HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-06/05/2014 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 June 5 , 2014
9 : 32 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
18
19 VICKI TOTH - Secretary
20 STEPHEN KIELY - Assistant Town Attorney
21
22
23 Jessica DiLallo
Court Reporter
24 P . O . Box 984
Holbrook, New York 11741
25 ( 631 ) -338-1409
2
1
2 INDEX TO HEARINGS
3
4 Hearing Page
5 Karol Filipowski, #6747
6 Karol Filipowski . #6748SE
7 Roy & Eileen Schumacher, #6754 3-8
8 MMMM Beer, LLC, #6759 8-21
9 Steve & Suzanne Divito, #6752 21-36
10 Jennifer Valentino, #6749 36-47
11 Michael Ranson, #6753 47-60
12 A & S Southold Oil Corp, #6757 61-85
• 13 Robert G . & Margaret M. Bombara, #6758 86-100
14 C . Barsi , LLC & Nitin P . Desai , #6750 100-107
15 230 Oysterponds Lane, LLC #6756 107-111
16 William & Kristin Voneiff, #6755 112-117
17 Louis Auerbach (Estate of) , #6751 117-130
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
June 5, 2014 Regular Meeting 3
1 HEARING #6754 - ROY AND EILEEN SCHUMACHER
2 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next
3 application before the Board is for Roy
4 and Eileen Schumacher . Request for
5 variance from Article XXIII Section
6 280-124 and the Building Inspector ' s
7 April 10 , 2014 Notice of Disapproval
8 based on an application for building
9 permit to construct a deck addition to
10 existing single family dwelling, 1 ) less
11 than the code required rear yard setback
12 of 35 feet, located at : 90 Southern Cross
13 Road, corner Holden Avenue in Cutchogue .
14 Is there someone here to represent
15 the application? Please come to the
16 podium and state your name for the
17 record . This is being recorded .
18 MR. SCHUMACHER: Roy Schumacher .
19 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : This is a deck
20 addition with a rear yard setback of 22
21 feet, where the code requires 35 feet .
22 It ' s on a corner lot , and it ' s replacing
23 an old block patio?
24 MR. SCHUMACHER : Right .
25 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : 12 feet by 21
June 5, 2014 Regular Meeting 4
1 feet, which is now proposed to be a
• 2 raised attached deck at 15 feet by 21
3 feet . Okay. The existing house is
4 setback at 38 feet from the rear yard.
5 What would you like to tell us?
6 MR. SCHUMACHER: It is not an
7 attached deck. I am not going to attach
8 it to the house . It ' s going to have, you
9 know, stairs all the way around it, so
10 that I don ' t have to attach it to the
11 house . It ' s a 16 foot out by 21 feet
12 wide deck. And I think I have 38 feet to
13 the back of the house property line . The
14 setback is 35 .
15 MR. SCHUMACHER: Ken, do you want to
16 ask some questions?
17 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Yes . What is the
18 height of the deck at that grade?
19 MR. SCHUMACHER: It probably averages
20 out at about 15 inches .
21 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Is there any
22 intention to cover this deck?
23 MR. SCHUMACHER: Not at this time .
24 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: So it will remain
• 25 open to the sky?
June 5, 2014 Regular Meeting 5
1 MR. SCHUMACHER: Yes .
• 2 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: And it will have a
3 railing around it?
4 MR. SCHUMACHER: Right now, I was
5 hoping to not have a railing around it .
6 I was hoping to have stairs all the way
7 around.
8 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: I see . I have no
9 further questions at this time .
10 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The Board is
11 obligated by law to grant the minimal
12 amount of variance that we reasonably can
• 13 do, presuming that there is justification
14 for the variance . Is there any way you
15 can increase that rear yard setback to 22
16 feet by reducing the deck somewhat? It ' s
17 pretty big, 16 feet by 21 feet . I don ' t
18 mind the 16 feet . You can make it a
19 little more conforming .
20 MR. SCHUMACHER: The reasoning for
21 that is , if I was going to have a normal
22 size table and to have no railings , I
23 wanted to make sure there was a safe
24 enough distance all around so they can
• 25 push their chairs back. So that is why I
June 5, 2014 Regular Meeting 6
1 came to that number .
2 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I was thinking
3 possibly 12 feet . That would make it a
4 lesser variance .
5 MR. SCHUMACHER: It ' s tough from the
6 standpoint if I put something against the
7 house, a table and then I have a seating
8 area .
9 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : What we got was
10 a survey showing the proposed deck .
11 MR. SCHUMACHER: Yes .
12 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So some of the
• 13 design remained opened. You would have
14 to go to the Building Department to see
15 if you require railing or not .
16 Obviously, if you design it so that there
17 is not stairs all the way around but
18 railing, then you can certainly create
19 the safety that you want .
20 MR. SCHUMACHER: My wife didn ' t want
21 railings .
22 MEMBER HORNING : Did you consult with
23 the Building Department whether with the
24 height, if you had to put a railing on
• 25 it?
June 5, 2014 Regular Meeting 7
• 1 MR . SCHUMACHER: Yes .
2 MEMBER HORNING : Which is what?
3 MR. SCHUMACHER: That three inches .
4 They also wanted to look at it . In this
5 case, they didn ' t think so .
6 MEMBER HORNING: Did you run it by
7 the Building Department of not having it
8 flushed to the house?
9 MR. SCHUMACHER: Yes . They didn ' t
10 have a problem. As long as you had the
11 support posts and the correct height .
12 The deck is going to go right up to the
• 13 house but it ' s just not attached .
14 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We ' re discussing
15 here, the fact that the property has two
16 front yards . Part of the discussion is,
17 is that a rear yard or a side yard? The
18 Building Department has determined it to
19 be a rear yard, but with regards to the
20 way your house looks, it ' s a rear yard.
21 It could also be determined as a side
22 yard.
23 MR . SCHUMACHER: Yes . We discussed
24 that with the Building Department and for
. 25 my size lot , one side of my property has
June 5, 2014 Regular Meeting 8
1 a 10 foot setback and the other has to be
• 2 35 . Unfortunately, the house is 32 feet
3 on the side yard from the property line .
4 So that can only be the 10 feet . If we
5 were a few feet over, we would not even
6 need a variance at all , but that was not
7 the case .
8 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I see . George,
9 Gerry, any comments or questions?
10 MEMBER GOEHRINGER : I would probably
11 think 14 feet would be good.
12 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Eric?
• 13 MEMBER DANTES : No .
14 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there anyone
15 in the audience who wishes to address
16 this application?
17 (No Response . )
18 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay. Hearing
19 no further comment, I am going to make a
20 motion to close the hearing and reserve
21 decision to a later date .
22 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Second.
23 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor?
24 MEMBER DANTES : Aye .
25 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye .
June 5, 2014 Regular Meeting 9
• 1 MEMBER HORNING : Aye .
2 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye .
3 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye .
4 (See Minutes for Resolution . )
5 ** **** *** *******************************
6 HEARING #6759 - MMMM BEER, LLC .
7 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next
8 application is MMMM Beer, LLC .
9 MR. VANDENBURG : Good morning,
10 everyone . My name is Richard Vandenburg,
11 1405 Oak Drive .
12 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Hold on one
• 13 second. I have to enter into the record
14 this application . This is for MMMM Beer,
15 LLC . That is #6759 . Request for Special
16 Exception per Article XI Section
17 280-48B ( 10 ) to create drinking
18 establishment within an existing building
19 located in the Business B Zone District,
20 located at : 42155 Main Road, aka, State
21 Route 25, corner Peconic Lane in Peconic .
22 MR. VANDENBURG : Good morning,
23 everyone . My name is Richard Vandenburg,
24 1405 Oak Drive , Southold, New York . I am
. 25 one of the owners for MMMM Beer, with my
June 5, 2014 Regular Meeting 10
1 partner and best friend for 35 years,
• 2 John Liegey. Just briefly to give you
3 some background. You may know this
4 already but John and I started Greenport
5 Brewery Company five years ago in
6 Greenport in an old firehouse that we
7 purchased and renovated. We reached the
8 point of passing that location . It
9 started out as John and myself and the
10 head brewer . Since that time, we have
11 added five full-time employees and ten
12 part-time employees . All of which are
. 13 local folks, which I am proud to say. The
14 fact that we have reached capacity in
15 Greenport, we began looking for
16 additional locations for expanding
17 productions . And after a search, we were
18 lucky enough to procure the old Vale
19 property, formerly Lucas, which is
20 approximately two acres . We acquired that
21 property in 2012 . John and I have been
22 doing all the work ourselves . We hope to
23 make it look better, which we think we
24 have done thus far. We are looking to
• 25 have this Tasting Room and eventual Brew
June 5, 2014 Regular Meeting 11
1 Pub at this location . The Building
• 2 Department indicated that we needed to
3 appear before the Board to obtain a
4 Special Exception for a drinking
5 establishment . My attempt to persuade
6 them, when I hear that word "drinking
7 establishment" it resinates as a bar or
8 saloon or whatever . And we don ' t believe
9 when you come to Greenport or the
10 experience when you come to Peconic is
11 typical of a bar or saloon . It ' s a
12 tasting room and eventually be a brew
• 13 pub . Part of that is the experience you
14 have when you ' re there, you learn about
15 the beer making experience and the
16 process and the overall experience in the
17 beer that you are drinking . So we feel
18 like the experience that you are going to
19 have at the Greenport Brewery is a little
20 bit more than a bar or a saloon or
21 drinking establishment . So for whatever
22 reason, it has to be called a drinking
23 establishment and that ' s fine .
24 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That ' s the
• 25 code .
June 5, 2014 Regular Meeting 12
1 MR . VANDENBURG: That ' s what the code
• 2 defines . That ' s fine .
3 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The brew pub
4 and tasting place are in the same place,
5 I take it?
6 MR. VANDENBURG : Yes .
7 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And you are
8 proposing 106 seats inside and 33 outside
9 and --
10 MR. VANDENBURG : Yes , that ' s correct .
11 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : What is the
12 Planning Board say for the site plan --
13 MR. VANDENBURG : We just had the
14 public hearing on June 2nd. And I think
15 we have a total of 67 parking spaces . I
16 think that is a typo . That is what was
17 on the site plan . The public hearing was
18 on June 2nd and no one opposed it .
19 Therefore the Planning Board closed the
20 public hearing and I think there is a
21 work session that is going to happen on
22 the 16th of June, where we expect final
23 approval .
24 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay . Eric, do
25 you want to start?
June 5, 2014 Regular Meeting 13
1 MEMBER DANTES : Can you just tell me
2 what the typical day at the pub would
3 be?
4 MR. VANDENBURG : Yes . Absolutely .
5 You know, again, not to sound like a
6 broken record . We ' re not interested in
7 staying open late . So a typical day for
8 us would be opening our doors somewhere
9 in the neighborhood of 11 : 00 a . m. , noon
10 time . In that area . That would be a
11 typical day. If there is some type of
12 event or a hosting function, we might be
• 13 open a little bit earlier . A typical day
14 would be an opening anywhere from
15 11 : 00 a . m. to 12 : 00 p . m. and right now,
16 the tasting room in Greenport would close
17 at 7 : 00 p . m. We ' re contemplating that is
18 what we might do with Peconic . Once we
19 have reached operations , we may stay open
20 a little bit later . We don ' t foresee
21 that closing time passing 10 : 00 p . m. And
22 that on the brew type side, production
23 side, our day starts anywhere from
24 6 : 00 a . m. and can run as late as 10 : 00 to
. 25 12 : 00 p .m. ( sic) midnight . Typically we
June 5, 2014 Regular Meeting 14
• 1 are not open that late . Just depends on
2 what needs to be done . We need to make
3 sure that we complete what we have
4 started .
5 MEMBER DANTES : How many days a week
6 will you be open?
7 MR. VANDENBURG : We plan to be -- the
8 objective is to be open 7 days a week.
9 We don ' t know necessarily if that will
10 make sense in the off season . We might
11 be closed on a Tuesday or a Wednesday
12 during the winter months . Maybe even a
• 13 Thursday. Certainly when we get to the
14 spring time it will be more abbreviated
15 hours . Giving the people the chance to
16 come and see the process .
17 MEMBER DANTES : What products will
18 you be selling at the brew pub?
19 MR. VANDENBURG: We are a farm
20 brewer . So as part of a farm brewer, it
21 promotes the use of local New York State
22 products, grains . So we believe very
23 strongly in the local products . So we
24 would be allowed to sell our beer and
• 25 offer some type of New York wine .
June 5, 2014 Regular Meeting 15
. 1 MEMBER DANTES : And then the other
2 would be any live music at the
3 establishment?
4 MR. VANDENBURG : We are -- we do, you
5 know, I wouldn ' t be frank with you if we
6 didn ' t expect to have some live music .
7 Perhaps the location inside . Again, we
8 would have special events or functions
9 where there may be the intention to have
10 a band outside . It ' s not going to be one
11 of those things every day. One of the
12 things that John and I always try to
• 13 abide by in Greenport is making sure that
14 we are a good neighbor . We always check
15 in with our neighbors to make sure if
16 there is a problem, that we address it
17 and reach an accord to allow us to move
18 forward in a cooperative fashion . So our
19 plan is not to be a, you know, a noisy
20 ( In Audible ) vineyard neighbor . Not
21 saying that there is anything wrong with
22 vineyards . We plan to be very respectful
23 of our neighbors . The volume, we don ' t
24 expect to be playing loud and crazy
• 25 music .
June 5, 2014 Regular Meeting 16
• 1 MEMBER DANTES : Food?
2 MR . VANDENBURG: Yes . In the future
3 we plan to have finger food. Right now,
4 we have pretzels . We plan to start with
5 that and then evolve to more of a more
6 diversified menu utilizing local
7 ingredients , local farms . We want it to
8 be as very much local as possible . All
9 of our grains come from McCall vineyards .
10 It would be great to have a McCall
11 Burger .
12 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I should note
• 13 for the record that a restaurant is
14 actively a permitted right in the
15 Business Zone . So you would need no
16 permission from the Zoning Board. You
17 are before us because you ' re serving
18 liquor . You don ' t have a restaurant .
19 The Building Department has determined
20 that you need a Special Exception for the
21 liquor .
22 MR. VANDENBURG: Okay .
23 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Eventually you
24 will be operating as a restaurant and
• 25 serving beer and liquor .
June 5, 2014 Regular Meeting 17
1 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: You have some
2 construction going on right now? A barn?
3 MR. VANDENBURG : Yes . We actually --
4 you know, part of the overall process in
5 the production side is you have a lot of
6 ( In Audible) empty bottles , cardboard ' s,
7 kegs . Things of that nature . The
8 thought was rather -- believe it or not,
9 even though it ' s a bigger building, we
10 have used up already almost the entire
11 space . I invite any of you and all of
12 you to come down, I would love to give
• 13 you a tour . We need some dry storage
14 space . It ' s also a garage for our fire
15 truck and trailer . And I would like to
16 get it out of the weather and into the
17 barn. The problem is -- we have been
18 working on this project since 2012 , we
19 pretty much ( In Audible) FDA
20 administration . We actually lost last
21 season. And John and I and family have
22 saved every nickel we had to get it open.
23 And so we are now coming upon the 2014
24 season . So we have the hurry rush to get
25 it going and get it done . In that, I
June 5, 2014 Regular Meeting 18
• 1 actually cited the building a little too
2 close to the front yard. So the Building
3 Department told me wait a minute . You
4 need to do that right . They asked me to
5 stop work on the building, and I will
6 have to either come back and move the
7 building 30-40 feet to the back, which
8 doesn ' t make sense for us . For kind of
9 effective use of the building . They said
10 either do that or come to the Zoning
11 Board and ask for proper relief in terms
12 of -- relief from what the setback would
• 13 be .
14 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Gerry?
15 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Are you going to
16 be producing grain alcohol?
17 MR. VANDENBURG: No, we have no
18 present time to use grain alcohol . You
19 know, as you may know, there are
20 different classes of licenses . The first
21 part in our brewing process is being a
22 local distillery as well . But quite
23 frankly, we don ' t have floor space for
24 that . We would need to build another
• 25 structure for that . We ' re trying to grow
June 5, 2014 Regular Meeting 19
Is
1 on a few acres across the street , barley .
2 We have no specific plan at this point to
3 do any distill .
4 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Okay. Can you
5 get those licenses?
6 MR . VANDENBURG: Yes, we can . We are
7 going to start off this year as a tasting
8 room. Once that is doing well, we ' re
9 going to cultivate and bring on the brew
10 pub . Obviously the brew pub where you
11 can get a small plate of food or burger .
12 We then envision bringing in New York
• 13 wine and then being able to offer New
14 York distill , as a compliments to the ( In
15 Audible ) as well .
16 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Do you have to
17 adhere to the specific laws of any type
18 of beer establishment -- adhere to serve
19 any alcohol . The whole issue of
20 basically saying that people consume
21 alcohol . And that is all within the
22 license; is that correct?
23 MR. VANDENBURG : Correct . The State
24 Liquor Authority provides guidelines . We
• 25 make sure that all of our staff is
June 5, 2014 Regular Meeting 20
• 1 trained and certified. So they
2 specifically take a course, how to notice
3 and approach someone and read the signs
4 and that sort of thing . The last thing
5 that we want someone being in a state --
6 I mean, all that does it take away from
7 someone else . We want everyone to come
8 in and have a cool experience out there .
9 And we had one episode in the five years
10 that I can remember in Greenport where
11 someone came in and had too much to
12 drink . We couldn ' t serve him any more
13 beer . That is just such an
14 uncomfortable, you know, experience, that
15 that is the last thing that we want to
16 have . So that is something that we don ' t
17 want to have .
18 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The purpose I
19 think always is to run a clean operation
20 and does not cause any detriment to the
21 community or to the individual .
22 MR. VANDENBURG : I can appreciate
23 that .
24 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Thank you .
25 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anything,
June 5, 2014 Regular Meeting 21
• 1 George?
2 MEMBER HORNING : I ' m all set .
3 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there anyone
4 else in the audience that wishes to
5 address this application?
6 (No Response . )
7 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Hearing no
8 further questions or comments , I will
9 make a motion to close this hearing and
10 reserve decision to a later date .
11 Is there a second?
12 MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Second .
• 13 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor?
14 MEMBER DANTES : Aye .
15 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye .
16 MEMBER HORNING : Aye .
17 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye .
18 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye .
19 ( See Minutes for Resolution . )
20 *** *********************************** *
21 HEARING #6752 - STEVE AND SUZANNE
22 DIVITO
23 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next
24 application before the Board is for Steve
25 and Suzanne Divito, #6752 . Request for
June 5, 2014 Regular Meeting 22
• 1 variance from Article III Section 280-15
2 and the Building Inspector ' s
3 April 10 , 2014 Notice of Disapproval
4 based on an application for building
5 permit to construct an accessory garage,
6 at; 1 ) proposed location other than the
7 code required rear yard at : 215 Marina
8 Lane in East Marion .
9 Is there someone here to represent
10 this application? Would you please come
11 to the mic and state your name for the
12 record, this is being recorded. And
• 13 would you please state your name for the
14 record.
15 MR. DIVITO : Steve Divito .
16 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay,
17 Mr . Divito . This is an accessory garage
18 in a side yard where the code requires a
19 rear yard. And why is it that you need
20 to put this in a side yard?
21 MR. DIVITO : Well , I have a gravel
22 driveway on that side and I want to put
23 this behind the gravel on that side .
24 Otherwise, I would have to extend the
• 25 driveway another 20 feet and the garage
June 5, 2014 Regular Meeting 23
. 1 is going to be in the back. So that is
2 why I am applying for a variance .
3 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So it ' s really
4 because of the gravel driveway?
5 MR. DIVITO: That and also, recently,
6 I have had two hip operations . So it ' s
7 difficult for me to go from the garage to
8 the front of the house . This brings me a
9 lot closer to the front of the house .
10 And still this garage is still to be set
11 back from the street 15 feet . My
12 neighbor has a garage, which is set back
• 13 135 feet . This is the neighbor directly
14 bordering my property line . I would be
15 15 feet from him. So this shouldn ' t be
16 obtrusive .
17 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : What do you
18 plan to use the garage for? I know we
19 have all done a site inspection of the
20 property. So what do you plan to use --
21 I see you have an attached garage to your
22 house . What do you want to use that for?
23 MR. DIVITO : As the Board is probably
24 aware . In the community we have 35
• 25 homeowners . I have been the treasurer
June 5, 2014 Regular Meeting 24
• 1 for the association for the past ten
2 years . We do have a small beach .
3 Consequently that beach is about a half a
4 mile off from where we are . I want to
5 get a golf cart . That is part of the
6 reason why we are putting the garage
7 there . You know, in addition to that , we
8 have kayaks . We have grand children
9 kayaks and all sorts of stuff . I really
10 need some storage space .
11 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Will you be
12 using the attached garage for your car?
• 13 MR. DIVITO: Hopefully, if I can get
14 pass the boat .
15 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay . I just
16 want to make one comment before I ask my
17 colleagues to ask some questions . I do
18 want to comment, I certainly appreciate
19 that you have had a hip replacement;
20 however, the Board is required to grant
21 variances for relief upon six different
22 state laws, town laws and statutes . We
23 cannot base decisions upon conditions
24 that effect the occupant owner, because
• 25 at the moment, the variances run with the
June 5, 2014 Regular Meeting 25
• 1 land. So if you were to sell your house,
2 it goes with the land. We have to look
3 at the benefits of the applicant and not
4 outweighing a detriment to the community,
5 basically. So although I can appreciate
6 your desire to have this conveniently
7 located, it is a rear yard. We could
8 apply character of the neighborhood. The
9 fact that there is another accessory
10 garage that is closer is applicable . Let
11 me turn it over to some of my fellow
12 Board members . Gerry, do you want to
• 13 start?
14 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Is there any
15 reason why you couldn ' t attach it to the
16 house?
17 MR. DIVITO: Yes . The house was
18 built right at the property line . I am
19 actually 50 feet from the curb. I
20 thought I could extend it but when I
21 first spoke with my architect , and he did
22 a survey, he said that the first 15 feet
23 belong to the Town. Then I am ( In
24 Audible) and that is exactly where he
• 25 built the house . Most of the homes are
June 5, 2014 Regular Meeting 26
• 1 built at that level . And since then the
2 setbacks have been lowered to 40 . But I
3 am at 35 right now .
4 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You ' re saying
5 that the code now requires a 40 foot --
6 MR. DIVITO : Yes . It ' s 40 now . The
7 Town code .
8 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : For your size
9 lot?
10 MR. DIVITO: Yes . This was built by
11 Gusman . And I bought it as a site
12 inspect building. I had no knowledge of
• 13 the 35 foot . So when I went to apply and
14 build it, I was told no way, because it
15 was already at that setback.
16 MEMBER HORNING : On the survey, you
F
17 have a gap between your proposed garage
18 and the house . So the question is why
19 you can ' t attach it to your house and
20 alleviate the need for you to have the
21 variance and/or as the Chairperson was
22 saying in the rear yard?
23 MR. DIVITO: We ' re talking a
24 difference of 25 feet . And I have a
• 25 gravel driveway that I keep a boat on it
June 5, 2014 Regular Meeting 27
• 1 right now. This requires me to take
2 space out of the rear yard, which then
3 has a tree that has to come down . On top
4 of that, I have to make an additional 25
5 feet of driveway, that ' s why it wasn ' t
6 attached to that side of the that . On
7 top of that, I have two condensers on
8 that side of the house . All that stuff
9 would have to be moved . Secondly, there
10 is no access way set up . On that side of
11 the house, there is a dining room. There
12 is an access to that . So in all things
. 13 considered, this is much more of an
14 expensive option for me but it was the
15 only thing that was a viable option to
16 have this garage space . So that is why I
17 did it there . At this point in time to
18 go an additional 20 feet to go in the
19 rear of the house -- the rear of the
20 house doesn ' t make that much sense to me
21 because I have a neighbor who pretty much
22 has the same exact thing. His structure
23 is much larger than mine . It ' s 24x24 .
24 Mine is only 20x20 . His has a
• 25 second-story . Mine is only a one-story.
June 5, 2014 Regular Meeting 28
• 1 There is no loft . And mine again, would
2 be set back even further than his , by 15
3 feet . So I felt that this was a better
4 option .
5 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well, the one
6 distinction that I think we need to make
7 for the record is the neighbor, is that ,
8 that is a corner lot . And in such, it
9 has two front yards . One that is next to
10 you and the other . So that is taken into
11 consideration . Part of the justification
12 for a nonconforming location when you
• 13 have two front yards .
14 MR. DIVITO : That ' s true, but the
15 driveways are adjacent . So I am really
16 not doing anything that is different then
17 his .
18 MEMBER HORNING : Sir, did you do any
19 additional research in the neighborhood
20 for other garages that are not in the
21 rear yard, that are in the side yard?
22 Any other research then showing your
23 neighbor? And also, it might also be
24 nonconforming locations . Did you
• 25 research any variances in the area that
June 5, 2014 Regular Meeting 29
is
1 say this Board granted those structures
2 in the neighborhood?
3 MR. DIVITO : I drove around the
4 neighborhood. In my neighborhood there
5 are no other stand alone garages then my
6 neighbor . And he was the second
7 purchaser of the lot in the community. I
8 was the fifth . Like I said, there are 35
9 people . Outside of the neighborhood,
10 there are some stand alone . There is a
11 couple -- one on Shipyard . I haven ' t
12 done any research . Those lots are all
. 13 smaller than ours . Our lots are 30 , 000
14 square feet . The proposed construction
15 would be existing on the property and
16 only represent less than 70 of the total
17 buildable space of the property.
18 MEMBER HORNING : Did the neighbor get
19 his variance?
20 MR. DIVITO : Yes, he did.
21 MEMBER HORNING: You know that?
22 MR. DIVITO : Yes .
23 MEMBER HORNING : Do you know what
24 year?
• 25 MR. DIVITO : I don ' t know what year
June 5, 2014 Regular Meeting 30
1 he got it . He had to apply for a
2 variance for the garage .
3 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We can easily
4 get a copy of that variance and read the
5 justifications for it .
6 If you can make the argument for
7 financial burden, doesn ' t have to be a
8 hardship, but a burden to the person .
9 That is one reason why that is not
10 feasible . You can also provide what it
11 would cost to add an additional 20 feet
12 of gravel . I don ' t think that is an
• 13 expensive undertaking . We have seen that
14 many times, but if you would like to
15 provide potential costs as a part of your
16 application, that will weigh into the
17 decision and value of what our options
18 are .
19 MR. DIVITO: It ' s mostly extending
20 the existing driveway that is there now
21 is 50 . We ' re talking about another 20 .
22 That ' s 70 . Again, it ' s a storage
23 structure . It ' s requiring me to take
24 everything out of there to the front of
25 the house . If you park a car, you have
June 5, 2014 Regular Meeting 31
• 1 to cross that expanse .
2 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Your vehicles
3 are going to be in your garage . You
4 mentioned a golf cart, kayaks and things
5 like that .
6 MR. DIVITO : The existing garage can
7 only hold one vehicle and I obviously
8 want to put more than one vehicle in
9 there .
10 MEMBER HORNING : Sir, did you look at
11 the idea of enlarging your existing
12 garage and what was your result as your
13 endeavor to look into that?
14 MR. DIVITO: The grading of that side
15 of the house is much higher . In effect
16 that the grading is much more down . I
17 would have to get a level of grade come
18 up . I can only go to that side as
19 opposed to the other side .
20 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well , you
21 could. You would need a variance for a
22 front yard setback. You already have
23 apparently because you preexisted prior
24 to the code change . The code has created
• 25 a nonconformity in the front yard
June 5, 2014 Regular Meeting 32
• 1 setback, and that is not a self-created
2 hardship . That was created by the Town .
3 MR. DIVITO: Right .
4 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We need to
5 check into that . It ' s possible that the
6 setback was established as a result of a
7 subdivision . Let ' s assume that you could
8 do that . We still have to understand why
9 a storage building can ' t be in an
10 acquired rear yard. And you are talking
11 about that there is a car and a deck
12 there . That is the only thing that I
• 13 heard.
14 MR. DIVITO : I am a little confused .
15 When I first did my application with my
16 architect and obviously the least costly
17 option was to extend on the existing
18 building, but I was told that there was
19 no way that I would get a variance to
20 come inside that 30 foot setback at this
21 time .
22 MEMBER DANTES : I am not sure we are
23 all on the same page .
24 MR. DIVITO: The Town was 40 . I
• 25 don ' t know how he got it but that is what
June 5, 2014 Regular Meeting 33
• 1 I was told . So when I came in -- my
2 first option would have to extend that
3 and I was told that that could not
4 happen .
5 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You are not
6 talking about your side yard?
7 MR. DIVITO : ( In Audible . ) Secondly
8 I have a gravel driveway here . And
9 consequently, I wanted this garage to be
10 behind this driveway. So I didn ' t think
11 that this would be an issue . And I think
12 it ' s more practical because we have a
• 13 neighbor here and a neighbor here . And I
14 spoken to him and he has no problem with
15 it . These people here don ' t have an
16 issue . These people don ' t have an issue .
17 All of that stuff would have to be
18 removed. The tree would have to come
19 down . The extension on the driveway
20 would cost me $3 , 000 . 00 because the
21 driveway costs me $7 , 000 . 00 .
22 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That is why we
23 were asking about the financial
24 information . I will reiterate, and we
• 25 will look at the decision, the character
June 5, 2014 Regular Meeting 34
• 1 of the neighborhood is attached garages .
2 We will look at the decision .
3 MR. DIVITO: Yes .
4 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Is there a
5 topographical issue with essentially
6 moving the garage to the back of the
7 house? Is it flat on that side?
8 MR. DIVITO : ( In Audible) . The
9 biggest thing for me is access . Quite
10 frankly, we ' re not as young as we used to
11 be . We ' re not disturbing anybody. Like
12 I said, this structure is much larger
• 13 than ours . Again, I am not looking for
14 that .
15 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So my reading
16 of the plans is that it ' s a 17 foot high
17 ridge . That ' s conforming . Is it heated?
18 Unheated?
19 MR. DIVITO: It will be unheated. It
20 will have electricity.
21 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And will it
22 finished? Unfinished?
23 MR. DIVITO: Finished . It will look
24 like --
25 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No, will it
June 5, 2014 Regular Meeting 35
• 1 have sheetrock on the inside?
2 MR. DIVITO: Sheetrock.
3 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Any heat?
4 MR. DIVITO: No .
5 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Any plumbing?
6 MR. DIVITO: No .
7 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All right . I
8 don ' t have anything else additional .
9 Just the information for the removal of
10 the trees and the cost for the extension
11 of the gravel driveway.
12 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Could you put
• 13 that in a letter to us?
14 MR. DIVITO: Sure .
15 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Does anyone
16 else have any questions?
17 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No .
18 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Does anyone
19 else in the audience wish to address this
20 application?
21 (No Response . )
22 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Hearing no
23 further comments , I will make a motion to
24 close the hearing and reserve decision
. 25 subject to receipt of a letter from the
June 5, 2014 Regular Meeting 36
• 1 applicant stating the costs of an
2 extended gravel driveway and the removal
3 of trees, which would thereby be
4 conforming, and the cost of moving the
5 condensers .
6 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second .
7 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor?
8 MEMBER DANTES : Aye .
9 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye .
10 MEMBER HORNING : Aye .
11 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye .
12 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye .
• 13 (See Minutes for Resolution . )
14 ** ********* ******** ************** ***
15 HEARING #6749 - JENNIFER VALENTINO
16 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The next
17 application before the Board is for
18 Jennifer Valentino, #6749 . Request for
19 variance from Article III Section 280-15
20 and the Building Inspector ' s
21 March 11 , 2014 Notice of Disapproval
22 based on application for building permit
23 to construct an accessory pool house, at ;
24 1 ) proposed location other than the code
• 25 required rear yard, located at : 235
June 5, 2014 Regular Meeting 37
• 1 Latham Lane, corner of Lathan Lane in
2 Orient .
3 Good morning, would you please state
4 your name for the record.
5 MS . SANTORA: Eileen Santora,
6 residential designer . I am representing
7 Jennifer Valentino .
8 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay . So this
9 is for an accessory parcel with two front
10 yards . The pool is in the front yard,
11 where the code requires a rear yard.
12 There is also legalization of a shed with
• 13 a shower and no CO .
14 MS . SANTORA: Right . The shed in the
15 front yard is being moved.
16 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So the shed in
17 the front yard is being removed. Is that
18 being relocated?
19 MS . SANTORA: Let me ask.
20 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And the deck
21 and the shower, you got the Building
22 Department --
23 MS . SANTORA: Yes .
24 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : This cabana is
• 25 a 20 foot high ridge, with an unfinished
June 5, 2014 Regular Meeting 38
• 1 attic .
2 MS . SANTORA: It ' s 21 and 10 inches .
3 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay . I don ' t
4 see any plumbing?
5 MS . SANTORA: There is no plumbing .
6 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : This is for
7 seasonal use then?
8 MS . SANTORA: Yes .
9 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And there is no
10 heat or air conditioning?
11 MS . SANTORA: No heat or air
12 conditioning.
• 13 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : George, why
14 don ' t you start?
15 MEMBER HORNING : There is water
16 there . What about facilities?
17 MS . SANTORA: ( In Audible . )
18 MEMBER HORNING : Outside spicket or
19 anything like that?
20 MS . SANTORA: I guess so .
21 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Is that
22 individual -- when I refer to a shower,
23 enclosure --
24 MS . SANTORA: When they bought the
• 25 house, they did not know there was no
June 5, 2014 Regular Meeting 39
1 permit for that shed and shower . So I
• 2 submitted the drawings .
3 MEMBER HORNING : If there was a
4 requirement or a condition to have the
5 pool equipment in a sound deadening
6 enclosure, is it going to be inside the
7 proposed garage?
8 MS . SANTORA: It can . Sure . Right
9 now, the survey, it ' s being relocated to
10 the back .
11 MEMBER HORNING : So, where is the
12 pool equipment going to be?
• 13 MS . SANTORA: We have it in the back
14 of the cabana .
15 MEMBER HORNING : That is what I am
16 asking .
17 MS . SANTORA: That is where we
18 proposed to relocate it . If you said it
19 has to be inside the cabana, we could fit
20 it in .
21 MEMBER HORNING: Well, often times we
22 have conditions to have it in a sound
23 deadening enclosure .
24 MS . SANTORA: Right now, it ' s
• 25 outside .
June 5, 2014 Regular Meeting 40
1 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: It doesn ' t have to
• 2 be inside cabana .
3 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: When it ' s located
4 outside, it has to be located in a sound
5 deadening enclosure .
6 MS . SANTORA: Okay.
7 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: It ' s a common
8 feature for pool equipment .
9 MEMBER DANTES : The question that I
10 have, the pool equipment is on the road
11 side of the building?
12 MS . SANTORA: Yes .
• 13 MEMBER DANTES : Why not put it on the
14 other side of the building?
15 MS . SANTORA: Okay . That ' s fine .
16 You want it on the west side of the
17 cabana?
18 MEMBER DANTES : Yes .
19 MS . SANTORA: There is a house on
20 that side .
21 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : There is
22 Evergreen screening all the way around
23 that creates a lot of privacy . Why is
24 the pool house so far away from the pool?
25 MS . SANTORA: It really isn ' t that
June 5, 2014 Regular Meeting 41
1 far away.
• 2 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Do you know how
3 many feet approximately? I am looking at
4 the survey. Approximately 50-60 feet .
5 On the opposite side of the pool is a
6 large grassy area . That would be a
7 proposed. My question is, if it were
8 located there, would it be in a
9 conforming location? It ' s behind the
10 house .
11 MS . SANTORA: They don ' t want it
12 there . There is nobody this way. They
• 13 really want to landscape that corner .
14 And then from the driveway, it ' s going to
15 the cabana .
16 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : There is a
17 substantial setback from every direction .
18 MS . SANTORA: Right .
19 MEMBER HORNING : Is there any chance
20 of moving the 50 foot setback? Since you
21 are asking for a front yard variance .
22 Another 25 feet? Can you amend your
23 application to reflect that and relocate
24 the pool equipment in a sound deadening
• 25 enclosure to the west side?
June 5, 2014 Regular Meeting 42
• 1 MS . SANTORA: It ' s not that far away.
2 MEMBER HORNING : Our obligation is to
3 grant the least amount of variance
4 possible . The further away from the
5 front yard, the better .
6 MS . SANTORA: Okay. That would be
7 acceptable?
8 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well, we would
9 have to deliberate . I actually have a
10 question about your application . I am
11 looking at your drawings and I am looking
12 at the words in your application, it
13 says , "changes with alterations . " You
14 had listed a basement . This shows a
15 crawl space . And you have listed first
16 floor as attic . Is that an attic or a
17 second floor? And is there a basement or
18 a crawl space?
19 MS . SANTORA: It ' s a crawl space .
20 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All right .
21 That is to run electric?
22 MS . SANTORA: Yes . They want a crawl
23 space to be able to run electric .
24 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Most pool
. 25 houses are on a slab .
June 5, 2014 Regular Meeting 43
• 1 MS . SANTORA: I don ' t know . They
2 just wanted a crawl space . They didn ' t
3 want it on a slab .
4 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : There is steps .
5 It ' s a substantial size building . You
6 have these dormers here . If it ' s just
7 meant to do be storage, why do you have
8 these dormers here?
9 MS . SANTORA: Just for storage up
10 there . They wanted to match the house .
11 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So there is no
12 proposed future habitable space?
13 MS . SANTORA: No .
14 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I am looking at
15 the picture of the ridge roof, the stairs
16 -- and I am not sure that you have head
17 clearance . Your dormers are not just for
18 ascetically.
19 MS . SANTORA: ( In Audible) .
20 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I can see on
21 your floor plan, unfinished attic . This
22 wouldn ' t be habitable with that ridge
23 height anyway .
24 MS . SANTORA: No .
• 25 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You would not
June 5, 2014 Regular Meeting 44
• 1 have enough clearance .
2 MS . SANTORA: No .
3 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay. Is this
4 going to be sheetrocked on the inside?
5 MS . SANTORA: Yes .
6 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And there is no
7 wet bar, nothing?
8 MS . SANTORA: No .
9 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : What are they
10 going to use it for?
11 MS . SANTORA: Just for the pool . To
12 go in -- you know, storage . Pool table .
• 13 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So then it ' s
14 for recreational space if they want a
15 pool table?
16 MS . SANTORA: Yes .
17 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Looks like a
18 hybrid. A small dwelling . Ken?
19 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: I have no
20 questions . We discussed a lot already.
21 I understand the crawl space .
22 MS . SANTORA: It ' s a crawl space .
23 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: There is no water
24 to it . Okay .
• 25 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : George?
June 5, 2014 Regular Meeting 45
• 1 MEMBER HORNING : I asked my questions
2 already.
3 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay . Gerry?
4 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I have no
5 questions also .
6 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Eric?
7 MEMBER DANTES : Is there any reason
8 why they don ' t want a half bath or an
9 outdoor shower?
10 MS . SANTORA: Well , they have an
11 outdoor shower in that shed, right behind
12 the pool . There is a shed and an outdoor
• 13 shower . The cabana is too far for the
14 outdoor shower .
15 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All right . So
16 we will have to make sure there is no
17 habitable spaces .
18 Is there anyone else in the audience
19 that wishes to address this application?
20 (No Response . )
21 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anything else?
22 MS . SANTORA: You want me to change
23 the plans, the wording .
24 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : How does the
• 25 Board feel that the proposed location is
June 5, 2014 Regular Meeting 46
1 problematic? Still going to wind up in
2 the front yard . I am not sure what it
3 would gain by changing the location .
4 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: I don ' t have any
5 problem with the location .
6 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: 20 feet .
7 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It ' s 100 feet
8 from the road. 50 feet from the other
9 road. 40 feet from the neighbor . I am
10 okay with it . The size of this thing is
11 very big . I wanted to make sure there is
12 no livable --
13 MS . SANTORA: No .
14 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No proposed
15 habitable space .
16 MS . SANTORA: No.
17 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You don ' t need
18 another plan.
19 Anything else from anyone?
20 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No .
21 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Hearing no
22 further comments or questions from
23 anyone, I will make a motion to close
24 this and reserve decision to a later
. 25 date .
June 5, 2014 Regular Meeting 47
is 1 Is there a second?
2 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second.
3 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor?
4 MEMBER DANTES : Aye .
5 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye .
6 MEMBER HORNING: Aye .
7 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye .
8 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye .
9 (See Minutes for Resolution . )
10 ********************************* ** ** *
11 HEARING #6753 - MICHAEL RANSON
12 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next
• 13 application before the Board is for
14 Michael Ranson, #6753 . Request for
15 variance from Article XXII Section
16 280-116B and the Building Inspector ' s
17 March 17 , 2014 Notice of Disapproval
18 based on an application for building
19 permit for `as built' accessory structure
20 ( shed/deck) , at; 1) less than the code
21 required bulkhead setback of 75 feet,
22 located at : 8740 Peconic Bay Boulevard,
23 adjacent to Green Peconic Bay in Laurel .
24 MR. GOGGINS : Good morning, William
25 Goggins for the applicant, 13235 Main
June 5, 2014 Regular Meeting 48
. 1 Road, Mattituck, New York . Good morning,
2 again . I represent the applicant , Michael
3 Ranson . This application is real estate
4 transaction where ( In Audible) is selling
5 their house and right before closing they
6 learned that the a preexisting shed and a
7 preexisting gazebo didn ' t have a CO . So
8 here we are submitting an application .
9 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You have the
10 LWRP?
11 MR. GOGGINS : Yes .
12 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So they were
13 constructed after the storm?
14 MR. GOGGINS : The gazebo was not . The
15 gazebo was prior . They took away the
16 existing shed and some of the decking
17 that was there prior .
18 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well , it looks
19 like there was substantial erosion from
20 the storm. So Mark questionings , the
21 LWRP Coordinator, since the elevation was
22 lowered, it ' s not clear what flood zone
23 it ' s in . It might be --
24 MR. GOGGINS : We had another
• 25 application that the owner for the west,
June 5, 2014 Regular Meeting 49
• 1 Donovan, and their ' s was the same issue
2 regarding that . Those bulkheads have
3 bulkheads on either side . They were
4 built in 1973 , and I know that because my
5 parents own the house to the east of this
6 property. I remember when it was done .
7 Almost 40 years .
8 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It looks like
9 that shed was not ever there . It looks
10 like it was added.
11 MR. GOGGINS : The shed is new . They
12 would store stuff under the gazebo . ( In
• 13 Audible) after the storm.
14 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You have a
15 Trustees Wetlands Permit that was for
16 emergency reconstruction of 3 . 25 foot
17 with 24 foot stairs ( In Audible) beach
18 access stairs . When was the gazebo built
19 without a permit?
20 MR. GOGGINS : The gazebo was there
21 prior to 1970 . I am not sure when it was
22 built . That is when my parents bought
23 the house and I remember the gazebo being
24 there .
• 25 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And it would
June 5, 2014 Regular Meeting 50
• 1 look like some of the structure is in the
2 VE Zone?
3 MR. GOGGINS : There is some
4 discrepancy with the zones down there,
5 and I don ' t remember what it was . And
6 one of the reasons why they built it was
7 Laurel is a very damp area .
8 MEMBER HORNING : Can you provide the
9 dimensions of the shed?
10 MR. GOGGINS : Yes . The shed is 70
11 inches in height . At the seldom most
12 point it ' s 75 inches in height . Closer
• 13 to the gazebo . The depth from front to
14 back is 50 inches . And the width is
15 115 . 5 inches . Just under 6 feet .
16 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And what ' s
17 going on with the walls? Are they like
18 retaining walls?
19 MR. GOGGINS : Yes . I know they were
20 not there before . Whether they are
21 retaining walls or decorative walls .
22 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I think on site
23 inspection it suggests a berm on either
24 side and creating a sitting area . This
• 25 all appears to be 0 setback from the
June 5, 2014 Regular Meeting 51
• 1 bulkhead.
2 MEMBER HORNING : The Building
3 Department is noting it as a deck?
4 MR. GOGGINS : Yes . But it ' s really
5 at ground level . I gave you pictures .
6 MEMBER HORNING : The variances that
7 are applied for are includes the shed and
8 the deck?
9 MR. GOGGINS : Right .
10 MEMBER HORNING: And the gazebo is
11 not involved?
12 MR. GOGGINS : No . We were asking for
• 13 a preexisting CO on the gazebo .
14 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Have you
15 applied for a Pre-CO on that?
16 MR. GOGGINS : We have applied and
17 everything got put together and back
18 here .
19 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Did you get the
20 Pre-CO?
21 MR. GOGGINS : No .
22 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: It was denied?
23 MR. GOGGINS : It was denied . It
24 needs ZBA approval .
• 25 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The question that
June 5, 2014 Regular Meeting 52
• 1 I have, is did you apply for the
2 Trustees?
3 MR. GOGGINS : The Trustees had been
4 out there . As per my client, it doesn ' t
5 appear that they have a problem with it .
6 When I made this applicant, things
7 changed. We are here now and then we
8 will go back to the Trustees . As far as
9 I know, there were no issues there .
10 MEMBER HORNING: In terms of the
11 Notice of Disapproval for "as-built"
12 accessory structures , the shed, the deck
• 13 and the gazebo? Are you including all of
14 that?
15 MR. GOGGINS : Yes .
16 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It ' s not in the
17 notice .
18 MEMBER HORNING: Can you get the
19 Notice of Disapproval amended to include
20 that?
21 MR. GOGGINS : Yes .
22 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The gazebo
23 looks like it ' s in substantially good
24 condition . That was either partially or
• 25 substantially rebuilt .
June 5, 2014 Regular Meeting 53
1 MR. GOGGINS : I don ' t really know
• 2 what they did to it . It looks like it
3 did.
4 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Eric?
5 MEMBER DANTES : No . I have no
6 questions .
7 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Ken?
8 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: So the proposed
9 construction has a 0 feet from the
10 bulkhead and I assume that 0 feet speaks
11 to the proposed wood deck that is shown
12 on the plans?
• 13 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It ' s actually
14 not proposed. It ' s "as-built" .
15 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: It ' s "as-built" .
16 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: It ' s not
17 proposed.
18 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: The one that is
19 causing the 0 setback is the wood deck?
20 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Correct .
21 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: And then we have
22 this shed that is just below the open
23 gazebo . Wood locker . Okay. It would be
24 helpful to have a setback from that wood
• 25 locker from the bulkhead, as well as then
June 5, 2014 Regular Meeting 54
1 also to the top of the bank?
• 2 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It really goes
3 into the bank. It ' s flat up against it .
4 It ' s built into the bank with steps .
5 It ' s confusing. I mean, we all saw it .
6 There is really no wood decking there .
7 The whole application -- the terminology
8 is really confusing because we don ' t have
9 a wood deck . So if he was looking at
10 proposed, then that would be at the
11 bulkhead. I don ' t know if it ' s proposed
12 or not . It looks new. I think the
• 13 documentation needs to be clarified
14 before we proceed.
15 MR. GOGGINS : ( In Audible) .
16 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well , I don ' t
17 know how you are going to have a wood
18 deck at grade unless it ' s submerged.
19 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: It ' s actually a
20 walkway.
21 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We didn ' t see
22 that . So there is a quite rise to it . I
23 guess the question to find out is, are we
24 looking at "as-built" structures or plans
• 25 that show a proposed wood deck? What is
June 5, 2014 Regular Meeting 55
• 1 on the survey and what is on this drawing
2 is two different things . Right in front
3 of the shed, we have wood deck and then
4 the stone patio . Do you see what I am
5 saying?
6 MR. GOGGINS : Yes . I will get
7 clarification from the Building
8 Department .
9 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I think so . I
10 want to know what portion is in the VE
11 Zone .
12 MEMBER HORNING: Does the applicant
• 13 need to get another Town Trustees permit
14 of any kind?
15 MR. GOGGINS : Yes . ( In Audible ) .
16 (Whereupon, the speaker is not near a
17 microphone . )
18 MEMBER HORNING : And why did they say
19 it has to go to the ZBA first?
20 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That is the
21 process now.
22 MEMBER HORNING : Okay . Reasons for
23 the appeal .
24 MR. GOGGINS : Okay.
• 25 MEMBER HORNING : Statement No . 2 .
June 5, 2014 Regular Meeting 56
• 1 MR. GOGGINS : Okay .
2 MEMBER HORNING : Moving the
3 structures would improve the use of the
4 property --
5 MR. GOGGINS : It would not .
6 MEMBER HORNING: And getting to
7 reason #1 then, an undesirable change
8 would not cause a detriment to the
9 neighborhood. It is consistent with the
10 properties and a necessary waterfront
11 use . And that is contradictory to what
12 the LWRP Coordinator says . He says that
• 13 it doesn ' t have to be there . The
14 accessory structures do not functionally
15 require ( In Audible) water dependent .
16 His memorandum basically says that it ' s
17 inconsistent as you know . I would like
18 for you to address the inconsistencies ,
19 and point out in the LWRP application
20 that was filed, Policy #1 , calls for a
21 pattern of development --
22 MR. GOGGINS : Right .
23 MEMBER HORNING : -- beneficial use of
24 the coastal location minimizes adverse
• 25 effects of the environment . You are
June 5, 2014 Regular Meeting 57
1 saying that it ' s consistent and he has
• 2 determined that it ' s inconsistent . You
3 need to explain to us --
4 MR. GOGGINS : The proposal is
5 consistent with the neighborhood . The
6 house to the left of the gazebo has a
7 larger gazebo with storage underneath it .
8 Two houses to the left is another gazebo .
9 It has been there since the 70 ' s that I
10 know of . ( In Audible) -- houses by the
11 bluff . To have a storage shed is very
12 convenient . They used to have storage on
• 13 the beach and that is now above the
14 bulkhead. We need it for the waterfront .
15 For fishing, life preservers , etcetera .
16 Children toys . It doesn ' t effect the
17 environment in any way. They want to go
18 to the beaches and enjoy them. They want
19 to enjoy their own property.
20 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : There are
21 certainly others along that road, along
22 the waterfront . Do you know if any of
23 them have CO ' s? Any of them have
24 permits?
25 MR. GOGGINS : The house to the west
June 5, 2014 Regular Meeting 58
1 does . They went through ZBA approval .
2 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Are you talking
3 about Abbott?
4 MR. GOGGINS : Yes . Abbott . There is
5 another Abbott .
6 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We are aware
7 with having gone through a few processes
8 with John Abbott , the Board was very
9 determined to get -- and it was only
10 because of the CO, replace of the
11 structure . These structures are
12 certainly seaward. The gazebo is
• 13 landward. I just looked at the pictures
14 again and clearly those retaining walls
15 are built because of the bank.
16 MR. GOGGINS : Yes .
17 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : George, did you
18 have other questions?
19 MEMBER HORNING : I was going to
20 mention the same things you did. We
21 don ' t know whether these other structures
22 have CO ' s or not . If you could actually
23 provide us with a little bit of
24 information on other variances . It would
25 help substantiate your case .
June 5, 2014 Regular Meeting 59
1 MR. GOGGINS : ( In Audible . )
2 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I can
3 understand that . We now have the LWRP
4 and we have had some significant weather
5 events, Super Storm Sandy. We have to
6 have substantial reasons for the
7 structure to be replaced. That has to
8 come from the owner . It ' s a tough place
9 to be in. I agree, if you can provide us
10 with some additional information, that
11 would be helpful .
12 Gerry, any questions?
• 13 MEMBER GOEHRINGER : My only question
14 is, are we going to move this hearing to
15 July? We need to get a new Notice of
16 Disapproval?
17 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I think that
18 would be a good idea . Give Bill some
19 time to give what he needs to do . Get a
20 new Notice of Disapproval to include the
21 gazebo . Find out what the setbacks are
22 for the deck. Why don ' t we do that .
23 MEMBER DANTES : Do we need a new
24 survey?
• 25 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yep .
June 5, 2014 Regular Meeting 60
1 MEMBER HORNING: In regards to new
• 2 Notice of Disapproval to reflect what is
3 there, is there anything there that had a
4 C of 0?
5 MR. GOGGINS : ( In Audible) exactly
6 what does and doesn ' t . I will get that
7 gazebo to be on the Notice of
8 Disapproval .
9 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That would be
10 great to work out with the Building
11 Department . It certainly does look new,
12 although you said that it was there .
• 13 Is there anyone else in the audience
14 that wishes to address this application?
15 (No Response . )
16 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Hearing no
17 further comments, I am going to make a
18 motion to adjourn this hearing to
19 July 10th at 10 : 00 a .m.
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 .
June 5, 2014 Regular Meeting 61
1 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye .
• 2 (See Minutes for Resolution . )
3 ************************ *** ***********
4 HEARING #6757 - A & S SOUTHOLD OIL CORP .
5 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next
6 application before the Board is for A & S
7 Southold Oil Corporation, #6757 . Request
8 for variances from Article III Section
9 280-15 and 280-15E and the Building
10 Inspector ' s April 14 , 2014 , amended
11 April 24 , 2014 Notice of Disapproval
12 based on an application for building
• 13 permit to construct an 1 , 568 square feet
14 accessory canopy, at ; 1 ) proposed
15 location other than the code required
16 rear yard, 2 ) less than the code required
17 property line setback of 5 feet from Main
18 Bayview Road, 3 ) less than the code
19 required property line setback of 5 feet
20 from New York State Route 25, Main Road,
21 located at : 49670 Main Road, aka New
22 York State Route 25 , corner of Main
23 Bayview Road in Southold.
24 Is there someone here to represent
• 25 the application?
June 5, 2014 Regular Meeting 62
1 MR. CUDDY : Good afternoon . Charles
• 2 Cuddy, 455 Griffing Avenue, Riverhead .
3 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Good morning .
4 Mr . Cuddy, did you get the letter from
5 the neighbor that we just received?
6 MR. CUDDY : Yes , I did. Thank you .
7 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Do you have the
8 Planning Board comments?
9 MR. CUDDY : I have the Planning
10 Board ' s comments .
11 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : This is to be
12 located in the front yard, where the code
• 13 requires a rear yard . The property line
14 setback from Main Road is 4 feet . The
15 code requires 5 feet . More than 5 . And
16 the property line setback from Main
17 Bayview 4 feet and the code requires 5
18 feet . This plan requires Site Plan
19 approval in addition to Zoning Board of
20 Appeals . We have a letter of concerns
21 from the neighbor about traffic impact,
22 stormwater runoff and so on and so forth .
23 Planning Board site plans applications ,
24 wanted them to provide us with some
• 25 additional information on traffic impact ,
June 5, 2014 Regular Meeting 63
• 1 additional information on egress and
2 ingress, safety. The visual impact and
3 lighting and other applicable things .
4 This proposed canopy which would be an
5 accessory structure, in #4813 on
6 October 5, 2000 , we granted a 15 foot
7 rear yard setback for the convenience
8 store and we denied the canopy. Rather
9 than quote from the various records , I
10 would like to ask you other than the fact
11 there is a foot difference, an increase
12 in the setback, what other things have
13 changed to render their concerns on the
14 impact of the neighborhood or the
15 character of the neighborhood and
16 possibility of traffic site lines?
17 MR . CUDDY : With regards to making it
18 so much smaller . And I appreciate the
19 time this morning . The neighborhood has
20 somewhat changed. Since that time, it
21 has been expanded. Platinum Electric
22 which is located down the block . I have
23 a series of things that I would like to
24 go through with you .
25 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Please .
June 5, 2014 Regular Meeting 64
1 MR. CUDDY : I have some exhibits for
• 2 you .
3 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay . Thank
4 you.
5 MR. CUDDY : I didn ' t want to evade
6 your question, but what I think is
7 happening is , there has been an expansion
8 of the existing store . There has been
9 another piece that has been added on . I
10 think that the area itself and even going
11 down the block, it has become much more
12 then it was at that time . And I think,
• 13 in fairness to this applicant, there have
14 been other changes at other different
15 service stations , which needs to be taken
16 into consideration . I don ' t think they
17 were taken into consideration back then .
18 I would like to start back . I think the
19 bigger picture itself has a clause that
20 it embodies what we are talking about
21 here . Limited office and industrial
22 zoning outside the Business District . It
23 is designed for the benefit of large
24 number motorists and fairly ( In Audible) .
• 25 And I think what has happened over the
June 5, 2014 Regular Meeting 65
1 time period is that we have had more
• 2 commercial sites and more motorists . I
3 think there has been a change in time and
4 in just a number of people . A number of
5 motorists that actually use the site .
6 Another thing that is very important . It
7 is the only service station between
8 Greenport and Cutchogue . There is no
9 other service station . And I think
10 things have changed over time . And I
11 think that one other fact is significant,
12 that now the pumps are electronic. And
• 13 electronic pumps need to have a cover
14 over them or else they ' re prone to
15 breaking down when there is heavy water
16 and rain out . And so we ' re trying to
17 avoid that by having this canopy over it .
18 So I will go over this and try and
19 explain to you why we are here . The
20 first one I think I have told you about .
21 Shows this district . I think everyone is
22 familiar with the area around this . The
23 second part , which I think is important
24 at the time, we ' re looking at three other
• 25 stations that have this canopy. We are
June 5, 2014 Regular Meeting 66
1 looking at one that is on Route 48 , which
• 2 is obviously a very large canopy . It has
3 been around for many years . There is one
4 in Mattituck which has a complete CO.
5 This is right next to a number of homes .
6 This was July, 2012 . And the third one
7 was in Cutchogue, which this Board has
8 previously -- and I put the Board' s
9 decision in it of 1992 , granting the
10 exact type of canopy. The front yard is
11 the only place that this type of canopy
12 can go . There is no question about that .
• 13 Garrett Strang is here with me and also
14 ( In Audible) is here . As you can see,
15 how far away this is . The question of
16 visibility, it ' s really 190 feet from the
17 stop sign to the edge of the canopy.
18 There is really only one house that looks
19 at this . And that is the house that is
20 up on the hill . The other houses do not .
21 I have personally gone to the station and
22 looked. So they would not be effected in
23 any type of manner . But I think the
24 dimensions show clearly that there is
• 25 going to be no impact . There is a stop
June 5, 2014 Regular Meeting 67
1 sign at the corner of Main and Bayview .
• 2 I put in affidavit, explaining that this
3 is a need for him on a competitive basis
4 but more so for him because of the
5 electronic pumps . He needs to have a
6 cover for them. He can ' t have them
7 shutdown . I have also added two other
8 things which is Exhibit E, and that is
9 the -- insurer has indicated that having
10 the canopy would actually increase the
11 general liability for the structure . And
12 finally, the same letter that you had
• 13 previously -- indicating to you that,
14 this type of canopy is built for the same
15 thing that reduces the problems as far as
16 fire . It ' s a much better system. I
17 recognize that there has been questions
18 raised in the past from the Planning
19 Board, there is no problem with the
20 circulations . I took some pictures this
21 week showing two stations that have
22 canopies on it . So I would just like to
23 hand those up .
24 MEMBER HORNING : Can I ask you a
• 25 question about the fire suppression
June 5, 2014 Regular Meeting 68
• 1 system? To your knowledge, in the
2 previous application where the canopy was
3 denied, was there a proposal of a fire
4 suppression system at that time?
5 MR. CUDDY : Yes . That was there
6 before .
7 MEMBER HORNING : What is the exact
8 requirement of the State? That that
9 system is actually not required to
10 retrofit --
11 MR. CUDDY : They don ' t have to have
12 them as far as I know. But virtually
• 13 every new station has a fire suppression
14 system in it .
15 MEMBER HORNING: What is the brief
16 history of the station? How long has it
17 been there?
18 MR. CUDDY : The station has been
19 there for my personal knowledge, 1960 ' s .
20 Probably even more before that, the 50 ' s .
21 MEMBER HORNING : It might have been
22 there prior to code?
23 MR. CUDDY : I think so .
24 MEMBER HORNING : Is there a way of
• 25 finding out?
i
June 5, 2014 Regular Meeting 69
• 1 MR. CUDDY : I think it was there
2 prior to code .
3 MEMBER HORNING: Can I quickly ask
4 you then on the other #4027 application
5 where the canopy was denied, you were
6 requesting a 40 foot wide by 25 foot wide
7 permanent canopy --
8 MR. CUDDY : Yes .
9 MEMBER HORNING : What is the size of
10 the canopy? Is it going over the whole
11 area?
12 MEMBER HORNING : No . The canopy is
• 13 going over the pumps . The one in
14 Mattituck, as you know, goes all the way
15 back to the convenient store .
16 MEMBER HORNING: Is it showing on the
17 survey here?
18 MR. CUDDY : It goes over the pumps .
19 I would assume based upon looking at the
20 files --
21 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Is that so a
22 car could pull up and an attendant can
23 actually service it? Is that functional
24 necessity?
• 25 MR. CUDDY : Mr . Strang can answer
June 5, 2014 Regular Meeting 70
• 1 that in a minute . I can ' t imagine making
2 it any smaller than that, because it
3 won ' t cover the pumps then . Again, it ' s
4 because of the configuration of the lot .
5 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Usually the
6 canopies are set back substantial
7 distance from Route 25 . It ' s always a
8 kind of guess on how you are going to get
9 through there . This canopy is not
10 necessarily going to change that . It ' s
11 set back from where that intersection
12 takes place .
13 MR. CUDDY : One of the nice things
14 about it , all of the things are on the
15 inside instead of the ground.
16 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : George, any
17 more questions?
18 MEMBER HORNING: No .
19 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : What we are
20 going to be doing in the future and we
21 sort of have done it informally, when
22 site plan approval is required, currently
23 with ZBA applications, we are going to
24 ask applicants to apply concurrently.
• 25 Basically the Planning Board can provide
i
June 5, 2014 Regular Meeting 71
• 1 comments . They can begin their work
2 session and make any recommendations .
3 They can help us and make us more
4 confident in making our decisions . This
5 way our decision can reflect more
6 accurately . We would ask that you go to
7 the Planning Board . ( In Audible . ) I
8 thought I would let you in the way that
9 we are trying to better coordinate these
10 jurisdictions . So that we are all on the
11 same page and providing the applicant
12 with a complete and well coordinated
• 13 application process . Gerry, questions or
14 comments?
15 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No . I know the
16 property very well . I don ' t have any
17 questions .
18 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All right .
19 Eric?
20 MEMBER DANTES : Can you talk about
21 the upgrades to the fire suppression
22 system? It is a lot better? Is it
23 marginally better then what is there
24 now?
• 25 MR . CUDDY : It ' s better . I think
June 5, 2014 Regular Meeting 72
• 1 Mr . Strang can address that a little bit
2 better .
3 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay.
4 MR. STRANG: Good morning .
5 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Good morning.
6 MR. STRANG: Garrett Strang,
7 architect, 1230 Traveler Street,
8 Southold, New York. I would be happy to
9 answer any questions the Board has .
10 Particularly, the one in front of me at
11 the moment, about the fire suppression
12 system. The standard has gone to where
• 13 we install it in the canopy which gives
14 it a more -- much more coverage, if you
15 will . Coverage of the whole area . As
16 opposed to the island mounted fire
17 suppression systems which doesn ' t provide
18 as much coverage . I am not 100% versed,
19 I will admit that on how the fire
20 suppression system works .
21 MEMBER DANTES : Do you know if they
22 build new gas stations using the existing
23 fire suppression or canopy?
24 MR. STRANG: The standard is pretty
• 25 much canopy fire suppression systems .
June 5, 2014 Regular Meeting 73
1 MEMBER DANTES : The only question
• 2 that I have is in the old application
3 under #9, indicating the canopy fire
4 suppression system --
5 MR. STRANG: Yes .
6 MEMBER DANTES : Can you address --
7 MR. STRANG: That particularly point
8 that was made at that time, I have no
9 understanding on why that would be the
10 case . It ' s very easy to look at that .
11 You are not looking in the air as to
12 where the traffic is . So that one caught
• 13 me off guard. I have some information
14 for the Board ( In Audible) .
15 (Whereupon, Mr . Strang stepped away
16 from the microphone . )
17 MR. STRANG: This is the view from
18 the south side . Since then that traffic
19 stop sign was installed and helps the
20 situation . So I did a view in this case
21 which was taken from the street level .
22 Our canopy is right over here .
23 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I see . So it ' s
24 not in front of his house?
. 25 MR. STRANG: No .
June 5, 2014 Regular Meeting 74
1 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay.
• 2 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Can I just see it
3 for a moment .
4 MR. STRANG: -- investigated if you
5 will, there is an approved site plan on
6 this already. We don ' t think that we
7 have to go to Planning because nothing
8 has changed. We did have a site plan
9 done at that time . What we are proposing
10 now is a new canopy. It ' s not going to
11 increase the traffic patterns, the
12 intense of the use . If you want us to go
• 13 to site plan, Planning Board, that ' s
14 fine .
15 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: I think that is
16 going to have to happen anyway. It ' s in
17 the Notice . I think the Planning Board
18 is expecting an application . I think
19 they can make that determination very
20 quickly when the application is in front
21 of them. I think we have a much clearer
22 picture now . Just so that it ' s on the
23 record because I don ' t think the
24 transcript picked up your discussion with
• 25 Ken about providing information on the
June 5, 2014 Regular Meeting 75
• 1 setbacks from the two roads to the curb
2 or -- I guess it ' s both curbs . It would
3 be in the setback from the curb, and we
4 would like to know that information .
5 MR. STRANG: That ' s easy enough done .
6 I will get that to the Board as soon as
7 possible .
8 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay . Question
9 now, is there anything else that the
10 Board like to ask?
11 (No Response . )
12 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there anyone
• 13 else in the audience that would like to
14 address this application? Please come to
15 the mic and state your name .
16 MR. SMITH : Paul Smith, 275 Main
17 Bayview Road.
18 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay, Paul ,
19 what would you like to tell us?
20 MR. SMITH : My wife, if I may read
21 her letter to the Board?
22 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Yes .
23 MR. SMITH : We didn ' t receive this
24 motive until, Wednesday, the 3rd. So we
• 25 apologize for the inability to be both
June 5, 2014 Regular Meeting 76
is
1 here . This was just brought to our
2 intention . It has been brought to our
3 attention that the A & S Oil Company
4 located on Main Bayview Road in Southold
5 has proposed a canopy for their gas
6 station . As neighbors of that site, it
7 is our wish to voice our opinion of the
8 proposal . Although we are a small group
9 of Southold, Main Bayview Road on Route
10 25 is still a residential area consisting
11 of modest old homes . It is our wishes
12 that the Board will take our wish to
• 13 maintain the look and feel into
14 consideration when reviewing this
15 proposal . As residents that will be
16 directly impacted by lights and the
17 canopy, we are not adverse to A & S Oil
18 Company proactive steps to clean up their
19 sites . There has been numerous issues
20 and complaints by people in our community
21 in the past not only to this companies
22 track record to maintain proper garbage
23 control but also having lights installed.
24 They have florescent lights on the side
• 25 of their building that burn at all night
June 5, 2014 Regular Meeting 77
• 1 without covering . Mostly reflect ( In
2 Audible ) this issue have gone unanswered .
3 The steps increasing to plant greenery to
4 beautify the grounds ( In Audible)
5 possible way ( In Audible) and are poorly
6 maintained . Our primary concern is that
7 the Board will approve this unsightly
8 structure for a company that is not
9 maintaining their current and much
10 smaller footprint . If we were to agree
11 that the company would install a canopy
12 that is suitable to the environment and
• 13 would begin to maintain their parcel and
14 be held accountable to do so, we would
15 probably have no problem in allowing them
16 to move forward. A curb to curb canopy
17 for 24 hours a day will not only be
18 unsightly and the lights would be
19 unbearable and have serious effect on our
20 quality of living . The main states , New
21 Hampshire and Massachusetts, Vermont
22 where small local gas stations use ( In
23 Audible) or canopies -- They have a much
24 lesser impact on the surrounding . We
• 25 appreciate the opportunity to voice our
June 5, 2014 Regular Meeting 78
1 concerns and we hope the Board takes
• 2 seriously our options and the residents
3 who will be affected by this decision and
4 take the appropriate steps for the view
5 in and rural town is maintained.
6 Kindness regards, Anthony Carr, my wife
7 and Paul Smith . Thank you . Am I allowed
8 to ask questions?
9 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You can ask
10 questions to the Board, and then we can
11 ask the applicant, applicant ' s agent or
12 architect to come to the mic and answer
• 13 them.
14 MR. SMITH : We are certainly not
15 against companies that are improving .
16 It ' s the fire suppression issue . Now,
17 they are 7 feet off and I don ' t know how
18 18 feet off the ground is going to
19 improve . The lights, I would like to try
20 and find out -- I don ' t see how that is
21 an improvement . I have three vehicles .
22 I have never had a problem. I know that
23 is a concern -- pumps breaking down,
24 garbage . The light condition is actually
• 25 in the draft, that lights go from 8 feet
June 5, 2014 Regular Meeting 79
1 high to 18 feet high . They are going to
• 2 be photographed out . I don ' t buy any of
3 the improvements . I don ' t know who will
4 guarantee that the lights will be ( In
5 Audible) -- the years rotted off or
6 falling off . They need to be maintained.
7 The other three stations, the one by 48 ,
8 there is no houses by them. They have
9 been there forever . The one in Greenport
10 has been there forever . The one in
11 Southold --
12 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Southold is
• 13 this one .
14 MR. SMITH : I 'm sorry, Cutchogue .
15 There is one house there . I just think
16 that the Board should be careful . They
17 don ' t want to approve something that is
18 -- I don ' t know, it ' s the first and last
19 thing that people see in the hamlet . We
20 want to make a good impression.
21 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : One thing --
22 MR. SMITH : I ' m sorry, I just found
23 out I was on tape . So I got a little --
24 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We do that
• 25 because it ' s important to keep a record
June 5, 2014 Regular Meeting 80
1 of public hearings . So that we can
• 2 refer back to them or any interested
3 parties that couldn ' t be here be able to
4 see what went on in the proceedings . We
5 assure you that your comments are very
6 referenced and part of the record.
7 MR. SMITH : You know, it ' s just -- I
8 am not looking for someone to put up a
9 Cedar shake -- case in point, you know,
10 it is what it is .
11 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let me explain .
12 There are two issues that you have
• 13 raised. One is has to do with night
14 lighting and the other has to do with the
15 aesthetic proposal .
16 MR. SMITH : And the other was
17 safety . When they get fuel deliveries,
18 the 18-wheeler sort of jackknifes around .
19 It ' s at best, complicated. It ends by a
20 horn blaring at cars and cars scattering
21 and yelling "Get out of the way. " I just
22 want to ensure with this canopy, and
23 deliveries , I don ' t know -- is it going
24 to come up Peanut Alley. It ' s not called
• 25 Peanut Alley.
June 5, 2014 Regular Meeting 81
1 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We know what
• 2 you are talking about .
3 MR. SMITH : It ' s a complicated site .
4 Sites like this nowadays, never get
5 approved.
6 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let ' s do this .
7 Let ' s see if the applicant ' s agent or the
8 architect would like to address some of
9 these comments . I would also like to
10 know what the hours of operation are and
11 whether the lighting needs to be on .
12 Here is the good thing, part of the
• 13 reason that site plan approval is needed,
14 they need to make recommendations about
15 the aesthetics . They handle all the
16 situations about egress and ingress on
17 the site, delivers and so on . They also
18 handle all of the lighting requirements .
19 The type of fixtures . That is all
20 handled through the site plan process .
21 Let ' s see if there is some reasons --
22 Garrett, can you address any of those or
23 Mr . Cuddy?
24 MR. SMITH : I am not convinced that
25 lights that are 8 feet that will now be
June 5, 2014 Regular Meeting 82
1 18 feet, will be better pleasing . Thank
• 2 you for your time .
3 MR. STRANG: I can appreciate the
4 concerns that were addressed . I will
5 address the ones that I can . The
6 lighting for example, the fixtures that
7 are there now are ( In Audible) for
8 example . The new fixtures will be
9 recessed on the underside of the canopy.
10 They will be LED fixtures . The lighting
11 coming out of the canopy will be minimal .
12 I am sure when site plan gets this , they
• 13 will be looking for the specifics of
14 that . Particularly, within a foot or two
15 of the canopy, it ' s next to nothing .
16 MEMBER HORNING : Any horizontal
17 lighting going over to the neighborhood,
18 does not exist?
19 MR. STRANG : Does not exist . I think
20 if you recall , at the station in
21 Cutchogue, if you go pass that at night,
22 they have LED fixtures there as well .
23 It ' s minimal . Especially when they are
24 recessed. The other question that seems
• 25 to me with respect to safety, the
June 5, 2014 Regular Meeting 83
1 deliveries are going to be what they have
• 2 always been . We ' re not changing
3 anything . The canopy does not impede the
4 truck when it ' s on site . So for the most
5 part, deliveries will be the same as they
6 have been all along . And I am not sure
7 if there were any other questions?
8 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The
9 aesthetics --
10 MR. STRANG : As far as the canopy
11 itself, the height of the canopy is
12 primarily a superstructure . Build the
• 13 frame to conceal the actual structure .
14 If the canopy is deigned to currently
15 meet the New York State wind code, so
16 it ' s design to meet 125 mile an hour
17 wind . So there is no safety issue with
18 respect to that . It ' s not going to blow
19 down. The design of the canopy itself,
20 we ' re going to do a gable end roof, along
21 those lines, in my opinion, it would look
22 much more bigger .
23 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay . I think
24 that is pretty much everything . Let ' s
25 ask about the hours of operation .
June 5, 2014 Regular Meeting 84
1 MR. CUDDY : From six in the morning
2 to ten at night . In the summer that ' s
3 extended to eleven or twelve . If you
4 look at the other stations, the house in
5 Cutchogue was a few feet away. There is
6 houses around these stations . Those
7 people and I have looked have not been
8 impacted by that canopy . I understand
9 that you don ' t want lights and things can
10 be taken care of . The others that have
11 been granted, have been in similar
12 situations or much worse situations then
• 13 this . Thank you .
14 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anything else
15 from the Board?
16 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: I just have a
17 question on the height of the lights .
18 Can we just get the height of those
19 lights?
20 MR. STRANG : 16 feet .
21 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: So the bottom of
22 the lens are about 16 feet?
23 MR. STRANG: 15 feet .
24 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Okay. Thank you .
• 25 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there anyone
June 5, 2014 Regular Meeting 85
1 else in the audience that wishes to
• 2 address this application?
3 (No Response . )
4 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Do you want to
5 close the hearing or close it at the
6 Special Meeting?
7 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That ' s a good
8 idea .
9 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Just in case we
10 get any comments from the Planning Board.
11 It would also be beneficial if you could
12 apply to the Planning Board between now
• 13 and then and possibly give us some more
14 updated comments . And possibly be able
15 to close then . If not , then a month from
16 now. Is that okay with everyone?
17 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Yes .
18 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I am going to
19 make a motion that we adjourn this
20 hearing to the Special Meeting in two
21 weeks which is June 19th.
22 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second.
23 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor?
24 MEMBER DANTES : Aye .
• 25 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye .
June 5, 2014 Regular Meeting 86
1 MEMBER HORNING : Aye .
• 2 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye .
3 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye .
4 ( See Minutes for Resolution . )
5 ***** ** *** ********************* * ****
6 HEARING #6758 - ROBERT G . AND
7 MARGARET M. BOMBARA
8 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay. The next
9 application before the Board is for
10 Robert G . & Margaret M . Bombara, #6758 .
11 Request for variance from Article IV
12 Section 280-18 and Article 1 Section
. 13 280-4 definition of buildable land and
14 the Building Inspector ' s April 4 , 2014
15 Notice of Disapproval based on an
16 application for building permit to
17 construct a new single family dwelling,
18 at , 1 ) lot coverage at more than the code
19 permitted maximum 20% based on buildable
20 land, located at : 1725 North Sea Drive,
21 adjacent to Long Island Sound in
22 Southold .
23 Good afternoon . Would you enter your
24 name into the record?
• 25 MR. DANOWSKI : Peter Danowski , Jr . ,
June 5, 2014 Regular Meeting 87
1 616 Roanoke Avenue, Riverhead, New York
• 2 and I am the attorney representing
3 Margaret and Robert Bombara . I have been
4 representing them for approximately six
5 years since they ' ve purchased this
6 property.
7 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So you know the
8 property well . Good . Do you have
9 property cards with you?
10 MR. DANOWSKI : I responded by e-mail
11 today and I will hand up as part of my
12 conversation of response, a letter .
• 13 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Good.
14 MR. DANOWSKI : I have about six boxes
15 related to this application. I never
16 knew about how much to bring here today.
17 Let me just highlight for you without
18 boring you to death and taking up all
19 your time . Margaret and Rob bought this
20 many years ago . They saw a great spot to
21 build a house . They spent a tremendous
22 amount of money for the property at that
23 time, approximately a million dollars .
24 And they saved up their money and wanted
25 to come and live here . They went to the
June 5, 2014 Regular Meeting 88
• 1 Building Department one day and asked a
2 very vague question, and this is not the
3 Building Department . This is actually
4 why I came in . They came in and asked
5 about the property to the Building
6 Department . The normal response was to
7 look at a building envelope as the Zoning
8 Code sets forth and say that you ' re
9 limited by that building envelope . They
10 were told that . They closed on the
11 property for the first time in their
12 lives -- and I will say this, Mr . Bombara
• 13 is a litigation attorney. He heard the
14 words , Coastal Erosion Zone for the first
15 time . By that as you know, the Building
16 Department said we cannot issue a
17 building permit until somebody goes to
18 ( In Audible) management process . And
19 that process begins with an application .
20 It goes to the Trustees . It then results
21 in a necessary application forwarded to
22 the Town Board . We read through seven or
23 eight alternative plans . Each having the
24 DEC approval . We eventually came out of
• 25 that process six years later . That
June 5, 2014 Regular Meeting 89
• 1 process really dealt with what you might
2 imagine, having a house farther away from
3 the Long Island Sound. As a result of
4 that, the first plans proposed the
5 location of the structures 100 feet from
6 the Long Island Sound, which by
7 definition makes up the definition of a
8 beach . As a result of that ( In Audible)
9 seven or eight different plans fully
10 reviewed by the DEC, by the Town
11 Trustees , the CAC and the Town Board. We
12 came up with an approved plan .
• 13 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Can you hold up
14 for one second?
15 MR. DANOWSKI : Sure .
16 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I just want to
17 enter into the record all of the permits
18 that you now have in place .
19 MR. DANOWSKI : Yes . I made an
20 application for the variance and
21 submitted the final set to the Building
22 Department . I would like to hand up a
23 short packet that list the permits .
24 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : There is just
• 25 one copy?
June 5, 2014 Regular Meeting 90
• 1 MR. DANOWSKI : In addition to that , I
2 will hand up some other documents . There
3 is just one of that . I hand delivered to
4 the Building Department when I got the
5 rejection letter, that that would be made
6 part of the Zoning Board ' s . I didn ' t
7 know that it was . So I added it here
8 today. I also included a discussion with
9 the Building Department . What prompted us
10 to go here was , hiring an architect who
11 went through ideas and fully did the
12 construction drawings relying on the
13 Trustees , DEC Wetlands permits . And when
14 they submitted the Building Department
15 application with all those permits and
16 plans in hand, everyone fully expected
17 the building permit to issue . Then in
18 reviewing matters , I was advised a
19 question . And the question concerned
20 itself with a code amendment according to
21 the 2006 process that might have called
22 into question, that despite the fact they
23 had all these permits , a CAC permit, that
24 maybe that is not under the Zoning Code .
• 25 That it ' s under the Wetlands Code . So any
June 5, 2014 Regular Meeting 91
• 1 logical interpretation would say, you
2 cannot get a building permit without
3 first getting ( In Audible) permit . And in
4 my letter to the Building Department, if
5 you look at what is a buildable area, we
6 then question the lot, it talks about the
7 building setbacks and open space area . An
8 open space area is not the ( In Audible)
9 permit area . And I understand logically
10 what that may have meant . That meant if
11 you went though a self created lot , that
12 the plan at the end of the process -- and
• 13 I tell you what, you are going to bust
14 through this and create some open space
15 and we ' re going to require an easement or
16 development rights or sterilization of an
17 area -- a large area that was created.
18 We ' re going to say that this is not
19 buildable . So don ' t come in here later
20 and suggest that you can build in this
21 open space . So that was understandable .
22 That definition still stays . Another
23 definition that falls into play, the
24 Building Department questioning whether
• 25 they can issue the building permit . I
June 5, 2014 Regular Meeting 92
• 1 thought it was logical . I responded by
2 letter . I said, look, if we ' re going to
3 deny this, I wanted an interpretation for
4 a variance . They said, okay. You have to
5 make two applications . Two fees . One for
6 an interpretation and one is a variance .
7 And I put my justification for all of
8 this to the Building Department in
9 writing . I will say this, it was a very
10 pleasant experience although I disagree
11 with the comments made by the Building
12 Department . People apply . They respond.
• 13 Having said that, I would like to hand up
14 a simplified reduced comments here . With
15 regards to the Coastal Erosion Zone
16 permit process, one of the key factors
17 here, there was a creation in this area .
18 In fact , it was set forth in another
19 application by another gentleman who was
20 issued a building permit . So there was no
21 indication of any type of erosion on this
22 lot . I have made some additional copies
23 and I will hand it up . This is a
24 highlighted by our environmental
• 25 consultants . And again, when you look at
June 5, 2014 Regular Meeting 93
• 1 those reports they were used in another
2 application for various different things .
3 All of which reduced in size and set back
4 from the water, which was ultimately
5 granted to obtain a permit . The Town also
6 has an environmental consultant . We took
7 into consideration his recommendation and
8 his comments, and the plan as approved
9 what was placed on the survey plan . It
10 makes mention of Soil & Water
11 Conservation . The application was fully
12 reviewed and applied their comments and
. 13 stamped an approval for the sanitary
14 system as designed. Stamped and
15 approved.
16 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That was one of
17 the questions that I had.
18 MR. DANOWSKI : I responded to their
19 letter and when you submit the
20 application and drawings, it was marked
21 with Health Department approval . I will
22 hand that up . I made more copies as
23 well . And I will also note that not only
24 are there requirements there, we also had
• 25 to construct to FEMA requirements .
June 5, 2014 Regular Meeting 94
• 1 Everything came together and was all
2 consistent with the Trustees permit that
3 was issued. I will also say that I have
4 the earlier letter from Mark Terry that I
5 responded to . I hand delivered a letter
6 to Mark. He appreciated it . He didn ' t
7 realize the covenants had been assigned
8 and is consistent with the Trustees
9 permit . And I hand delivered a copy of
10 that letter to the Board. So all of the
11 issues that Mark had raised were
12 considered and reviewed by the Town
• 13 Trustees and advisory council, stamped by
14 DEC and the Suffolk County Health
15 Department . There is not much more I can
16 say about that, other than, I did make a
17 copy of the fact that, I had submitted
18 this interpretation request to the
19 Building Department and I am not sure if
20 they ever ( In Audible) copy of that . And
21 I am happy to make as many copies as the
22 Board would like . Again, very surprised
23 that I had to come here . There was an
24 amendment to the code by way of
25 application .
June 5, 2014 Regular Meeting 95
• 1 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I can answer
2 the question because the very fact that
3 all properties are seaward of that line .
4 Some of them -- most of them in fact were
5 built prior to the flood map . FEMA
6 changed some of the zones . So anything
7 in that zone is considered non-buildable
8 and therefore is 100% lot coverage,
9 because technically you don ' t have a
10 building site .
11 MR. DANOWSKI : And I understand that
12 other applicants , was -- went through the
• 13 process when some of the same laws
14 applied. So I am not looking to delay
15 matters further .
16 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I want to just
17 ask you a specific question . I want to
18 make certain that plans of the survey and
19 any plans submitted to the Planning Board
20 are the ones that were approved by the
21 Town Board that gave you exemption from
22 Chapter 111 and the Town Trustees?
23 MR. DANOWSKI : That ' s correct . I
24 know it ' s somewhat misleading, to having
• 25 a notice that says that you are exceeding
June 5, 2014 Regular Meeting 96
• 1 the 200 lot coverage . It ' s 6 . 90 of the
2 lot . Not the 200 of the lot as
3 determined by the Building Department and
4 the idea that somehow --
5 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Correct . I
6 just wanted to make sure it was clear on
7 why you were before this Board.
8 MR. DANOWSKI : I appreciate it . I
9 would be happy to answer any questions .
10 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : There were a
11 whole series of environmental litigation
12 measures that were conditioned and
. 13 spelled out in the Trustees permit , Town
14 Board, and I guess there is really no
15 need to enter into the record again,
16 because you really do have all of that in
17 writing .
18 MR. DANOWSKI : Right . And you know,
19 the comments that I submitted covered all
20 those issues . Believe me, it was a very
21 thorough, thorough review .
22 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You addressed
23 Soil & Water . You addressed LWRP . You
24 answered my question if you had Health
• 25 Department approval yet and you answered
June 5, 2014 Regular Meeting 97
1 affirmatively.
2 MR. DANOWSKI : Yes .
3 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The only thing
4 that I would ask you to address is the
5 character of the neighborhood . If you
6 could describe at best , about what is
7 going on along the seaward side of North
8 Sea Road?
9 MR. DANOWSKI : There are existing
10 homes as part of my process , and the
11 Trustees . I have copied them all . All
12 the files in which the Town issued
13 permits . As you know, there were
14 improvements . There were small cottages
15 that are now very large homes . Beautiful
16 homes . No problems there . So from my
17 end, this is not out of character of the
18 neighborhood. Certainly large homes in
19 the neighborhood.
20 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay . My site
21 inspection indicated that between Penny
22 Road and Horton Lane, along North Sea,
23 you have 19 houses . Two or three of
24 those lots are undeveloped along the
25 seaward side . The rest is developed
June 5, 2014 Regular Meeting 98
• 1 property .
2 MR . DANOWSKI : Yes .
3 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Does that sound
4 right?
5 MR. DANOWSKI : That sounds perfectly
6 right . I would say, yes , to that .
7 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let ' s start
8 with some questions from the Board.
9 Eric?
10 MEMBER DANTES : Sure . You talked
11 about a creation?
12 MR. DANOWSKI : Yes, one of the
• 13 reasons why I dropped it off . It ' s
14 public records and part of the Trustees
15 process . I have many documents and I can
16 bring you boxes of material . It was only
17 brought up because there was some
18 questions raised about soil . The
19 sanitary detail that was required and
20 provided as part of the Health
21 Department . I just wanted to point out
22 that among many of the documents that was
23 placed into the record through the
24 process , was our own experts opinion if
• 25 there was any erosion in this area .
June 5, 2014 Regular Meeting 99
• 1 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So it ' s in
2 response to Soil & Water?
3 MR. DANOWSKI : Yes . It was asked
4 what I understood and how it addressed
5 the sanitary system requirements .
6 MEMBER DANTES : And that the beach is
7 increasing?
8 MR. DANOWSKI : Yes . The reason why I
9 got the idea is because Mr . Betts in his
10 application and one of the documents that
11 I picked up and reviewed. He had
12 introduced evidence of a creation. We
• 13 hired several experts who had confirmed
14 that .
15 MEMBER DANTES : Thank you.
16 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Ken?
17 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: No questions .
18 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : George?
19 MEMBER HORNING : No questions .
20 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Gerry?
21 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No .
22 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let me see if I
23 have any more questions in my own notes .
24 Is there anyone else in the audience
• 25 who wishes to address this application?
June 5, 2014 Regular Meeting 100
• 1 (No Response . )
2 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay. We have a
3 tremendous amount of written
4 documentation in our records . Hearing no
5 comments from the audience or the Board,
6 I will make a motion to close the hearing
7 and reserve decision to a later date .
8 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second.
9 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor?
10 MEMBER DANTES : Aye .
11 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye .
12 MEMBER HORNING : Aye .
• 13 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye .
14 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye .
15 (See Minutes for Resolution . )
16 ********** ** ****** ** *****************
17 HEARING #6750 - C . BARSI , LLC & NITIN
18 P . DESAI .
19 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next
20 application before the Board is for C .
21 Barsi, LLC and Nitin P . Desai, #6750 .
22 Request for variance from Article XXII
23 Section 280-116 and the Building
24 Inspector ' s March 25 , 2014 , amended
• 25 March 31 , 2014 Notice of Disapproval
June 5, 2014 Regular Meeting 101
• 1 based on an application for building
2 permit for demolition of an existing
3 single family dwelling, sheds and gazebo
4 and construction of a new single family
5 dwelling, accessory garage and accessory
6 in-ground swimming pool , at ; 1 ) less than
7 the code required setback of 100 feet
8 from the top of the bluff for the
9 accessory in-ground swimming pool,
10 located at : 18915 Soundview Avenue ,
11 adjacent to Long Island Sound in
12 Southold.
• 13 Hi , Rob . Would you enter your name
14 into the record.
15 MR. HERRMANN : Rob Herrmann,
16 En-Consultants , 1319 North Sea Road,
17 Southampton . On behalf of the
18 applicants .
19 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay. This
20 application is for lot coverage -- I ' m
21 sorry, demolition and a pool at 75 feet
22 from the top of the bluff, where the code
23 requires 100 feet . The old dwelling was
24 48 feet .
• 25 MR. HERRMANN : Correct .
June 5, 2014 Regular Meeting 102
• 1 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Now, we have
2 some calculations about net improvement .
3 MR. HERRMANN : This is a good
4 application, we hope you will think .
5 This is a property, as you mentioned,
6 18915 Soundview Avenue . The existing
7 dwelling has a C of 0. It is located at
8 48 feet from the bluff cress and as part
9 of the overall construction site, the
10 house is proposed to be demolished and
11 reconstructed and improved with an
12 in-ground 16X32 swimming pool . But of
• 13 course because of the location of the
14 existing dwelling, when designing the
15 plan, the applicants were mindful of the
16 bluff setback of the Town Code and also
17 the relief that was previously granted by
18 this Board in 2009 for the parcel to the
19 west, which also received Wetlands
20 permits . Both for the property to the
21 west and the east . For what was at the
22 time, ( In Audible) vacant parcel to the
23 west . The Board at that time granted
24 approval for a dwelling on that property
• 25 for a setback of 90 feet from the bluff
June 5, 2014 Regular Meeting 103
• 1 cress and a swimming pool in a
2 nonconforming distance of 75 feet for the
3 subject application . We are actually
4 proposing to meet the 100 foot setback
5 with the dwelling in this case . Because
6 of the location of the existing dwelling,
7 the proposed pool at 75 feet from the
8 bluff is actually about 27 more feet from
9 the existing dwelling . As part of the
10 application, the applicants also propose
11 to remove what the Building Department
12 determined to be not permitted gazebo at
. 13 the top of the bluff stairway. The
14 preexisting structure that is located in
15 the northeast corner, which is less than
16 27 feet from the top of the bluff and
17 also a concrete ( In Audible) that leads
18 to the existing stairway. So the reason
19 why I say it ' s a good application is not
20 only due to its consistency with the
21 design and the adjacent property to the
22 west, but the fact that the overall
23 impact of the project would be a landward
24 retreat from the bluff . So that we have
• 25 much less coverage of a number of
June 5, 2014 Regular Meeting 104
• 1 structures located in that area near the
2 bluff . The New York State DEC has issued
3 a non-jurisdiction letter for the entire
4 site due to the work being done landward
5 to the bluff . And the Town Trustees had
6 issued an administrative permit already
7 which covered everything on this site
8 plan except for the swimming pool . And
9 the reason for that is , the applicants
10 want to get working on the conforming
11 dwelling as soon as possible, but because
12 of the somewhat recently adopted practice
• 13 of the Trustees of not ( In Audible )
14 Wetlands application for a structure
15 requires variance from this Board, we
16 simply took the pool off the application
17 and do what they needed to do for the
18 house, and now go back to them for a
19 swimming pool . It is worth noting that
20 there ( In Audible) about our strategy and
21 as the Board knows because the pool
22 actually exceeds the bluff setback with
23 Chapter 275 by 25 feet , because the
24 setback from the pool by the wetlands is
• 25 actually 50 feet . We also have, we
June 5, 2014 Regular Meeting 105
• 1 propose a 15 foot wide non-turf buffer in
2 place of any existing lawns adjacent to
3 the bluff --
4 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That is not on
5 the survey. Great survey. Oh, here .
6 All right . Thank you.
7 MR. HERRMANN : I think as was the
8 case with the -- I think we did see -- I
9 got a copy of Mark Terry' s LWRP
10 recommendation that it ' s consistent . I
11 have to assume with all the mitigation --
12 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yep .
13 MR. HERRMANN : It is worth noting
14 that if you look at the site plan, the
15 way this property was developed ( In
16 Audible ) .
17 (Whereupon, Mr . Herrmann stepped away
18 from the microphone . )
19 MR. HERRMANN : The
20 applicant/architect are here if the Board
21 has any questions . And I am also here to
22 respond to any questions you may have,
23 and I hope that you will find this to be
24 a good application .
25 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Looks that way
June 5, 2014 Regular Meeting 106
1 to me . Let ' s see, does anyone have
2 questions? Eric?
3 MEMBER DANTES : No .
4 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Ken?
5 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: No questions here .
6 It ' s very thorough .
7 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : George?
8 MEMBER HORNING : I don ' t have any
9 questions .
10 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Gerry?
11 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: You are not doing
12 any huge deck on here that --
13 MR. HERRMANN : No . If there was a
14 deck that we would propose, that would
15 also be subject to the bluff setback.
16 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That is why I am
17 asking . Thank you .
18 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there anyone
19 else in the audience who would like to
20 address this application?
21 (No Response . )
22 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Hearing no
23 further questions or comments , I will
24 make a motion to close this hearing and
• 25 reserve decision to a later date .
June 5, 2014 Regular Meeting 107
1 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second .
• 2 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor?
3 MEMBER DANTES : Aye .
4 MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Aye .
5 MEMBER HORNING : Aye .
6 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye .
7 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye .
8 (See Minutes for Resolution . )
9 ************************* ******* ***** *
10 HEARING #6756 - 230 OYSTERPONDS LANE,
11 LLC .
12 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next
• 13 application before the Board is for 230
14 Oysterponds Lane, LLC, #6756 . Request
15 for variances from Article XXIII
16 Section 280-124 and the Building
17 Inspector ' s April 7 , 2014 Notice of
18 Disapproval based on an application for
19 building permit to construct additions
20 and alterations to existing single family
21 dwelling, at ; 1 ) less than the code
22 required front yard setback of 35 feet ,
23 2 ) less than the code required side yard
24 setback of 10 feet, 3 ) less than the code
• 25 required combined side yard setback of 25
June 5, 2014 Regular Meeting 108
1 feet, located at : 230 Oyster Ponds Lane
• 2 in Orient .
3 Is there someone here to represent
4 this application? Would you enter your
5 name into the record?
6 MS . MARTIN : Amy Martin of
7 Fairweather & Brown representing 230
8 Oysterponds Lane, LLC .
9 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay. So we have
10 a side yard --
11 MS . MARTIN : Preexisting .
12 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Right . And the
• 13 code requires 10 . Combined 24 . 16 . The
14 code requires 25 . Front yard setback of
15 27 , where the code requires 35 . The
16 existing is 28 feet 7 inches ; is that
17 right?
18 MS . MARTIN : The existing front yard
19 setback and the existing side yard
20 setback are the existing house that
21 actually -- the real footprint of the
22 house that they originally purchased. So
23 preexisting nonconforming . The
24 difference is the little cue off the
• 25 front door, is smaller than what is
June 5, 2014 Regular Meeting 109
1 currently there . And so it ' s , you know,
• 2 a portion of a foot less close to the
3 road then what it was before . The house
4 structure of the first floor and all of
5 the second story additions are conforming
6 to the setbacks .
7 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We are here
8 just because it ' s preexisting
9 nonconforming and the proposed conditions
10 are in greater nonconformance .
11 MS . MARTIN : When the architects ran
12 the back addition, he didn ' t realize only
• 13 4 . 4 on the side doesn ' t go to that
14 current setback. That is actually came
15 out less than 25 feet .
16 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : For the
17 combined side yard?
18 MS . MARTIN : Yes .
19 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: So the
20 renovations on the first floor. Turning
21 the attached garage into living space?
22 MS . MARTIN : Yes . Change of use . I
23 mean, it was a garage and now a living
24 space . So that is why they were denied
• 25 the setback . If it were to stay a
June 5, 2014 Regular Meeting 110
1 garage, they would not have denied the
• 2 setback.
3 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You submitted
4 similar variances of the neighborhood .
5 MS . MARTIN : It ' s a historic village
6 area . This is not a historic house .
7 It ' s all one-story ranch house that
8 they ' re going to try and improve . It
9 would look more like it belongs in the
10 Village, I believe . More like the house
11 next door. It ' s not rental property or
12 anything . It ' s for their own family to
. 13 come and stay.
14 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Can I ask some
15 questions?
16 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Please do .
17 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: So we ' re talking
18 total lot coverage of 19 . 750 .
19 MS . MARTIN : Yes .
20 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Question is, is
21 the stone patio going all the way around?
22 Is it raised?
23 MS . MARTIN : It ' s on grade . It does
24 go all the way around the pool area with
• 25 an outdoor fireplace shown . Just to sit
June 5, 2014 Regular Meeting 111
• 1 around outside . The pool will be the
2 focal point for this garden .
3 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: If on final
4 inspection, if this patio is raised in
5 any way, it would be considered lot
6 coverage .
7 MS . MARTIN : Understood . It ' s a
8 fairly flat area now. They intend to
9 keep it as minimal of up keeping and as
10 simple as possible . As far as I know,
11 everyone is on-grade and as accessible as
12 possible .
• 13 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay. Anyone
14 else has questions?
15 (No Response . )
16 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anyone else in
17 the audience who wishes to address this
18 application?
19 (No Response . )
20 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Hearing no
21 further comments or questions, I am going
22 to make a motion to close this hearing
23 and reserve decision to a later date .
24 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second.
• 25 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor?
June 5, 2014 Regular Meeting 112
• 1 MEMBER DANTES : Aye .
2 MEMBER GOEHRINGER. Aye .
3 MEMBER HORNING : Aye .
4 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye .
5 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye .
6 (See Minutes for Resolution . )
7 ************************ *** **** *** ***
8 HEARING #6755 - WILLIAM & KRISTIN VONEIFF
9 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next
10 application before the Board is for
11 William & Kristin Voneiff . Request for
12 variance from Article IX Section 280-49
• 13 (Bulk Schedule) and the Building
14 Inspector ' s April 24 , 2014 Notice of
15 Disapproval based on an application for
16 building permit to construct additions
17 and alterations to an existing business
18 building, at ; 1) less than the code
19 required side yard setback of 25 feet ,
20 located at : 74605 Main Road aka State
21 Route 25 in Greenport .
22 Hi there . Would you enter your names,
23 please, into the record.
24 MR. VONEIFF: Sure . William Voneiff
• 25 and this is Kristin Voneiff .
June 5, 2014 Regular Meeting 113
• 1 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Voneiff?
2 MR. VONEIFF: Yes .
3 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I apologize
4 for --
5 MR. VONEIFF: That ' s all right .
6 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You have an
7 existing building, and part of it is used
8 as your residence?
9 MR. VONEIFF: Yes .
10 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : A side yard
11 setback of 3 . 9 feet .
12 MR. VONEIFF: Yes .
• 13 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It says 1 . 3 on
14 the survey.
15 MS . VONEIFF: There is a part of the
16 building that is set back a little
17 farther and that could be the 1 . 3 .
18 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Maybe the
19 Building Department scaled that .
20 MR. VONEIFF: That front part of the
21 building, the front office is probably
22 1 . 3 and then as you go back it ' s 3 . 9 .
23 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well, the code
24 requires 25 feet and you ' re not going to
• 25 have that . You are proposing actually a
June 5, 2014 Regular Meeting 114
• 1 second floor addition .
2 MR. VONEIFF: We have had a problem
3 with our roof . So that is to rebuild --
4 change the pitch of the roof and while
5 doing that , we would like to add an
6 additional storage above .
7 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And what is the
8 setback from the second story addition
9 side yard?
10 MR. VONEIFF: It stays all the same
11 because the footprint isn ' t changing.
12 It ' s going right above the rear duct and
• 13 comes over the front portion of the shop .
14 The footprint is just -- we would like to
15 have that frame .
16 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay . What is
17 the nature of the business expansion? A
18 business office and a workshop?
19 MR. VONEIFF: Only on the first
20 floor . That is existing . It is just
21 storage on the second.
22 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The workshop is
23 there already?
24 MS . VONEIFF: It ' s there already.
• 25 MR. VONEIFF: Yes .
June 5, 2014 Regular Meeting 115
• 1 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay . So it ' s
2 just strictly storage . What is the
3 business that is currently there?
4 MR. VONEIFF: Sure . We manufacture
5 signs for school buses .
6 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So it ' s your
7 business?
8 MR. VONEIFF: Yes .
9 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I should note
10 here that the Planning Board made
11 comments indicating that they have no
12 objection to the proposed addition .
• 13 MR. VONEIFF: Yes .
14 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It ' s in the
15 General Business B Zone .
16 MR. VONEIFF: Yes .
17 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Eric, any
18 questions?
19 MEMBER DANTES : Sure . How much
20 higher is the roof going to be?
21 MR. VONEIFF: Changing the pitch of
22 the roof, it ' s going to go approximately
23 4 feet higher than it is now. Basically
24 how it works , we ' re talking about that
• 25 front shop?
l
June 5, 2014 Regular Meeting 116
• 1 MEMBER DANTES : Uh-huh .
2 MR. VONEIFF: Basically, when you
3 look at the footprint, it ' s very low .
4 It ' s not a flat roof . What has happened
5 in the past few years, it has been
6 sagging. So we would like to get it to a
7 nice pitch and bring -- build it up and
8 get a little storage area . It ' s really
9 nice .
10 MEMBER DANTES : How high do you think
11 it ' s going to be?
12 MR. VONEIFF: It ' s less than the
13 actual roof that is on . The existing
14 roof on the house, it ' s going to be at
15 least 4 to 5 feet lower than that . The
16 exact , you should have on the blueprint .
17 22 feet , 6 inches . When you look at the
18 blueprint, the front will be a little
19 lower and it will have the peak that you
20 can see from the road.
21 MEMBER DANTES : Okay.
22 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Ken?
23 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: I have no
24 questions .
25 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Gerry?
June 5, 2014 Regular Meeting 117
1 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No .
• 2 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay. Well, is
3 there anyone in the audience who wishes
4 to address this application?
5 (No Response . )
6 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Hearing no
7 further comments, I am going to make a
8 motion to close the hearing and reserve
9 decision to a later date .
10 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second.
11 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor?
12 MEMBER DANTES : Aye .
• 13 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye .
14 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye .
15 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye .
16 (See Minutes for Resolution . )
17 ** ************** *************** *******
18 HEARING #6751 -LOUIS AUERBACH (ESTATE OF)
19 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next
20 application before the Board is for Louis
21 Auerbach, (Estate of) , #6751 . This is a
22 request for a Waiver of Merger under
23 Article II , Section 280-10A, to unmerge
24 land identified as SCTM #1000-111-6-17 ,
• 25 based on the Building Inspector ' s
June 5, 2014 Regular Meeting 118
1 April 1 , 2014 Notice of Disapproval ,
• 2 which states adjoining conforming or
3 nonconforming lots held in common
4 ownership shall merge until the total lot
5 size conforms to the current bulk
6 schedule (minimum 40 , 000 square feet in
7 this R-40 Residential Zone District ) this
8 lot is merged with lot #1000-111-6-18 ,
9 located at : 1750 and 1850 Haywaters Road
10 in Cutchogue .
11 Is there someone here to represent
12 this application? Would you please enter
• 13 your name into the record .
14 MS . FOLTS : I am Mary Lou Folts of
15 Larken and Folts , 2875 Main Road,
16 Cutchogue . The firm represents the
17 petitions Roy Allen Auerbach and for the
18 Estate of Louis Auerbach. They reside in
19 Texas and could not be here . I am here
20 on their behalf . Their father died in
21 June of 2013 .
22 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Can you review
23 with us on how this merger occurred?
24 MS . FOLTS : The Auerbach ' s purchased
• 25 their original lot in 1962 and owned that
June 5, 2014 Regular Meeting 119
1 lot since that time, which was Lot #73 .
• 2 Then they bought in 1967 bought the
3 vacant lot next door . They never thought
4 that it would be considered a merged lot .
5 They bought that lot for when their
6 children have kids and they get older .
7 Most of -- as you can see from the
8 application, most of the lots from this
9 area remain -- half acres, 25, 000 square
10 foot lots . The tax map changed over the
11 years but the numbers haven ' t . I think if
12 you read the criteria, it would qualify
• 13 for a Waiver of Merger . This has been in
14 the Auerbach family. ( In Audible ) . The
15 houses are on half acre lots . They are
16 not on 40, 000 square foot lots . When you
17 look at the application, it would be like
18 having this island of nonconformity. This
19 40 , 000 lot would be out of character of
20 the neighborhood . The current lot is
21 comfortable to the size and shape of this
22 interior neighborhood.
23 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That is the
24 undeveloped lot, 21 , 972 ?
• 25 MS . FOLTS : Yes . The house lot has
June 5, 2014 Regular Meeting 120
1 irregular dimensions . Like I say, it ' s
• 2 only due to legislation, that the Nassau
3 Point came to be under the regulations .
4 All the lots were undersized and
5 nonconforming . So in 1974 they were all
6 considered nonconforming lots . It ' s only
7 through the Merger Law that these lots
8 became merged .
9 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So when did this
10 merge take place or was this just merged
11 by force of law?
12 MS . FOLTS : By force of law.
• 13 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It ' s not that
14 it ' s merged upon death?
15 MS . FOLTS : No . Deeds were in both
16 names .
17 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay.
18 MS . FOLTS : It ' s something that has
19 occurred and is still in the family. The
20 parents wanted to keep the lot for the
21 kids and maybe build a home . They kept it
22 vacant and have not built anything on it .
23 It ' s just naturally vegetated. I went
24 down there this week and looked at the
25 properties and what I saw was half acre
June 5, 2014 Regular Meeting 121
1 lots . Not huge homes . I don ' t think what
• 2 they ' re proposing to have a building on,
3 would adversely effect the
4 environmentally. I think it would be
5 effected if it was left as one lot and a
6 mic-mansion being built on this one lot .
7 I think the application, in some what
8 speaks for itself . I go through the
9 criteria for the Waiver of Merger . The
10 law requires that we have a Public
11 Hearing so that the Board and the people
12 know what is going on and what will be
• 13 built on it . There is a for sale sign in
14 front of it . The estate would like to
15 sell it . They would like to leave the
16 home as it is if possible and have a
17 small lot next door .
18 MEMBER DANTES : Are they currently in
19 contract for sale?
20 MS . FOLTS : I believe they are in
21 negotiation with the neighbors . My
22 partner is in discussions with the
23 neighbors and she will come up shortly
24 and they are interested in buying it .
• 25 They would like to be able to keep the
I
June 5, 2014 Regular Meeting 122
1 house there and do a second modest home .
• 2 What they are looking for is something
3 for their family . Ms . Gorman has an
4 elderly mother and they would like --
5 they have been looking for something in
6 this area and when the sign came up, they
7 were very happy. This is in their
8 backyard. So they are not looking to
9 have a mic-mansion go up in their
10 backyard and upsetting the neighborhood.
11 So basically that is what she would
12 like .
• 13 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: If there is a
14 merge on those two lots , someone would
15 have to advise them on what to do .
16 MS . FOLTS : My partner was handling
17 that . That would instantly cause a
18 problem.
19 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : If the Board
20 determines that this would be unmerged,
21 this is a ( In Audible) that utilizes the
22 lot line change . You have to file with
23 the County to create it .
24 MS . FOLTS : Right .
• 25 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Then you could
June 5, 2014 Regular Meeting 123
1 do what you want . And since people were
• 2 not always aware that they had to do
3 that, we had a large lots that had to be
4 unmerged. We don ' t want to do that
5 anymore .
6 MS . FOLTS : It happened first here
7 with the Auerbach ' s . They had no clue .
8 They never thought that . They got two
9 separate tax bills . They thought they
10 were two separate lots .
11 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Unfortunately
12 most people who are in similar
• 13 circumstances were unaware of this code .
14 MS . FOLTS : Right . Ms . Gorman is
15 here and she would like to let the Board
16 know what her current proposal is for the
17 property. She would like to reassure you
18 what she would think would be good for
19 the neighborhood .
20 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay .
21 MS . GORMAN : Hi, good afternoon .
22 Dahlia Gorman .
23 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: You have to use
24 the mic .
• 25 MS . GORMAN : Okay. Can you hear me?
June 5, 2014 Regular Meeting 124
1 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes .
• 2 MS . GORMAN : As she said, I am here
3 because I would like to purchase the
4 property. I know, you know, would like
5 the property in my backyard. ( In
6 Audible) . My fear is that ( In Audible)
7 backyard. So I want the Auerbach house .
8 It ' s a tear down really . I would like to
9 keep it as a home and upgrade it . Redo
10 the interior . It ' s old. We want to do
11 something like that .
12 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: I ' m sorry, did you
• 13 say you bought the Auerbach house or --
14 MS . GORMAN : I walked through it .
15 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Okay. You walked
16 through it .
17 MS . GORMAN : I am looking into
18 purchasing the property, the two lots . I
19 did walk through it and my fear is
20 whoever is going to get rid of the
21 house . It ' s a --
22 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We have all been
23 there by the way .
24 MS . GORMAN : Okay. Good . I brought
• 25 some pictures with me . So that is my
June 5, 2014 Regular Meeting 125
1 biggest fear to have a bigger house .
• 2 What I would like to eventually do is
3 renovations to this house . You know,
4 make it higher . Preserving the natural
5 growth, you know. We have lived in this
6 area for 12 years . The property now is
7 ' 98 , ' 97 and we moved there . We built a
8 house . And it ' s a very nice house . It ' s a
9 small house . We use everything that we
10 could. I try to keep everything natural .
11 We like the natural growth. I want to say
12 that, with my husband ( In Audible)
• 13 experience . I work in an office ( In
14 Audible) Cambridge . My husband has very
15 extensive experience . We order architect
16 consultant . We work with the clients .
17 ( In Audible) .
18 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let me assure
19 you that anyone who wants to live in that
20 neighborhood is maintaining the property
21 and so on. That being said, the basis
22 upon this Waiver of Merger taking place
23 is a series of standards . Character of
24 the neighborhood with the recognition of
• 25 lots that are typical lots in the
June 5, 2014 Regular Meeting 126
1 neighborhood. That the lots have been
• 2 maintained by the family. That is just
3 some of the basis for Waiver of Merger .
4 MS . GORMAN : Okay.
5 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So no one
6 inadvertently is injured by this law. So
7 I think we have everything that we have
8 in order to proceed. Unless anyone else
9 on the Board has any questions?
10 MEMBER DANTES : I would just say, if
11 you purchase it, be careful that it
12 doesn ' t get merged again.
• 13 MS . GORMAN : I see .'
14 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : When lots are
15 held in the same name, by force of law,
16 the two gets merged, if they are
17 adjacent . To become more conforming to
18 the code . So what we want to make sure
19 you do is follow whatever legal
20 requirements they are so that this
21 doesn ' t happen again .
22 MS . GORMAN : Okay .
23 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: If you were to buy
24 one of those lots, one of them would
• 25 merge . So I would suggest to you to speak
June 5, 2014 Regular Meeting 127
1 to an attorney who is knowledge in
• 2 Southold Town Merger Law . Okay? Thank
3 you .
4 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The point has
5 already been made . The fact that you and
6 your neighbors understand the
7 neighborhood and want to maintain certain
8 characteristics . So you know, those
9 points are all valid. Primarilay, the
10 standards that we have to apply, that is
11 what we have to have information into the
12 record. That is fine, if you want to
13 submit some letters of support, that ' s
14 fine .
15 MS . GORMAN : ( In Audible . )
16 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I will tell you
17 this , I am going to ask for a show of
18 hands . How many of you in the audience
19 are neighbors? Okay. Okay. And how
20 many of you support this merger? Okay.
21 Please come to the microphone and state
22 your name .
23 MS . MCFADDEN : My name is Sheila
24 McFadden . I own the property from the
25 corner --
June 5, 2014 Regular Meeting 128
• 1 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay .
2 MS . MCFADDEN : And we have not ( In
3 Audible) and that has sort of been my big
4 concern . I don ' t have to get another
5 one . I would rather not get another one .
6 Whatever is built there, I don ' t want it
7 to be something that will change the
8 whole architecture underneath . That was
9 my concern .
10 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It ' s my
11 understanding that if any new
12 construction takes place, the house that
• 13 is there now has its own well . When new
14 construction takes place, public water --
15 MS . MCFADDEN : That is what I want to
16 address . ( In Audible) effects the well
17 water . Knowing her and knowing her -- I
18 see no irrigation system that would be
19 put in . That was really my biggest
20 concern .
21 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thank you for
22 your concerns . Sir, come to the podium
23 and state your name .
24 MR. SERTL : My name is William Sertl
• 25 and I live across from Sheila . I guess
June 5, 2014 Regular Meeting 129
• 1 behind the Gorman ' s .
2 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Would you just
3 spell your name?
4 MR. SERTL : Yes . S-E-R-T-L . I am not
5 sure -- I know Sheila . I just wanted to
6 make sure that we are all trying to
7 achieve it as one big lot . In other
8 words , not a mic-mansion .
9 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I ' m sorry, you
10 have to address the Board. If you look at
11 me and say that, she will hear you .
12 MR. SERTL : I just wanted to make
• 13 sure that we know what is clear, that
14 Sheila ( In Audible ) I can tell her after
15 the meeting, but I just figured I would
16 get it out there .
17 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay. Is there
18 anyone else in the audience?
19 (No Response . )
20 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anything else
21 from the Board?
22 (No Response . )
23 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay. Hearing no
24 further questions or comments , I am going
• 25 to make a motion to close this hearing
June 5, 2014 Regular Meeting 130
• 1 and reserve decision to a later date .
2 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second.
3 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor?
4 MEMBER DANTES : Aye .
5 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye .
6 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye .
7 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye .
8 (See Minutes for Resolution . )
9 **************** ***************** ******
10
11 (Whereupon, the June 5, 2014 Public
12 Hearings concluded at 2 : 57 P . M. )
• 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
• 25
June 5, 2014 Regular Meeting 131
1
2 C E R T I F I C A T I O N
3
4
5
6 I , Jessica DiLallo, certify that the
7 foregoing transcript of tape recorded Public
8 Hearings was prepared using required electronic
9 transcription equipment and is a true and accurate
10 record of the Hearings .
11
12
• 13 Signatur #essica
14 DiLallo
15
16
17 Jessica DiLallo
Court Reporter
18 PO Box 984
Holbrook, New York 11741
19
20 Date : June 20, 2014
21
22
23
24
25