HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-07/10/2014 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 July 10 , 2014
9 : 33 A. M.
10
11
12 Board Members Present :
13 LESLIE KANES WEISMAN - Chairperson/Member
14 GERARD GOEHRINGER - Member
15 GEORGE HORNING - Member (Left at 2 : 14 p .m. )
16 KENNETH SCHNEIDER - Member
17 ERIC DANTES - Member
18
19 VICKI TOTH - Secretary
20 STEPHEN KIELY - Assistant Town Attorney
21
22
Jessica DiLallo
23 Court Reporter
P . O . Box 984
24 Holbrook, New York 11741
25 ( 631 ) -338-1409
2
1
2 INDEX TO HEARINGS
3
4 Hearing Page
5 Karol Filipowski, #6747 3-3
6 Karol Filipowski . #6748SE 3-3
7 Michael Ranson, #6753 3-13
8 CACI Partners, LLC, #6761 13-20
9 Robert G . Warden & Margaret
10 S . Warden, #6768 20-25
11 Nicolas De Croisset, #6762 26-41
12 DOMELUCA, LLC #6766 41-48
13 Michael Johnson, #6764 48-52
14 Thomas & Kathleen Burke, #6763 52-75
15 Jewell Gonzalez, #6765 76-84
16 Helen Stratigos , #6767 84-107
17 MMMM Beer, LLC, #6770 107-116
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
July 10, 2014 Regular Meeting 3
1 HEARING #6748 & #6748SE - KAROL FILIPKOWSKI
2 The following application, Karol
3 Filipkowski, #6748 was adjourned without
4 a date . Application #6748SE was
5 adjourned to August 7 , 2014 at 9 : 30 a .m.
6 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor?
7 MEMBER DANTES : Aye .
8 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye .
9 MEMBER HORNING : Aye .
10 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye .
11 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye .
12 (See Minutes for Resolution . )
13 **** **** ******** * *******************
14 HEARING #6753 - MICHAEL RANSON
15 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Michael
16 Ranson, #6753 . This was adjourned from
17 June 5 , 2014 Public Hearing .
18 (Whereupon, the tape started during
19 the presentation of Mr . Goggins to the
20 Board. )
21 MR. GOGGINS : -- and so they
22 issued, the Building Department , issued
23 an amended Notice of Disapproval dated
24 July 1 , 2014 and the other structure
25 that is listed on the Notice of
July 10, 2014 Regular Meeting 4
1 Disapproval is the storage shed . The
2 last time that we were here ( In Audible)
3 bulkhead to the front of the storage
4 shed, which the Building Department
5 determined ( In Audible ) . I also
6 confirmed it on the survey that was
7 submitted to the Board. It was 30 feet .
8 Also the Board requested that I try and
9 find other type of structures in the
10 area . So I did . I ( In Audible ) low tide .
11 But I did take a few photos that I will
12 hand up to the Board. They are not as
• 13 clear as they could be . The first
14 picture shows the structure -- the first
15 picture shows one storage lot or a shed .
16 The second picture shows another storage
17 facility, a locker room with a deck on
18 top of it . Then after that , another
19 storage shed. The next picture is
20 another storage shed . These are pictures
21 that I am just taken in the immediate
22 area . Historical , I know that there are
23 no ( In Audible ) . Some are large and some
24 are small . The ones that I do have, it
• 25 appears that no one has ( In Audible ) of
July 10, 2014 Regular Meeting 5
• 1 the bulkhead that goes down onto the
2 beach . These people use these storage
3 sheds ( In Audible ) .
4 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : From where to
5 where along the shoreline?
6 MR. GOGGINS : From Laurel Lane to
7 ( In Audible) Drive . So it' s about a two
8 mile stretch . Some of them were set back
9 from the property line .
10 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And about how
11 many of these are storage sheds ,
12 gazebos? About how many would you
• 13 calculate are along that shoreline?
14 MR . GOGGINS : About 10 .
15 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Do you know if
16 any of them have any CO' s?
17 MR . GOGGINS : I don' t know . I would
18 have to look at tax map numbers and
19 research every one . I don' t know for
20 sure ( In Audible ) Southold Town Code, a
21 residential structure or commercial
22 structure ( In Audible) and at sometime
23 ( In Audible ) .
24 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : In addition to
25 the information that you have just
July 10, 2014 Regular Meeting 6
• 1 brought in, ask for a revised or updated
2 survey that shows the setbacks as stated
3 in the Notice of Disapproval , but also
4 the setback to the deck . The setback to
5 the gazebo . This survey is really tiny
6 and we really can' t see where all of
7 these structures are located.
8 MR. GOGGINS : ( In Audible ) to get
9 this stuff done . I went to the Building
10 Department and received the Notice of
11 Disapproval .
12 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So you are
• 13 suggesting that the new Notice of
14 Disapproval no longer addresses anything
15 other than the setbacks?
16 MR. GOGGINS : Correct . That is the
17 "as-built" accessory structure shed. We
18 are only talking about the shed now. We
19 are not talking about the patio . We are
20 not talking about the stairs . We are not
21 talking about the gazebo . Only the shed.
22 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And I just
23 want to enter this into the record . How
24 is it the "as-built" accessory
• 25 structures , the deck, gazebo and so on,
July 10, 2014 Regular Meeting 7
• 1 are no longer subject to review of this
2 Board? Just the shed. Why is that?
3 MR. GOGGINS : The Building Inspector
4 made the determination ( In Audible) .
5 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Did you
6 discuss the other structures at all? I
7 am just confused .
8 MR. GOGGINS : I did. I showed him
9 the survey. He just said you needed a
10 permit for this . You needed a permit for
11 that . You don' t need a permit if the
12 deck ( In Audible) .
• 13 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The patio is
14 at grade . I don' t think that was ever
15 before us . The deck is determined to be
16 at grade .
17 MR. GOGGINS : Yes .
18 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I would like
19 to know how you get an at grade deck?
20 When they say it' s at grade, that means
21 you can run a lawn mower over it . There
22 is no elevation .
23 MR. GOGGINS : Correct .
24 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I don' t
• 25 believe that was the case when I was out
July 10, 2014 Regular Meeting 8
• 1 there . Let' s see if the other members
2 have any questions . Eric?
3 MEMBER DANTES : No . Nothing .
4 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All of these
5 structures are sort of attached .
6 MR. GOGGINS : I don' t think it' s
7 under the gazebo .
8 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It ' s seaward .
9 MR. GOGGINS : I don' t think it ' s
10 structural .
11 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It' s set back
12 from a nonconforming distance from the
• 13 bulkhead . I would respectfully argue
14 that the structure also needs variance
15 relief .
16 MR. GOGGINS : ( In Audible ) future .
17 Presently, there is an application
18 before the Building Department for a
19 Pre-CO .
20 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I understand
21 that . At the last hearing you said that
22 it was denied .
23 MR. GOGGINS : I must have misstated .
24 ( In Audible . ) I believe ( In Audible . )
• 25 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We would like
July 10, 2014 Regular Meeting 9
• 1 to get a copy of the Pre-0O3 if you
2 obtain it for the gazebo .
3 MR . GOGGINS : Sure .
4 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Looking at the
5 Notice of Disapproval, the most recent
6 one . There is a permit for "as-built"
7 accessory structures , in plural and in
8 parenthesis . The structures might
9 indicate other structures besides the
10 shed or is it specific to the shed? When
11 I read it that way, it' s a little -- we
12 are just dealing with the shed.
• 13 MR . GOGGINS : Just dealing with the
14 shed.
15 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I would
16 venture to say that he never changed any
17 of the boiler plate .
18 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Then we are
19 agreeing that it' s for the shed?
20 MR . GOGGINS : Yes .
21 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: And how is the
22 20 . 3 determined again?
23 MR . GOGGINS : The Building
24 Inspector ' s made that determination and
25 I also made that determination . I also
July 10, 2014 Regular Meeting 10
is 1 went out to the property to confirm it .
2 I personally went out there on Saturday
3 to measure it .
4 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Okay. Thank you .
5 And you talked to Damon --
6 MR . GOGGINS : I talked to Michael
7 Verity. I met with Michael Verity
8 because I wanted to show him everything
9 that I had .
10 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Okay. Thank you .
11 I have no more further questions .
12 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : George?
• 13 MEMBER HORNING : Okay . The LWRP
14 determines that the project is
15 inconsistent . In No . 5 of that, in
16 particular, it says , the portion of the
17 accessory structures are located within
18 the VE Flood Zone of 11 . So on the
19 survey, that appears to include stone
20 patio, some portions of wood decking and
21 the shed is not located in that VE Zone ;
22 is that correct?
23 MR . GOGGINS : Correct .
24 MEMBER HORNING : So what is your
25 comment about Statement #5 , where he is
July 10, 2014 Regular Meeting 11
1 saying that we should not consider that
• 2 statement?
3 MR. GOGGINS : Yes , because the shed
4 is not in the VE Zone . Possibly at the
5 time that they prepared that document ,
6 they were maybe still looking at the ( In
7 Audible . )
8 MEMBER HORNING: Right .
9 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Gerry?
10 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: So when you went
11 out there, the pictures, not as good as
12 Nassau Point .
• 13 MR. GOGGINS : The winds were ( In
14 Audible . )
15 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Did you observe
16 a lot of new bulkhead ' s from west to
17 east?
18 MR . GOGGINS : Yes .
19 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Could you assume
20 that some of these storage buildings
21 have been replaced? You can see a
22 difference in the sheathing? It stands
23 out more .
24 MR. GOGGINS : It was difficult from
• 25 my distance . It would appear that much
July 10, 2014 Regular Meeting 12
1 of them are older .
• 2 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: So maybe the
3 bulkheads were damaged and the
4 structures that were there, they
5 existed?
6 MR. GOGGINS : Correct .
7 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Thank you .
8 MR. GOGGINS : I didn ' t see any new
9 ones . I saw a lot of old ones in that
10 area .
11 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Thank you .
12 MR. GOGGINS : You ' re welcome .
• 13 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay. Is there
14 anyone in the audience who wishes to
15 address this application?
16 (No Response . )
17 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I am going to
18 poll the Board. My suggestion is that we
19 adjourn to next month to see if we can
20 get the Pre-CO . So that we know it' s
21 included . So that we don' t have to
22 start all over again . I think you are
23 going to need a survey anyway . I would
24 like to request a copy. If you can get
• 25 that survey to us by the next hearing,
July 10, 2014 Regular Meeting 13
1 along with the Pre-CO and the affidavit?
• 2 MR. GOGGINS : Okay.
3 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Vicki found
4 it . Okay. Is there anything else?
5 (No Response . )
6 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I think we
7 will need some more testimony and some
8 possible more questions . So let' s
9 adjourn to August . So hearing no further
10 comments or questions, I am going to
11 make a motion to adjourn this hearing to
12 August 7th at 9 : 45 .
• 13 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second.
14 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor?
15 MEMBER DANTES : Aye .
16 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye .
17 MEMBER HORNING : Aye .
18 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye .
19 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye .
20 (See Minutes for Resolution . )
21 ** ********* *** ****** ** ****** *****
22 HEARING #6761 - CACI PARTNERS, LLC .
23 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next
24 application before the Board is for Caci
• 25 Partners , LLC, #6761 . Request for
July 10, 2014 Regular Meeting 14
1 variance from Article III Section
• 2 280-15B and the Building Inspector ' s
3 May 28 , 2014 Notice of Disapproval based
4 on an application for building permit
5 for demolition and reconstruction of an
6 existing accessory building at : 1 ) less
7 than the code required side yard setback
8 of 25 feet , located at : 56125 Main
9 Road, aka, New York State Route 25 , in
10 Southold .
11 Good morning .
12 MS . MOORE : Patricia Moore on
• 13 behalf of the Cacioppa Family and the,
14 Caci , LLC . I have with me Mrs . Cacioppa
15 today and I have the Mullen Brothers,
16 who are here on behalf of this
17 application . It was kind enough for them
18 to come today and support the
19 application .
20 The storage building that is the
21 subject of this application was
22 originally on the plans . Has always been
23 on the plans . It was intending to being
24 preserved. They are actively trying to
• 25 preserve culturally and actively, all
July 10, 2014 Regular Meeting 15
1 these structures that are on the
• 2 property. This particular structure --
3 actually in 2003 was part of the site
4 plan when the rest was Eon . This
5 application, when they submitted the
6 building permit, they actually put in a
7 new foundation . They did the renovation
8 of the structure . And the contractor
9 proceeded with the final phases of the
10 renovation, it was obvious that the
11 sheathing of the structure had
12 deteriorated from water damage . So at
• 13 that point , that was replaced and at
14 that time, the 75% maximum of
15 pre-construction was exceeded. That is
16 why we are here today . The sheathing has
17 been replaced . The final phase is the
18 interior . That hasn ' t been done . As I
19 pointed out in the paperwork, the
20 intention for this building would be for
21 the chef . It' s proximity to the rest is
22 very important . It provides the storage
23 for a restaurant , as well as a quiet
24 place he can sit and plan his meals . The
• 25 need for this structure is very
July 10, 2014 Regular Meeting 16
1 important to the operations of the
2 restaurant . As a side note, the
3 accessory structure setback doesn ' t
4 work . The required setback of 25 feet
5 in a Hamlet Business , doesn ' t make sense
6 in a district . ( In Audible ) So it' s
7 something to keep in mind for these
8 applications . It' s something to think
9 about . The accessory buildings are
10 using the zoning for the residential
11 setback for the size . These lots , we ' re
12 operating under the accessory structure
• 13 setbacks that doesn ' t make sense .
14 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Just for the
15 record, what you are requesting is
16 relief from is a 3 . 7 foot side yard
17 setback?
18 MS . MOORE : Yes . That structure was
19 built prior to zoning . That was a
20 conforming setback until the late 80' s
21 when it became a 5 foot setback . As I
22 said, this structure was intended to be
23 an in-kind and in-place renovation . It
24 was just the condition of the structure
• 25 that pushed it to a variance
July 10, 2014 Regular Meeting 17
1 application . Until such time of such a
• 2 variance was needed, it was just a
3 standard renovation .
4 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thank you,
5 Pat . Gerry, any questions?
6 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Not at this
7 time .
8 MEMBER HORNING: Pat, when you
9 mentioned ( In Audible) .
10 MS . MOORE : Dry storage .
11 MEMBER HORNING: No food preparation
12 going on out there?
. 13 MS . MOORE : No .
14 MEMBER HORNING : And he will have a
15 desk in there?
16 MS . MOORE : Maybe a table or
17 something .
18 MEMBER HORNING : And to reiterate
19 what you said about the zoning changes ,
20 you said it was conforming?
21 MS . MOORE : This has been a
22 residence long ago . Then it was a two
23 family residence . Then prior to the
24 adoption of the master plan, that zoning
• 25 was for a two family, antique shop and
July 10, 2014 Regular Meeting 18
1 there was something else that was
2 unclear from the record, which then the
3 application became nullified from the
4 adoption of the master plan . And then
5 after that, when Eon came in, it got
6 site plan approvals . So this particular
7 structure was always part of the
8 process . Just with the way the code is
9 today, 25 foot setbacks is really ( In
10 Audible ) for any accessory structure in
11 the commercial district .
12 MEMBER HORNING : And when was that
• 13 ordinance put in place, the 25 foot
14 setback .
15 MS . MOORE : ' 89- 190 . 2000 maybe .
16 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I think it was
17 more like 2005 . Recently.
18 MS . MOORE :' Recently.
19 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Ken, any
20 questions?
21 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: What is the
22 adjoining property?
23 MS . MOORE : It' s Albertson' s . The
24 front of it is a yoga studio and there
. 25 is a little cafe in there as well . Then
July 10, 2014 Regular Meeting 19
1 there is a long driveway to the back,
• 2 which is Albertson' s and using it for
3 part of their boat operations . To the
4 east of the storage building, there is a
5 fence and to the east of that , is their
6 driveway . So there is really no
7 neighbor that is being impacted .
8 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Very good .
9 Thank you . I don' t have any questions .
10 MEMBER DANTES : No questions .
11 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I was about
12 to say the same thing .
• 13 MEMBER HORNING : We were provided
14 some prior decisions --
15 MS . MOORE : Yes , I provided them.
16 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And just
17 remind me again, when was the accessory
18 structure likely to be built? Do you
19 have a rough idea?
20 MS . MOORE : From the 20 ' s , 301s ,
21 even earlier .
22 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Prior to
23 zoning?
24 MS . MOORE : Prior to zoning .
• 25 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there
July 10, 2014 Regular Meeting 20
1 anyone else in the audience that wishes
2 to address this application?
3 (No Response . )
4 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Hearing no
5 further questions or comments , I am
6 going to make a motion to close this
7 hearing and reserve decision to a later
8 date .
9 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second .
10 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor?
11 MEMBER DANTES : Aye .
12 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye .
13 MEMBER HORNING : Aye .
14 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye .
15 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye .
16 (See Minutes for Resolution . )
17 ************************************** *
18 HEARING 46768 - ROBERT G . WARDEN &
19 MARGARET S . WARDEN .
20 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next
21 application before the Board is for
22 Robert G . Warden and Margaret S . Warden,
23 #6768 . Request for variance from
24 Article XXIII Section 280-124 and the
25 Building Inspector ' s June 6, 2014 Notice
July 10, 2014 Regular Meeting 21
1 of Disapproval based on an application
• 2 for additions and alterations to an
3 existing single family dwelling, at : 1 )
4 less than the code required minimum rear
5 yard setback of 75 feet , located at :
6 2945 Equestrian Avenue, adjacent to
7 Little Hay Harbor, Fishers Island.
8 MR. FITZGERALD : Good morning. My
9 name is Sam Fitzgerald. New Branch,
10 Connecticut . I am the architect for the
11 project . Appearing on behalf of the
12 owners, Bob and Margaret Warden . I will
• 13 be very brief . I just have one visual
14 aid. This is a photo montage of the --
15 showing the proposed addition . If you
16 take this off, the rest of it is what
17 you see today. It is a one story
18 addition that we are proposing . 408
19 square feet . It is the minimize size
20 that the owners need in order to
21 accommodate an extended growing family .
22 The addition will house a kitchen area .
23 It is located on this side of the house .
24 To better intergrade those functions ,
• 25 the kitchen and the dining room. There
July 10, 2014 Regular Meeting 22
• 1 are no better alternatives for viable
2 locations for the addition . The entire
3 existing house is well within the area .
4 Any where you add on the house, you
5 would need variance . There are two
6 properties that could potentially see
7 the site of the addition . One over here
8 and here . There is a hedge that is
9 right here, that is taller than the
10 addition . So these neighbors will not
11 see the addition . So their view would be
12 what it is now . So I think it is fair to
• 13 say that this project will have no
14 negative impact on the neighbors . I
15 believe that what we have submitted to
16 the Board -- I have this for the Board .
17 I would be happy to answer any
18 questions .
19 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I just want to
20 enter into the record that , what we are
21 talking about here is a rear yard
22 setback of 15 feet, where the code
23 requires 75 feet .
24 MR. FITZGERALD : Yes .
• 25 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let' s see if
July 10, 2014 Regular Meeting 23
• 1 there are any questions . George, do you
2 want to start?
3 MEMBER HORNING : I could . Can you
4 tell us -- the survey doesn ' t show it,
5 you said the whole house is
6 nonconforming?
7 MR. FITZGERALD : 15 . 6 feet is
8 existing .
9 MEMBER HORNING : And is there any
10 way you think they can stick with that
11 existing distance?
12 MR . FITZGERALD: Given how close
• 13 the house already is, we have cut back .
14 This is the minimum that we would need
15 to proceed for the project .
16 MEMBER HORNING : Okay. And you are
17 saying that it' s a 480 square foot
18 proposed one story addition?
19 MR . FITZGERALD: Yes .
20 MEMBER HORNING: Can you give us a
21 close approximate distance of the
22 neighboring properties?
23 MR. FITZGERALD: So from the side
24 yard here . We have them here .
• 25 MEMBER HORNING : To the house
July 10, 2014 Regular Meeting 24
• 1 itself?
2 MR . FITZGERALD : Yeah .
3 MEMBER HORNING : What was the first
4 distance?
5 MR. FITZGERALD: 110 .
6 MEMBER HORNING: Around 110 . Okay .
7 No objections filed from his neighbors ;
8 is that correct?
9 MR. FITZGERALD: Correct .
10 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We should note
11 that the LWRP is exempt .
12 Ken?
• 13 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: No questions .
14 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Eric?
15 MEMBER DANTES : I am just confused
16 as to why it' s a rear yard and not a
17 side yard.
18 MR. FITZGERALD: ( In Audible . )
19 (Mr . Fitzgerald stepped away from
20 the microphone . )
21 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It ' s a very
22 small rear yard. It shows on the survey
23 a 15 foot setback from the corner of the
24 proposed addition .
• 25 MEMBER HORNING : Do you have a date
July 10, 2014 Regular Meeting 25
• 1 of the original construction?
2 MR. FITZGERALD : It was rebuilt
3 around ( In Audible . ) It was rebuilt on
4 the existing foundation .
5 MEMBER HORNING : And the house was
6 built prior to code?
7 MR. FITZGERALD : Yes .
8 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there
9 anyone else in the audience that wishes
10 to address this application?
11 (No Response . )
12 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Hearing no
• 13 further questions or comments , I will
14 make a motion to close this hearing and
15 reserve decision to a later date .
16 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second.
17 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor?
18 MEMBER DANTES : Aye .
19 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye .
20 MEMBER HORNING : Aye .
21 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye .
22 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye .
23 (See Minutes for Resolution . )
24 **** **************************** * ***
25 HEARING #6762 - NICOLAS DE CROISSET
July 10, 2014 Regular Meeting 26
• 1 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next
2 application before the Board is for
3 Nicolas De Croisset, #6762 . Request for
4 variances from Article XXIII Section
5 280-124 and Article XXII Section 280-116
6 and the Building Inspector ' s
7 January 13 , 2014 Notice of Disapproval
8 amended/renewed April 22 , 2014 Notice of
9 Disapproval , based on an application for
10 building permit for demolition of an
11 existing single family dwelling and
12 construction of a new single family
• 13 dwelling at; 1 ) less than the code
14 required front yard setback of 35 feet,
15 2 ) less than the code required bulkhead
16 setback of 75 feet, located at : 20 Third
17 Street, adjacent to Great Peconic Bay in
18 New Suffolk.
19 MR. KIMACK: Good morning, Mike
20 Kimack for the applicant .
21 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Good to see
22 you again . Let' s just state for the
23 record that we have a proposed front
24 yard setback of 9 . 3 feet, where the code
• 25 requires 35 minimum. And a bulkhead
July 10, 2014 Regular Meeting 27
• 1 setback of 13 . 1 feet , where the code
2 requires minimum of 75 .
3 MR. KIMACK: That is correct . It is
4 an existing nonconforming cottage on the
5 property . It had storm damage that was
6 from Sandy . The proposal is for an
7 elevated house, not changing the front
8 of the house or the setbacks from the
9 bulkhead. It will remain the same .
10 Essentially raising it above the FEMA
11 required amount . The flood line of FEMA
12 is 8 feet and the ground level is about
• 13 5 .
14 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : How far from
15 grade is to the first floor will be
16 elevated?
17 MR. KIMACK: The first floor was to
18 be elevated 8 feet from grade . If you
19 got the plans , you will see it
20 documented on the second page .
21 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So the first
22 floor will be about 8 feet . And how high
23 to the ridge?
24 MR. KIMACK: 30 feet, I believe .
• 25 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Are you saying
July 10, 2014 Regular Meeting 28
• 1 that the 8 foot elevation is consistent
2 with FEMA regulations?
3 MR. KIMACK: Their floor line is at
4 8 foot . It' s normally required to be 2
5 to 3 feet above that . This particular
6 area is fairly low. So it is susceptible
7 and will be, not only to storm surges
8 but wave actions .
9 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So the
10 proposal is to build a new structure
11 within the presumable existing
12 footprint . Now, why is it that you
• 13 cannot make those setbacks more
14 conforming, since you ' re demolishing the
15 structure?
16 MR . KIMACK: Because of the site
17 itself is small . In order to get the
18 septic in place . In order to get the
19 stormwater in place and things like
20 that . We really don' t have a lot --
21 well, we can' t move it back . The side
22 yard is at 9 . 22 , on the north side . It' s
23 at an angle . Are you saying move it
24 back.
• 25 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well , we have
July 10, 2014 Regular Meeting 29
• 1 two nonconforming setbacks .
2 MR. KIMACK: The one from the
3 bulkhead, the 75 feet would be
4 difficult . There is a shed on the
5 property that could be relocated. It
6 would be very hard to meet the 75 foot
7 setback, simply because the lot is
8 small .
9 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I am simply
10 inquiring not only the front yard but
11 the bulkhead . I just simply what to get
12 your answers for the record .
• 13 MR. KIMACK: Because of the location
14 and the size of the property, we would
15 never be able to meet the 75 foot as it
16 is .
17 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That' s
18 understood. I see the septic is being
19 removed .
20 MR . KIMACK: It' s being removed
21 because basically it' s being relocated
22 in order to gain enough distance over
23 the water table . There is about a 1 to 2
24 foot grade elevation in order to meet
25 code .
July 10, 2014 Regular Meeting 30
• 1 MEMBER HORNING : Sir, what are the
2 triangular shape --
3 MR. KIMACK: Those are the photos .
4 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Perhaps you
5 could submit prior variances for that
6 area? Do you want to address some of
7 those, character of the neighborhood?
8 MR. KIMACK: Well , character of the
9 neighborhood, it' s small lots . There
10 are other nonconforming lots throughout
11 the neighborhood . When I did the
12 research, I tried to stay within a block
13 of the area . What you got basically is ,
14 much shorter than -- I think lot #7 ,
15 which is closest to this property, that
16 was basically a reconstruction of an
17 existing family dwelling . The one on
18 the other side, 48 , is a deck addition
19 with the required side yard setback .
20 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So you have
21 one at 50 feet?
22 MR . KIMACK: And one at 9 . 5 .
23 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Bulkhead?
24 MR. KIMACK: No, that' s for the
25 front yard setback .
July 10, 2014 Regular Meeting 31
1 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Any bulkhead
• 2 variances .
3 MR. KIMACK: This one here, 31 . 2
4 feet . That is No . 1 . No . 2 , I didn' t
5 indicate how far from the bulkhead. That
6 was a reconstruction of the existing
7 dwelling . No . 3 , additions and
8 alterations to an existing family
9 dwelling . Less than 75 feet to the
10 bulkhead.
11 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : What is the
12 current ( In Audible ) of the existing
• 13 cottage .
14 MR. KIMACK: I think it' s about 900
15 to 915 square feet .
16 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And the
17 proposed? It' s in the application . I
18 just wanted it on the record .
19 MR . KIMACK: I don' t have it at
20 hand, I think 1100 to 1200 square feet .
21 So you can see in the survey, you can
22 see the old ( In Audible) if you look at
23 it .
24 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well, with
25 regards to the comments for the
July 10, 2014 Regular Meeting 32
1 sanitary, I should enter into the
• 2 record, the LWRP has determined that the
3 actions are consistent with the polices
4 and the actions of the LWRP . Noting
5 primarily that even the size of the lot,
6 there is no ability to relocate the
7 structure with adequate sanitary system
8 outside of the VE Zone . The first floor
9 of the elevation will be raised to 14
10 foot and mitigates storm surge impact .
11 MR. KIMACK: Yes .
12 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Ken,
. 13 questions?
14 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Yes . So the
15 existing dwelling has a front yard
16 setback of 9 . 3 feet . And a 19 . 7 foot
17 setback from the bulkhead?
18 MR . KIMACK: That is correct .
19 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: And you ' re
20 proposing to demolish the existing
21 structure and build a new one? Having
22 the same 9 . 3 front yard setback, but now
23 you want to have a 13 . 1 foot setback to
24 the bulkhead because of a proposed
• 25 partial wrap around deck?
July 10, 2014 Regular Meeting 33
1 MR. KIMACK: There is an existing
is 2 porch there and that porch is set back
3 4 . 6 . So the deck is not going to be any
4 further . It' s actually about a foot less
5 than that .
6 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: The existing
7 structure is not at 19 . 7 , it ' s at 12 . 6 .
8 MR. KIMACK: Yes . It' s a raised
9 deck.
10 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Wait , what is at
11 12 . 6?
12 MR. KIMACK: There is a deck in
• 13 front of the house .
14 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: At 12 . 6?
15 MR. KIMACK: Yes . From the bulkhead.
16 So it' s going to be about a foot away
17 from the bulkhead setback that --
18 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: So you will be
19 decreasing the nonconformity?
20 MR . KIMACK: Yes .
21 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Okay . That takes
22 care of that . Very good. I have no
23 further questions .
24 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Eric?
• 25 MEMBER DANTES : No questions .
July 10, 2014 Regular Meeting 34
1 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Gerry?
• 2 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Yes . You had
3 discussed the possibility with the
4 Chairperson, the possibility of moving
5 the structure back from the great
6 Peconic Bay. And what was your
7 statement?
8 MR. KIMACK: It would have to be --
9 my statement would be -- can it be
10 achieved, I am looking at it going, if
11 in fact , we had to shift it back, we
12 would have to make sure -- if we shifted
• 13 it back, we would have to do it in a way
14 we don' t make it any closer because
15 there is an angulation there . Can we
16 pull it further north? Perhaps a little
17 bit and then push it back towards the
18 east . If you see where the septic system
19 is , it has to be --
20 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Feet away.
21 MR. KIMACK: It has to be a minimum
22 of 10 feet . We can bring that side
23 elevation down .
24 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: This sanitary
• 25 system is not going to be within a
July 10, 2014 Regular Meeting 35
• 1 cement wall area?
2 MR. KIMACK: No, it doesn ' t have to
3 be .
4 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Okay.
5 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: So you can move
6 the project north?
7 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Come and state
8 your name for the record, please .
9 MR. DE CROISSET : Nicolas
10 De Croisset . I think that the back drop
11 of this is ( In Audible) and meets
12 regulatory requirements . Our intention
• 13 is to sort of finish cleaning up . But
14 between Sandy and having lived there
15 since 2007 , ( In Audible ) on the
16 property. We have been doing and
17 thinking about this for a long time
18 before we pursued it . It' s quite
19 agonizing when coming to terms of doing
20 this house . Anyway, in terms of putting
21 the -- moving the house back, we park
22 our cars back there but there is no town
23 requirement we can' t park our cars
24 there . So if there is no -- obviously
• 25 the farther back I go, the closer I am
July 10, 2014 Regular Meeting 36
• 1 to that property. If they change the car
2 parking rules , I am in trouble . To the
3 extent there is no violation with the
4 septic and we can do it , and it' s a
5 matter of moving it back a few feet , I
6 have no problems with that .
7 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: North from the
8 bulkhead? I am looking for more
9 bulkhead .
10 MR. DE CROISSET : I have no
11 objections to that . We have to get
12 inside the house too because the stairs
• 13 are on the side . If I move it all the
14 way back, then I am very close to my
15 neighbors . They have a cottage . I don' t
16 want to crowd them either .
17 MEMBER HORNING : Sir, I noticed a
18 little foot path there . Is that public
19 access?
20 MR. DE CROISSET : Yes . Those people
21 often park in front of my house . It ' s a
22 beach that is really used by people in
23 the Town . And then there is the shed, I
24 don' t to move the shed in their view. So
• 25 depending how far back, I would like to
July 10, 2014 Regular Meeting 37
• 1 keep that shed . If I can move it back
2 a little bit, I can move both
3 structures .
4 MEMBER HORNING : Can you turn the
5 house?
6 MR . DE CROISSET : If you notice, the
7 roof is to the --
8 MEMBER HORNING : But you are
9 building a new house?
10 MR. DE CROISSET : Right, but I don' t
11 want to take my neighbors view, it would
12 cut their view of the north .
13 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well , the
14 other thing that is important to
15 recognize, you are obligated to have
16 some onsite parking as a residential
17 lot . The code requires two spaces . So
18 to an extent, if that is the reasonable
19 area, you are going to have to access it
20 from your front yard somehow . Perhaps
21 from the area right now . Let' s see if
22 there is someone in the audience -- you
23 pointed out that there was a neighbor in
24 the audience, why don' t you come
25 forward .
July 10, 2014 Regular Meeting 38
is 1 MS . MARTIN : Good morning, Jane
2 Martin . We are totally in support of the
3 setbacks that are proposed. It' s the
4 preexisting cottage ( In Audible)
5 minimize his impact on us , if you move
6 it back to our line, we have a cottage
7 right there . Where our folks sit out .
8 This has become so popular that during
9 the summer, you can' t park anywhere . The
10 issue -- the only issue that we have, on
11 the survey it says that we have private
12 water and we do not . We have two private
• 13 wells . 120 feet from the newly proposed
14 septic . So I just wanted to go on record
15 with that .
16 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That would be
17 a Health Department issue .
18 MS . MARTIN : Yes , and we will be
19 following up with them. I just wanted
20 that noted .
21 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Do you know
22 where your wells are?
23 MS . MARTIN : I don' t have the
24 survey --
25 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Could you go
July 10, 2014 Regular Meeting 39
• 1 in the field and identify it and put a
2 marker there?
3 MS . MARTIN : Sure .
4 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We just think
5 that it would be helpful for the
6 applicant and the Department of Health .
7 So they would be able to take that into
8 consideration when they review the
9 application .
10 MS . MARTIN : Yes . Also I am just
11 questioning the height from the first
12 floor? Is there something that requires
• 13 -- it says 5 and they have 9 . Is there
14 --
15 MR. DE CROISSET : There is a couple
16 of things . The FEMA flood requires
17 that . It requires at least 5 feet .
18 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Elevation
19 wise?
20 MR. DE CROISSET : Correct . To the
21 first floor .
22 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Minimum to the
23 first floor is 5 feet .
24 MR. DE CROISSET : ( In Audible) .
• 25 (Mr . De Croisset stepped away from
July 10, 2014 Regular Meeting 40
1 the microphone . )
2 MR. DE CROISSET : I am a little
3 nervous about it . I think we can
4 definitely bring it down a foot, to 8 .
5 MS . MARTIN : The plan has been
6 really thought out . With the exception
7 of the shower .
8 MR. DE CROISSET : The shower can go .
9 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The shower can
10 go .
11 MS . MARTIN : So yes , thank you .
12 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there
• 13 anything else from the Board?
14 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: I would just
15 like to comment again about the parking
16 and the need for parking . And the high
17 use of Third Street during the summer
18 with people using the beach. I have a
19 concern that you can maintain a two car
20 lot, two spaces on your parcel . So I
21 don' t think it' s necessary that you have
22 to move it more north . I would rather
23 see you have adequate parking, so you
24 can keep your cars on your property. You
• 25 are increasing the bulkhead setback with
July 10, 2014 Regular Meeting 41
• 1 your proposal .
2 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay.
3 Anything lese from the Board?
4 (No Response . )
5 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anything
6 else from the audience?
7 (No Response . )
8 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay. Hearing
9 no further questions , I will make a
10 motion to close this hearing and reserve
11 decision to a later date .
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 #6766 - DOMELUCA, LLC
22 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next
23 application before the Board is for
24 Domeluca, LLC . Request for variance from
• 25 Article III Section 280-15 and the
July 10, 2014 Regular Meeting 42
1 Building Inspector ' s June 4 , 2014 Notice
2 of Disapproval based on an application
3 for building permit to construct
4 in-ground swimming pool , at ; 1 ) proposed
5 location other than the code required
6 rear yard, located at : 149.09 Main Road,
7 aka State Route 25, adjacent to Dam Pond
8 in East Marion .
9 MR . KIMACK: Mike Kimack for the
10 applicant . This is a -- although what is
11 proposed before you, it' s a side yard
12 typically because of the type of land
• 13 that is there . We are all familiar with
14 it . When you get into East Marion ( In
15 Audible) --
16 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: We have been
17 there .
18 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We have all
19 done site inspection .
20 MR. KIMACK: If you look at the
21 configuration of the land, certainly you
22 can' t do more because of the land and
23 goes down . It falls off into the east .
24 And it' s very steep from the house, the
• 25 other way. That area really represents
July 10, 2014 Regular Meeting 43
• 1 the easiest and best place to put the
2 pool . Also from the architects concept
3 and renovating the existing structure
4 and adding around a series of walkways .
5 It' s going to be a 18x87 pool . I think
6 it' s about 4 foot high off the northwest
7 corner and 6 1/2 high to the east
8 elevation.
9 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So we are
10 looking at a pool in the side yard. It' s
11 exempt from LWRP . I ' m sorry, consistent
12 because it ' s far away as possibly as it
13 can be . I have two questions . The height
14 if the retaining wall, can you explain
15 that --
16 MR. KIMACK: Yes , I gave you a
17 series of drawings .
18 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes , it' s
19 right here . I can' t really read that --
20 MR. KIMACK: I did it again .
21 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It ' s very hard
22 to read .
23 (Mr . Kimack approached the Board. )
24 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I know it has
23 to be quite high .
July 10, 2014 Regular Meeting 44
• 1 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: It is all
2 connected .
3 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It' s a big
4 platform that is being created.
5 MR. KIMACK: That is true .
6 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well, it is a
7 structure .
8 MR. KIMACK: It would have been
9 part of the house with a 2 to 3 foot
10 walkway around it . It would have been
11 attached --
12 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Attached .
• 13 MR. KIMACK: We opted to apply for
14 the variance .
15 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I don' t see on
16 the survey, a drywell for pool
17 dewatering . We ' re going to need that .
18 MR. KIMACK: Yes . There is a
19 complete separate survey that all the
20 drywell ' s that are going in on the
21 property.
22 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Can you get
23 that?
24 MR. KIMACK: That is for stormwater
• 25 management . I will get that to you . It' s
July 10, 2014 Regular Meeting 45
• 1 difficult because the properties are
2 merged on one survey .
3 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It' s a
4 beautiful spot .
5 MR. KIMACK: Isn ' t it . You don' t
6 notice until you walk to the side or the
7 back .
8 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The neighbors
9 are quite far away.
10 MR. KIMACK: Yes . It' s probably
11 about 200 feet plus away from the
12 property line .
• 13 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Questions ,
14 Eric?
15 MEMBER DANTES : Yes . On site
16 inspection it looks like the neighbors
17 pool is in line with this one?
18 MR. KIMACK: It wasn ' t intended to
19 be . I never looked at that in taking
20 this into consideration . It' s a fairly
21 -- it runs the length of the terrace .
22 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: We generally
23 condition these pool applications to
24 have all the pool mechanicals into an
• 25 enclosure . Is there any problem with
July 10, 2014 Regular Meeting 46
• 1 that?
2 MR. KIMACK: I don' t think so . The
3 architects are pretty adept to coming up
4 with that .. I will get to you before the
5 next meeting, the drywell ' s .
6 1CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes, please .
7 George?
8 MEMBER HORNING : Yes , there is
9 reference to an east dwelling . Will that
10 proposed dwelling -- it' s an addition --
11 MR. KIMACK: There is two separate
12 corporations here . It' s a little
• 13 complicated. There are nine lots and ( In
14 Audible ) two lots . The overall piece of
15 property is about 10 acres . With the
16 assigned lots , it' s going to be about
17 7 . 7 acres .
18 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And here is
19 where the proposed guest --
20 MR. KIMACK: Yes, that is going to
21 be another application .
22 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay .
23 MEMBER HORNING : The survey that we
24 have , does that reflect with these
• 25 merged lots?
July 10, 2014 Regular Meeting 47
• 1 MR. KIMACK: These are showing 2 . 6 .
2 It doesn ' t show the assignment of the
3 lots . When we put the application
4 together -- when you look at the overall
5 lot -- these are all lots .
6 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Right .
7 MEMBER HORNING : Okay . A little
8 complicated.
9 MR. KIMACK: A little bit . There is
10 a common driveway for both .
11 MEMBER HORNING : So we can assume ,
12 what looks like an attachment, is
• 13 actually an at grade structure?
14 MR. KIMACK: Which one is that?
15 MEMBER HORNING : The walkway between
16 the existing dwelling and proposed
17 dwelling?
18 MR. KIMACK: It ' s basically ground
19 level walkway . I took pictures of that .
20 I will bring it up to you . There is a
21 series of platforms , walkways and stairs
22 around the house . The walkway is ground
23 level .
24 MEMBER HORNING : Thank you .
• 25 MR. KIMACK: It' s going to be an
July 10, 2014 Regular Meeting 48
• 1 interesting marriage of what is existing
2 now.
3 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It will be .
4 Okay . Is there anyone else in the
5 audience that would like to address this
6 application?
7 (No Response . )
8 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Hearing no
9 further questions or comments , I am
10 going to make a motion to close the
11 hearing subject to receipt of a survey
12 showing survey with drainage and pool
• 13 dewatering .
14 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second.
15 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor?
16 MEMBER DANTES : Aye .
17 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye .
18 MEMBER HORNING: Aye .
19 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye .
20 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye .
21 ( See Minutes for Resolution . )
22 ** ****************** * ********* *****
23 HEARING #6764 - MICHAEL JOHNSON
24 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next
• 25 application before the Board is for
July 10, 2014 Regular Meeting 49
• 1 Michael Johnson, #6764 . Request for
2 variance from Article XXIII Section
3 280-124 and the Building Inspector ' s
4 June 3, 2014 amended June 5 , 2014 Notice
5 of Disapproval based on an application
6 to convert existing unheated enclosed
7 porch to conditioned living space in an
8 existing single family dwelling, at : 1 )
9 less than the code required minimum
10 front yard setback of 40 feet , located
11 at : 38200 Main Road, aka, New York Stat
12 Route 25 in Orient.
13 Hi, could you state your name?
14 MR. MURRAY : Hi, good afternoon . My
15 name is David Murray. I am acting as
16 agent for Michael Johnson and the
17 builder and also, my wife is the
18 architect on the project --
19 (Whereupon, the tape stopped and
20 resumed during Mr . Murray ' s
21 presentation . )
22 MR. MURRAY : It has been an enclosed
23 porch for many years and we are actually
24 moving -- there is not going to be an
• 25 entrance to this living room. The
July 10, 2014 Regular Meeting 50
• 1 entrance is actually going to be moved
2 to the other side of the home . The
3 entrance is going to be closed off .
4 There is going to be ( In Audible )
5 entering the home from the side . This
6 made sense to do . This opens it up, and
7 they have a very nice home . The home was
8 built . I think 1920 with this porch on
9 it . The neighbor has said this porch has
10 been there forever .
11 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And you are
12 not proposing to change the roof line?
• 13 MR. MURRAY : That is correct .
14 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : There will be
15 no visual impact?
16 MR . MURRAY : No .
17 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there any
18 questions? Gerry?
19 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Is there a ( In
20 Audible) on why you needed a variance?
21 MR . MURRAY : He had indicated that
22 this was unconditioned space and that is
23 why we needed a variance .
24 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: And what was the
• 25 reason for the second Notice of
July 10, 2014 Regular Meeting 51
• 1 Disapproval?
2 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It says it was
3 because of new information provided by
4 the applicant .
5 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Okay . Thank you .
6 MR. MURRAY : I did a second building
7 permit application . From the very small
8 survey that we had, Damon and the
9 architect tried to scale that . I was
10 requested to get another survey and that
11 came back with more accurate numbers . We
12 are not changing the footprint .
• 13 MEMBER HORNING : Thank you .
14 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Any other
15 questions?
16 MEMBER DANTES : I have no questions .
17 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: No .
18 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : There is no
19 one else in the audience .
20 So I am going to make a motion to
21 close this hearing and reserve decision
22 to a later date .
23 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second.
24 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor?
• 25 MEMBER DANTES : Aye .
July 10, 2014 Regular Meeting 52
• 1 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye .
2 MEMBER HORNING: Aye .
3 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye .
4 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye .
5 (See Minutes for Resolution . )
6 * ********** *************** ***********
7 HEARING #6763 - THOMAS AND KATHLEEN
8 BURKE
9 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next
10 application before the Board is for
11 Thomas and Kathleen Burke . Applicant
12 requests a Special Exception under
• 13 Article III , Section 280-13 (B) . The
14 applicant is the owner requesting
15 authorization to establish an accessory
16 apartment in an accessory structure,
17 located at : 1570 Bray Avenue, corner of
18 Fourth Street in Laurel .
19 Now, is there somebody here in the
20 audience to address that application?
21 MR. IRRGANG : I am the neighbor .
22 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Were you here
23 to testify in any way?
24 MR. IRRGANG : Yes .
25 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well here is
July 10, 2014 Regular Meeting 53
• 1 the story. We received a request due to
2 a death in the family to adjourn the
3 public hearing to next month, which we
4 will do so that the applicant has an
5 opportunity to present what they would
6 like us to hear . We have done an
7 interior inspection . We have the option
8 of taking some testimony now, if you
9 would like to do that, and enter it into
10 the record. We would then make sure that
11 the applicant had a copy, we record it,
12 of the hearing transcript . If they would
• 13 like to reply in any way to anything
14 that you might want to offer . They would
15 have the opportunity to do it next month
16 when we hear their application . The
17 Board is willing to do that . If you
18 would like to testify now or if you
19 would like to come back next month?
20 MR. IRRGANG : Sure .
21 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : "Sure"
22 meaning, what? "Sure , " you would like to
23 testify today or "sure, " you would like
24 to come back next month?
• 25 MR. IRRGANG : ( In Audible . )
July 10, 2014 Regular Meeting 54
• 1 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Then why don ' t
2 I do this . The hearing is open . Let' s
3 make a note that we ' re going to honor
4 the request of the applicants to hear
5 their application on August 7th at
6 10 : 00 a .m. I will make that as a motion
7 when we adjourn . Let the record reflect
8 that we have someone in the audience, a
9 neighbor, who would like to make some
10 comments on this application . If you
11 would please step up to the podium and
12 state your and spell your name for the
• 13 record. Then we would welcome your
14 comments .
15 MR. IRRGANG : Robert Irrgang . My
16 address is 200 Fourth Street, which I
17 border the property. The apartment that
18 they are talking about . My spelling is
19 I-R-R-G-A-N-G .
20 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : What would you
21 like us -- let me just state this . We
22 have a proposal for a 616 square foot
23 accessory apartment with one bedroom.
24 The owner lives in the principal
• 25 dwelling on the property year round, and
July 10, 2014 Regular Meeting 55
• 1 according to our information is renting
2 this apartment . This has been there
3 since 1926 to a cousin .
4 MR. IRRGANG : I ' m sorry, what was
5 that?
6 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I ' m sorry . She
7 has been there 26 years is what I was
8 told on site inspection .
9 MR. IRRGANG: The apartment, the
10 garage?
11 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Apparently,
12 there were some confusion about where
• 13 the lot lines were . Which lot was which .
14 It was my understanding that this
15 applicant originally stayed in that
16 apartment while they were building the
17 house that they now live in . Whether
18 that is on one piece of property or two
19 pieces of property, at the time, there
20 was a question about it . But at the
21 moment , on one piece of property. So
22 that is why they are now trying to
23 legalize the apartment for quite some
24 time . The code now permits them to come
• 25 forth and request a legalization of that
July 10, 2014 Regular Meeting 56
• 1 with a Certificate of occupancy. Just so
2 you are aware restrictions . They are not
3 to be made as market rentals . They have
4 to be either rented to someone who is a
5 family member and proven, or they have
6 to rent to someone who qualifies for the
7 Affordable Housing Registry through our
8 Special Projects Coordinator . Generally,
9 that is someone who is a teacher, a
10 firefighter . You know, it' s not low
11 income . It' s workforce . So that is what
12 the code now requires . And it can ' t be
• 13 any bigger than 750 square feet and it
14 has to be on one floor . That' s it in a
15 nutshell . That is the background now. I
16 would like to hear what you have to say,
17 sir .
18 MR. IRRGANG: The keyword, they were
19 trying to legalize it . I am 100% against
20 it . My property is the one that borders
21 right up against it . If I look out my
22 window, which I have pictures and I hope
23 you people look at, is right there . As
24 soon as I look out my kitchen window,
• 25 it' s 15 feet away . So just to be 100%
July 10, 2014 Regular Meeting 57
. 1 sure, I am 100% against it . I have lived
2 there since 1990 . That is when I moved
3 into my house . I do have the folder . I
4 looked at the file and looked at
5 everything . I saw the original owner,
6 Barry, who was trying to do this or
7 whatever . It doesn ' t matter . Originally
8 Barry owned this house . He owned the
9 property that was sold to the Burke' s
10 and he owned my property too . And that
11 all got busted up . Somewhere along the
12 line, in 1979 according to the file, he
• 13 was building a garage . And that is what
14 you guys let him do . That was it . As he
15 was doing that, he kept writing letters
16 to you with changes and changes and
17 changes . And none of that changed. That
18 remains legal . Living space some where
19 was created, I don ' t know when or by
20 whom or whatever, but when I moved in
21 there in 1990 , the Burke' s did live
22 there . Him and his wife and his child.
23 They lived there when I moved into my
24 house . In 1990 I rented it . In talking
• 25 to them, this is a pretty old thing
July 10, 2014 Regular Meeting 58
• 1 here, and I agree with you, the
2 understanding was , they were building a
3 house and I knew about that . In 1992
4 they did build that house and moved into
5 it . I did come down to the Town and
6 asked about it . I got a copy of my
7 survey. The property is so close . They
8 actually used that because my property
9 -- and I did come down even though I was
10 renting it, I got a copy of my survey .
11 That was my first interaction with the
12 Town, which would be 1990 when I rented
• 13 my house . I didn ' t make a big deal about
14 it or anything . They had said they were
15 going to move into their house . After
16 they did move into their house, you
17 know, they rented it out . It was rented
18 out almost all the time -- the whole
19 time . Probably ( In Audible ) ten to
20 twelve tenants that have been up there .
21 They lived there from a couple of months
22 from to five years in the apartment .
23 From that ( In Audible) .
24 (Whereupon, the tape malfunctioned
• 25 and then testimony resumed . )
July 10, 2014 Regular Meeting 59
• 1 MR. IRRGANG : -- this was the first
2 time -- if you guys turned this down,
3 what happens? Do we just go on another
4 20 years doing the same thing? Can
5 anybody answer that?
6 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I can
7 procedurally answer it for you . If in
8 fact the applicant does not qualify to
9 have this apartment legalized or by the
10 way, up until 2010 when the code
11 changed, there was no way to legalize
12 this because what would constitute a
13 second dwelling on the property, unless
14 there was a pre-co on it that authorized
15 it . Prior to zoning . As this was the
16 case for many apartments actually in the
17 Town . Many apartments are not legal .
18 Whether they are in a persons house or
19 accessory structure . The point is, in
20 2010 , the Town Board made a code to
21 permit an accessory apartment in an
22 accessory structure, as long as the
23 structure had been in existence prior to
24 2008 , and under the limited conditions
• 25 that the owner would have to occupy the
July 10, 2014 Regular Meeting 60
• 1 apartment ( In Audible) land owner and
2 the tenant would have to be either a
3 family member or someone on the
4 registry. That was to make more
5 affordable units out of existing stock,
6 rather than turn around and have to
7 build more houses and so on . To look at
8 ways in which we can bring into
9 conformance some of these structures
10 that were already out there or if
11 somebody wanted to propose building from
12 scratch in an older accessory building
• 13 structure . So there was nothing that
14 they could do . The Special Exception is
15 very straight forward. The code, which I
16 can give you a copy of explains the
17 basis for approval or denial and if you
18 meet the standards , you generally get
19 approved . If you don ' t , then you don ' t .
20 MR. IRRGANG : This is a rare case
21 because this was already built .
22 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No, most of
23 the ones -- we have seen approximately
24 15 since 2010 . Only one was not already
• 25 built . Again, a part of the intent here
July 10, 2014 Regular Meeting 61
• 1 was to try to legalize some of these
2 illegal things and make sure that the
3 fire department knew about it .
4 MR. IRRGANG : Exactly.
5 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : To provide
6 safety and that kind of stuff . We don ' t
7 want people living where the fire
8 department doesn ' t know about it . It' s a
9 danger and we want to make sure that the
10 construction is up to code . All right .
11 So that was its purpose . Now, if it were
12 something to be turned down, then the
13 Building Department would be made aware
14 of it because there is an application
15 and a decision and part of the town
16 record. And at that point, a complaint
17 should be issued, not by us but by you,
18 to the Building Department , and code
19 enforcement would have to take over .
20 That will go though the Town Attorney' s
21 Office and the Building Department . It
22 would then become a Code Enforcement
23 issue . A violation would have to be
24 issued and then appearance in court and
25 a court proceeding would have to take
July 10, 2014 Regular Meeting 62
1 place . That is the procedure that would
• 2 be followed .
3 MR. IRRGANG : So it could take 20
4 years?
5 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I couldn ' t
6 possibly tell you what the timeframe is .
7 I would hope that it would be dealt with
8 in a more expedient manner .
9 MR. IRRGANG : I watch the local
10 Board thing on the TV about this and
11 that . You know, Vineyard 48 . I see what
12 that poor man is going through . And I
• 13 see that they pulled his liquor license
14 and all of that . Nobody knew nothing.
15 There is still nothing that nobody can
16 legally do, and that is the answer that
17 I am trying to get . Legally --
18 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well, I
19 described what the procedure is . I can ' t
20 any more to that issue then what I have
21 just described. That is the procedure to
22 follow .
23 MR. IRRGANG: So basically you could
24 say no . I don ' t know how the decision
• 25 will come out but the decision could be
July 10, 2014 Regular Meeting 63
1 known?
• 2 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well, if you
3 wish to have a copy of the decision --
4 MR. IRRGANG : Oh, I do .
5 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That is easy
6 enough . It will become public record. It
7 will be on the Town' s website and also
8 can request a copy from our office .
9 MR. IRRGANG: They could be told
10 "no, " and they can still rent it out
11 another 10 years . That could still
12 happen .
13 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : They would be
14 operating illegally.
15 MR. IRRGANG : They are operating
16 illegally right now .
17 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It' s out of
18 our hands and its in the hands of the
19 Building Department, Code Enforcement
20 and the Town Attorney's Office .
21 MR. IRRGANG: Okay.
22 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there
23 anything else that you would like to
24 tell us?
• 25 MR. IRRGANG : Yes . So basically
July 10, 2014 Regular Meeting 64
1 these are the reasons why. The property
• 2 itself, on a second story. When you look
3 down it' s on my property . So it' s a
4 total encroachment of my privacy.
5 Because I have pictures here that I
6 would like to get put into the record,
7 please .
8 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That' s fine .
9 MR. IRRGANG : And also what I am
10 saying here, I would like to get put
11 into the record too .
12 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You have that
• 13 in writing?
14 MR. IRRGANG : Yes , I do .
15 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay . Great .
16 That' s fine .
17 MR. IRRGANG : Thank you . If you look
18 at the pictures, you will see how close
19 -- I got a couple of different views
20 there . I have the photos . I just
21 mentioned that . There are some bushes
22 there, arborvitaes and I put up a fence
23 there . I have pictures of that . I put up
24 a stockade fence which was a cost to me .
• 25 Not anybody else . Also with that
July 10, 2014 Regular Meeting 65
• 1 stockade fence , I tried to -- with the
2 arborvitaes and the stockade fence, I
3 tried to deaden the noise, but the sound
4 that is there, you can ' t turn off the
5 sound. When I come home -- you know, the
6 apartment is right there . They ' re
7 watching TV, you might as well watch the
8 same TV program because it' s that close .
9 So it' s a noise thing .
10 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : How far is
11 your house from the side yard?
12 MR. IRRGANG : My house on my
• 13 property yard is like 15 feet and then
14 the apartment is 3 feet off of that
15 line .
16 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Back in the
17 day when accessory structures were
18 permitted, you know --
19 MR. IRRGANG : I was going to say
20 that . This was just their house and a
21 garage, I wouldn ' t be here today . At
22 all .
23 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : -- understand.
24 Okay.
• 25 MR. IRRGANG : So I tried to deaden
July 10, 2014 Regular Meeting 66
1 the noise and I tried to add wood to the
• 2 fencing, and it did nothing . There was
3 an incident, which I am going to get to .
4 There was a personal things that
5 happened that I really don ' t want to
6 discuss here but I wrote them in here
7 and I would like you guys to read it
8 when I hand this in to you, as part of
9 this file . Okay?
10 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We will make
11 sure each Board member has a copy.
12 MR. IRRGANG: Great . I actually had
. 13 to install after that incident, I had to
14 install security cameras around the
15 house, which I did. It was a cost to me .
16 It' s causing me a lot of harassment, and
17 I had to put a security system in, which
18 I have pictures of that too in here,
19 because of this one incident . Also, I
20 know you talked to me about the timing
21 of this and that , but ( In Audible) the
22 house was rebuilt -- newly rebuilt or
23 something --
24 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Hold on a
• 25 second. Let me just get the attention of
July 10, 2014 Regular Meeting 67
1 the Board to refocus and pay attention
• 2 to the testimony . Go ahead.
3 MR. IRRGANG : In 2004 , the 1460 ( In
4 Audible ) building a new house there .
5 What happened is , the Town came along
6 and actually made them chop off 3 feet
7 off the house because it was too close
8 to the line . So the point that I am
9 trying to get at , if this was set back
10 at whatever the normal setback is, 15
11 feet or -- I don ' t know what it is ,
12 probably wouldn ' t be a problem. The way
• 13 that it is now, I can ' t see it working
14 again, just because of the noise . But I
15 mean, they are right on top of me . Like
16 I am a fish bowl . I work. I am local . I
17 work real hard . Some days I do like ten
18 hours and I come home and I just want to
19 go outside, and I can ' t because there
20 are other people right there . There
21 have been some incidents with the tenant
22 that lives there . Saying some
23 derogatory comments pointed at me . You
24 say to yourself, would I like to live
• 25 with this? Would I like to get up in the
July 10, 2014 Regular Meeting 68
1 morning and look at this? And it really
• 2 shouldn ' t be that way but it' s up to
3 you . This is going to be -- I don ' t know
4 how you guys are going to take this but
5 the bottom line is , they ' re breaking the
6 law the whole entire time . The 1992
7 letter said it right there . That is why
8 I said, this whole thing should have
9 been shut down . It' s just a garage .
10 There should be no crawl space up there
11 at all . If you guys allow this and say,
12 yes, then you guys are awarding illegal
• 13 behavior . You are awarding people that
14 have broken the law . They didn ' t do it
15 the right way. I am in business for
16 myself . I know about these things . I
17 know you have to do things the right
18 way, and if I just ignore the law, it' s
19 not going to work for me . I have to do
20 things the right way. Why is it that
21 other people don ' t? It' s in the report
22 that they have been doing this for quite
23 a while . It ' s not like this thing came
24 up, it' s been going on for quite a while
25 now. I am all for it . I am all for
July 10, 2014 Regular Meeting 69
1 making money . This isn ' t benefiting
• 2 anyone . There has been a whole bunch of
3 tenants in there and that' s what it
4 really comes down to . The rental
5 property.
6 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Not to in any
7 way disagree or diminish your comments ,
8 but as I said, I do want you to be
9 aware, the approval of these existing
10 apartments would only be for a family
11 member on a yearly rental . Not a
12 monthly . Not anything that . Not in and
13 out . Not transient .
14 MR. IRRGANG : That goes for anybody
15 --
16 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I am just
17 talking to you about the comment that
18 you made about many different people
19 coming in and out of there and having no
20 investment in the community because they
21 are transient .
22 MR. IRRGANG : Keyword, transient .
23 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And I am
24 saying to you, you know the intent of
25 this code is to ensure that an occupant
July 10, 2014 Regular Meeting 70
1 of such an apartment would not be
2 transient, would have at least a year' s
3 lease and actually live and work in this
4 Town or be a family member that lives
5 there . All the time . Not just in and
6 out . The code has changed to promote
7 family. You know, if you have a mother
8 that is elderly and you want to take
9 care of her, you can have an apartment .
10 MR. IRRGANG : That is not the case .
11 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No, I
12 understand that . That is historically.
13 Your testimony is saying that is
14 historically not the case .
15 MR. IRRGANG : Right .
16 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : But should
17 this be approved, that would have to be
18 the case .
19 MR. IRRGANG: I know that .
20 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And there is
21 an annual inspection required by the
22 Building Department .
23 MR. IRRGANG: Right .
24 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And a copy of
• 25 the lease and an affidavit .
July 10, 2014 Regular Meeting 71
1 MR. IRRGANG : I have that and I was
• 2 going to get to that . Often the road,
3 it' s a dirt road, I can never get title
4 to who actually has that dirt road.
5 When it snows , I am the guy that plows
6 it . If you said, oh, I have other people
7 living there and I have driveways -- it
8 doesn ' t . All falls on me to do that .
9 The roads can ' t handle the traffic or
10 the cars parked there . There are
11 pictures of cars parked in the road.
12 There are bushes overgrown on both sides
• 13 of the road and I had a complaint on him
14 about him cutting down his bushes ,
15 because pulling and out of the roads,
16 you can ' t see . And also, I am driving in
17 and out of that road, if somebody parked
18 there, like they used to do, you can ' t
19 get by them without scraping up their
20 car in the bushes . It' s another issue,
21 if you are going to allow a secondary
22 residence like that , you had to address
23 the roads . There is three driveways on
24 the property. In the front of the
25 property. They back their cars in . So
July 10, 2014 Regular Meeting 72
• 1 when you pull out , with their cars
2 backed in like that, you can ' t see to
3 your left . So I don ' t know if that is a
4 Town issue or not . That is why I am
5 brining it up . The other thing that I
6 did want to mention and just find out
7 the other day, is that I did learn about
8 the Housing Committee Board and I
9 actually have a letter from them and it
10 did say that if this apartment does get
11 approved, it has to fall under their
12 jurisdiction .
. 13 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Good. So that
14 is just conforming .
15 MR. IRRGANG : So I am aware of that
16 which I was never aware of . The public
17 incident which is a horrible thing that
18 did happen and it made the newspapers ,
19 my cat was killed . I had a cat that was
20 killed, it broke it' s foot and the cat
21 was actually thrown back to the side of
22 the property there . It was in the
23 newspaper . It' s right there and you can
24 look at this . I don ' t know who did it .
• 25 That is when I had to install security
July 10, 2014 Regular Meeting 73
• 1 cameras right after that . I don ' t know
2 who did it . The police were called . I
3 was in Florida at the time . I was
4 called. There was a report made . It' s a
5 felony to do something to an animal like
6 that .
7 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Are you
8 suggesting that it was the tenant and --
9 MR. IRRGANG : When you said
10 transient tenant, I don ' t know who it
11 was . It could be somebody who lives
12 there . It could be somebody who was a
• 13 tenant . I don ' t know but it happened. It
14 couldn ' t have happened on the other side
15 of the house . It' s ridiculous . It had to
16 happen in a certain way because the cat
17 was thrown from this side of the
18 building . So the front of the house
19 would be here . The cat was here . It had
20 to come from a certain direction .
21 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Do you know
22 who is in the apartment at the moment?
23 MR. IRRGANG : I don ' t know . There is
24 a name there . I don ' t know who these
25 people are . I never talked to them but I
July 10, 2014 Regular Meeting 74
1 -- talk about this, the comments that
2 are made towards me when I am walking
3 into my house . Derogatory comments . Who
4 is there now, I don ' t know .
5 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let' s see . Did
6 you have some additional comments? I
7 would like to take what you have .
8 MR. IRRGANG : Yes . I would like to
9 -- ( In Audible ) .
10 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well, you
11 would have to contact our office . We are
12 going to have another hearing of course,
• 13 next month . And presuming that we have
14 everything, we will close the hearing .
15 We have 62 days from that closing to
16 render a decision . We almost always do
17 it much quicker than that .
18 MR. IRRGANG : So you don ' t mail out
19 that decision?
20 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We mail it to
21 the applicant . We don ' t mail it out to
22 anyone else . If you would like a copy --
23 MR . IRRGANG : I would have to
24 contact the ZBA?
• 25 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Contact our
July 10, 2014 Regular Meeting 75
1 office .
• 2 MR. IRRGANG : In like a month to see
3 what happens?
4 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Yes . Anybody
5 else would like to address this
6 application?
7 (No Response . )
8 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : There is
9 going to be no questions from the Board
10 because we ' re adjourning to next month .
11 We will make sure that the applicant
12 receives the information that is your
• 13 testimony today and so hearing no
14 further comments or questions , I am
15 going to make a motion to adjourn this
16 hearing to August 7th at 10 : 00 a .m.
17 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second.
18 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor?
19 MEMBER DANTES : Aye .
20 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye .
21 MEMBER HORNING : Aye .
22 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye .
23 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye .
24 (See Minutes for Resolution . )
July 10, 2014 Regular Meeting 76
• 1 HEARING #6765 - JEWELL GONZALEZ
2 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next
3 application before the Board is for
4 Jewell Gonzalez, #6765 . This is a
5 request for variance from Article XXIII
6 Section 280-124 and the Building
7 Inspector ' s May 12 , 2014 Notice of
8 Disapproval based on an application for
9 building permit for an addition to an
10 existing single family dwelling, at ; 1 )
11 more than the code permitted lot
12 coverage of 200 , located at : 1380
• 13 Waterview Drive in Southold.
14 Just for the record, this is a
15 porch addition to a single family
16 dwelling, which will create a 21 . 70 lot
17 coverage . The application says that it' s
18 a covered rear deck. It' s open. It' s
19 8x64 feet . Okay.
20 MS . BISHOP : Hi . Stacey Bishop from
21 East End Construction Services on behalf
22 of Jewell Gonzalez for this application .
23 So basically that is what she is looking
24 to do . To build a deck that extends
. 25 outward 8 feet and goes the width of the
July 10, 2014 Regular Meeting 77
• 1 whole 64 feet . She would like it
2 covered. I am not sure if any of you
3 folks were there when the original house
4 burnt down ten years ago . So the
5 findings or the cause of that was the
6 sun beaming down ( In Audible)
7 fertilizers that she had in planters on
8 the previous house . So that is use of
9 the coverage of the deck. Is to block
10 out some of that sun because it is in
11 the direct sunlight . That is really all
12 she is looking to do .
• 13 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : On site
14 inspection, it shows that there are
15 three sets of steps off that rear
16 elevation, with doors . And I am looking
17 to see -- I understand the reasons why
18 you want to go all the way across . Is
19 there, in your opinion, the ability to
20 reduce that lot coverage a little bit by
21 -- 64 feet long is very, very long .
22 There is one set of steps , if you ' re
23 facing the back toward the left , that,
24 you know, has quite a bit of house past
• 25 the steps . I don' t know what that would
July 10, 2014 Regular Meeting 78
• 1 do to the lot coverage .
2 MS . BISHOP : It would still
3 probably be over .
4 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I don' t know
5 what that would be .
6 MS . BISHOP : Just looking at the
7 existing survey, it really just goes to
8 the front of the steps right now . So 8
9 feet really isn ' t coming forward that
10 much . Some of the other configurations
11 she was talking about, the areas where
12 the three sliders are and going further
• 13 out . To a little bit more than placing
14 chairs . This was to have more of an
15 enjoyable area . It still comes out to
16 the same . Here, she likes to plant along
17 the house .
18 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I was
19 suggesting of leaving the 8 feet . You
20 know, that she could get out all three
21 doors . Just chopping down the 64 feet . I
22 don' t know what that would do to the lot
23 coverage .
24 MS . BISHOP : As she described it to
• 25 me, that is where she would keep some of
July 10, 2014 Regular Meeting 79
• 1 her more shaded things . I don' t know if
2 you took a look at the property . She has
3 a lot of specimen trees .
4 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Beautiful
5 landscaping .
6 MS . BISHOP : So her intent would be
7 to keep it out of the way with egress
8 and sliders and have that overhang to
9 protect it . And having gone through a
10 fire where it burned down her previous
11 house, she is very fearful of the sun
12 coming down and hitting the fertilizer
• 13 again . So it' s really her intent to keep
14 that small area and just put some shaded
15 area in there .
16 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It' s really
17 not a problem to cover it . It' s not part
18 of lot coverage . The lot coverage is the
19 proposed deck, and I am obligated as you
20 know, to inquire about the reasonable
21 alternatives to reduce the variance
22 relief . So that is what I am exploring
23 here and the difficulty in doing that .
24 MS . BISHOP : Even if she were to
• 25 shorten, per Special Exception, still
July 10, 2014 Regular Meeting 80
• 1 the code, it overhangs . So it would
2 still be part of the lot coverage .
3 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I am talking
4 about stopping the whole thing right at
5 that third door .
6 MS . BISHOP : Because of where the
7 egress is, and to put a couple of chairs
8 right there . It' s just her and her
9 daughter that are living in the house .
10 And then her intent is to just use that
11 far section for more enjoyment and to
12 come in and out .
13 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well again,
14 you most certainly know, and I will
15 remind you again, although there are
16 considerations to the extent that we can
17 to what an applicant wishes to do,
18 variance relief is not based on personal
19 convenience .
20 MS . BISHOP : Sure .
21 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Unless it' s an
22 absolute hardship .
23 MS . BISHOP : It would still be over
24 the 20% .
25 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It ' s 1 . 7% over
July 10, 2014 Regular Meeting 81
• 1 the code . Let me just see what else the
2 Board has to say about this . Gerry?
3 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: At any time, is
4 there any anticipation in closing this
5 totally?
6 MS . BISHOP : No .
7 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: So a restriction
8 on that --
9 MS . BISHOP: You are more than
10 welcome to -- she is willing to
11 stipulate that it would not be enclosed.
12 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I spent some
• 13 time in looking at the area and probably
14 one of the main reasons why she is so
15 successful in dealing with the plantings
16 is because of the intense sun . So there
17 is some degree of credence to your
18 thoughts and the fact that she really
19 wants to keep the sun out of the house .
20 I was there on an extremely still day
21 and overcast and I was still getting
22 rays . I am not in any way discrediting
23 what the Chairperson has just said, I do
24 understand the reason why she is
• 25 suggesting what she is suggesting .
July 10, 2014 Regular Meeting 82
• 1 MS . BISHOP : It' s just really to
2 provide some shade back there .
3 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : George?
4 MEMBER HORNING : I really don' t have
5 any questions . But going along with the
6 idea of not enclosing it, are they
7 agreeable to a stipulation of no heating
8 and no plumbing out there?
9 MS . BISHOP : Right . The only
10 plumbing that would exist out there is
11 an existing hose for plants . As far as
12 anything else that you wanted to
• 13 incorporate that into an approval ,
14 that' s absolutely fine .
15 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I don' t mind
16 if she has electric out there in order
17 to put some lighting or an overhead fan .
18 MS . BISHOP : That' s fine .
19 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Just a technical
20 question with respect to Notice of
21 Disapproval . It states that the total
22 lot coverage is 21 . 70 . So it' s not
23 as-built yet . So to -- scratch that .
24 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thank you .
• 25 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That is
July 10, 2014 Regular Meeting 83
• 1 correct .
2 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Otherwise I have
3 no questions .
4 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Eric?
5 MEMBER DANTES : No questions .
6 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I do also want
7 to go on and say that the backyard is
8 full screened from view. This proposal
9 has no impact from the street , nor any
10 impact from any adjoining neighbors .
11 MS . BISHOP : There is no negative
12 impact .
. 13 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So hearing no
14 further comments or questions , I am
15 going to make a motion to close the
16 hearing and reserve decision to a later
17 date .
18 Is there a second?
19 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second.
20 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor?
21 MEMBER DANTES : Aye .
22 MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Aye .
23 MEMBER HORNING : Aye .
24 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye .
• 25 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye .
July 10, 2014 Regular Meeting 84
• 1 (See Minutes for Resolution . )
2 ******* ***************** * ****** ***
3 HEARING #6767 - HELEN STRATIGOS
4 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next
5 application before the Board is for
6 Helen Stratigos , #6767 . Request for
7 variances from Article XXIII and Section
8 280-124 and Section 280-15 (B) ( F) and the
9 Building Inspector ' s January 27 , 2014 ,
10 amended March 13 , 2014 Notice of
11 Disapproval based on an application for
12 building permit for second story
• 13 additional to existing single family
14 dwelling and an accessory garage, at;
15 1 ) less than the code required combined
16 side yard setback of 25 feet 2 ) more
17 than the code permitted maximum lot
18 coverage of 20% . 3 ) accessory garage at
19 less than the code required front yard
20 setback of 35 feet, 4 ) accessory garage
21 at less than the code required side yard
22 setback of 5 feet , located at : 1500
23 Sound Beach Drive . This is adjacent to
24 Long Island Sound. We have a second
• 25 story addition proposed to an existing
July 10, 2014 Regular Meeting 85
• 1 house with an accessory garage combined
2 side yard setback of 22 feet . The code
3 requiring 25 feet minimum. Lot coverage
4 of 43% . The code permits a maximum of
5 20 . Accessory garage with a 4 foot side
6 yard setback. The code requiring a 5
7 foot minimum. And a 18 foot front yard
8 setback, where the code requires 35
9 feet . Okay. This is a 21 foot by 17 foot
10 by 18 foot proposed garage ( In Audible )
11 lot . Existing lot coverage was 35 . 8% .
12 MR. STRANG : Good afternoon,
• 13 everyone . I would like to ask the
14 Board' s indulgence to listen to me for a
15 little bit . I have somewhat of a longer
16 presentation then I am typically
17 accustomed to, but I will make it as
18 brief as possible . As you stated our
19 proposal is to add a second floor to
20 existing one story home. We are also
21 putting in a new Health Department
22 sanitary system to replace the
23 antiquated one that is there . We are
24 putting in drywell ' s and stormwater
• 25 management , and lastly the detached
July 10, 2014 Regular Meeting 86
• 1 one-story, one car accessory garage . The
2 proposed second floor addition is for
3 two additional bedrooms and a bath to
4 accommodate the families needs at this
5 time . For the record, I have received
6 the Southold Town Trustees letter of
7 non-jurisdiction for the proposed work,
8 and we have an application pending in
9 front of the DEC for no jurisdiction
10 determination as well . I would like to
11 address this situation for the side
12 yards for the partial second floor
• 13 additions . In February of ' 04 , the
14 Zoning Board of Appeals heard a previous
15 application for a full second floor
16 addition to this particular property and
17 granted side yard setbacks matching the
18 existing footprint of the house as it
19 presently exist . That was Appeal #5459 .
20 At this time, my client has reduced the
21 size of the second floor addition, due
22 in part due to the fact that if the
23 construction of the home or the addition
24 of the home exceeds 50% of the appraised
• 25 value of the existing home, the home is
July 10, 2014 Regular Meeting 87
1 not only going to be elevated to meet
•
2 FEMA requirements , but the existing
3 basement that is there that has been
4 there since the late 50 ' s when the house
5 was built and accommodates the heating,
6 cooling, utilities for in that area,
7 would have to be filled in . And that is
8 not a viable option for my client . So we
9 are looking to keep this addition of
10 less than 500 of the value of the house
11 and enhance -- shrunken the addition, if
12 you will . We have designed the second
• 13 floor in that way . And in doing so, that
14 issue is now setback further than the
15 existing first floor footprint . And is
16 therefore compliant in my opinion . With
17 the previously granted variance . Having
18 said this , I believe that the side yard
19 relief should even be a part of this
20 application, As the original relief
21 granted should prevail . With regard to
22 lot coverage, the disapproval written by
23 the Building Department accurately
24 states that the lot area is 12 , 406
• 25 square feet . And however, they state,
July 10, 2014 Regular Meeting 88
• 1 the lot coverage is proposed to be 430 .
2 That is also accurate . It' s about a 70
3 increase of what is presently there .
4 This number is base don what what is
5 described as buildable lot area . And
6 that' s stated as being 5, 450 square
7 feet , which is a considerable reduction
8 in lot area . And this is due to the
9 existence of the Coastal Erosion Hazard
10 Line . It' s a total lot area of 12 , 406
11 square feet to be used . Calculated lot
12 coverage would accurately be 18 . 9% which
• 13 is in the 20% code requirement . I
14 understand and agree with the fact that
15 construction should not take place in
16 the Coastal Erosion Zone . To penalize
17 the property owner by reducing the lot
18 area to calculating lot coverage is in
19 my opinion an unreasonable hardship . In
20 this case, my client pays taxes based on
21 the lot area of 12 , 406 square feet but
22 only has the benefit , in this case of
23 5 , 450 square feet , if the code were to
24 be strictly apride . I ask the Board to
• 25 ( In Audible) of what I believe
July 10, 2014 Regular Meeting 89
• 1 unreasonable hardship on the part of
2 this application . I would like to move
3 onto the accessory garage . Typically the
4 homes in the vicinity to my clients
5 property are setback the same distance
6 from Sound Beach Drive as depicted on a
7 Google picture, which I will submit at
8 the end of my presentation . Based upon
9 personal observations and surveys and
10 pictures, they range from about 35 feet
11 to 45 feet from the property lines .
12 Given the fact that these properties are
. 13 all waterfront , the only location for
14 accessory structures are in the front
15 yard . Of the six comparable properties
16 on my clients side, 4 are accessory
17 structures in the front yard. One of
18 which has a detached garage and the
19 other being -- I ' m sorry, detached
20 garage . The other being an RV vehicle .
21 The property immediately to the west of
22 my clients . Has an accessory garage
23 structure with a front yard setback of
24 18 . 2 feet by survey and I approximate
• 25 that from the edge of the pavement to
July 10, 2014 Regular Meeting 90
• 1 the structure is about 24 feet . The
2 property immediately to the east of my
3 client has an accessory structure with
4 an estimated front yard setback of 15
5 feet, which was calculated by laser
6 measurement . And similarly, I estimate
7 that the front setback from the edge of
8 the pavers is about 22 feet . My client
9 is proposing a one story one car garage
10 in the front yard, set back 18 feet from
11 the property line and that would be
12 approximately 24 feet from the edge of
• 13 the pavers . This is similar to setbacks
14 from neighboring properties . This
15 setback is dictated by the location of
16 the existing dwelling, which has a front
17 yard setback of 44 feet . The proposed
18 garage is needed not only for the
19 parking of the vehicle but also storage
20 of deck, patio furniture and beach
21 accessories for off season . The garage
22 has been designed with a hip roof, so it
23 can have a low profile . The proposed
24 side yard is 4 feet, where 5 feet is
• 25 stated, but this is due to the
July 10, 2014 Regular Meeting 91
• 1 installation of the new sanitary system
2 that would be compliant with the Health
3 Department requirements . Those
4 requirements dictate components of the
5 septic system and structures on the
6 site . So this is what led us to shift
7 the garage over . I know this is a
8 stretch, but I will put it out there . If
9 the lot size were 2 , 477 square feet
10 less , bringing it down to 9, 999 square
11 feet , the side yard setback of the
12 property would be 3 feet . So my feeling
• 13 is we are only looking at 1 foot
14 difference . It' s really not that
15 terrible . It' s proportionate to what we
16 have . It summary, it is my opinion that
17 the side yard variance is not required
18 and the lot coverage is code compliant
19 using the total lot coverage . I submit
20 that our proposal is not out of
21 character of the immediate surrounding
22 six properties , which are of similar
23 size and all have similar older existing
24 homes are closer to the streets . It will
• 25 also not have a negative impact of the
July 10, 2014 Regular Meeting 92
• 1 neighborhood as the property is only two
2 blocks away from the dead-end of that
3 street, as well as the fact, there will
4 never be homes built on or at the grade
5 level to the natural topography of the
6 bluff . I am sure that the Board is
7 familiar with the neighborhood in this
8 area, being small properties and having
9 to work with tight building envelopes .
10 In fact , four of the six properties have
11 been granted some type of relief by this
12 Board. Thank you, the Board for your
• 13 attention and I hope that you would look
14 favorably on this application and I
15 would be happy to answer any questions .
16 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Garrett , do
17 you have a copy of the LWRP
18 recommendation?
19 MR. STRANG: No, I do not .
20 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I will make
21 sure that you get that . I am going to
22 mention some information into the record
23 that would corroborate some of the
24 things that you have mentioned. Vicki ,
• 25 will provide you that .
July 10, 2014 Regular Meeting 93
• 1 MR. STRANG: What I would like to do
2 is submit this to the Board.
3 MEMBER HORNING: The two neighbors
4 to the west, to the dead end, do they
5 have excessive lot coverage also? Over
6 20%?
7 MR. STRANG: That I didn' t
8 calculate . I don' t have survey ( In
9 Audible) . In any event there was a
10 variance granted on that .
11 MEMBER HORNING : If you could give
12 us information on the lot percentages
• 13 and the variances that would be helpful .
14 MR. STRANG: I can submit copies of
15 approvals to the Board .
16 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let me go back
17 to the LWRP . The action for the
18 construction of the second story, which
19 you cleared up, I was going to ask you
20 why in the world would ( In Audible ) for
21 the second story. That has been cleared
22 up . They are exempt . And then the
23 construction of the proposed accessory
24 garage is consistent with LWRP because
t25 it' s in the front yard . However, what' s
July 10, 2014 Regular Meeting 94
• 1 important to note here is that I am
2 going to read this into the record : The
3 subject parcel is located within the
4 FEMA flood zone, VE and the remainder
5 developed area is located within the AE
6 flood zone, which the AE flood zone
7 proposes a higher risk . These properties
8 have 1% annual chance of flooding and
9 26% of flooding over a 30 year mortgage .
10 Here is the important part . Based on the
11 location and size of the parcel, there
12 is no ability to relocate the accessory
• 13 garage outside of the AE flood zone . The
14 applicant is requesting a variance for
15 20 feet . More than the code permitted
16 maximum lot coverage of 20% due to a
17 request of an accessory garage . This is
18 due to the large area of unbuildable
19 land, beach, that is on the parcel that
20 is excluded from the percent cover
21 calculation . The large area of buildable
22 lands ( In Audible) would be clustered.
23 This is a prevailing development
24 pattern, and there is a few other
• 25 things . I thought that would be helpful .
July 10, 2014 Regular Meeting 95
• 1 We are familiar with the properties .
2 There is a lot of variances there,
3 particularly in lot coverage . I would
4 note that, with regard to your
5 presentation, observation of the
6 request , there are a couple of attached
7 garages closer to the road coming down .
8 Closer to that end of Sound Beach?
9 MR. STRANG: Yes .
10 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : There are
11 some structures that are not as quite as
12 cottagey and they have attached garages .
• 13 Of the accessory structures that I have
14 noticed, one was an accessory garage .
15 The rest are small sheds .
16 MR. STRANG: Yes , they are .
17 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : However, I
18 just wanted to make sure that was clear .
19 Certainly, the sheds are set back far
20 away. Having said that , let me turn this
21 over to Eric and see what questions he
22 has .
23 MEMBER DANTES : Yes . How many feet
24 is it from the high water mark to the
• 25 bulkhead? Do you know? Can you
July 10, 2014 Regular Meeting 96
• 1 approximate?
2 MR. STRANG: It' s quite a distance .
3 Unfortunately, the bulkhead is buried as
4 the sand blows away from the beach . It
5 buries the bulkhead. There is a few
6 places -- in the most places -- I would
7 say it' s at least 90 if not more from
8 the high water mark to the -- to that
9 bulkhead as it' s called . If you want to
10 bear with me, let me get a scale out so
11 I can give you a dimension . Actually,
12 based on the survey from Peconic
• 13 Surveyors, it' s about 112 . 115 feet from
14 the high water mark to that wooden
15 bulkhead .
16 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Garrett, we
17 are just looking at the stuff that you
18 gave us , it' s very helpful . I am not
19 sure what the lot coverage .
20 MR. STRANG: That is bigger and
21 deeper than our particular lot . It' s
22 where the transition is from the east .
23 MEMBER DANTES : Has the beach been
24 growing over the years or has there been
• 25 more and more erosion?
July 10, 2014 Regular Meeting 97
• 1 MR . STRANG : It has been growing
2 over the years . The inlet jetties were
3 put in years ago . The beach has grown
4 over the years . From some old
5 photographs that I have seen from this
6 area, it was 25 feet the high water mark
7 to that bulkhead .
8 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No, it was
9 actually up to that bulkhead. 1974 it
10 was up to that bulkhead.
11 MR. STRANG: It' s quite a deep
12 beach . It' s really nice .
• 13 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Just let the
14 record show that Member Horning has to
15 catch the ferry back to Fishers Island.
16 He is excusing himself at this time .
17 MEMBER DANTES : The only other
18 question that I have is the pictures
19 that I am looking at, do you have an ETA
20 of accessory garages or accessory sheds?
21 MR. STRANG: Two accessory sheds and
22 one accessory garage . The accessory
23 sheds are on the properties that
24 immediately abut my clients property.
• 25 And the garage is about one or two,
July 10, 2014 Regular Meeting 98
• 1 three lots to the east .
2 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Bigger lot . I
3 don' t think that there was a setback
4 variance on that lot . I think it was
5 just a conforming lot but maybe you
6 could look into that for us .
7 MR. STRANG: Again, I will look into
8 my file and see what I have and I will
9 submit it to the Board.
10 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Gerry?
11 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: In some of
12 these situations , we have requested that
• 13 any portion, and I am not speaking for
14 the Board. I am speaking for myself . I
15 live in Mattituck and know it like the
16 back of my hand. We request that
17 anything that was reduced to wood above
18 grade be replaced with pavers to reduce
19 the lot coverage on that basis . On this
20 particular one, I would have to take a
21 look at it , you would have to take a
22 look at it . I would have to see if that
23 could be done . I am not necessarily
24 talking about deck areas that are
• 25 existing but narrow passages next to the
July 10, 2014 Regular Meeting 99
• 1 houses . Between the houses . The second
2 thing is, I can' t understand why this
3 applicant would not put a second story
4 on a very narrow and height garage for
5 the purposes of storage above that
6 garage . But I am not talking about
7 anything tall . Any areas where you can
8 actually store equipment . I am talking
9 about lawn furniture and so on and so
10 forth, which would also help in my
11 opinion, to reduce the lot coverage .
12 MR. STRANG: To answer that
13 question, we had discussions . My client
14 and myself with respect to that . He felt
15 that it wasn ' t -- we had two thoughts
16 that were concurrent for the most part .
17 That it would be easier to move
18 furniture and larges pieces of
19 furniture, into a lower level then
20 trying to maneuver it in a pull-down
21 stair . He is aware of the fact that this
22 is in the front yard and he wanted to
23 keep the profile of the garage as low as
24 possible, which is one reason why we
25 went with the hip-line roof and making
July 10, 2014 Regular Meeting 100
• 1 it as long as possible . I know my
2 drawing shows 18 feet to the ridge . We
3 may even make it less than that , when we
4 make the final design on the project .
5 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I can see it
6 from an architectural standpoint . You
7 have an 80 foot hill in the back of you .
8 So there is no visual impact except when
9 you drive by it . To be honest with you,
10 architecturally, I can see it . I am not
11 an architect or anything like that . I
12 would just put storage up there .
• 13 MR. STRANG : It is certainly a
14 viable option . One that we don' t want to
15 pursue . Part of the fact that it is a
16 walking neighborhood and people walk up
17 and down all the time . In my opinion, a
18 narrower, taller building is going to be
19 more obvious than what we are proposing
20 to you . The building, I mean, as a
21 garage has to be a certain dimension to
22 begin with .
23 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Certainly
24 storage is a prime concern to your
• 25 client, so you know, there would be less
July 10, 2014 Regular Meeting 101
• 1 in the lot coverage issue and certainly
2 more characteristic of the prevailing
3 patterns on the smaller lot of your
4 client , if you were proposing a storage
5 shed. If you are going to put patio
6 furniture and what not , you certainly
7 are not gonna barely fit it a car in
8 there .
9 MR. STRANG: This is true .
10 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So I think
11 some consideration may be to a storage
12 shed, rather than a garage with storage .
• 13 Something that you could entertain and
14 that would reduce lot coverage .
15 MR. STRANG: I will address that
16 with him. I know he did address having a
17 place that he could put his car during
18 the weather . They could leave the car
19 their in the garage and not have to
20 travel back and forth and use the Jitney
21 if they wanted to . To shelter it and
22 protect . So that is one of the
23 motivating factors, if you will , for
24 proposing the garage . I will certainly
• 25 take your thoughts and comments to him
July 10, 2014 Regular Meeting 102
• 1 and see what he says .
2 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Instead of a
3 garage, I am more in favor of shed. I
4 think it is more characteristic of the
5 neighborhood. Whereas , detached garages
6 in the front yard are not . Do you have a
7 rough idea of what type of square
8 footage you would need for a shed?
9 10x10? 8x12 ? I know it' s a difficult
10 question for you to answer at this time
11 because you are working for your client .
12 MR. STRANG: I would defer to answer
• 13 that question until I can speak to my
14 client and see what he thinks his needs
15 might be within that regard.
16 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Sure .
17 MR. STRANG: And then we could get
18 back to the Board .
19 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Garrett, how
20 about if we adjourn to the Special
21 Meeting in two weeks? Will that give you
22 enough time? I don' t want to delay it,
23 if we don' t have to . We might be able to
24 expedite this and sort this out and
• 25 amend your application . So if you amend
July 10, 2014 Regular Meeting 103
• 1 your application, we can accept your
2 site plan showing a reduced lot
3 coverage . You know, perhaps a shed of
4 some size, rather than a garage as
5 applied for . I don' t think anyone has
6 issues with the second floor addition . I
7 just think it' s the lot coverage and the
8 garage that is proposed.
9 MR. STRANG: I think that would be
10 fine . It would give me an opportunity to
11 speak with my client . I know he is
12 traveling on business and that is why he
• 13 couldn ' t be here today, but I can
14 communicate with him by e-mail or by
15 phone . I am sure we can talk about this .
16 And if need be, I can suggest at the
17 Special Meeting, that it be put off for
18 another two weeks .
19 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Sure . Does
20 that make sense to everybody?
21 MR. STRANG: One quick question that
22 I wanted to do . As I mentioned earlier,
23 the size of the second floor, we are
24 trying to work with that 50o constraint,
• 25 and what I wanted to be certain of, the
July 10, 2014 Regular Meeting 104
• 1 former variance that was granted, to go
2 out to the edge of the building would
3 stay intact, because if we find that we
4 could expand a little bit, we may opt or
5 want to do that . We prefer not to have
6 the previous variance overruled by a
7 side yard setback areas .
8 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You know
9 what , let' s do this . We are not closing
10 the hearing . Rather than take up time
11 now and go into Executive Session to
12 confer, let' s have an -- we will have an
• 13 opportunity to research a little bit .
14 Have counsel look into it further and
15 then we could talk about it at the
16 Special Meeting .
17 MR. STRANG: Okay.
18 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So we will
19 look into that .
20 MR. STRANG: Very good.
21 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: So Garrett, are
22 you saying that you may want to . go
23 beyond the first variance that was
24 granted?
• 25 MR. STRANG: No . What we proposed is
July 10, 2014 Regular Meeting 105
• 1 well within what was originally granted.
2 If we find that this addition of what we
3 designed, we can add another foot or two
4 and still be within the requirements of
5 the previous variance, he would like to
6 have that option .
7 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Depending on
8 how big . Vicki is proposing that that
9 might be a De Minimus request . It' s a
10 little bit bigger than what we stamp.
11 The problem is , if we stamp these
12 drawings then that' s it . If you go to
13 the Building Department for something a
14 little bigger because of FEMA, then you
15 are right back in our office requesting
16 a De Minimus, if it' s De Minimus . If
17 it' s beyond the certain reasonable size,
18 then maybe it' s not so De Minimus .
19 However, what we have to determine is
20 whether or not the prior variance would
21 still be intact .
22 MR. STRANG: That is what I am
23 hoping for .
24 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It might be . I
• 25 am not sure . We have to do some legal
July 10, 2014 Regular Meeting 106
• 1 homework. Maybe there is case law .
2 MR . STRANG : In my opinion, it was
3 unfortunate that the Building Department
4 said that we needed a side yard variance
5 when we were originally granted that
6 variance .
7 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It' s a little
8 confusing . Okay.
9 MR. STRANG: My position would be
10 that we would not need a variance
11 because it' s well within in . For some
12 reason the Building Department
13 determined that it was not, and we feel
14 that they are wrong . So I am hoping that
15 the Board will see it differently.
16 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay. So
17 hearing no further questions or
18 comments , I am going to make a motion to
19 adjourn this hearing to the Special
20 Meeting, at which point , there will be
21 no testimony taken . But we can see
22 whatever amendment application and make
23 a decision whether to close then . Maybe
24 we could have this information by then
25 or we are going to adjourn it to the
July 10, 2014 Regular Meeting 107
• 1 regular meeting .
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 HEARING #6770 - MMMM Beer, LLC .
11 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The last
12 application is for MMMM Beer, LLC,
• 13 #6770 . Request for variance from
14 Article III Section 280-15 and the
15 Building Inspector ' s May 28 , 2014 Notice
16 of Disapproval based on a application
17 for building permit for an "as-built"
18 accessory storage building, at 1 )
19 location other than the code required
20 rear yard, located at : 42155 Main Road,
21 aka State Route 25 , corner of Peconic
22 Lane in Peconic .
23 So we have a storage building, a
24 garage, in the side yard where the code
• 25 requires a rear yard location . And Rich,
July 10, 2014 Regular Meeting 108
• 1 please state your name .
2 MR. VANDENBURG : Yes . Good
3 afternoon. Good to see you all again .
4 Richard Vandenburg, co-owner of MMMM
5 Beer . Yes, that is all accurate . As I am
6 sure most of you know, this is kind of
7 an ongoing project . We have continued to
8 engage with and respond and try and
9 satisfy the additional various
10 provisions that the Planning Board asked
11 of us . Most recently they asked us to
12 add an additional parking lot in the
• 13 rear of the property off of Peconic
14 Lane, to address concerns for parking
15 for the property . So the -- that
16 doesn ' t necessarily complicate what the
17 relief that I am asking for here, but it
18 places a little bit more of a
19 restriction upon us in terms of what we
20 can do with the building . This is a pole
21 building . It' s basically a wooden
22 building that is going to be dry
23 storage . It was -- the intention is to
24 house our fire truck that we have, as
• 25 well as house a -- we have a beer
July 10, 2014 Regular Meeting 109
• 1 trailer and other various yard
2 equipment . And we were hoping to all
3 store some of our cardboard and
4 miscellaneous , you know, material that
5 we use in the brewing process . The
6 building is technically in our front
7 yard, although I feel that if you look
8 at the photographs that were part of the
9 application, there was one photograph
10 and if you don' t have it , I have one
11 here, but there is one that is taken
12 across the street where you can just
• 13 barely make out the wooden structure in
14 the back. Partially obscured by trees .
15 To myself, I have always struggled to
16 see how that is considered a front yard,
17 but I understand it had to do with the
18 foundation that exist to the right of
19 what will be the tasting room. The
20 tasting room is the building with the
21 two garage doors . There is an addition
22 that is planned to go there in the
23 future .
24 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let me correct
• 25 you on that . The reason why it' s in a
July 10, 2014 Regular Meeting 110
• 1 front yard is because you have two
2 street frontages? Anything that is --
3 if you were to look at a rear yard, it
4 would have to be behind all of those
5 structures . The front yard -- one front
6 yard is Main Road . So one could argue --
7 it would be in a front yard if you
8 didn' t have Peconic also . It' s street
9 frontage . Even though the front of your
10 building, you can easily argue the side
11 of your building facing Peconic, but
12 because it fronts a street , it' s another
• 13 street . It' s a front yard because it' s
14 not behind those other buildings .
15 MR. VANDENBURG : So I stand
16 corrected .
17 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I did want to
18 ask you, what happened here, you did not
19 get a building permit for this?
20 MR. VANDENBURG : I did not . The
21 story starts with that we had originally
22 planned to place this over on the
23 eastern edge of the property, off of the
24 parking lot . I submitted my building
• 25 permit for the other property . It was
July 10, 2014 Regular Meeting 111
• 1 located in that particular spot . And
2 completely -- then we decided to move
3 it . I thought we had already applied for
4 the building permit to include this
5 structure, but I did not . It was totally
6 my mistake .
7 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And that is
8 why -- well , it wouldn ' t have gotten a
9 Notice of Disapproval if it was in a
10 front yard originally. And I can' t say
11 where it was because --
12 MR. VANDENBURG : It was going to be
• 13 way off in the corner .
14 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Was there a
15 stop work order placed on this?
16 MR. VANDENBURG: There was . They
17 contacted me and we stopped immediately.
18 We kind of went and cleared the
19 paperwork. I went down there and showed
20 them what I thought was the original
21 filing that I had made, but they pointed
22 out to me, that it was a different site
23 plan that was now before the Planning
24 Board . I realized that it was my error .
• 25 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It' s pretty
July 10, 2014 Regular Meeting 112
• 1 clear that you need to have some
2 proximity -- if it' s dry storage for
3 your brewery. Is that correct?
4 MR. VANDENBURG : Correct . It' s a
5 combination between dry storage as well
6 as storage for our vehicles .
7 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay.
8 MR. VANDENBURG : I have also spoken
9 with the fire marshals to make sure that
10 they were comfortable and okay and could
11 endorse where the location was that we
12 were asking . I did meet with him
• 13 yesterday . He said he was absolutely
14 okay with it and that I could represent
15 to you today that he had no problems
16 with the current location of the
17 structure . Part of the evolution of this
18 project now, with this parking lot in
19 the back, we are going to be paving
20 walkways from either side of this
21 building to lead to the front . So he was
22 reassured and glad to hear that if there
23 were a need to get an emergency vehicle
24 up to that back area, it wouldn ' t be a
i25 problem.
July 10, 2014 Regular Meeting 113
• 1 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is all of that
2 showing up on your current site plan to
3 the Planning Board.
4 MR. VANDENBURG: It is now. We were
5 just before a work session on Monday,
6 and that had already been done . We are
7 hopeful that we have resolved the last
8 of the issues that the Planning Board
9 has for us .
10 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And when do
11 you anticipate site plan completion and
12 approval?
13 MR. VANDENBURG : The Planning Board
14 has decided that it' s necessary to
15 complete all our changes to the driveway
16 entrance and now we are having to move
17 our driveway entrance all the way to the
18 eastern portion of the property. So we
19 are trying to expedite our DOT permit
20 change approval, and I am hopeful that
21 we are going to have final approval by
22 August 7th .
23 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: I just have a
24 quick question about the "as-built" . So
25 the truck that you want to store in
July 10, 2014 Regular Meeting 114
• 1 there has to enter in from the north of
2 the pole barn .
3 MR. VANDENBURG : There is two garage
4 doors on the north of the pole barn .
5 Yes .
6 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: And it will be
7 primarily dry storage?
8 MR . VANDENBURG : Correct .
9 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: So the proximity
10 is actually a benefit to reduction?
11 MR. VANDENBURG : It is .
12 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: As opposed to
• 13 having it in even further ( In Audible) ?
14 MR. VANDENBURG : It would be a
15 detriment . It would be further away.
16 Further north of where that barn is
17 located .
18 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: So if that barn
19 had been proposed ina conforming
20 location, you would not be able to do
21 what the Planning Board is asking for
22 the parking?
23 MR. VANDENBURG: That is correct .
24 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Gerry, do you
• 25 want to ask some questions?
July 10, 2014 Regular Meeting 115
• 1 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: It doesn ' t look
2 like the survey reflects the position of
3 the pole barn . It looks like the depth
4 of the pole barn is 40 feet and the
5 width is 30 feet .
6 MR. VANDENBURG : That' s correct .
7 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I have two sets .
8 MR. VANDENBURG : One has a
9 trapezoidal figure on it and that' s not
10 accurate .
11 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Correct . The
12 actual length of the pole barn right now
• 13 is shown at 40 feet, where it' s almost
14 parallel to Peconic Lane, where I think
15 you wanted the 40 feet , I think it
16 should be this way as opposed to this
17 way.
18 MR. VANDENBURG : I am hoping that
19 you have this survey .
20 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Can you bring it
21 up here?
22 MR. VANDENBURG: Sure .
23 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aren ' t these
24 proposed doors facing Peconic Lane?
• 25 MR . VANDENBURG : No, those proposed
July 10, 2014 Regular Meeting 116
• 1 doors are facing north .
2 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: They are .
3 MR. VANDENBURG : Yes .
4 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: So then I am
5 incorrect . All right . I stand corrected.
6 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Eric, any
7 questions?
8 MEMBER DANTES : No questions .
9 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Hearing no
10 further questions or comments , I make a
11 motion to close the hearing and reserve
12 decision to a later date . Is there a
• 13 second?
14 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second .
15 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor?
16 MEMBER DANTES : Aye .
17 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye .
18 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye .
19 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye .
20 ( See Minutes for Resolution . )
21 **************** **********************
22
23 (Whereupon, the July 10 , 2014
24 Public Hearings concluded at 2 : 30 P . M. )
• 25
July 10, 2014 Regular Meeting 117
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 Signatu'#J
14 _DiLallo _
15
16
17 Jessica DiLallo
Court Reporter
18 PO Box 984
Holbrook, New York 11741
19
20 Date : July 20 , 2014
21
22
23
24
25