular Meeting 27
• 1 would be accessed from the pool . And
2 both of them would be occupied as
3 different points throughout the year .
4 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: When you say
5 occupied, what do you mean by occupied?
6 MS . SLEICHER: During the day the
7 playroom will be used as a social area .
8 That is how they are going to be
9 occupied.
10 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : What you are
11 asking for here is 200% relief from the
12 code . The code allows one half bath . You
• 13 are asking for two full baths . That is
14 very, very exceptional . We have actually
15 had cabanas that were beautifully built
16 with marble and everything else and we
17 had them have removal of the shower to
18 be outside at a considerable expense to
19 the owner.
20 MR. HAM: We would like you to focus
21 on the context that there are two
22 building sites . One is not being used. I
23 believe you can make that consideration .
24 My client is willing to put in
• 25 covenants . To whatever the Town Attorney
I
May 1, 2014 Regular Meeting 28
• 1 would find acceptable . So please keep
2 this in mind when you are reviewing
3 this .
4 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We would also
5 have to investigate and overturn the
6 Building Inspector ' s Notice of
7 Disapproval , because it' s as designed,
8 it' s a second dwelling . We would be
9 permitting a second dwelling on the
10 property, and as you said, would be
11 removed if the second property is
12 developed. Part of covenants and
• 13 restrictions .
14 MR. HAM: Alternatively, can you make
15 a determination that there is a second
16 building site and have features that led
17 to a conclusion that it' s a second
18 dwelling . It' s more than an
19 interpretation .
20 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I don' t know
21 that we can do that .
22 MR. HAM: I have had you interpret
23 before .
24 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I am sure the
• 25 irony would not be lost before you
May 1, 2014 Regular Meeting 29
• 1 because we had another poolhouse in
2 fisher' s Island that has a full --
3 MR. HAM: I mentioned that to my
4 client on the way over this morning .
5 Mr . Coleman does not have two sites .
6 Please keep that distinction in mind.
7 That certainly makes it more
8 distinction . And then the willingness of
9 the Carbone' s who have invested a
10 tremendous amount in stabilizing their
11 bluff to -- keep that in mind.
12 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well , they
• 13 certainly have a right to enjoy their
14 pool and poolhouse, whether they have a
15 right to put a second dwelling on the
16 property, that is another question .
17 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: We may be required
18 to ask the Town Attorney if he thinks we
19 need to have you apply for an
20 interpretation .
21 MR. HAM: Thought you had authority to
22 at least that one other case that I
23 mentioned to at least make an
24 interpretation --
25 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I think we
May 1, 2014 Regular Meeting 30
1 probably can but this is a stretch . This
• 2 is extremely unorthodox what we have
3 here . We have enough of things that
4 come in that predate zoning that are
5 built without the benefit of a CO or a
6 Pre-CO and that then after the fact we
7 have to deal with . This is a proposal so
8 that we can get it right to begin with .
9 And that is what we have to deal with,
10 you know, how -- what we can effectively
11 do without getting ( In Audible)
12 precedent . I am sure your arguments have
• 13 merit .
14 MR. HAM: Yes , I address that exact
15 part in the second part of the
16 memorandum, we believe you would not set
17 an undo precedent because of the
18 situation being -- most being unique .
19 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Did you talk
20 about putting the poolhouse on that
21 property?
22 MR. HAM: Well, it' s impractical
23 because the pool is already in
24 existence .
• 25 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So if that moves
May 1, 2014 Regular Meeting 31
• 1 to the other property, you then could
2 put an outdoor shower by the pool .
3 MR. HAM: The expense would be one
4 thing and problematic I would think .
5 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It appears
6 there is a lot of flexibility there .
7 That extra lot allows you to do whatever
8 you want on it . He has a perfectly good
9 lot that he can build it on .
10 MR. HAM: And certainly more greater
11 distance from the pool . In the context
12 of where the pool exists now and where
• 13 the house exist, we would covenant to
14 not develop that other lot . We would
15 take out whatever that has made that
16 into a second dwelling . It' s a more
17 practical solution there and not be more
18 strict . In this case , it' s much more
19 practical, given the lay of the land.
20 And now the property is being used.
21 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The architect
22 has testified that there are already
23 going to be many more uses --
24 MR. HAM : Permitted uses . Yes . Not
• 25 illegal uses . Permitted uses for
I
May 1, 2014 Regular Meeting 32
1 accessory structures , yes .
• 2 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let' see what
3 other Board members have to say .
4 MEMBER HORNING : I will ask a quick
5 question on the driveway crossing the
6 other lot, is that a right-of-way or is
7 that a private driveway?
8 MR. HAM: No .
9 MEMBER HORNING : What would happen if
10 the parcel was sold?
11 MR. HAM: If the parcel were sold,
12 then we would reserve an easement to
• 13 access the house .
14 MEMBER HORNING : You are saying that
15 it' s on the subdivision map for years
16 and years . I was wondering if it' s a
17 right of way?
18 MR. HAM: No, the Citgo has the
19 right-of-way ' s on the map which is the
20 same . If you look at the key map on the
21 site map that shows the Citgo . We have
22 added to each of those lots . It' s now
23 3 . 6 acres . We also acquired a lot line
24 change that the Planning Board approved.
• 25 MEMBER HORNING : We wanted to know the
May 1, 2014 Regular Meeting 33
1 actual dimensions of the poolhouse?
• 2 MS . SLEICHER: The overall size of
3 it, is 24x36 . 22 feet 8 inches is the
4 height , and that is to the ridge . And
5 measured from the average grade to the
6 poolhouse .
7 MEMBER HORNING : So you are not
8 cited for the height?
9 MS . SLEICHER: I think that was De
10 Minimus for the accessory structure .
11 MR. HAM: They had quite a bit
12 discussion about the height . Originally
• 13 it was denied for the height but he
14 removed that denial from the notice .
15 That was one of the reasons why it was
16 amended so many times .
17 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I am looking at
18 this . To the ridge on this drawing,
19 shows 26 . 9 1/2 inches .
20 MS . SLEICHER: ( In Audible) .
21 (Whereupon, speaker was not near a
22 microphone . )
23 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: What you are asking
24 to build what the Building Department
• 25 has determined as a second dwelling, I
May 1, 2014 Regular Meeting 34
• 1 guess it' s the southern lot?
2 MR . HAM: 1C .
3 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: By using the
4 undeveloped parcel?
5 MR. HAM: Yes . This will not be used
6 for habitation . They will stipulate or
7 covenant that that will not be the case .
8 If they wanted a second dwelling, they
9 could put a kitchen in it and so on . The
10 tipping point is the extra bathroom. In
11 that sense only . They are willing to
12 covenant it for future owners that it
• 13 cannot be used for habitation, sleeping .
14 That would be in a recorded covenant .
15 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: I have to read your
16 memorandum.
17 MR. HAM: Please do, especially the
18 second section .
19 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We will . Good
20 thing you did buy that lot .
21 MR . CARBONE : That came with the
22 property.
23 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Are they merged
24 or are they single and separate?
• 25 MR. HAM: They are exempt and they
May 1, 2014 Regular Meeting 35
1 have been approved by the Planning
2 Board. They are recognized and approved
3 by the merger .
4 MEMBER HORNING : So if the vacant
5 parcel were sold, you would have a
6 number of predicaments to deal with,
7 especially with the septic .
8 MR. HAM: Then we would have to deal
9 with that . That is not the point . These
10 three acres have been approved by the
11 Planning Board and the Health Department
12 as two building sites and therefore the
• 13 policy provision that prohibit one
14 single family per lot are not violated
15 by this structure which just barely has
16 become a dwelling under the definitions
17 of the Building Department and your
18 interpretation because of the bathroom.
19 MEMBER HORNING : I think that is a
20 hard argument to make .
21 MR. HAM: I am saying that you could
22 maybe a little more flexible at what
23 constitutes as a second dwelling . It
24 doesn ' t have a second bedroom. It has a
25 second bathroom. One more than what it
May 1, 2014 Regular Meeting 36
• 1 is allowed .
2 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Two bathrooms .
3 One has a shower and one has a tub .
4 That is considerably more than what is
5 permitted.
6 MEMBER DANTES : ( In Audible) .
7 MR . HAM: To families would be allowed
8 on these 3 . 6 acres . And our argument is,
9 here is a poolhouse that will not be
10 used for habitation and has only a
11 little bit more than what would be
12 allowed and therefore consistent with
• 13 the density policy with the Town of
14 Southold.
15 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : What is the
16 hardship in making this conforming with
17 one half bath? I can understand why you
18 want to have two baths , but explain what
19 the hardship would be?
20 MR. CARBONE : The reason why Lauryn
21 and I decided on -- our family -- we
22 have older parents and we wanted to have
23 a bath . They are very immobile . So we
24 wanted to have a bath on that first
• 25 floor . They could never make it down the
May 1, 2014 Regular Meeting 37
• 1 stairs . So that is why we wanted to have
2 a bath on each of the levels . Now, my
3 father is 85 . Her mother is 76 . We have
4 an aunt that is 88 . So if they want to
5 come over and enjoy the second floor,
6 then fine come over and use that
7 bathroom. That is the whole purpose of
8 it .
9 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : But why do they
10 have to take a shower --
11 MR. CARBONE : If you wanted us to
12 have a half bath downstairs or a half
• 13 shower, if that is what to make this
14 work, we are fine with that . That is the
15 reason for it .
16 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : When they are
17 visiting you, where would they be
18 sleeping?
19 MR. CARBONE : In our house . My father
20 is very immobile and has a cane .
21 Hopefully he doesn ' t have to get to a
22 wheelchair . So he' s out there enjoying
23 himself on the deck there . That is why
24 we do it .
• 25 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anything else
May 1, 2014 Regular Meeting 38
• 1 from the Board?
2 (No Response . )
3 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there anyone
4 in the audience that would like to
5 address this application?
6 (No Response . )
7 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I think what we
8 ought to do here because there is some
9 dangling questions and things that we
10 have to look into, I am going to make a
11 motion to adjourn this to the Special
12 Meeting at which time we will then close
• 13 or then reschedule the following month,
14 or do you just want to adjourn to next
15 month? If we need more time, then we
16 will adjourn it to next month . We want
17 to see the things you presented and read
18 your memorandum. So I am going to make a
19 motion to adjourn to the Special Meeting
20 on May 15th .
21 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second.
22 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor?
23 MEMBER DANTES : Aye .
24 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye .
• 25 MEMBER HORNING : Aye .
May 1, 2014 Regular Meeting 39
• 1 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye .
2 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye .
3 (See Minutes for Resolution. )
4 * *********************** ******** *****
5 HEARING #6742 - CHERYL MEDDLES-TORRES
6 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next
7 application before the Board is for
8 Cheryl Meddles-Torres . Applicant request
9 a Special Exception under Article III
10 Section 280-13B ( 14 ) . The applicant is
11 the owner requesting authorization to
12 establish an accessory Bed & Breakfast,
• 13 accessory and incidental to the
14 residential occupancy in this
15 single-family dwelling, with three
16 bedrooms for lodging and serving of
17 breakfast to the B&B casual , transient
18 roomers . Location of property : 26350
19 Main Road, aka New York State Route 25
20 in Cutchogue .
21 MS . TORRES : My name is Cheryl
22 Meddles-Torres .
23 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay. So we had
24 the pleasure of meeting you when we did
• 25 an interior inspection . You have done a
M 4 Regular Meeting May 1, 201 g g 40
• 1 beautiful job of renovating the dwelling
2 that has served as a B&B for many years
3 with other owners . The survey shows you
4 have two garage spaces and five parking
5 spaces all together . Three behind and
6 two garage . You say seven --
7 MS . TORRES : Well, depending on the
8 size of the cars .
9 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You have enough
10 parking . You have given us all the
11 square footages of what is private and
12 what is open to the public . The ZBA
• 13 Appeal #4863 granted variance relief for
14 a nonconforming combined side yard
15 setback and excessive lot coverage to
16 accommodate a small addition on that
17 house . At the time there were two B&B
18 bedrooms, and you are coming in for
19 three; correct?
20 MS . TORRES : Yes .
21 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay. The only
22 thing that I do want to point out that
23 you kindly showed us in your tour, the
24 upstairs basement that the previous
• 25 owner had developed in the attic . I am
May 1, 2014 Regular Meeting 41
• 1 concerned about that . About the kids
2 sleeping up there .
3 MS . TORRES : They are really not
4 going to sleep there . I left it as an
5 upstairs play quarters . The reason why
6 the beds are up there because I got them
7 off Craig ' s List for a really good, good
8 deal . I didn ' t have anywhere else to
9 put them. That' s basically it . I could
10 have brought my son and he would tell
11 you that there is basically no way in
12 the world that he is going to sleep
• 13 upstairs . It' s not really considered
14 livable because there is no heat and no
15 air conditioning in it . So when we
16 purchased the home, it wasn ' t considered
17 livable space . I just tried to make it
18 really, really nice .
19 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Because it' s
20 really, really unsafe . The Board has
21 never really granted, one occasion, but
22 occasionally people do want to occupy a
23 third floor for office space or
24 something like that . It does require a
25 -- the code would then require a full
May 1, 2014 Regular Meeting 42
• 1 suppression system, you know, fire
2 sprinkler system. We have granted that
3 sort of thing but never sleeping space .
4 It' s really dangerous .
5 MS . TORRES : No, I would never . And I
6 don' t really know how the B&B is really
7 going to go . So I plan on them sleeping
8 in the room then the occupants . You
9 know, I am new to the whole B&B aspect
10 of it . I am a rookie . I just wanted to
11 you know --
12 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Vicki has a B&B
• 13 and you are going to be very busy.
14 MS . TORRES : I don' t know . It' s
15 exciting . I was speaking with the
16 previous owner and she' s so exciting
17 about it . All you can do is try.
18 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let me go down
19 the line and see if there is questions .
20 Ken?
21 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: No, it' s beautiful .
22 Again, our main concern was the third
23 floor level is not livable . So we are
24 going to condition it as such?
• 25 MS . TORRES : Okay.
May 1, 2014 Regular Meeting 43
• 1 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: You will have to
2 find another place for those beds and
3 keep them. Because they are there and
4 being stored, a person could sleep
5 there . It' s for safety concerns .
6 MS . TORRES : Absolutely.
7 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : George, any
8 questions?
9 MEMBER HORNING: No questions .
10 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Gerry?
11 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The only concern
12 that I have is the second parking space
• 13 in front of the house . In case of fire
14 and emergency and where you had to get
15 someone out of the house, I would try
16 and not to park on the brick area
17 because that would be a perfect spot to
18 bring an ambulance in, if God forbid you
19 had to do that .
20 MS . TORRES : Okay. It' s very a obscure
21 parking situation . Hopefully when I get
22 all the construction debris out of the
23 garage, you know, we are getting
24 everything out . So the garage spaces
• 25 will be more utilized .
May 1, 2014 Regular Meeting 44
• 1 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Thank you again .
2 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Eric?
3 MEMBER DANTES : No questions .
4 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there
5 anyone in the audience that would like
6 to address this application?
7 (No Response . )
8 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well , guess
9 what , I am going to make a motion to
10 close this hearing and reserve decision
11 to a later date .
12 MS . TORRES : Thank you .
• 13 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second .
14 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor?
15 MEMBER DANTES : Aye .
16 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye .
17 MEMBER HORNING : Aye .
18 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye .
19 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye .
20 (See Minutes for Resolution . )
21 **** ***** ** *********** ***************
22 HEARING #6745 - CEDARS GOLF CLUB, LLC
23 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next
24 application is for Cedars Golf Club,
• 25 LLC, # 6745 . Applicant requests a
May 1, 2014 Regular Meeting 45
• 1 Special Exception under Article III
2 Section 280-13B ( 7 ) . The applicant is
3 the owner requesting authorization to
4 continue to use of an existing golf
5 clubhouse in conjunction with the
6 adjoining golf course . Location of
7 property: 450 Cedars Road, aka 305
8 Case' s Lane, Extension, in Cutchogue .
9 Hi would you state your name for the
10 record, please .
11 MR. PAWLOWSKI : Morning, Paul
12 Pawlowski, owner of Cedars Golf Course .
• 13 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You have copy,
14 I take it comments from the Planning
15 Board that we requested. So you are
16 aware of that . The property itself is
17 split zoned between R-40 and AG . The
18 Town owns all development rights except
19 one acre around the clubhouse . You ' re
20 proposing a modest expansion to continue
21 the use as a golf clubhouse . There is no
22 food there . There is no catering . No
23 parties . Are you planning to do anything
24 like that?
• 25 MR. PAWLOWSKI : Well, just the golf
May 1, 2014 Regular Meeting 46
. 1 outing for the Lions Club or family golf
2 outings like we have done in the past .
3 No formal parties or restaurants or
4 anything like that .
5 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: So is it fair to
6 say that you could have something
7 catering from a catering truck or
8 something like that?
9 MR. PAWLOWSKI : Like the Elk' s Club
10 if they wanted to do that . It would be
11 more of hot dogs out on the golf course .
12 Nothing in the clubhouse . We are not
13 Health Department approved for that .
14 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: They generally have
15 those type of approvals . Maybe a site
16 fee or something like that .
17 MR. PAWLOWSKI : Like we have one
18 coming up. $15 . 00 a head. Even then,
19 they don' t really have food for that . We
20 don' t have an ability to have a driving
21 range or give lessons when it' s raining .
22 So this would be an indoor piece of
23 equipment to one, give lessons by the
24 hour and use it for a simulated golf
• 25 range . It' s a 15x25 room. Use it for
May 1, 2014 Regular Meeting 47
• 1 some sort of activity for the club .
2 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So describe
3 what is actually taking place in the
4 building?
5 MR. PAWLOWSKI : As it has been,
6 people come in . They pay at the
7 register . There is golf accessories
8 that we sell . There is a sitting area
9 or waiting area for their turn to play.
10 That is the current use and has been the
11 use for the last 50 seasons . All we are
12 looking to do is just add on so we can
• 13 put in a golf simulator in there . So if
14 someone wants to go rent it, they can .
15 It' s not a big room. It can only fit
16 four people at a time .
17 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there any
18 noise associated with that equipment?
19 MR. PAWLOWSKI : No more than a
20 television .
21 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Because you are
22 on residential property.
23 MR . PAWLOWSKI : Absolutely.
24 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : There is an
25 apartment on the parcel?
May 1, 2014 Regular Meeting 48
• 1 MR. PAWLOWSKI : Yes .
2 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Who occupies
3 it?
4 MR. PAWLOWSKI : The manager . Jeff has
5 been there .
6 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We are aware of
7 the history. This is request for a
8 clubhouse for the golf course . The
9 apartment does not have a CO or a
10 Pre-CO . The building has a CO, which
11 dates from 1965 for a utility building
12 and an office for golf course . We know
13 the apartment has been in there . It' s
14 not a legal apartment . So what do you
15 have plans for that? We all do site
16 inspections . So we have all seen it . In
17 what you have submitted, it does not
18 show that part of the building .
19 MR. PAWLOWSKI : I thought it has been
20 there . I wasn ' t even aware that it
21 didn ' t have a CO . I will go back to the
22 covenants and the restrictions . I know
23 it' s in there .
24 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well, are you
25 leasing it or --
May 1, 2014 Regular Meeting 49
• 1 MR. PAWLOWSKI : No, it' s basically for
2 -- my employees ( In Audible ) .
3 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Obviously what
4 is before us, we can ' t sanction this
5 habitable space until we get some
6 feedback from the Building Department .
7 The Special Exception comes directly to
8 us , but what to do about this habitable
9 space is something that we will have to
10 investigate .
11 MR. PAWLOWSKI : No problem.
12 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anything else,
13 Ken? What we may want you to do is go to
14 the Building Department to explore the
15 options?
16 MR. PAWLOWSKI : That ' s fine .
17 Whatever I have to do to get this
18 conforming .
19 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Are you saying
20 that it might be grandfathered?
21 MR. PAWLOWSKI : Yes . I will look
22 into it .
23 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I guess that' s a
24 determination the Building Department
• 25 will have to make . The CO makes no
May 1, 2014 Regular Meeting 50
1 mention about a residence . It only
• 2 mentions a 1965 a utility building,
3 office, clubhouse with golf course . It
4 doesn ' t say anything about a apartment .
5 MR. PAWLOWSKI : I will look into
6 that .
7 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Even though the
8 building has a CO for that , it never got
9 a Special Exception permit , which is
10 required from the Zoning Board. So that
11 is why you are here for the golf course,
12 you ' re catching up for that . Welcome to
• 13 Town government . There are things that
14 date back from the law . What we --
15 MR. PAWLOWSKI : Honestly, if I were
16 to ( In Audible) we would make no money
17 on it . My goal is a golf course with a
18 clubhouse and to add this piece of
19 equipment.
20 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: I don' t think
21 there is a problem with the golf course .
22 MR. PAWLOWSKI : If that' s going to
23 make it a difficult task, then I am just
24 going to make it an office .
• 25 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : There ' s your
May 1, 2014 Regular Meeting 51
• 1 extra space for clubhouse .
2 MR. PAWLOWSKI : The roof lines , I
3 need the 11 feet . The whole point of
4 it, one employee would be able to check
5 people in and do a lesson . It' s not a
6 big building ( In Audible) . The simulator
7 is there . You can manage both . If it' s
8 30 feet away, it' s not as easy.
9 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I don' t think
10 the Board has a problem with what you
11 are requesting . I think the issue is the
12 apartment . It' s not permitted . It
• 13 doesn ' t have a CO and needs a Special
14 Exception for this Board. It doesn ' t
15 qualify for an apartment under the
16 current code .
17 MR. PAWLOWSKI : Right . I can always
18 find him another apartment .
19 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : What we could
20 so is grant the Special Exception permit
21 conditioned on the approval of habitable
22 apartment space .
23 MR. PAWLOWSKI : Yeah, if that' s the
24 easiest . It' s a seasonal thing . I
. 25 wouldn ' t want to lose the whole season .
May 1, 2014 Regular Meeting 52
• 1 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay. That
2 makes sense . It is confusing .
3 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: You have to read
4 the CO .
5 MR. PAWLOWSKI : If you told me I
6 couldn ' t have a golf course there, I
7 would be a little more upset .
8 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes .
9 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: If you are
10 telling us on the record, how long would
11 it take for you to take the apartment
12 out?
. 13 MR. PAWLOWSKI : 24 hours . You can
14 have inspection . Whatever you want to
15 do .
16 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Do you want him
17 to take the apartment out?
18 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well, we can ' t
19 legalize it . We can condition it --
20 MR. PAWLOWSKI : Whatever you have to
21 do . It' s fine with me .
22 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: I just have a quick
23 question for you . The proposed addition
24 for your golf simulator, did you look at
• 25 any other locations? Why did you pick
May 1, 2014 Regular Meeting 53
• 1 that spot?
2 MR. PAWLOWSKI : For several reasons ,
3 the proximity to the parking lot . It' s
4 not near the main garage . The septic .
5 ( In Audible ) . I think that would be the
6 easiest way. To the left side is the
7 maintenance barn and the other garages .
8 That would be a whole other task. So
9 that side has the most area .
10 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Very good . The
11 simulator that you are getting, do you
12 have a catalogue or the kind that you
• 13 are using?
14 MR. PAWLOWSKI : Yes . I could drop off
15 it off . Basically it' s ( In Audible ) . It
16 tells you the distance, ball speed . It
17 video tapes you . It' s the tool that is
18 needed when you don' t have a driving
19 range . So whatever the path is, I would
20 want to be completely conforming with
21 that . Maybe next year, I can tackle
22 that . It' s only for the summer . It' s not
23 like I am kicking him to the curb .
24 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Good. That takes
• 25 care of that .
May 1, 2014 Regular Meeting 54
is
1 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Is there any
2 security issues?
3 MR . PAWLOWSKI : No . Unless people
4 not paying after 7 pm.
5 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: What is the name
6 if the simulator .
7 MR. PAWLOWSKI : HD Golfing .
8 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there anyone
9 in the audience who wishes to address
10 this application?
11 Please come forward and state your
12 name for the record,
• 13 MS . HORN : Joan Horn .
14 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Hi Joan . What
15 would you like to tell us?
16 MS . HORN : I have been in the
17 residential area and it' s been very
18 quiet . The question and concern that I
19 have is impact, specific and if it could
20 be addressed, that would be great . One
21 is the property on the second level --
22 the -- I wanted to know if they were
23 seeking appeal for the roof top
24 addition? I wanted to know if this was
• 25 being appealed for this space . The other
i
May 1, 2014 Regular Meeting 55
• 1 is outdoor lighting . Will any outdoor
2 lighting be added --
3 MR. PAWLOWSKI : ( In Audible) not near
4 a parking lot .
5 MS . HORN : The parking lot right now,
6 I am the unimproved lot owner on the
7 north side . Traditionally clients have
8 driven across to get across . I would
9 just like to know if there is going to
10 be an increase in traffic and
11 improvement into the parking lot to
12 define that area?
13 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I can tell you
14 one thing, the Zoning Board -- the
15 Building Department determines that the
16 applicant has to continue the process by
17 going to the Planning Board. The
18 Planning Board has jurisdiction to look
19 at parking and ingress and egress, and
20 things like that . We don' t do that at
21 the Zoning Board. We don' t deal with
22 issues of lighting and things like that .
23 We don' t know at this point , if that
24 process would be necessary. That is
• 25 something that code enforcement would
May 1, 2014 Regular Meeting 56
1 have to deal with .
2 MS . HORN : Okay .
3 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : If you can come
4 back to the mic and answer those
5 questions?
6 MR. PAWLOWSKI : There would be no
7 exterior night lighting needed. Our
8 hours of operation are 6 : 00 A. M. to 6 : 00
9 P . M. or close at dusk. We are not
10 staffing for the night . There is no
11 business plan for that . So there is no
12 traffic flow at night . Two, exterior
• 13 railing is an aesthetic thing, because
14 it' s a flat roof . It' s not going to be
15 built to handle any more weight . So it' s
16 not even -- the railing itself is going
17 to be about 12 inches . So it' s not even
18 code conforming. It' s strictly aesthetic
19 use . For peace of mind, it' s not going
20 to be built for a second story deck. As
21 far as the parking issue, more so then
22 in the last 50 years , we redid the
23 parking lot . So it' s much more defined.
24 I understand the property to the north
• 25 -- we would be more than happy to put up
May 1, 2014 Regular Meeting 57
• 1 a row of trees so there is no
2 encroachment . The previous owners, as I
3 understand were you using it . I have no
4 problem with putting on the property
5 line, evergreens or whatever they want .
6 Immediately, I would do that before the
7 next meeting.
8 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Can you show us
9 on the survey which one is your
10 property?
11 Okay. Anyone else? Any comments
12 from the Board?
• 13 (No Response . )
14 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anyone from
15 the audience?
16 (No Response . )
17 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All right . Thank
18 you for your cooperation . I am going to
19 make a motion to close this hearing and
20 reserve decision to a later date .
21 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second.
22 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor?
23 MEMBER DANTES : Aye .
24 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye .
• 25 MEMBER HORNING : Aye .
May 1, 2014 Regular Meeting 58
• 1 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye .
2 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye .
3 ( See Minutes for Resolution . )
4 *************************** ****** *****
5 HEARING #6739 - CHRISTINA QUARTY
6 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Request for
7 Variance from Article XXIII Section
8 280-124 and the Building Inspector ' s
9 January 29 , 2014 Notice of Disapproval
10 based on an application for building
11 permit for an addition to an existing
12 single family dwelling, at ; 1 ) less than
• 13 the code required front yard setback of
14 40 feet (Clearview Avenue, West ) ,
15 located at : 1495 Main Bayview Road
16 ( corner Clearview Avenue, West) in
17 Southold.
18 Hi , would you state your name for the
19 record, please .
20 MS . QUARTY : Christina Quarty.
21 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay. So we are
22 looking -- you have a corner lot and you
23 are looking to put an addition at 27 . 5
24 foot front yard setback from
• 25 Clearview --
May 1, 2014 Regular Meeting 59
• 1 MS . QUARTY : Yes .
2 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Where the code
3 requires 40 feet . The existing house is
4 set back 35 . 4 feet . And you had a prior
5 variance, #5754 , September 1 , 2005
6 granting a 28 . 5 foot front yard setback
7 from the southerly lot line --
8 MS . QUARTY : Yes .
9 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You are adding
10 on a first floor, two bedrooms ,
11 bathroom, laundry and an attached garage
12 with a 7 . 5 foot increase setback to
• 13 Clearview. Now, you are okay with going
14 back to what we granted at 28 . 5 feet
15 from the prior variance?
16 MS . QUARTY : Yes .
17 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay I have no
18 further questions .
19 Eric?
20 MEMBER DANTES : No, I think that
21 covers it .
22 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Ken?
23 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: No questions .
24 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : George?
• 25 MEMBER HORNING : ( In Audible) I was
May 1, 2014 Regular Meeting 60
1 curious where this was on the survey?
• 2 MS . QUARTY : They converted the
3 garage into a bedroom, right off of the
4 kitchen and living room. We actually
5 made it into a dining room.
6 MEMBER HORNING: Okay, let me see . So
7 it' s on the west side of the house and
8 the south --
9 MS . QUARTY : No, north west corner .
10 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Gerry?
11 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No questions .
12 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anyone in the
• 13 audience that wishes to address this
14 application?
15 (No Response . )
16 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay. Hearing no
17 further comments , I am going to make a
18 motion to close the hearing and reserve
19 decision to a later date .
20 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second.
21 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor?
22 MEMBER DANTES : Aye .
23 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye .
24 MEMBER HORNING: Aye .
• 25 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye .
May 1, 2014 Regular Meeting 61
1 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye .
2 (See Minutes for Resolution . )
3 ****************************************
4 HEARING #6740 - JOHN FORESTIERI
5 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next
6 application before the Board is for John
7 Forestieri , #6740 . Request for variance
8 from Article III Section 280-15 and the
9 Building Inspector ' s March 7 , 2014
10 Notice of Disapproval based on an
11 application for building permit for an
12 "as-built" accessory solar array, at; 1 )
13 location other than the code required
14 rear yard, located at : 975 Anderson Road
15 in Southold.
16 Could you please state your name for
17 the record .
18 MS . MINNICK: Carrie Minnick.
19 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So everyone has
20 been out to the site and observed where
21 the solar array is . I guess it' s because
22 it' s considered an accessory structure,
23 and the code requires the location that
24 there is a rear yard. There is also a
25 swimming pool going in there . Can you
May 1, 2014 Regular Meeting 62
1 explain why that location was chosen and
2 why the conforming rear yard was not
3 chosen?
4 MS . MINNICK: Sure . It' s the optimal
5 place for solar production . And it was
6 basically the only place in the yard
7 that was good because if we put it where
8 the swimming pool is going, the house
9 would have shaded it for most of the
10 day. Thereby taking away the benefits of
11 the solar.
12 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Well, it' s
• 13 important to observe that the property
14 is pretty much in a dead end road. The
15 rear yard, actually that front yard is
16 adjacent to a property that is developed
17 and the back yard consists of open
18 grassy area . But the house is way far .
19 So there should not be any visual
20 impact .
21 MS . MINNICK: Correct .
22 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I don' t have
23 any further questions . Eric, do you have
24 any questions?
• 25 MEMBER DANTES : ( In Audible ) is that
May 1, 2014 Regular Meeting 63
1 house really sufficient?
• 2 MS . MINNICK: I think he needs more
3 for his family . Solar can actually
4 eliminate your bill .
5 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I did notice
6 there were a number of trees that were
7 cut down .
8 MS . MINNICK: I don' t know anything
9 about that .
10 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You have to go
11 and state your name .
12 MR. FORESTIERI : Hi, I am John
• 13 Forestieri , I am the owner . The trees
14 were locust that were on the south side
15 and basically having shadow during the
16 winter months . So we trimmed them off .
17 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay fine .
18 George?
19 MEMBER HORNING : Who is Figdon? The
20 previous owner?
21 MR. FORESTIERI : I don' t know .
22 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We tape record .
23 So you have to speak into the mic . This
24 is transcribed hearing .
• 25 MEMBER HORNING : When did you buy the
May 1, 2014 Regular Meeting 64
1 property?
• 2 MR. FORESTIERI : May 2012 .
3 MEMBER HORNING : Okay in recent years .
4 The purpose of this?
5 MR. FORESTIERI : Solar, to collect
6 energy.
7 MEMBER HORNING : Are you going to sell
8 back to --
9 MS . MINNICK: It' s net metering for
10 solar . Essentially you share power with
11 the grid. So you will provide power when
12 you are not using it , and you will buy
13 back when you need it .
14 MEMBER HORNING : Just curious , the
15 previous owners , in 1968 there was a CO
16 for a nonconforming two family
17 structure . Then in 1992 that was changed
18 to a single family. Do you have any
19 historical perspective on that?
20 MR. FORESTIERI : The history on that
21 was kind of ( In Audible . ) I was told
22 from the Building Department that that
23 one family dwelling is kind of a stock
24 sentence that they use to identify from
25 condo and single family residence, but
i
May 1, 2014 Regular Meeting 65
1 the permit for that exact C of O it was
2 two-family . So the person, when they
3 transferred it to the C of 0 document
4 didn ' t indicate two family when they
5 should have .
6 MEMBER HORNING : Is it a two family
7 dwelling now?
8 MR. FORESTIERI : Yes .
9 MEMBER HORNING : Okay. Going on to
10 the reasons for your appeal . I would
11 like to ask a couple of questions on
12 that . The reasons as to the location .
. 13 You state that the homeowner submitted
14 the survey and drew in the solar array
15 in the wrong spot . The building permit
16 was approved with an X for the location
17 which we failed to notice until after
18 the installation was complete . How could
19 you draw it in the wrong spot?
20 MS . MINNICK: I don' t know who drew
21 it onto the survey but someone when we
22 turned in the survey, we follow the same
23 procedures in our office . John
24 Forestieri dropped off the survey when
• 25 we were not there and someone drew it
May 1, 2014 Regular Meeting 66
1 off onto the survey, which is not the
• 2 place where we had indicated on our
3 actual drawing . So on our drawings
4 which show the exact placement . And when
5 they approved the building permit , it
6 was stamped and approved. When you
7 flipped through the back of the pages ,
8 someone took a ballpoint pen and it
9 looks grey . Looks like it might even be
10 pencil and put a slash through the
11 pencil . So there was no indication to
12 mean that this was the wrong location .
• 13 We didn ' t even notice .
14 MEMBER HORNING : So then what happened
15 after that? You got the building permit,
16 and somehow they thought it was wrong
17 place?
18 MR. FORESTIERI : So again the
19 documents as mentioned, didn ' t have the
20 panels -- those documents never
21 translated to no, you couldn ' t give us a
22 permit for this . They gave us a permit
23 anyway. I went to get the C of O and
24 they said that you can ' t have the panels
• 25 there . I want to be clear . This was
May 1, 2014 Regular Meeting 67
1 not something that we tried to slip by .
• 2 We took steps and it all seemed fine to
3 me .
4 MEMBER HORNING : No . 3 , technically
5 the panels are in the back yard .
6 Technically the panels are in the back
7 yard opposite the front yard . Can you
8 explain how the backyard could be
9 opposite the front door?
10 MS . MINNICK: The door, the front
11 door to the house is right next to your
12 driveway. And then you have the front
• 13 door . The back of the house is the
14 backyard. If you are thinking in that
15 concept , that is the concept in what we
16 were thinking . We thought that it was
17 the backyard.
18 MEMBER HORNING : You said that there
19 was really no location suitably?
20 MS . MINNICK: Correct .
21 MR. FORESTIERI : Just to be clear, I
22 asked for them to be placed in that
23 location .
24 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Gerry, any
• 25 questions?
May 1, 2014 Regular Meeting 68
1 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Just one, I just
• 2 wanted to know the condition of the
3 right-of-way and Mr . Forestieri had
4 mentioned a few things to me . We had a
5 conversation . I did not discuss anything
6 else in the context of this meeting . And
7 I don' t have any questions .
8 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Eric?
9 MEMBER DANTES : No .
10 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there anyone
11 else in the audience that wishes to
12 address this application?
• 13 (No Response . )
14 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay. I will
15 make a motion to close this hearing and
16 reserve decision to a later date .
17 MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Second.
18 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor?
19 MEMBER DANTES : Aye .
20 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye .
21 MEMBER HORNING : Aye .
22 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye .
23 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye .
24 (See Minutes for Resolution . )
• 25 ********* *****************************
May 1, 2014 Regular Meeting 69
1 HEARING #6743 - GARY & KATHLEEN ZUAR
• 2 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next
3 application before the Board is for Gary
4 and Kathleen Zuar, #6743 . Request for
5 variances from Article XXIII and XXII ,
6 Sections 280-124 and 280-116B and the
7 Building Inspector ' s February 25 , 2014
8 Notice of Disapproval based on an
9 application for building permit for
10 demolition of an existing single family
11 dwelling and construction of a new
12 single family dwelling and accessory
• 13 garage, at 1 ) less than the code
14 required single side yard setback of 15
15 feet, 2 ) less than the code required
16 combined side yard setback of 35 feet,
17 3 ) more than the code permitted maximum
18 lot coverage of 20o , 4 ) less than the
19 code required bulkhead setback of 75
20 feet, located at : 1905 Bayshore Road,
21 adjacent to Shelter Island Sound in
22 Greenport .
23 Could you please state your name for
24 the record, sir .
• 25 MR. KIMACK: Yes . Mike Kimack for the
May 1, 2014 Regular Meeting 70
1 applicant.
• 2 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thank you . What
3 we have here on the notice indicates a
4 single side yard setback at 9 . 8 feet,
5 where the code requires 15 minimum. A
6 combined side yard setback at 20 feet ,
7 where the code requires 35 foot minimum.
8 Lot coverage at 230 , where the code
9 permits a maximum of 200 . A bulkhead
10 setback at 28 feet, where the code
11 requires 75 foot minimum. The LWRP has
12 deemed it to be consistent with their
• 13 polies . You are proposing to keep the
14 preexisting nonconforming side yard
15 setback and bulkhead setback and a
16 second story and two-car garage in the
17 front yard .
18 MR. KIMACK: At your pleasure, I
19 would like to be a little more
20 descriptive about the description so
21 that everyone is clear in what is going
22 on here . Presently, there is a
23 one-story frame house that is going to
24 be demolished along with an open deck.
• 25 Then the foundation will be raised two
May 1, 2014 Regular Meeting 71
1 feet and then a two-story four bedroom
• 2 house is going to be constructed on the
3 property, with an enclosed porch, a
4 covered porch and the deck is going to
5 be replaced in kind in the same position
6 it is . There is going to be landing
7 steps and an outdoor shower and the
8 shower is not going to come any closer
9 to the property line then it does now .
10 Those are the components . The side yards
11 are not going to be enclosed upon then
12 what they are already existing . The only
• 13 real change is from the 20 to 230 . So in
14 order to move the house to increase the
15 size, the applicant was looking to move
16 that a little bit . Both houses on both
17 sides are much closer towards the road
18 then this particular house is . And also
19 there is a proposed detached garage that
20 is here also .
21 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I have a
22 question . This is part of the packet
23 that you submitted prior . Request for
24 variance for third floor improvement . I
• 25 don' t understand that . It' s request for
May 1, 2014 Regular Meeting 72
1 variances along Bayshore . So these are
• 2 prior . Okay.
3 MR. KIMACK: I kept the ones that
4 were closer and I tried to pick the
5 variances that represented different
6 ones .
7 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We just had one
8 recently on there .
9 MR. KIMACK: There should be a tax map
10 on there indicating exactly the location
11 of each one .
12 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : What is the
• 13 existing lot coverage, do you know?
14 MR . KIMACK: The existing lot coverage
15 is about, I do know, about 140 .
16 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So if it' s 14
17 and then you say it' s going to 23% , is
18 that because of the garage?
19 MR. KIMACK: Pretty much the garage .
20 There is going to be added to a little
21 bit for space .
22 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there any way
23 that you can get that lot coverage down
24 a little bit?
• 25 MR. KIMACK: The two side yards are
May 1, 2014 Regular Meeting 73
• 1 not changing . We are adding the detached
2 garage . I am not quite sure if we can
3 overall reduce the dimension of the
4 porch . It' s only about 8 feet leading to
5 the front door .
6 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I was trying to
7 figure out if it was possible to reduce
8 the lot coverage .
9 MR. KIMACK: I will be honest with
10 you, it didn ' t seem out of
11 characteristic and in researching over
12 50 different variances , that it would be
• 13 in out keeping on Bayshore, given the
14 size of the lot and everything .
15 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: You can make the
16 detached garage a little smaller .
17 MR. KIMACK: Two-car garage are a
18 little interesting. To be able to cut it
19 a little bit . Generally you are dealing
20 with cars that are ( In Audible) for
21 two-car garage . The smallest you would
22 be able to get would be 22x22 . It
23 wouldn ' t change the percentage a great
24 deal . It might go from 23 to 22 . 8 or
• 25 something like that . If you are looking
May 1, 2014 Regular Meeting 74
• 1 for a two car garage to be functional ,
2 whether it has two doors or one door,
3 that is reasonable standard size .
4 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Mine is only 20 ,
5 and I fit two cars into it . Can I
6 continue this conversation for one
7 second?
8 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I don' t know,
9 Ken had --
10 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: No .
11 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I am concerned as
12 the Board knows , I have been a fireman
• 13 for over 34 years and 46 years in this
14 town . I am concerned about the proposed
15 landing you are showing on the size of
16 the building . What is the necessity of
17 that landing, basically destroying an
18 entire side yard?
19 MR. KIMACK: The way that landing was
20 drawn there, that short landing next to
21 the shower -- as you come out of the
22 side door -- the architect since that
23 time, turned them so that they didn ' t --
24 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I just didn ' t
• 25 understand the reason . The purpose that
May 1, 2014 Regular Meeting 75
• 1 I am making to you, when you are trying
2 to fight a fire, you need to have open
3 area, and this impedes the entire side
4 of the house for that situation . So
5 anything that you can do to change that
6 would be greatly appreciated.
7 MR. KIMACK: Just looking at it , the
8 staircase could go in and take the
9 landing out , and go to the side door .
10 Either turn the staircase sideways and
11 take the landing out or staircase
12 directly to the door .
• 13 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You have to have
14 a landing by code .
15 MR. KIMACK: Maybe take the staircase
16 and tuck it into the side . Maintain the
17 landing and relocate the stairs . It' s 10
18 foot , 4 inches . In looking at the space,
19 and I don' t have the dimensions --
20 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I am looking at
21 this, do you have this drawing with you?
22 MR. KIMACK: Yes, I do .
23 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You can get the
24 landing right in there . That' s easy .
• 25 MR. KIMACK: We may have to take the
May 1, 2014 Regular Meeting 76
• 1 shower out a little bit . So that when
2 the stairs turn, they don' t come out any
3 further than they are .
4 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : ' All right . So if
5 you asked Mark to provide a redesign
6 sheet, A5 --
7 MR. KIMACK: I will do that .
8 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So that we can
9 determine what is going on there .
10 MEMBER HORNING : I didn ' t see the
11 proposed bulkhead setback on the survey.
12 Is it on something else --
13 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It' s right here .
14 It' s on the survey.
15 MR. KIMACK: It' s the same .
16 MEMBER HORNING: Got it . I believe
17 that you said earlier that within the
18 neighborhood, within the immediate
19 neighborhood, the houses had greater
20 setbacks from this existing house?
21 MR. KIMACK: No, they were about the
22 same . I meant that the other houses were
23 set back closer from the road, even with
24 the proposal that we are making . The
• 25 houses on both sides were a little
May 1, 2014 Regular Meeting 77
• 1 narrower . Our extension to the house is
2 not going to be much closer to the road,
3 then the other houses that are relative
4 on both sides .
5 MEMBER HORNING : You introduced some
6 variances granted in the neighborhood
7 and a couple of them are actually for
8 the same property .
9 MR. KIMACK: They were for two
10 different ones for similar variances on
11 this property .
12 MEMBER HORNING : Understood . The ones
13 that were related to bulkhead setbacks
14 that you listed here, #5516 and #5811
15 are actually the same property.
16 MR. KIMACK: Correct .
17 MEMBER HORNING : And in both of those
18 decisions a 44 . 1 bulkhead setback were
19 maintained and I am pointing out that
20 you are asking for a 28 foot setback.
21 Now, the building is going to be
22 demolished as you say, correct?
23 MR. KIMACK: Right .
24 MEMBER HORNING : The septic system, is
• 25 that proposed?
May 1, 2014 Regular Meeting 78
1 MR. KIMACK: Yes .
2 MEMBER HORNING : So what I am
3 wondering is, if you are putting in a
4 brand new septic system, in other words ,
5 the property is going to be bear of any
6 structures , why could you not increase
7 the bulkhead setback?
8 MR. KIMACK: Well , the foundation is
9 existing . We are not moving the
10 foundation up . We are using the existing
11 foundation, and adding two feet to the
12 first floor . And adding the enclosed
• 13 porch on the westerly side of the
14 property there, but no further to the
15 bulkhead. And increasing the foundation
16 on the road side .
17 MEMBER HORNING : What does the
18 existing foundation consist of?
19 MR. KIMACK: It' s block at the
20 present time .
21 MEMBER HORNING : What is underneath
22 the first floor?
23 MR. KIMACK: The first floor is a
24 full basement at the present time .
• 25 MEMBER HORNING : And the plan is to,
May 1, 2014 Regular Meeting 79
• 1 if I may summarize what you are saying,
2 to demolish the structure but retain the
3 foundation, keep the existing setback
4 for the bulkhead? Maintain that same
5 exact setback and expand the size of the
6 dwelling, not only upward but towards
7 the road side?
8 MR. KIMACK: That is an accurate
9 description, sir .
10 MEMBER HORNING : Thank you .
11 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We are just
12 looking at lot coverage and usually
• 13 steps and landing are not included, but
14 on your survey it' s citing it .
15 MR. KIMACK: I wondered about that,
16 and the surveyor added it in . In my own
17 mind, I was questioning about that . It' s
18 a small percentage . It would certainly
19 drop it down . Does anyone have a
20 calculator?
21 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: It would move it
22 down maybe 1% .
23 MR . KIMACK: That would certainly be
24 helpful .
• 25 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So that would
May 1, 2014 Regular Meeting 80
• 1 get it down to 22% .
2 MR . KIMACK: Right .
3 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I am not sure
4 why that was put on the survey.
5 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: And in speaking to
6 the area calculations, with the evidence
7 that you submitted to the other
8 variances, lot coverage relief, those
9 lots again were much smaller than this
10 one .
11 MR. KIMACK: I noted that . Even the
12 properties on both sides were a little
• 13 less .
14 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: So it' s not equal .
15 MR. KIMACK: It' s not exactly apples
16 to apples and oranges to oranges .
17 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Do you think that
18 we can bring it down to 21%? Is that
19 possible?
20 MR. KIMACK: ( In Audible ) . We would
21 have to bring the garage down to about
22 20x20 in order to be able to get that
23 extra percentage in there .
24 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Slightly reduced
25 deck and slightly --
May 1, 2014 Regular Meeting 81
• 1 MR. KIMACK: 20x20 would be tight .
2 You could get two cars . It could be
3 done .
4 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : What we could
5 do . We know that there are many
6 nonconformities along Bayshore, but
7 again, this lot is a little bit bigger
8 than the ones that we have given prior
9 variances to . If we stipulate to 210 lot
10 coverage, you can work it out and get
11 rid of the steps as part of the
12 calculation and bring us back in a
13 redesigned A5 .
14 MR. KIMACK: It may be a combination
15 of the garage . It may be a combination
16 of taking a foot off the porch . Whatever
17 we need to do in order to get to 21% .
18 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We don' t mean to
19 be nit-picky as you say, but by law, the
20 law requires us to grant the least
21 amount of variance as reasonably
22 possible . So we are obligated to explore
23 other options . Then why don' t we do
24 this . Is there anyone in the audience
25 that wishes to address this application?
May 1, 2014 Regular Meeting 82
• 1 (No Response . )
2 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay . Why don' t
3 we do this , let' s close subject to
4 receipt of an amended application . You
5 are going to bring it in as soon as you
6 possibly can, a redesigned stairs , site
7 plan, the dimensions to give us the 210
8 lot coverage . As soon as we get that --
9 MR. KIMACK: We only have to come up
10 with to because we just took that out .
11 So it' s pretty doable .
12 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Yes .
13 MR. KIMACK: If we got this to you in
14 the next couple of days , that should be
15 enough time for your next meeting?
16 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : If we get this
17 in the next couple of days that should
18 be good and be able to make a decision
19 in the next two weeks .
20 MR. KIMACK: Do you want me to redo
21 the survey and take out -- he ' s going to
22 have to do it anyway. Redo the survey
23 with the right calculations and site
24 plan .
• 25 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Right . That
May 1, 2014 Regular Meeting 83
• 1 just seems better . I agree . So just
2 amend the survey . That is why I am
3 saying A5 . That is the floor plan that
4 shows the stairs and shower that we have
5 been talking about . Then we can see what
6 bit of stairs is encroaching .
7 MR. KIMACK: And then we can figure
8 out the 1% .
9 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Exactly. Is that
10 okay with everybody?
11 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Yes .
12 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay. Hearing no
13 further comments or questions , I am
14 going to make a motion to close the
15 hearing and reserve decision subject to
16 receipt of an amended application as per
17 discussion .
18 MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Second .
19 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor?
20 MEMBER DANTES : Aye .
21 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye .
22 MEMBER HORNING : Aye .
23 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye .
24 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye .
• 25 (See Minutes for Resolution . )
May 1, 2014 Regular Meeting 84
1 ********** ** ******* **** ********** *****
• 2 HEARING #6747 & #6748SE - KAROL
3 FILIPOWSKI
4 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next
5 application before the Board is for
6 Karol Filipowski, #6747 . Request for
7 variances from Article IX Section 280-42
8 & 43 (Bulk Schedule) and the Building
9 Inspector ' s March 21 , 2014 Notice of
10 Disapproval based on an application for
11 building permit to construct a new
12 building and operate a contractor ' s yard
• 13 at ; 1 ) less than the code required front
14 yard setback of 100 feet, 2 ) less than
15 the code required side yard setback of
16 20 feet , 3 ) more than the code permitted
17 maximum lot coverage of 200 , located at
18 41250 County Road 48 , aka North Road and
19 Middle Road in Southold . I am going to
20 read the next application for the record
21 in the same time, they are so
22 intertwined . So we might as well hear
23 them both. Application #6748SE, the
24 applicant request a Special Exception
• 25 under Article IX Section 280-41B (2 ) . The
May 1, 2014 Regular Meeting 85
• 1 applicant is the owner requesting
2 authorization to operate a contractor' s
3 yard. Location of property : 41250
4 County Road 48 , aka North Road and
5 Middle Road in Southold . So one is a
6 Special Exception for use of a
7 contractors yard and the other variances
8 from the code required lot coverage and
9 setback.
10 Would you state your name please for
11 the record .
12 MR. FILIPKOWSKI : Karol Filipowski .
• 13 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Now, this is a
14 15, 614 square foot lot . The new building
15 to operate a contractors yard and
16 applying for a Special Exception permit .
17 The building has a proposed front yard
18 setback of 38 feet and the code requires
19 100 minimum. Side yard setback at 1
20 foot, where the code requires a 20 foot
21 minimum. Lot coverage of 250 , where the
22 code permits a maximum of 20% . It also
23 requires Planning Board and site plan
24 approval and a curb-cut approval from
• 25 the State . I just needed to get into the
May 1, 2014 Regular Meeting 86
• 1 record what are the various variances
2 that is involved in these two
3 applications .
4 Do you have any green cards returned
5 to you that you can submit to us? You
6 mailed out to adjacent property owners?
7 MR. FILIPKOWSKI : I sent them.
8 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You did. Vicki
9 said she didn ' t receive them.
10 MR. FILIPKOWSKI : I think my wife
11 dropped them off . I don' t think she
12 mailed it.
• 13 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay. We are not
14 showing any in our records . We have the
15 receipt showing that you did the
16 mailing . We don' t have them returned .
17 Perhaps you can check with your wife?
18 Do you have a copy of the letter from
19 the comments of the Planning Board that
20 we received?
21 MR. FILIPKOWSKI : Yes , I do .
22 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And I know you
23 have an application that you submitted
24 to the Planning Board already; is that
• 25 correct?
May 1, 2014 Regular Meeting 87
• 1 MR. FILIPKOWSKI : ( In Audible ) .
2 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well, as you
3 will see from the letter . The Planning
4 Board points out a number of issues with
5 regards to the application -- the
6 variance application as currently
7 designed . At which time they say they
8 are not supporting the application as
9 submitted. Let' s enter into the record
10 what some of those issues are and I
11 would like to give you an opportunity to
12 respond to them and make some comments .
13 The parcel size is 0 . 3 acres with a 50
14 foot width . So it' s very small for the
15 LB Zone . The LB Zone, the intent of the
16 LB Zone is to make sure something that
17 is involved to protect the residential
18 and rural character of that area, which
19 is different then a Light Industrial
20 Zone . And they ' re basically pointing out
21 that the building that is proposed is
22 too big . The side yards are simply too
23 minimal and doesn ' t allow for any
24 screening because Route 48 is a historic
• 25 scenic vista route . And a 20 foot buffer
May 1, 2014 Regular Meeting 88
• 1 is required by the Planning Board. So
2 they are trying to figure out from site
3 plan approval where you are going to get
4 all of these requirements for safely
5 maneuvering vehicles and so on . Let' s
6 see . That kind of describes most of it .
7 What is your response to those comments
8 and concerns because obviously we are
9 looking at the substantiality of the
10 variance? When the code is requiring 20
11 foot and you are proposing 1 foot, that
12 is enormous . That is almost 1000
• 13 variance . The building is probably just
14 as proposed too big for the lot and
15 consider having to maneuver large
16 equipment . So what do you have to say
17 about that?
18 MR. FILIPKOWSKI : It' s a narrow lot .
19 That is why we kind of designed it the
20 way we did . And I would like to hear
21 from you guys what can I ( In Audible)
22 over there? How should I put it so it
23 fits? It' s a narrow lot .
24 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well the Board
• 25 is generally -- doesn ' t generally design
May 1 2014 Regular Meeting 89
• 1 projects for applicant . We can tell you
2 that it' s too big . The side yards are
3 not big enough . The front yard setback
4 is not far enough away from 48 , that you
5 do need some screening . So that a large
6 building is not as visible, to have an
7 adverse effect on what is a scenic
8 corridor . Perhaps my colleagues will
9 have some other colleagues for you . The
10 building that you are proposing is 39
11 feet wide and 100 feet long and about
12 19 . 8 high to the right . You know, we
13 have a couple of prior applications from
14 the Zoning Board for this property . For
15 use that was really not permitted in the
16 LB Zone, then LI . A Use Variance was
17 denied. A Special Exception was denied
18 in 1983 .
19 MR. FILIPKOWSKI : I know nothing about
20 that .
21 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well, we can
22 certainly give you copies of all that
23 stuff . We have that in your role as
24 previous zoning variance . Why don' t we
• 25 go down the line and let Eric start,
May 1, 2014 Regular Meeting 90
• 1 Gerry .
2 MEMBER DANTES : Is there a reason you
3 have a rear and not a front?
4 MR. FILIPKOWSKI : This is proposed
5 building . And I thought ( In Audible) .
6 MEMBER DANTES : Because the only
7 thing is if you moved it back and
8 centered it , you would probably be able
9 to eliminate your front yard variance .
10 And you can meet the 100 foot setback.
11 And if you center it, you would need a
12 less substantial side yard variance . If
• 13 you cut maybe a foot or two off each
14 side, you would probably get a little
15 closer to meeting a side yard variance .
16 Then you have room to comply with your
17 buffer .
18 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Usually it' s a
19 20 foot buffer . It' s a big building,
20 especially if it' s set back from the
21 road. So Eric is right, you would have
22 less visual impact . Also be mindful of
23 the fact, that these variances , if
24 granted, run with the land . That means
• 25 at this point, it' s ( In Audible) .
May 1, 2014 Regular Meeting 91
• 1 MEMBER DANTES : ( In Audible) .
2 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That ' s
3 eliminating one variance for sure . The
4 Planning Board has some concerns ,
5 although not developed, it could be
6 developed as a farm. There is a winery
7 next door. You could plant vines . It
8 could be developed as residential too .
9 So we have to be mindful of the impact
10 of the surrounding community and how we
11 can make sure that whatever gets built
12 on your property, doesn ' t have negative
• 13 effects on your neighbors or your
14 potential neighbors . If you make the
15 building smaller, then you are going to
16 come closer to the code required -- not
17 permitted, code permitted 20% lot
18 coverage . You are proposing 25, because
19 it' s a big building . So if you reduce
20 the length from 100 feet to something
21 smaller and fit better on the site, you
22 can reduce that lot coverage quite a
23 bit . If you reduce it by 5% and set it
24 back 100 feet , you get two of the
• 25 variances right there .
May 1, 2014 Regular Meeting 92
• 1 MR. FILIPKOWSKI : We are getting
2 somewhere .
3 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We are getting
4 somewhere. You have to put in what the
5 Planning Board is going to require you
6 to do is a 20 foot landscaped buffer .
7 MR. FILIPKOWSKI : Off the front?
8 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : From the road,
9 I would imagine .
10 MEMBER DANTES : Which is usually some
11 shrubs or grass or something .
12 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : A lot of those
• 13 little buildings across the street and
14 the S&L Sprinkler, they ' re ages . A long,
15 long time ago before the code was
16 changed to impact and 48 as a scenic
17 corridor . This really is not intended
18 ( In Audible) and so we ' re trying to
19 mitigate potential impact with current
20 code . Eric, do you want to continue?
21 MEMBER DANTES : Yes . The only thing
22 that I can see us mitigating is a side
23 yard variance . I mean, what is the
24 absolute size that you need for your
• 25 business and what that ends up being? I
May 1, 2014 Regular Meeting 93
• 1 think the lot coverage you can work on .
2 MR. FILIPKOWSKI : Yes .
3 MEMBER DANTES : That is one less
4 variance and possibly two .
5 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let me just ask
6 you a question about this Special
7 Exception application . I think this is
8 just a miss statement . You refer in that
9 application to the new building
10 dwelling . You are not going to put any
11 dwelling on it .
12 MR. FILIPKOWSKI : No .
• 13 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay. You wrote
14 it down . That is why I had to ask you.
15 It' s a storage building .
16 MR. FILIPKOWSKI : Right .
17 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And then you
18 would meet all applicable code
19 requirements . I do want to point out
20 that these are two separate
21 applications, that you are not meeting
22 the code requirements . These are
23 variances . So before we can really say
24 okay to the Special Exception, you
• 25 really have to meet those standards . We
May 1, 2014 Regular Meeting 94
• 1 don' t really have any wiggle room to
2 interpret a Special Exception permit .
3 You either comply with the standards or
4 you don' t . To me that is another story.
5 That is why we are discussing this
6 first . The Special Exception has some
7 mitigating circumstances . The adverse
8 impact of very much lessening of the
9 need for big variance relief . Are you
10 following me?
11 MR. FILIPKOWSKI : Yeah . Yeah .
12 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That is why we
• 13 put them on at the same time so we can
14 talk about them. Eric, are you done with
15 questioning?
16 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I think that
17 was it .
18 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Ken?
19 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: I see you want to
20 put some garage doors in?
21 MR. FILIPKOWSKI : Yes , two .
22 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Two garage doors
23 in . It looks like that is going to be on
24 the west side . I understand that you
• 25 need a certain turning radius to get
May 1, 2014 Regular Meeting 95
• 1 into a garage . That is something you may
2 want to keep in mind. Also, again, like
3 the Chairperson stated, we are not here
4 to design; however, that is something
5 you may want to get some advice in .
6 Possibly the relocation of the garage
7 door . If you have to move that structure
8 somewhere . I would imagine that you have
9 vans and trucks that would require a
10 turning radius , so then a car . That is
11 something that you may want to look into
12 also .
• 13 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : If it doesn ' t
14 create disharmony, it is a permitted
15 use . That is why we review it . So that
16 it is harmonious with other neighbors .
17 Do you have a design professional that
18 you can work with? The survey is a
19 survey .
20 MR. FILIPKOWSKI : We kind of sketched
21 it out .
22 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : George?
23 MEMBER HORNING : Yeah, I will mention
24 some of the things in the Board' s
• 25 memorandum that we received. They are
May 1, 2014 Regular Meeting 96
• 1 requesting some sort of a buffering on
2 the east side on the Ag property there,
3 which would put your 1 foot setback not
4 acceptable . A minimum of a 4 foot buffer
5 on the easterly property side with
6 Evergreens . The Planning Board is
7 requesting a 4 foot setback.
8 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You wouldn ' t be
9 able to walk. It' s too big .
10 MEMBER HORNING : They want more
11 screening in the rear also . I would
12 suggest that you take a look at the
• 13 Planning Board' s memorandum and add it
14 to the basis of whatever you come up
15 with . This is a massive large building
16 that is not going to fit on the
17 property .
18 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It' s guidance . I
19 think Member Dantes has just made some
20 suggestions to you and you can certainly
21 improve a number of issues that might
22 disappear, with regard to front yard
23 setback and lot coverage .
24 MR. FILIPKOWSKI : I think the side
• 25 setbacks are the main problem.
May 1, 2014 Regular Meeting 97
• 1 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Can I make a
2 suggestion?
3 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Sure .
4 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: First of all , they
5 are asking for some sort of landscaped
6 buffer on the side that you have the 1
7 foot setback . I don' t know if anyone
8 here has seen somebody try to fight a
9 fire on a farm lot, it' s almost
10 virtually impossible during certain
11 times of the year . The Planning Board
12 is now further asking for this buffer
• 13 which further exacerbates that one foot
14 side yard. My suggestion would be to
15 actually cut the building down to 30
16 feet, if at all possible and create a
17 bigger buffer as possible on that one
18 side . And my other suggestion, the roof
19 line could be a little bit steeper and
20 you can actually put storage upstairs .
21 It' s not a second floor . It' s probably
22 the height that you are standing at this
23 particular point . You can do it two
24 ways . You can do it by forklift outside
• 25 or some internal elevator, a commercial
May 1, 2014 Regular Meeting 98
• 1 type . Not anything terribly
2 sophisticated . The greatest amount of
3 side yard that you can get would be
4 greatly appreciated . That is just my
5 particular opinion on this .
6 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I think what we
7 may have to do here is adjourn, not that
8 we are doing this at this second, I
9 think what we will probably have some
10 time to talk to a design professional
11 and for us to meet with Planning Board.
12 We got these applications going on at
13 the same time . I know you need to come
14 back to us with an amended application .
15 Like a second round to show us how you
16 will improve those variances . Let' s ask
17 at this point, what are you planning to
18 do in this building? You say it' s a
19 contractor' s yard. What are you storing?
20 You said something about plumbing .
21 MR. FILIPKOWSKI : Plumbing, air
22 fixtures , mechanical stuff .
23 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So it' s storage
24 for your business?
• 25 MR. FILIPKOWSKI : Yes .
May 1, 2014 Regular Meeting 99
• 1 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And you do
2 plumbing, heating and cooling?
3 MR. FILIPKOWSKI : Yes .
4 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And so it' s for
5 storage where the parcel goes on and
6 products , I guess .
7 MR. FILIPKOWSKI : Yes .
8 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And with a
9 little office and bathroom?
10 MR. FILIPKOWSKI : Yes .
11 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The public will
12 not be going there?
• 13 MR. FILIPKOWSKI : No .
14 MEMBER HORNING : On the Notice of
15 Disapproval it says curb-cut approval
16 required by the State . I don' t know how
17 difficult it is to get or not . I will
18 say from personal experience from
19 yesterday, pulled out of the adjacent
20 property and building and took a left
21 and realized I was in the wrong lane
22 immediately. And I thought that was a
23 road hazard myself . Then it was an
24 oncoming car . Luckily it had headlights
• 25 on because it was getting kind of dark
May 1, 2014 Regular Meeting 100
is
1 too . And I didn ' t realize I was in the
2 wrong lane until I had this car coming
3 at me . I had to scoot over, you know, in
4 about five seconds I would have had a
5 head on collision and I would have been
6 going in the wrong direction .
7 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Nevertheless ,
8 they might require a right-turn only.
9 It' s not our jurisdiction . I can' t tell
10 you what they will require . The Planning
11 Board requires certain information then
12 the Zoning Board does . It' s a good thing
• 13 we' re working simultaneously.
14 Is there anyone else in the audience
15 who wishes to address this application?
16 MS . DZUGAS : My name is Donna Dzugas .
17 I am the adjacent property owner on the
18 east side . I don' t have one of the
19 applications . I only have 6748SE .
20 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That' s the
21 Special Exception .
22 MS . DZUGAS : I didn' t get the other
23 one .
24 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We can make sure
. 25 you get a copy of the other one, which
May 1, 2014 Regular Meeting 101
• 1 addresses the size of how much
2 everything is . The one you got , is that
3 they want to put a contractor' s yard
4 which is permitted, if we permit it to
5 be there .
6 Would you spell your name, please,
7 because we have to get this into the
8 record.
9 MS . DZUGAS : Donna D-Z-U-G-A-S . This
10 is a tiny piece of land that used to be
11 owned by Echo Electric, is that the one
12 we are talking about? Basically it' s
• 13 between that little nursery and me .
14 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Are you the one
15 that has that vacant building?
16 MS . DZUGAS : I own the corner
17 property which is the farm.
18 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All right . That
19 is a little type of building that is
20 unoccupied, is that on your property?
21 MS . DZUGAS : Correct .
22 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : His property is
23 adjacent . Has some gambles on it and
24 it' s sandwiched between the building
25 that is there and then comes the
May 1, 2014 Regular Meeting 102
1 landscaped nursery to the west . His
2 property is east of that building, and
3 your property is east of his property .
4 MS . DZUGAS : All right . I am just
5 making sure . First off, I want to thank
6 you for the way that you covered it . I
7 really like hearing the scenic highways
8 and agriculture . That is why we try to
9 retain everything without developing or
10 selling off . So please keep that in
11 mind.
12 MEMBER HORNING : Ma ' am. How long have
13 you owned that property?
14 MS . DZUGAS : 19 years . And we have
15 had some hardships in the family as
16 well . And I did appear before the
17 Planning Board for that little building
18 and one of the things that they wanted,
19 I had to go 1 , 000 or more back. I didn' t
20 like it either but when I thought about
21 it and asked about the fact, you ' re
22 absolutely right . It helps with the view
23 and it doesn ' t congest . The other thing
24 that they warned me, the curb cut, New
25 York State said ( In Audible) better off
May 1, 2014 Regular Meeting 103
• 1 putting a roadway on Tuckers Lane . So
2 that was something . I think it' s so
3 important not to overdevelop land. When
4 you purchase something -- when we
5 purchased that, we did all our homework .
6 What was possible and what was around
7 us . I just want that all kept in mind .
8 When you are saying "contractor' s yard" ,
9 unfortunately for the code enforcement
10 to have to go around and checking all
11 the time . So I want to make sure what
12 contractors use, it' s proper . You know,
• 13 plumbing and heating . Are you gonna
14 have trucks back there? Basically, is it
15 something that you would like to move
16 next door to? I would just like you to
17 keep that in mind. I thank you for
18 wanting to keep and protect the Town of
19 Southold.
20 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The LB Zone is
21 described as it is , as I said in the
22 beginning, unlikely LI Zone, Light
23 Industrial . Light Business Zone, has to
24 be designed with designed features that
• 25 somewhat protect the rural and
May 1, 2014 Regular Meeting 104
• 1 residential character of that zoned
2 district . The prior denial was to place
3 a LI use in the LB Zone . So that was a
4 use variance . The zoned has changed . The
5 point is , these are placed so that
6 whatever the zoning is , that they are
7 not going to be problematic adverse
8 impact by someone building something .
9 You know, if it was totally conforming
10 to the code, he wouldn ' t even be before
11 us . He would just need to go to the
12 Planning Board . He wouldn ' t need to come
13 to us because of the use . We have to
14 make sure that the use is not going to
15 be detrimental . That is why I asked
16 Mr . Filipowski, if there was any public
17 people coming in, what was the storage .
18 Let me ask another question . What time
19 do you start your workday?
20 MR. FILIPKOWSKI : 8 : 00 o ' clock .
21 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So by
22 8 : 00 o ' clock, trucks might be coming in
23 and out and loading things in and so on .
24 And what time do you usually close down?
25 MS . DZUGAS : 4 : 30 .
May 1, 2014 Regular Meeting 105
1 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Perfectly
• 2 reasonable hours of operation .
3 Do you work on weekends too?
4 MR . FILIPKOWSKI : Emergency services .
5 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay. That' s
6 important to look at too . The Planning
7 Board will look at lighting .
8 Gail, is there comments that you want
9 to make?
10 MS . WICKHAM: Hi . Not too --
11 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I ' m sorry,
12 Gail . You have to state your name .
• 13 MS . WICKHAM: Abigail Wickham, and I
14 am at Main Road Mattituck, New York. We
15 represent FHB, LLC, who is the owner of
16 the adjoining LB properties to the west .
17 Our client acquired the property about a
18 year ago and in time has been cleaning
19 it up and fixing it up and improve the
20 property significantly, to rent it for a
21 use permitted under the code . The main
22 reason why I am here is just in response
23 to one of the Board comments . We have
24 no problem with the Special Exception
• 25 application . It' s a permitted use under
May 1, 2014 Regular Meeting 106
1 the code and has been for along time . I
• 2 would say though, although it ' s a scenic
3 corridor, it doesn ' t preclude the
4 ability for a property owner to use it
5 for commercial use to the extent that it
6 doesn ' t unfairly ( In Audible) highway.
7 What I really want to address is the
8 variance aspect of this application .
9 They are both very small parcels . So I
10 don' t have any problem seeking a
11 variance . It' s something you have to
12 expect when you have a small property
• 13 this size. And the idea is to be able to
14 utilize a property like this . So you are
15 going to have to maximize the building
16 space if you can . The size of the
17 property front yard reduction does cause
18 a concern to an extent that is in front
19 of my clients building . However, I think
20 that he can probably do something to
21 minimize that . I don' t know if moving a
22 building all the way back -- we would
23 want to see an alternate proposal . We do
24 think that some rear parking is a good
• 25 idea . Particular for loading and
May 1, 2014 Regular Meeting 107
• 1 unloading and garage doors . One of the
2 concerns that I would have is that one
3 of the garage doors is on the west side .
4 An important fact that the Board should
5 know is that our building is 3 feet from
6 the easterly line . So getting to the
7 Planning Board ' s suggestion and moving
8 the building further to the west, I
9 would like to caution that too much of a
10 switch to the west might be a problem
11 from our offset, because our offset does
12 give him some neighborhood type
13 precedent, that a reduced side yard on
14 his side might not be appropriate . One
15 foot is pretty aggressive . Certainly
16 some screening could happen there and
17 make some room. To see the buildings to
18 close together and then you have traffic
19 and light and air and maybe even fire as
20 well . So we welcome the ( In Audible) on
21 another proposal .
22 MEMBER HORNING: When was that
23 building built?
24 MS . WICKHAM: Many years ago .
25 MEMBER HORNING : Any variances?
May 1, 2014 Regular Meeting 108
1 MS . WICKHAM: It does have a CO for
• 2 it . I don' t remember if it had any
3 variances . So those are essentially my
4 comments and I think that we could
5 possibly look at another proposal and
6 some more comments . I think that it
7 would need some variances because that
8 is the nature of the parcel . Thank you .
9 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anything else
10 from anybody?
11 (No Response . )
12 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I am going to
• 13 make a motion to adjourn this hearing to
14 -- I think we need to give you some time
15 to think this all through and consult
16 with some more people and talk to the
17 Planning Board some more . One month, two
18 months?
19 MR. FILIPKOWSKI : One month .
20 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay. One month .
21 So we will give you one month . June 5th
22 at 9 : 30 . And if you could submit it to
23 us any updated information and we will
24 take it from there . So motion to adjourn
25 to June 5th at 9 : 30 . That' s both of
May 1, 2014 Regular Meeting 109
1 these by the way . I just want to be
• 2 clear . But I am making a motion to
3 adjourn #6747 and 6748SE .
4 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second.
5 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor?
6 MEMBER DANTES : Aye .
7 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye .
8 MEMBER HORNING : Aye .
9 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye .
10 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye .
11 ( See Minutes for Resolution . )
12 ************************** *************
• 13 HEARING #6738 - ANTHONY ASCH
14 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next
15 application before the Board is for
16 Anthony Asch, #6738 . Request for
17 variances from Article XXIII Section
18 280-124 and the Building Inspector ' s
19 March 4 , 2014 Notice of Disapproval
20 based on an application for building
21 permit for a screened porch addition to
22 an existing single family seasonal
23 dwelling, at 1 ) less than the code
24 required front yard setback of 35 feet
. 25 ( Skipper ' s Lane) , 2 ) less than the code
May 1, 2014 Regular Meeting 110
1 required front yard setback of 35 feet
• 2 (Oyster Pond Lane) . 3 ) more than the
3 code permitted maximum lot coverage of
4 200 , located at : 290 Skippers Lane, aka
5 State Street, corner of Oyster Pond Lane
6 in Orient .
7 Would you just state you name please
8 for the record .
9 MR. TAGGERT : Urel Taggert , from
10 Samuels and Stevens Architects .
11 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So this is on
12 13, 416 square foot conforming corner
• 13 lot . It is proposed with a front yard
14 setback on Skippers Lane of 14 feet ,
15 where the code requires a minimum of 35
16 feet . A setback from Oyster Pond Lane at
17 11 . 8 feet where the code requires a
18 minimum of 35 feet . Lot coverage at
19 20 . 60 . The code permits 20% . I don' t
20 think we will have too much trouble with
21 the . 6% but let' s look at the setback
22 from Oyster Pond Lane . Also, you must
23 have Landmark Preservation Approval .
24 Have you approached them?
• 25 MR. TAGGERT : We have approached
May 1, 2014 Regular Meeting 111
1 Landmark . We had a meeting with them. We
• 2 basically presented the drawings that
3 you have in front of you today . They
4 asked for complete working drawings .
5 They did not give us any type of
6 negative direction . So we are just
7 proceeding with the project . Just to
8 give you a little background, the owner
9 would like to have the existing porch,
10 wrap it around the building . We are
11 going to be doing some interior
12 renovations , which includes moving
• 13 kitchens and bedrooms and that sort of
14 nature around. On the side where the new
15 screened in porch is going, there is
16 going to be a dining room and kitchen .
17 So the owners would like to have
18 breakfast on that side . That is why we
19 are proposing a screened in porch to
20 match the style of the existing porch .
21 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: So what you are
22 proposing, Oyster Pond Lane, that
23 currently has a 21 . 8 foot setback, and
24 you are proposing by adding a 11 foot
• 25 porch addition, to 11 . 8 foot . Actually
May 1, 2014 Regular Meeting 112
1 that is on the north end. It' s 13 . 5 on
• 2 the south end. And why is it necessary
3 to enlarge that porch along Oyster Pond?
4 MR. TAGGERT : The family would like to
5 put in a dining area, an outside dining .
6 That is why having the screened in porch
7 facing Skippers Lane, this would be more
8 of an outdoor dining situation .
9 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So it' s simply
10 to accommodate the owners outdoor space?
11 MR. TAGGERT : Correct .
12 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You couldn ' t do
• 13 it on the back of the house?
14 MR. TAGGERT : Well , I think
15 architecturally, it' s in keeping with
16 the wrap around porch . The owners feel
17 they will have more of a village feel ,
18 as opposed to the backside .
19 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let' s see what
20 the Board has to say . Ken?
21 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Does any other
22 dwellings have similar wrap around
23 porches with setbacks?
24 MR. TAGGERT : I don' t think so . Not
• 25 in this particular neighborhood . I have
May 1, 2014 Regular Meeting 113
• 1 some photographs . These are four
2 different views . Also, this is going to
3 be seasonal . It' s not going to be
4 enclosed at all . It will be seasonal and
5 it will just add to the architectural --
6 historic quality of the building . Right
7 now, on that side, Oyster Pond Lane,
8 that is a very vertical wall .
9 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Where does that
10 stairwell go in the proposed dining
11 room?
12 MR. TAGGERT : It goes upstairs to the
• 13 bedrooms .
14 MEMBER HORNING : Sir, just briefly,
15 why is the legal notice refer to an
16 existing single-family seasonal
17 dwelling?
18 MR. TAGGERT : I don' t know why they
19 came up the with the word seasonal .
20 There is electric and heat in the house .
21 I don' t know where that came from. There
22 is no oil or propane -- furnace here . I
23 do think they want to make it into a
24 potential year round residence .
• 25 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: This little added
May 1, 2014 Regular Meeting 114
• 1 buffer along Oyster Pond Lane to the
2 edge of pavement --
3 MR. TAGGERT : Yes .
4 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Looks like about
5 10 feet, maybe more .
6 MR. TAGGERT : Yes . That' s what it
7 looks like .
8 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: There is no curb
9 along Oyster Pond Lane?
10 MR. TAGGERT : I don' t think so .
11 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I think I drove
12 right on the grass .
13 MEMBER HORNING : Can you provide us
14 with the measurement to the driveway?
15 MR. TAGGERT : Sure . I don' t have it
16 with me right now to measure it but it
17 seems to be more than 10 feet .
18 MEMBER HORNING : It would also help
19 you and us if you come up with some
20 measurements of existing and
21 nonconforming setbacks . Also along
22 Skippers Lane as well, since you are
23 asking for relief from both of those .
24 You might find that some have similar .
• 25 MR. TAGGERT : Sure . Would this be
May 1, 2014 Regular Meeting 115
• 1 from the edge of pavement to the
2 buildings or the property line to the
3 building?
4 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: It could be both .
5 MEMBER HORNING : Yes . Ideally it would
6 be both .
7 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay. Anything
8 else from the Board?
9 (No Response . )
10 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : There is nobody
11 else in the audience besides you . I am
12 going to make a motion to close this
• 13 hearing subject to receipt of the
14 requested information on setbacks along
15 those roads and measurements to the
16 sidewalks and property lines .
17 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second.
18 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor?
19 MEMBER DANTES : Aye .
20 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye .
21 MEMBER HORNING: Aye .
22 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye .
23 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye .
24 (See Minutes for Resolution . )
• 25 ************************** *************
May 1, 2014 Regular Meeting 116
1 HEARING #6737 - SOUTHOLD HISTORICAL
• 2 SOCIETY
3 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : At 1 : 30 it was
4 on our agenda and what we did was
5 accepted the request by the Historical
6 Society to withdraw their application .
7 So it is no longer before the Board .
g ****************************************
9 HEARING #6744 - STEPHAN KALAIJIAN
10 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The last
11 application before the Board is for
12 Stephan Kalaijian . Request for variance
• 13 from Article III Section 280-14 (Bulk
14 Schedule) and the Building Inspector ' s
15 February 19, 2014 Notice of Disapproval
16 based on an application for building
17 permit for conversion of an "as-built"
18 third floor space to habitable space,
19 at ; 1 ) more than the code permitted 2 . 5
20 stories, located at : 1977 Bergen Road,
21 aka Private Road, adjacent to Long
22 Island Sound in Mattituck .
23 Would you like to approach and state
24 your name for the record, please .
• 25 MR. KIMACK: Mike Kimack for the
May 1, 2014 Regular Meeting 117
• 1 applicant .
2 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN . We did a site
3 inspection . We met Mr . Kalajian . It was
4 our understanding that a building permit
5 was issued at one point . And then a Stop
6 Work Order was also issued because the
7 -- part of the house under construction
8 at the moment was deemed to be third
9 floor . Third story --
10 MR. KIMACK: That is my understanding
11 also .
12 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It was
• 13 nonconforming to house .
14 MR. KIMACK: I think at that time the
15 roof shingles had been replaced and the
16 dormers had been constructed, and there
17 was also some rough plumbing there too
18 for a full bathroom and that has been
19 withdrawn.
20 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes .
21 MR. KIMACK: But there was not enough
22 time from the application until now to
23 remove the rough plumbing .
24 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The rough
• 25 plumbing will be removed, other than the
May 1, 2014 Regular Meeting 118
• 1 hot water?
2 MR. KIMACK: Correct .
3 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And my confusion
4 was why the entry level second floor --
5 when you go in, the third floor looks
6 like the second floor and now I
7 understand the basement was determined
8 to be a habitable floor?
9 MR. KIMACK: Correct .
10 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So the plumbing
11 is definitely coming out?
12 MR. KIMACK: Yes .
• 13 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The applicant
14 has stated that there is no intent to be
15 sleeping up there and just for a home
16 office use .
17 MR. KIMACK: Yes . The applicant has
18 not retired but he' s basically living
19 their full time now and this is an area
20 he wanted to be able to utilize for
21 that .
22 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: And it also says a
23 gym.
24 MR. KIMACK: A gym on the other side .
• 25 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: We still have a
May 1, 2014 Regular Meeting 119
• 1 floor plan -- what we are trying to do
2 is determine what percentage of that
3 floor is going to be used for storage
4 and what percent we have to call an
5 attic, and what percentage is going to
6 be used for office and a gym. The
7 Building Department has asked us in past
8 variance relief for third floor
9 habitable space, usually provide a small
10 office or a viewing -- sometimes a
11 viewing room with a deck out to a water
12 feature .
• 13 MR. KIMACK: I have seen that in one
14 of the past variances . I gave that to
15 you .
16 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I see the stairs
17 that are here --
18 MR. KIMACK: That is going to allow
19 them to come out of the master bedroom.
20 The stairs will access the master
21 bedroom on that side of the house .
22 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That is going to
23 have a ceiling height change to be
24 conforming .
• 25 MR. KIMACK: That' s my understanding .
May 1, 2014 Regular Meeting 120
• 1 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And that is
2 necessary, why? I mean, obviously there
3 is access from the inside of the house?
4 MR . KIMACK: Mr . Kalaijian is here
5 and he can address in more detail . The
6 stairs were to allow him to have access
7 to the master bedroom and just to be
8 able to keep away from everything else
9 and come up from that side .
10 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The stairs
11 exterior only. It' s not accessed from
12 the master bedroom or bathroom,
• 13 according to this drawing . A-9 I am
14 looking at .
15 MR. KIMACK: We are incorrect in
16 that . It shows a solid wall on the
17 drawing .
18 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes , it does .
19 MR. KIMACK: That wall that faces the
20 master bath basically or the master
21 bedroom, the one facing the master
22 bedroom would be the one that has the
23 door .
24 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Why do you need
• 25 a door going out to the outside?
May 1, 2014 Regular Meeting 121
• 1 MR. KALAIJIAN : We wanted to have one
2 ( In Audible ) and one from the side .
3 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I don' t know if
4 that is required by the code . I am
5 asking because the way that it looks and
6 the way that it is drawn, it could be a
7 separate apartment with a separate
8 entrance .
9 MR. KALAIJIAN : Nobody is living
10 there .
11 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I completely
12 believe you . Please don' t think for one
• 13 moment that I don' t . We have to look at
14 the building architecturally. If you
15 were to sell the property, then you have
16 a perfect set-up for a rental .
17 MR. KIMACK: We can close it down and
18 take the staircase out .
19 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Just take the
20 entry from the outside out . If that is
21 what your wishes are --
22 MR. KIMACK: That' s acceptable .
23 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Now, the
24 Building Department generally likes to
• 25 see attic spaces open for storage . No
May 1, 2014 Regular Meeting 122
• 1 rooms . They have in fact in the past
2 have asked us to take walls down, to be
3 considered as attic space and not a full
4 habitable third-story. I have no
5 personal concern about your having an
6 office up there . It' s reasonable to do .
7 That is why I wanted to know what the
8 square footage of these spaces are
9 because it should be really incidental .
10 The office should be incidental to
11 storage space . I would have to go back
12 and see if we ever granted that much
• 13 square footage on a third floor .
14 MR. KALAIJIAN : I would say about
15 250 .
16 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well, it' s kind
17 of a grey area . I guess this is more or
18 less part of your office . The opposite
19 part is considered your gym where you
20 put in the dormers . So those are the two
21 habitable areas . I think for me, the way
22 that this could be distinguished from
23 habitable areas, is height in part and
24 the fact that a good deal of your first
• 25 floor is below grade, even though 50o is
May 1, 2014 Regular Meeting 123
1 deemed above grade and deemed by the
2 Building Department as habitable floor .
3 MR. KALAIJIAN : For the financing, the
4 bank always considers the first floor as
5 the basement . ( In Audible) .
6 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Mr . Kalaijian,
7 would you just step into the microphone
8 and state your name for the record so we
9 have it in the transcript .
10 MR. KALAIJIAN : My name is Stephan
11 Kalaijian and I live at 1977 Bergen
12 Avenue .
13 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay . At what
14 point was the basement determined to be
15 a first floor?
16 MR. KALAIJIAN : Recently when we
17 started -- the Building Department
18 brought it up but then we had the
19 architect, Mark Schwartz , then he made
20 the determination when we made up the
21 plans, that yes, it is the first floor .
22 So at that time, we always assumed that
23 it was a basement . When we started the
24 project, it was a basement .
• 25 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So when you
May 1, 2014 Regular Meeting 124
• 1 started the project , you assumed it was
2 a second floor?
3 MR. KALAIJIAN : Yes .
4 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So it was
5 storage before?
6 MR. KALAIJIAN : Yes, always storage .
7 For my kids too, and then we kicked them
8 out . What happened this last winter . I
9 usually go outside and walk a couple of
10 miles . And I haven' t been able to do
11 that, you know, with the winter and the
12 snow . I am convinced that I need a gym.
• 13 We had a treadmill downstairs and all
14 three of my grand kids got on it,
15 started it and all three of them got
16 hurt . No more gym equipment downstairs .
17 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : What type of
18 equipment do you have? A treadmill?
19 MR. KALAIJIAN : I have a treadmill
20 and I am going to get a stair walker,
21 and some weights .
22 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay. Eric, do
23 you have any questions?
24 MEMBER DANTES : Yes . When you built
• 25 the house, did you build it yourself?
May 1, 2014 Regular Meeting 125
• 1 MR. KALAIJIAN : Yes .
2 MEMBER DANTES : Did you have to
3 remove -- it' s unique with the contour
4 of the property. Did you have to move
5 fill so you can create the basement?
6 MR. KALAIJIAN : No, we kind of
7 regraded it . What happened is , the area
8 was completed filled with trees and
9 vegetation . We did some clearing . We did
10 some grade . Yeah, we moved some dirt
11 around but not a lot . We had to dig for
12 the pool .
• 13 MEMBER DANTES : How close is the
14 basement to the first floor?
15 MR. KALAIJIAN : I don' t have the
16 figures , but the architect said it' s
17 definitely a third floor .
18 MEMBER DANTES : Like 40 /60 --
19 MR. KALAIJIAN : I really don' t have a
20 number . He said we didn' t have a chance
21 arguing it . So it' s more than 50/50 .
22 MEMBER DANTES : Those are my
23 questions .
24 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I am just
• 25 looking at this configuration and trying
May 1, 2014 Regular Meeting 126
1 to figure out how we can give you what
2 you need . I can certainly understand --
3 if you remove those two closets , then
4 virtually this is all habitable . You
5 could store stuff but it would be pretty
6 cluttery .
7 MR. KALAIJIAN : It' s nice to have
8 those views from those dormers . We have
9 another room in the basement going
10 across the width of the house . So we
11 have other storage areas , and the garage
12 also .
• 13 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And a fire
14 suppression system will be installed as
15 per code . The Building Department is
16 very fussy about attic spaces and small
17 rooms . They really hate walls in
18 storage areas . Even though this is not
19 an attic space and you don' t want to
20 think of it that way . I just don' t know
21 unless we talk to them to see what their
22 preference would be in this situation .
23 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: He has offered to
24 give you the area up above, that is not
• 25 either one of those two satellite areas
I
May 1, 2014 Regular Meeting 127
1 and we would deem those to be storage
2 areas , and he give us the percentage
3 between those two at that particular
4 time . We can go and inspect the project .
5 We can do it or the Building Department
6 can do . That would be my intake on it .
7 Thank you.
8 (Whereupon, Member Horning left . )
9 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : What I would
10 like to try and do is figure out a way
11 that you would have two spaces up there
12 that you would call habitable . Not for
• 13 sleeping purposes . One would be an area
14 defined as your office and defined as
15 your gym, and all the stuff in between
16 as your storage .
17 MR. KALAIJIAN : That' s fine .
18 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Vicki just
19 mentioned that the Building Department
20 might like to see a case opening . The
21 end of those walking closets down by the
22 gym, the case opening and the stuff in
23 the middle could be determined as
24 storage . Whether it was open storage --
25 MR. KIMACK: When you say case
May 1, 2014 Regular Meeting 128
• 1 opening --
2 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN .-
An arch.
3 MR. KIMACK: Just an opening?
4 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Do you want to
5 come up?
6 MR. KIMACK: Please .
7 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It' s sheetrock .
8 That' s all . Right across here, if you
9 had a threshold. You have a threshold
10 over your head . Do the same thing over
11 here . Get rid of this . You are going to
12 have to change this anyway. I think that
• 13 is probably drawn in order to
14 accommodate a code conforming stair .
15 This entire area becomes open area . This
16 becomes your gym. This becomes your
17 office . Then we can see what percentage
18 is storage and what percentage is this
19 space and that space . Right now, it' s
20 really chopped up . I know at one time
21 you were planning on putting a bathroom
22 there . If this is gone, you don' t need a
23 wall here . You know, provide the
24 smallest reasonable third floor as you
• 25 can. I would just go back and talk with
May 1, 2014 Regular Meeting 129
• 1 them, fine . I don' t want to hold you up .
2 I know in the past they prefer if it' s
3 an attic space, it' s open . Then it ' s
4 clearly for storage . No doors . They
5 don' t like the doors .
6 MR. KALAIJIAN : ( In Audible) .
7 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : If they are okay
8 with that . You know, if they suggest
9 something else then you give us a
10 revised plan . If they don' t suggest
11 anything else, give us the square
12 footages . I think it' s logical to
• 13 assume -- don' t you think that is the
14 way to define it . A-9 has to be revised
15 because we're going to revise that
16 stair . Talk to Mark and talk to the
17 Building Department . I just wanted to
18 make sure you understood what the issue
19 was . The very earliest that we would be
20 able to make the decision is two weeks
21 from today, if you can have the
22 information . If you need a little more
23 time, then it would be at the next
24 meeting a month from today -- a little
• 25 bit a month from today .
May 1, 2014 Regular Meeting 130
• 1 MR. KIMACK: So basically how would
2 you approve it? Do you need it open? If
3 we can approve it with the closets then
4 you are okay with it?
5 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : If they are okay
6 with it .
7 MR. KIMACK: Right .
8 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We are going to
9 condition any decision based upon the
10 plumbing is out of there and there is
11 also no sleeping space there and a fire
12 suppression system installed for your
• 13 health and safety. If the Building
14 Department has no problem with it, I
15 have no objection to it . Okay . Are we
16 clear on that?
17 MR. KIMACK: Yes , we are clear .
18 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay. So I am
19 going to make a motion to adjourn this
20 to the Special Meeting, which is in two
21 weeks and everything is in and we have
22 no further questions , then we can close
23 it and we may be able to even deliberate
24 on it depending on when you get stuff to
• 25 us . This way by leaving it open to the
May 1, 2014 Regular Meeting 131
• 1 Special Meeting, if there are further
2 questions and discussions , we can ask
3 you something else . This is not
4 uncommon . It' s not infrequently that we
5 adjourn to the next date if we have any
6 questions .
7 MR. KIMACK: Understood .
8 MR. KALAIJIAN : I just would like to
9 present my office area a little more
10 presentably . Just look professional .
11 And that is one reason why I like to
12 hide the stuff . The storage here and
. 13 here .
14 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All right .
15 Well , that is why I wanted to let them
16 make the call and as to how they see it
17 and in terms of functional and let them
18 make that determination . So I don' t
19 want to see an outdoor entrance and you
20 sell the property and you can have an
21 apartment there . I know you are not
22 planning to sell , but you indicated you
23 wanted a private entrance for yourself .
24 MR. KIMACK: All right . Thank you so
• 25 much .
May 1, 2014 Regular Meeting 132
1 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All right . The
2 motion was to adjourn to the Special
3 Meeting subject to receipt of additional
4 information .
5 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second.
6 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor?
7 MEMBER DANTES : Aye .
8 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye .
9 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye .
10 (See Minutes for Resolution . )
12
• 13 (Whereupon, the May 1 , 2014 Public
14 Hearings concluded at 2 : 26 P . M. )
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
• 25
May 1, 2014 Regular Meeting 133
1
2 C E R T I F I C A T I O N
3
4
5
6 I, Jessica DiLallo, certify that
7 the foregoing transcript of tape
8 recorded Public Hearings was prepared
9 using required electronic transcription
10 equipment and is a true and accurate
11 record of the Hearings .
12
• 13
14 Signatur *Jesica
15 DiLallo
16
17
18 Jessica DiLallo
Court Reporter
19 PO Box 984
Holbrook, New York 11741
20
21 Date : May 14 , 2014
22
23
24
• 25