HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-09/04/2014 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 September 4 , 2014
10 : 02 A. M .
10
11
12 Board Members Present :
13 LESLIE KANES WEISMAN - Chairperson/Member
14 ERIC DANTES - Member
15 GERARD GOEHRINGER - Member
16 GEORGE HORNING - Member (Left at 2 : 15 p .m. )
17 KENNETH SCHNEIDER - Member
18
19 VICKI TOTH - Secretary
20 STEPHEN KIELY - Assistant Town Attorney
21
22
23 Jessica DiLallo
Court Reporter
24 P . O . Box 984
Holbrook, New York 11741
• 25 ( 631 ) -338-1409
2
1 INDEX TO HEARINGS
2
3 Hearing Page
4 William F. Grella & Gary D .
5 Osborn, #6773 3-28
6 William F. Grella & Gary D.
7 Osborn, #6789 3-28
8 Willem Kooyker & Judith Ann
9 Corrente , #6788 28-37
10 Richard E . & Amanda T . Riegel , III #6763 37-40
11 Joseph Licciardi & Catherine Pino, #6782 40-44
12 Joseph Licciardi & Catherine Pino, #6781 44-49
• 13 Douglas & Lee Biviano, #6760 49-50
14 Kathleen Agoglia, #6779 51-53
15 John R. Lynch, #6785 53-57
16 Michelle Pelletier, #6784 58-61
17 Sonia Karakash, #6780 61-65
18 Janet Van Adelsberg, #6783 65-72
19 Elizabeth Sadik, #6787 73-92
20
21
22
23
24
• 25
September 4, 2014 Regular Meeting 3
• 1 HEARING #6773 - WILLIAM F. GRELLA
2 AND GARY D . OSBORN
3 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The first
4 application before the Board is for William
5 F. Grella and Gary D . Osborn, #6773 .
6 Request for Variances from Articles XXIII ,
7 XXII and III , Sections 280-124 , 280-116B and
8 280-14 (Bulk Schedule) and the Building
9 Inspector' s August 7 , 2013 , amended and
10 renewed May 19, 2014 , amended June 2 , 2014 ,
11 amended July 14 , 2014 Notice of Disapproval
12 based on an application for building permit
• 13 for partial demolition, reconstruction,
14 additions and alterations of an existing
15 single family dwelling, at ; 1 ) less than the
16 code required front yard setback of 35 feet,
17 2 ) less than the code required rear yard
18 setback of 35 feet , 3 ) less than the code
19 required single side yard setback of 10
20 feet , 4 ) less than the code required
21 combined side yard setback of 25 feet ,
22 5 ) more than the code permitted maximum lot
23 coverage of 200 , 6 ) less than the code
24 required bulkhead setback of 75 feet , 7 )
25 more than the code permitted 2 . 5 stories,
September 4, 2014 Regular Meeting 4
1 located at : 1200 First Street (adj . To Great
• 2 Peconic Bay) in New Suffolk . We also at
3 the same time have another application by
4 the same applicant , which is # 6789 . This is
5 a request under Section 280-146D for an
6 Interpretation of the Town Code, Article
7 III , Section 280-14 (Bulk Schedule) ,
8 appealing the Building Inspector' s
9 August 7 , 2013 , amended and renewed
10 May 19 , 2014 , amended June 2 , 2014 , amended
Il July 14 , 2014 Notice of Disapproval building
12 permit for partial demolition,
• 13 reconstruction, additions and alterations of
14 an existing single family dwelling, at ; 1 )
15 more than the code permitted 2 . 5 stories,
16 located at : 1200 First Street (adj . To Great
17 Peconic Bay) New Suffolk. Obviously these
18 two applications are entwined and will be
19 opened at the same time .
20 Can you just state your name for the
21 record .
22 MR . ANDERSON : Bruce Anderson, Suffolk
23 Environmental, agent . With offices in
24 Bridgehampton, for the applicant , William
• 25 Grella and Gary Osborn, 1200 First Street ,
September 4, 2014 Regular Meeting 5
1 New Suffolk .
• 2 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Can I just go
3 over everything? First of all , it ' s LWRP
4 exempt . That is Number one . Does everyone
5 have a copy?
6 MR . ANDERSON : No, I do not .
7 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : However, that is
8 for the first floor . It is inconsistent with
9 regards to lot coverage of 32 . 2% , where the
10 code permits a maximum of 20% . Rear yard
11 setback of 21 feet when the code requires a
12 75 foot minimum. Other variances that were
• 13 applied for were determined to be exempt . A
14 front yard setback of 2 feet , where the code
15 requires 35 feet . Rear yard setback of 25
16 feet where the code requires a 35 foot
17 minimum. A single side yard setback of 7
18 feet, where the code requires a 10 foot
19 minimum. A combined side yard setback of
20 13 feet, where the code requires a 35 foot
21 minimum. So now we have the numbers . Now,
22 please proceed with what you would like to
23 tell us about the application?
24 MR. ANDERSON : Okay . I am not really in
• 25 a position at the moment to go through four
September 4, 2014 Regular Meeting 6
1 pages of memorandum from Mark Terry, only to
• 2 tell you it seems inconsistent with the
3 variances that are exempt and the ones that
4 inconsistent . How the front yard variance
5 would be exempt for an example and a ( In
6 Audible ) variance would be inconsistent .
7 Particularly, since we ' re not ( In Audible ) .
8 What we would be doing in this application
9 is reducing coverage from what the 66% to
10 38% . So I just find that those two -- I
11 have not read it all , to be inconsistent .
12 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I will put into
• 13 the record that even though he has
14 determined those to be inconsistent, he did
15 indicate it is not practical to relocate
16 these structures and that it could be
17 reconstructed .
18 MR . ANDERSON : Okay. That ' s fine . We
19 will leave it at that . On August 29, 2012 ,
20 Hurricane Sandy hit Long Island, and tidal
21 surges and high waves and winds . This
22 particular property is one of the lower
23 properties in New Suffolk . And so the
24 structure incurred some significant storm
• 25 damage . And it ' s because of this damage
September 4, 2014 Regular Meeting 7
1 that prompted this application . This
2 particular house was constructed in 1962 ,
3 and at that time, with all the regulations
4 that pertained to FEMA, Zoning regulations ,
5 were not in store when this original
6 construction of this house took place .
7 Specifically, the dwelling is located in a
8 Velocity Zone, which requires the first
9 floor elevation of 8 feet above sea-level .
10 Addition to that, when one applies to the
11 2-3 foot pre-board, it is procedure of the
12 New York State Building Code, the minimum
• 13 first floor elevations becomes 10 feet . And
14 when I am say, 10 feet , I am referring to
15 lowest actual member of the house .
16 Unfortunately, the existing house has a
17 third floor elevation of 5 . 38 feet, and
18 therefore applicable to flooding . The
19 applicant has told me in the past it has
20 flooded during Hurricane Irene and another
21 Nor ' easter . The applicant has owned that
22 property since 2004 . Now, what the
23 applicant is actually doing here, is to
24 resolve this flood condition . The applicant
25 would remove the first floor walls , doors
September 4, 2014 Regular Meeting 8
is
1 and windows . They would sure-up the
2 existing girders . They would construct a
3 new foundation . They would reconstruct
4 first floor over the new foundation and
5 construct the second floor over the first
6 floor . The Building Department, they have
7 informed us that the project is a partial
8 demolition and additions and alterations .
9 The applicant also will remove the exterior
10 deck and replace it with an at-grade patio .
11 They would also remove a stone and concrete
12 retainer wall that is encroaching the street
• 13 right-of-way. They would install three
14 drywell ' s to comply with the Town ' s
15 stormwater zoning . Likewise will remove two
16 cesspools . One is nonfunctional and install
17 a new septic tank and three ( In Audible )
18 leaching gallons . With me today is Frank
19 Fallino who is the architect of record for
20 this , and also Joe Fischetti . Mr . Fallino
21 could speak to the drawings and the plan as
22 to how this actually all happened . In
23 essence, what we would do is lift the second
24 floor and remove the third flood . We would
• 25 install piles . We would then reconstruct
September 4, 2014 Regular Meeting 9
1 the third floor, lower the second floor onto
• 2 the first floor .
3 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So you intend to
4 preserve the second floor?
5 MR. ANDERSON : Yes . The second floor
6 and the entirety of the roof . There will be
7 a finished first floor of 13 . 9 feet above
8 sea-level . A roof ridge height of 36 . 25
9 feet , with the height of the mid-point gable
10 of 33 . 675 feet . Meaning that the overall
11 height of the building would comply with the
12 town ' s height regulations . And those are
• 13 shown on the architectural plans in your
14 packet . We are not demolishing the house .
15 We are not increasing the size or the
16 footprint of the house . We are decreasing
17 the overall coverage . We are upgarding the
18 property with a new septic system. We are
19 removing nonconformity by way of rear decks
20 ( In Audible ) . The lot is small . It ' s
21 contains 3621 feet . There is a small beach
22 area . If you subtract the beach area, which
23 is called the buildable land area, it
24 shrinks to 3512 square feet . The house
• 25 footprint 1343 square feet . The existing
September 4, 2014 Regular Meeting 10
1 front yard setback is 3 feet . The existing
2 side yard setback is 2 . 7 feet . The existing
3 total side yard setback is 13 . 2 feet . The
4 rear yard is 25 feet and the bulkhead
5 setback is 21 feet . And those nyumbers
6 remain the same in this application . The
7 existing lot coverage including the deck is
8 21 . 51 , which constitues 66 . 90 of the
9 buildable area . All of these numbers , all of
10 this data is contained on the survey that
11 was prepared by Peconic Surveyors , which is
12 part of your application . We are a
• 13 preexisting nonconforming lot in a
14 residential zone . Due to the required
15 minimum setback of the front yard of 35
16 feet . It may be of use to introduce the
17 archtect .
18 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: My question is to
19 you . If the Board was so inclined to grant
20 this application, what would be the height
21 above average grade now? From the grade?
22 MR . ANDERSON : This floor would be
23 13 . 9 feet .
24 MEMBER GOEHRINGER : So it would be
• 25 13 . 9 from the ground --
September 4, 2014 Regular Meeting 11
1 MR . ANDERSON : No . The ground
2 elevation is 5 . 2 .
3 MEMBER GOEHRINGER : So we would
4 subtract 5 . 2 from the 13 . 9?
5 MR . ANDERSON : Right . I am going to
6 get into that because during the course --
7 this application is very unique in detail
8 and we ' re going to get to that when we get
9 into the interpretation of the application,
10 which I think you will find interesting .
11 The final dimension of the variance is the
12 75 foot from the bulkhead, which we cannot
• 13 meet . The second part, we ' re asking for an
14 interpretation relating to the lifting of
15 this house . And what the second notice,
16 states that the construction is not
17 permitted, which limits the dwelling to two
18 and half stories . So the first part deals
19 with construction . It' s important that
20 nothing in this application results in
21 further encroachment towards any property
22 line or towards a bulkhead . The second part
23 of the application --
24 MEMBER HORNING : Is it fair to say
• 25 that all the existing setbacks are going to
September 4, 2014 Regular Meeting 12
• 1 be maintained in the existing footprint?
2 MR. ANDERSON : That is correct . So
3 the second part deals with the question of
4 interpretation . The area to which to park
5 cars would be considered as non-habitable
6 space . As it would not be seated or heated.
7 It would be surrounded by break away homes .
8 Which are designs for homes that are in a
9 high velocity zone according to FEMA.
10 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That is what I
11 was going to ask a minute ago . It appears
12 that that round floor plan has no habitable
• 13 space?
14 MR. ANDERSON : That' s correct .
15 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Cars are parked
16 in a non-conditioned space?
17 MR. ANDERSON : That' s correct . The
18 applicant recognizes that the parking area
19 beneath the first floor ( In Audible) on
20 December 19 , 2013 . I am going to hand up a
21 copy for your records . It ' s lengthy. It is
22 difficult to read .
23 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Why don' t you just
24 give us a little caveat on what it' s going
• 25 to say?
September 4, 2014 Regular Meeting 13
• 1 MR. ANDERSON : That is what I am going
2 to do . We should start with the purpose and
3 it' s purpose is really to direct the
4 Building Inspector ' s to require sprinkling
5 of the two habitable floors . It' s not
6 really a building code item as much as it is
7 a fire protection concern . And in New York
8 State fire protection and building codes are
9 integrated into one statute . So it ' s a
10 uniform building and fire code of the State
11 of New York . And this directs issues from a
12 fire protection standpoint . It says
13 firefighters not be required to ascend two
14 flights of stairs or almost two flights of
15 stairs to reach occupant during the fire .
16 The bulletin goes on to state that it must
17 not be more than 6 feet above ( In Audible ) .
18 And what that means is , the level of the
19 earth in which the house sits . Previous to
20 this ruling, the parking of a vehicle under
21 a house, would be permitted as of right .
22 And I can tell you from my experience, we
23 commonly do this in velocity zones . It
24 makes sense . Our request to the Board is
25 that our interpretation be rendered grade
September 4, 2014 Regular Meeting 14
1 plank parking area does not constitute as a
• 2 habitable space and just for fire protection
3 and local ordinance . That is to say that if
4 you rule in favor, you would not only be
5 helping this application but helping people
6 town wide who find themselves in this
7 predicament . So First Street is already
8 over burdened with parking . So if we allow
9 the applicant to park under his house, we
10 would alleviate this condition . In addition
11 to that, the applicant agrees and intends to
12 comply with the sprinklering as required in
• 13 that technical area .
14 MEMBER HORNING : Sir, is that going to
15 be sprinklered in the whole house?
16 MR. ANDERSON : Yes . Next , I am going
17 to hand up a neighboring ( In Audible) and a
18 tax map .
19 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We are missing
20 two green cards . Did you get any back?
21 MR. ANDERSON : Not yet . We have all
22 the receipts . They were all mailed . So the
23 attached aerial photograph identifies the
24 property as relation to, what I considered,
• 25 downtown New Suffolk. To the south of the
September 4, 2014 Regular Meeting 15
1 property, there are two story dwellings . To
• 2 the east , you will see Legends . You will
3 see the New Suffolk area that is developing .
4 You will see Captain Marty' s . When you go to
5 the second page, you will see tax maps , with
6 basic structures that exist in the
7 neighborhood . We would comply with the R-40
8 setback. So it is that of preexisting
9 nonconforming lots and structures placed on
10 those lots . It is our intention that the
11 variance should be granted because there
12 will be no impact in the character of the
• 13 neighborhood. There is no increase in lot
14 coverage . In fact , lot coverage would
15 decrease from 66 . 9% to 38 . 2% due to the
16 removal of the deck that exist in the rear
17 yard . In addition, the encroachment would
18 be removed because it' s not on our property.
19 The parking would be a benefit to the
20 community of First Street . There would be
21 no burden ( In Audible ) attracted to that
22 area . And I think we have covered that in
23 significant detail . The benefit of the
24 applicant cannot be achieved by some other
• 25 method other than a variance . We have
September 4, 2014 Regular Meeting 16
1 requested interpretation that would benefit
• 2 the applicant for sufficient for parking and
3 would reduce the parking on the right of
4 way. No . 3 , there would be no further
5 encroachment on any setback that is
6 requested. The lot coverage would be
7 decreased from 66 . 9% to 38 . 20 over the
8 buildable area of the property . No . 4 , this
9 was not self-created because we would not be
10 before this Board or any other agency for
11 that matter, had we not been impacted by
12 Hurricane Sandy . So therefore, it is our
• 13 contention, that if the area variance is
14 granted and the interpretation would out way
15 any detriment to the health, safety and
16 welfare the neighborhood and the community .
17 The benefits of the applicant would
18 obviously be the suitable place for the
19 dwelling to protect it from future storms .
20 The requested interpretation would benefit
21 the applicant by allowing non-habitable
22 grade that they could use for parking . As
23 would have been allowable prior to December
24 13th of last year . It would also benefit the
• 25 community as a whole because your
September 4, 2014 Regular Meeting 17
1 interpretation would allow that same
• 2 benefit, to be able to park under a house
3 that is raised on piles for homes that are
4 suitable or similarly constrained.
5 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I have a couple
6 of questions . The reason why I asked about
7 a green card because the most affected
8 neighbor is that little tiny house next door
9 and there is no green card . So they have
10 not had an opportunity -- either they didn ' t
11 get it or they don' t care .
12 MR. ANDERSON : In your application are
• 13 the certifications that they have been
14 mailed .
15 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I am just
16 saying, when you look at all the things that
17 have been presented, your points are very
18 well taken . But the bottom line is, that is
19 a tiny little house . Let' s talk about a
20 couple of different things . What do you
21 believe to be the ( In Audible) impact of a
22 dwelling that is on pilings that is 33 . 6
23 feet and will be 36 . 2 feet high; correct?
24 Wait a minute . That is the main height .
• 25 What would the overall finished height be on
September 4, 2014 Regular Meeting 18
1 the pilings .
• 2 MR. ANDERSON : Let' s let the architect
3 explain that .
4 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : My point is,
5 that little house --
6 MR. ANDERSON : I am prepared to answer
7 your questions . Let' s start with the
8 topograph ( In Audible ) .
9 (Stepped away from the microphone . )
10 MEMBER HORNING : Next door, what zone
11 is that?
12 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That has to be
• 13 MII .
14 MR. ANDERSON : I don' t know .
15 MEMBER HORNING: Can you find that
16 out? Is the houses that are surrounding
17 this, are they R-40?
18 MR. ANDERSON : Yes . These houses face
19 east . We understand that we ' re in the
20 northern hemisphere . So the sun rises in
21 the east and sets in the west . The aerial
22 photograph show you what that shading is
23 today . Right now, the 22 foot shade between
24 10 : 00 and noon . Shades out a garage can
• 25 in his house . You can also see how the
September 4, 2014 Regular Meeting 19
Is 1 shading occurs in the aerial photograph .
2 You can see it' s cast to the side and
3 towards the street . Then also, it is worth
4 wild noting that the neighbors house, we
5 looked at it . There is two windows . There
6 is one adjacent when you walk through the
7 front door . And it contains and air
8 conditioning unit . So in terms of the solar
9 impact or the shading impact next door,
10 there is no impact today and there would be
11 no impact after the house is raised.
12 MEMBER HORNING : Mr . Anderson, do you
13 know if that property is the same property
14 of the letter that we received?
15 MR. ANDERSON : No, it' s not . It' s
16 from an individual that lives across the
17 street . We looked at hat letter . I don' t
18 think that individual understands what we ' re
19 doing . We ' re not enlarging, you know,
20 making the structure bigger . We are simply
21 protecting it from flooding . And the second
22 concern, this Board as well as any other
23 agency would be concerned about the
24 environment . This would be upgraded .
25 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Explain what
September 4, 2014 Regular Meeting 20
1 is going on with this septic?
• 2 MR. ANDERSON : I am going to turn that
3 over to Joe Fischetti .
4 MR. FISCHETTI : Joe Fischetti ,
5 engineer . It is a very constricted site .
6 There are two existing nonconformities
7 cesspools in that side yard . When I had
8 done this before, I think on Rabbit Lane,
9 where we have very small lots . So we needed
10 to upgrade . We could not comply completely
11 with Health Department requirements . I had
12 gone over this site with Ed Lyons . He said
• 13 I was not going to comply when I upgrade the
14 system. I am going to get pretty close . So
15 we designed a compliant septic tank, which
16 is 1 , 000 gallons and two leaching tanks .
17 The gallons give you a better way to assist
18 -- I am trying to remember this all in my
19 head. So we complied with the distance
20 separation between the galley' s and the
21 retaining walls , which is pretty close to
22 a compliant system with the Health
23 Department . So we have submitted it and
24 we' re waiting on Board approval for this . I
• 25 have gotten similar systems approved with
September 4, 2014 Regular Meeting 21
1 the Health Department .
• 2 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : How high are the
3 retaining walls?
4 MR. FISCHETTI : 3 feet .
5 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : 3 foot high
6 retaining wall . Okay . I want to try and
7 understand the whole math on the site .
8 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: ( In Audible ) .
9 MR. FISCHETTI : Correct .
10 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: So you are going
11 to have an elevation there?
12 MR. FISCHETTI : Yes . The septic
• 13 system really needs to filter through sand
14 before you get into the ground water . So a
15 two foot separation is important .
16 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Along the side
17 yard, there are walls , okay . Creating
18 privacy against the boat yard and the
19 adjacent house . Are they going to be
20 maintained?
21 MR. FISCHETTI : I think they have to
22 because we' re going to be putting in
23 concrete walls along that side . That
24 concrete retaining wall runs along the south
25 side of the property line . I don' t know if
September 4, 2014 Regular Meeting 22
1 you can see it .
Is 2 MR. FALLINO : Frank Fallino,
3 architect , Port Washington . I think the
4 intention is to incorporate that . To make
5 it look very similar to what is there now .
6 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And that would
7 be the case on both side yards?
8 MR . FALLINO : That will just remain .
9 We are not going to touch it .
10 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That stays . Is
11 the shower remaining?
12 MR. FALLING : That will be removed as
• 13 well .
14 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All that in the
15 raised deck area is now going to be at
16 grade?
17 MR. FALLINO : Correct .
18 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay.
19 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Can I ask you a
20 question, Mr . Anderson?
21 MR. ANDERSON : Sure .
22 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: As you know in the
23 past, many, many years ago, you could use
24 ( In Audible) not used any more . So the only
25 thing that we really have today is ( In
September 4, 2014 Regular Meeting 23
1 Audible) . That would allow the burn to be
• 2 slowed down significantly?
3 MR. ANDERSON I would presume so, yes .
4 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: From a fire
5 standpoint, I don' t know how pilings burn,
6 but I am sure they could be slowed down
7 significantly. I am just saying .
8 MR. ANDERSON : I would say this, a
9 fire would not likely occur at the grade .
10 It would likely occur within the habitable
11 space of the structure .
12 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: But it could occur
13 in a car?
14 MR. ANDERSON : It could . I would say
15 that prevention with ( In Audible ) would be
16 appropriate .
17 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Definitely.
18 MR. ANDERSON : That makes sense .
19 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The survey shows
20 an air conditioning unit on a wooden
21 platform. But it ' s on the side where there
22 is a dwelling . And the distance between the
23 side yard is not very great . There is some
24 noise involved, and I am wondering whether
25 or not it ' s possible to feasibly -- to put
September 4, 2014 Regular Meeting 24
1 that unit on the other side where the boat
• 2 yard is because that will have minimal to no
3 impact on anyone .
4 MR. ANDERSON : That is a great
5 suggestion .
6 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It is noisy. So
7 if that is --
8 MR. ANDERSON : That is entirely
9 appropriate and we agree .
10 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : George?
11 MEMBER HORNING: I wanted Mr . Anderson
12 to give us a simple explanation of what he
• 13 wants us to interpret as non-habitable space
14 and the heights above grade . Were you
15 saying a minimum height?
16 MR . ANDERSON : What I am asking you to
17 do is to render an interpretation that for
18 purposes of zoning only, that the
19 unconditioned, unheated space below the
20 first floor not be considered as storage .
21 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Okay. The
22 question that I have, these typical
23 pilings that we see . Are they cement wall?
24 What is condition of the wall around it?
• 25 MR. FALLINO : They are on top of
September 4, 2014 Regular Meeting 25
1 concrete and reinforced with helical
• 2 pilings .
3 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Okay . Good.
4 MR. FALLINO : And the breakaway away
5 walls would be lattice . Some type of light
6 weight wood .
7 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Something similar
8 to what we see on the beach . So they will
9 self open themselves . Okay. So how high is
10 the cement piling .
11 MR. FALLINO : 7 '-� feet above grade .
12 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I am looking at
13 the time and seeing that we had some
14 deliberations and discussions before the
15 public hearings . I just want to make sure
16 that everyone says what they want to say and
17 we hear what they want to say . Does the
18 Board --
19 MEMBER HORNING: Yes . I want to know
20 if there was a minimum and maximum height on
21 this space? Tell us again .
22 MR. ANDERSON : The memo states that
23 the concern is that, almost two full
24 flights . It also provides a height
• 25 dimension at Page 5 or 6, In the final
September 4, 2014 Regular Meeting 26
1 paragraph at 6 feet . If you were to -- we
• 2 would still need the pre-board.
3 MR. FALLINO : ( In Audible) .
4 (Mr . Fallino, was no where near a
5 microphone . )
6 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Bruce, can you
7 just summarize your code interpretation? I
8 want to be sure that I have this right .
9 Your argument, for lack of a better word,
10 not that you ' re arguing, is that the height
11 even raised on pilings to the mid-point of
12 the gable is 33 . 675 ; is that correct?
• 13 MR. ANDERSON : Yes .
14 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Whereas the
15 height that was noted was 36 . 25 to the top?
16 MR. ANDERSON : Yes .
17 MR. FALLINO : If I look at the
18 elevation from the house of the new septic
19 system, I am 25 and 11 inches . If we add
20 the three feet , then we are at 28 feet .
21 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Hold on . Let me
22 get this straight . To the mid point of the
23 gable?
24 MR. FALLING : Correct .
25 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Natural grade .
September 4, 2014 Regular Meeting 27
1 And the final finished height , that is --
• 2 MR. FALLINO : 30 foot 3 inches .
3 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : 28 . 11 . What is
4 the top?
5 MR. FALLING : 30 . 3 .
6 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : 30 feet , 3
7 inches . Okay. And you are asking because
8 there is no habitable under those pilings to
9 suggest that this is the first floor begins
10 above the pilings?
11 MR. ANDERSON : ( In Audible) story as
12 that is applied in the zoning . That for
• 13 purposes of uniformed building code and fire
14 code, that is what trigger' s the
15 sprinklering requirement .
16 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay. To be
17 used only for parking and storage --
18 MR . ANDERSON : Correct .
19 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay. I think
20 we have it all . Is there anyone in the
21 audience who wants to address this
22 application?
23 (No Response . )
24 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay . Hearing
• 25 no further questions or comments , I will
September 4, 2014 Regular Meeting 28
1 make a motion to close the hearing and
• 2 reserve decision to later date?
3 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I think we should
4 leave it open to the Special Meeting if
5 there is any questions .
6 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Do you want to
7 then close it at the Special?
8 MR . ANDERSON : We will help in any way
9 that we can help .
10 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All right . I am
11 going to make a motion to adjourn to the
12 Special Meeting if there are any additional
• 13 questions that we have prior to closing .
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 # 6788 - WILLEM KOOYKER and
24 JUDITH ANN CORRENTE
• 25 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay. The next
September 4, 2014 Regular Meeting 29
1 application before the Board is for Willem
2 Kooyker and Judith Ann Corrente, #6788
3 Request for Variance from Article XXII
4 Section 280-116A ( 1 ) and the Building
5 Inspector' s July 29, 2014 Notice of
6 Disapproval based on an application for
7 building permit for a porch addition to
8 existing single family dwelling, at ; 1 ) less
9 than the code required setback of 100 feet
10 from the top of bluff, located at : 7832
11 Claypoint Road (adj . To Fishers Island
12 Sound) Fishers Island .
13 Okay. Who is here to represent this
14 application?
15 MR. LARK: Good morning. Richard Lark,
16 Main Road in Cutchogue, New York for the
17 applicant . I will try and be brief after
18 this long hearing that you just had.
19 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : This is a 61 foot
20 setback from the top of the bluff where the
21 code requires 100 , and it ' s LWRP consistent .
22 Do you have a copy of that?
23 MR. LARK: No, if I could get one from
24 you .
25 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well, the
September 4, 2014 Regular Meeting 30
• 1 existing house from the top of the bluff is
2 62 . 75 feet ; is that correct?
3 MR. LARK: Right .
4 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And the proposed
5 porch addition is 61 feet?
6 MR. LARK: Correct . Sam Fitzgerald is
7 here if the Board has any questions about
8 the application . He is here to answer them.
9 The original house was built in 1958 . The
10 Assessors have always carried a 14x17 on the
11 water side front of the house, a stone
12 terrace or patio . That is what it shows on
• 13 here, on the property card and so on and so
14 forth . Okay. What is being proposed as you
15 saw in the application, to take this
16 existing footprint of the patio and put on
17 top of it, a porch and a pergola and a roof
18 on the porch, which would attach to the
19 house . When Mr . Fitzgerald asked me to look
20 at this, I called this an ( In Audible)
21 application . Why it was not included when
22 they applied last year for the other? He
23 said, they forgot about it . And when they
24 got all the permits and the contractor says ,
• 25 we need to do something with this patio .
September 4, 2014 Regular Meeting 31
• 1 We ' re building this beautiful addition over
2 here and this thing is in disrepair and we
3 need to repair it . They said, all right .
4 It ' s going to be part of the porch. Then
5 everybody looked at the detailed plans and
6 it wasn ' t included. So I pointed out to
7 him, the Board did approve 191 square foot
8 addition, which kept it 63 . 75 feet from the
9 top of the bluff . The property site now
10 still looks like a war zone because when
11 they removed the pool and everything from
12 the prior application and then they dug and
• 13 put a foundation in for the new garage,
14 which is landward of the house . They found
15 all kinds of rocks . They are all going to
16 be removed. It ' s something else when you
17 look at it now . So during this
18 construction, they did discover this little
19 boo-boo . Mr . Fitzgerald was very clear in
20 getting it taken care of . But as you know,
21 anything seaward of the house, has to have a
22 variance because the original house was --
23 the zoning was even thought of . It ' s so
24 close to the -- it doesn ' t conform to the
• 25 100 foot setback. So that puts us here . So
September 4, 2014 Regular Meeting 32
• 1 I think that is fairly it and the
2 application puts us as complete . If you
3 have specific questions about it . The
4 architect has laid out exactly what they
5 want to do . Basically, it ' s just putting
6 this thing over . I jokingly, not being an
7 architect , I said, why bother . Just put a
8 big awning over it . One of those awnings
9 that came out . Then the Building Inspector
10 said, yeah, you wouldn ' t even require a
11 variance for it . But then they said it
12 would look like the devil . They are
• 13 spending enough money. If they ' re going to
14 do it -- and besides , they couldn ' t screen
15 that in, and they do want to screen that in
16 so they can enjoy the evenings there . So
17 they ask the Board to consider this , for the
18 living space in the summer time and the
19 pergola outside . Again, there is no
20 detriment to the health, safety and welfare
21 of the neighborhood . And as I stated, it
22 will be exactly over the footprint, which
23 they are in the place of repairing and
24 suring it up with a wall around it . There
• 25 is no increase in the footprint . So I
September 4, 2014 Regular Meeting 33
• 1 think the map is pretty self explanatory of
2 what they need to do . I think it ' s clear
3 in considering the elements , that there will
4 be no undesirable change in the neighborhood
5 or detriment to the neighboring properties .
6 We pointed out that the house was originally
7 bought in 1958 . It was 80 . 5 feet from the
8 top of the bluff . The interesting thing, in
9 looking back in the earlier time, I got from
10 Chandler ( In Audible ) Connecticut , the top
11 of the bluff hasn ' t really moved since that
12 date . And for good reason . There ' s a stone
• 13 beach and it ' s been well vegetated. It
14 really hasn ' t moved. The interesting thing
15 is , although this is going to be close to
16 the westerly, as you move towards the east
17 of the patio, it becomes less of a variance
18 because of the angles of the bluff and the
19 angles of the house . Not to take into
20 consideration, but I wanted to just note .
21 So and I submit that -- oh, I also pointed
22 out that they were going to need a Trustees
23 permit because it was the same situation,
24 within the 100 feet . Mr . Fitzgerald made
• 25 arrange with the Trustees that it be
September 4, 2014 Regular Meeting 34
• 1 considered a De Minimus permit , since they
2 considered it that way. I don ' t believe one
3 requirement that you have considered if this
4 is substantial . As I pointed out , the house
5 is 85 , originally put back in ' 58 . And this
6 distance is going to be 61 feet as it is
7 today . When you put the screened in porch
8 and a roof on top of it , it becomes a
9 structure, and you need a building permit .
10 The Building Inspector said I needed to get
11 a variance from the Board before he can even
12 approve it . The plans and everything. So
13 there is no problem in that area . In that ,
14 in many ways that makes it a De Minimus
15 application . Will it have any effect that
16 yu will have to consider on the
17 environmental conditions , of the
18 neighborhood, I submit , no . If you look at
19 the plans , which are sketchy of what was
20 given to you . But if you look at the
21 building plans , it provides for a gutter and
22 a drain and a drywell . As it the rest of
23 the other things that are in conformance
24 with Soil and Water Conservation recommended
• 25 for the original and they also recommended
September 4, 2014 Regular Meeting 35
• 1 that the sprinkler system be kept at a
2 minimum. They only made minor repairs . A
3 quick pop-up to keep the grass green . That
4 will be taken care . Interesting, in the
5 Soil and Water, and I read it again, a
6 condition of the prior one, about erosion .
7 And it was determined that erosion is not on
8 this property. It' s on the adjacent
9 property. And the erosion that was picked
10 up by the stairs has virtually been
11 eliminated because the vegetation has gotten
12 so thick. It' s nonexistent . I had them
13 look at that and it' s basically nonexistent .
14 And again, back to my application, there is
15 no question that it' s self created.
16 Considering everything on a balancing act ,
17 which is what you have to do in all these
18 applications , I think that the Board can
19 grant this and I humbly ask you to consider
20 granting the application and add the porch
21 to the construction while they have the roof
22 open on the main house . Thank you for your
23 time .
24 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Just to confirm
• 25 that there is no proposed excavation or fill
September 4, 2014 Regular Meeting 36
1 with this porch addition?
2 MR. LARK: There is none . I did check
3 on that .
4 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay. That is
5 all that I have . George, anything?
6 MEMBER HORNING : No questions .
7 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Ken?
8 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: No questions .
9 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Gerry?
10 MEMBER GOEHRINGER : No questions .
11 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Eric?
12 MEMBER DANTES : No questions .
13 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there anyone
14 else in the audience who wishes to address
15 this application?
16 (No Response . )
17 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Hearing no
18 further comments or questions , I will make a
19 motion to close this hearing and reserve
20 decision to a later date .
21 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second .
22 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor?
23 MEMBER DANTES : Aye .
24 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye .
. 25 MEMBER HORNING : Aye .
September 4, 2014 Regular Meeting 37
is
1 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye .
2 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye .
3 See Minutes for Resolution .
4 ********* ***************** ****************
5 HEARING #6786 - RICHARD E . AND AMANDA
6 J. T . RIEGEL, III .
7 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next
8 application before the Board is for Richard
9 E . And Amanda J. T . Riegel , III , #6786 .
10 Request for Variance from Article III
11 Section 280-15and the Building Inspector' s
12 June 18 , 2014 Notice of Disapproval based on
• 13 an application for building permit for `as
14 built' accessory shed/greenhouse, at ; 1 )
15 location other than the code required rear
16 yard, located at : 3651 Crescent Avenue
17 (corner Central Avenue, Munnatawket Avenue
18 and Fox Avenue ) in Fisher' s Island.
19 Morning .
20 MR. HAM: Morning . Steven Ham, 38
21 Nugent Street, Southampton, for the
22 applicant . I was not going to do a
23 memorandum but I couldn ' t help myself .
24 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : This is your
• 25 memorandum? Okay.
September 4, 2014 Regular Meeting 38
• 1 MR. HAM: We are here, as you know,
2 because last October you granted a variance
3 for some additions to a dwelling and the
4 condition was that we obtain a CO for the
5 accessory structure . The arguments are
6 going to be pretty much the same as they
7 were . We are bordered by four streets . It
8 is "as-built" situation, so it certainly
9 helps a self created hardship situation .
10 Not someone didn ' t get a building permit .
11 Although in my memorandum. I have as an
12 attachment, but to 1974 , this structure was
• 13 apparently on site . So it has been there
14 for at least 40 years . The impact,
15 obviously has been absorbed by now. The
16 only point that I want to make is , if we
17 were here without having built it , but
18 wanting to build it, this would, I think
19 it' s a classic difficulty, you can' t find a
20 conforming location on this property. And
21 it' s location is on the side or on the
22 street side, which has the very least
23 impact . And the rest of it, I have gone
24 through it . I don' t know if you have any
• 25 further questions . I would request that
September 4, 2014 Regular Meeting 39
1 you grant the variance and the CO to build
• 2 the addition from the last hearing .
3 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Any questions
4 from the Board?
5 MEMBER HORNING : You said you think it
6 was built around 1974 ?
7 MR. HAM: It has been there at least
8 since 1974 . There is a topographic map that
9 I have attached to that memorandum and it
10 shows on that . That map was prepared in
11 1974 . So it has been there a long time .
12 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anything else
• 13 from the Board?
14 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: It' s 14 . 11 x
15 14 . 14 --
16 MR. HAM: Right . Whatever is on
17 there .
18 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there anyone
19 else in the audience who wishes to address
20 this application?
21 (No Response . )
22 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Hearing no
23 further questions or comments, I will make a
24 motion to close the hearing and reserve
25 decision to a later date .
September 4, 2014 Regular Meeting 40
40 1 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second.
2 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor?
3 MEMBER DANTES : Aye .
4 MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Aye .
5 MEMBER HORNING : Aye .
6 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye .
7 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye .
8 See Minutes for Resolution .
9 ********************* *********************
10 HEARING #6782 - JOSEPH LICCIARDI AND
11 CATHERINE PING .
12 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next
13 application before the Board is for Joseph
14 Licciardi and Catherine Pino, #6782 .
15 Applicant requests a Special Exception under
16 Article III , Section 280-13B ( 13 ) . The
17 Applicant is the owner requesting
18 authorization to establish an Accessory
19 Apartment in an accessory structure, located
20 at : 50 Cleaves Point Road (adj . To Orient
21 Harbor) in East Marion .
22 Is someone here to represent?
23 MS . SANTORA: Yes . Eileen Santora,
24 Cutchogue, New York . I am here to represent
• 25 Joseph Licciardi and Catherine Pino . There
September 4, 2014 Regular Meeting 41
• 1 is also another variance for today. When my
2 clients purchased this house, they bought
3 the cottage or whatever you want to call it .
4 It was there on the property. It had a
5 bathroom. They wanted to spruce it up a
6 little bit and add new windows . And mom,
7 Catherine' s mother uses it . It' s solely for
8 the family and it will always be solely for
9 the family. And they didn' t know that even
10 though it was an accessory to the situation,
11 they still need a permit going forward .
12 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Are they
• 13 full-time residence?
14 MS . SANTORA: Yes . Full-time .
15 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : They are out
16 here full time and the mother is just coming
17 and going?
18 MS . SANTORA: Right . She lives in
19 Florida .
20 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : There was a
21 non-habitable accessory structure issued to
22 a CO, 7 /16/2014 , one family dwelling . A
23 non-habitable accessory structure issued to
24 Mr . Lawnberg (phonetic) . Was that the
25 previous owner .
September 4, 2014 Regular Meeting 42
• 1 MS . SANTORA: That was the previous
2 owner, right . That was in 1997 .
3 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It was corrected
4 this year .
5 MS . SANTORA: Right .
6 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I just wanted to
7 make note of that .
8 MS . SANTORA: I think it was called a
9 boathouse .
10 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Something like
11 that .
12 Ken, why don' t you ask that question?
13 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Sure . We normally
14 get a little sketch showing for the parking,
15 so to speak on the survey. I didn' t see
16 that .
17 MS . SANTORA: Well, the mom doesn ' t
18 drive . The parking is in the front of the
19 driveway of the house .
20 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: You need to show
21 that .
22 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You need to put
23 that on anyway . It doesn ' t matter whether
24 she drives or not . We require the parking
• 25 space to be available .
September 4, 2014 Regular Meeting 43
• 1 MS . SANTORA: It is a two car garage .
2 I will look at the survey and see what they
3 have on there . It shows pervious driveway.
4 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Yes , I see that . You
5 have to show where the car is going to be
6 parked .
7 MS . SANTORA: Can I do it now?
8 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Yes .
9 MS . SANTORA: How big do you want --
10 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: You know what, you
11 can submit that . You don' t have to do it
12 right now.
• 13 MS . SANTORA: Okay. I was going to
14 look up the code so I know the size .
15 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : There you go .
16 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Nothing else . This
17 is the site . Just want to see the parking .
18 MEMBER HORNING: No questions .
19 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let the record
20 show that there was an interior inspection
21 of the site . A couple of members --
22 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I was there .
23 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I think we have
24 all been to see it . Just again for the
• 25 record the square footage of this accessory
September 4, 2014 Regular Meeting 44
• 1 apartment has been set by the Building
2 Department at 575 square feet , which is
3 conforming for the livable floor area by
4 code .
5 Anyone in the audience who wishes to
6 address this?
7 (No Response . )
8 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Hearing no
9 further comments or questions , I will make a
10 motion to close this hearing and reserve
11 decision to a later date, subject to receipt
12 of a parking plan showing off street
• 13 parking .
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 #6781 - JOSEPH LICCIARDI AND
24 CATHERINE PINO .
• 25 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next
September 4, 2014 Regular Meeting 45
1 application is for variance relief . Same
• 2 applicant . This is for Joseph Licciardi and
3 Catherine Pino, #6781 . Request for Variances
4 from Article XXIII Section 280-124 and the
5 Building Inspector' s April 18 , 2014 , renewed
6 July 14 , 2014 Notice of Disapproval based on
7 an application for building permit to
8 construct additions and alterations to an
9 existing single family dwelling, at ; 1 ) less
10 than the code required minimum side yard
11 setback of 15 feet, 2 ) less than the code
12 required combined side yard setback of 35
• 13 feet, located at : 50 Cleaves Point Road
14 (adj . To Orient Harbor) in East Marion .
15 So what we have here is a proposed
16 single side yard setback of 14 . 5 feet,
17 where the code requires 15 . And a combined
18 side yard setback of 32 . 5 feet, where the
19 code requires 35 feet . Now, please just
20 state your name for the record.
21 MS . SANTORA: Eileen Santora, I
22 represent Catherine Pino and Joe Licciardi .
23 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay. I want a
24 little clarification here because the survey
• 25 shows 14 . 5 feet and 11 . 0 side yard setback .
September 4, 2014 Regular Meeting 46
1 And let' s take a look at it . What the
• 2 Notice of Disapproval said and what we
3 looked at the survey seems inconsistent .
4 This is for a second story addition on part
5 of the house .
6 MS . SANTORA: Right . Everything is
7 there already. Except the carport where the
8 garage is going to go and we are doing a
9 second story to match the rest of the house
10 that has two story' s .
11 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Partial second
12 story?
• 13 MS . SANTORA: Right . I am not changing
14 the footprint at all .
15 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So all those
16 existing setbacks are being maintained?
17 MS . SANTORA: Right .
18 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay. Ken, do you
19 want to pick this up?
20 MS . SANTORA: I don' t know why they
21 did that .
22 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : - By the way, it' s
23 LWRP exempt . Do you have a copy of that or
24 want a copy of that?
• 25 MS . SANTORA: Right . I have --
September 4, 2014 Regular Meeting 47
1 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I just wanted to
• 2 indicate that it was exempt . All right . I
3 see . What' s going on here apparently is the
4 call out on the -- it has a bigger setback
5 then the 11 because the second -- the
6 proposed second story addition is at 18 feet
7 from the side yard?
8 MS . SANTORA: Yes .
9 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It' s over there
10 somewhere . She must have scaled it from the
11 survey. This is what it looks like and that
12 is certainly why -- they must be going on
• 13 this side . This is where the second story
14 addition is . I think the bottom line is,
15 there is no encroachment on the existing
16 side yard setback . What we can do is to ask
17 Vicki just to double check with the Building
18 Department to determine -- well, based on
19 that survey, to determine where the setbacks
20 were taken from.
21 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: So you are building
22 a second story where the carport is?
23 MS . SANTORA: That is going to be over
24 the garage .
• 25 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: All right .
September 4, 2014 Regular Meeting 48
1 MS . SANTORA: On the other side, right
• 2 behind the garage -- it' s not in the
3 kitchen .
4 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: All right .
5 MEMBER HORNING : Is that area on the
6 second floor including everything above the
7 existing footprint?
8 MS . SANTORA: Yes .
9 MEMBER HORNING : Minus that bump-out?
10 MS . SANTORA: That bump-out -- that is
11 the existing deck. So that is going to be
12 two-story also .
• 13 (Whereupon, Ms . Santora approached the
14 Board . )
15 MEMBER HORNING : The foundation, I saw
16 a note on that too . Okay .
17 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Are we clear on
18 this now?
19 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Yes .
20 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anyone else in
21 the audience that wishes to address this
22 application?
23 (No Response . )
24 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Hearing no
• 25 further questions or comments , I will make a
September 4, 2014 Regular Meeting 49
1 motion to close the hearing and reserve
• 2 decision subject to staff clarification with
3 the Building Department about where the
4 setbacks are .
5 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second.
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 #6760 - DOUGLAS AND LEE BIVIANO
15 The next application is for Douglas
16 and Lee Biviano, #6760 . Applicant requests
17 a Special Exception under Article III ,
18 Section 280-13B ( 13 ) . The Applicant is the
19 owner requesting authorization to establish
20 an Accessory Apartment in an accessory
21 structure, located at : 1125 Pequash Avenue
22 (corner Willow Street ) in Cutchogue .
23 We have a letter requesting an
24 ajournement to October . And that is from the
• 25 applicant .
September 4, 2014 Regular Meeting 50
1 Is there anyone here for this
2 application?
3 (No Response . )
4 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Just because it
5 was advertised, I want to make sure that if
6 anyone was here that wanted to testify,
7 could do so .
8 So I am going to make a motion to
9 adjourn this application to the October 2nd
10 at 9 : 45 a .m.
11 MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Second.
12 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor?
13 MEMBER DANTES : Aye .
14 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye .
15 MEMBER HORNING : Aye .
16 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye .
17 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye .
18 See Minutes for Resolution .
19 ********* **********************************
20 HEARING #6779 - KATHLEEN AGOGLIA.
21 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next
22 application before the Board is for Kathleen
23 Agoglia, #6779 . Request for Variance from
24 Article XXIII Section 280-124 and the
25 Building Inspector' s March 26, 2014 , renewed
September 4, 2014 Regular Meeting 51
1 July 14 , 2014 Notice of Disapproval based on
• 2 an application for building permit to
3 construct a porch addition to existing
4 single family dwelling, at ; 1 ) less than the
5 code required minimum side yard setback of
6 15 feet, located at : 6205 Peconic Bay
7 Boulevard, Laurel .
8 MR . WILLIAMSON : Good morning. I am
9 Russ Williamson . This is a last minute
10 thing . She had to be out of town today . She
11 was going to come . Basically, I am sure you
12 have the information . When the house was
• 13 built in 1954 , the side yard setback was
14 12 . 5 . And the renovation, she wanted to add
15 a porch in the front at the end of the
16 house . And basically that' s it .
17 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So you are
18 proposing to maintain the existing side
19 yard?
20 MR. WILLIAMSON : Yes .
21 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That faces
22 Peconic Bay Boulevard?
23 MR. WILLIAMSON : Yes .
24 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The porch is only
• 25 about 5 feet deep?
September 4, 2014 Regular Meeting 52
1 MR . WILLIAMSON : Yes .
Is 2 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : With columns and
3 railings?
4 MR. WILLIAMSON : Right .
5 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The front yard
6 setback is conforming .
7 Okay. Questions from anybody? Eric?
8 MEMBER DANTES : Do you plan on
9 screening the porch?
10 MR. WILLIAMSON : No . It' s going to be
11 open .
12 MEMBER DANTES : All right . That is all
• 13 I have .
14 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Ken?
15 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: No .
16 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : George?
17 MEMBER HORNING : No .
18 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Gerry?
19 MEMBER GOEHRINGER : No .
20 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It' s very
21 straightforward. Is there anyone in the
22 audience who wishes to address this
23 application?
24 (No Response . )
• 25 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Hearing no
September 4, 2014 Regular Meeting 53
1 further questions or comments , I am going to
• 2 make a motion to close the hearing and
3 reserve decision to a later date .
4 MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Second.
5 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor?
6 MEMBER DANTES : Aye .
7 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye .
8 MEMBER HORNING : Aye .
9 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye .
10 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye .
11 See Minutes for Resolution .
12 ************************************ **** **
• 13 HEARING #6785 - JOHN R. LYNCH .
14 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next
15 application is for John R. Lynch, #6785 .
16 Request for Variance from Article III
17 Section 280-15 and the Building Inspector' s
18 December 10 , 2013 , renewed July 21, 2014
19 Notice of Disapproval based on an
20 application for building permit for `as
21 built' accessory shed, at; 1 ) proposed
22 location other than the code required rear
23 yard, located at : 1020 Glenn Road (adj . To
24 canal ) in Southold .
• 25 Just state your name for the record,
September 4, 2014 Regular Meeting 54
1 please .
• 2 MR. TRPICOUSKY : Good morning, members
3 of the Board, Richard Trpicousky .
4 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay. And do
5 you have an affidavit of posting for us?
6 MR. TRPICOUSKY : ( In Audible) office .
7 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All right . We
8 will look for it . So this is for an
9 "as-built" shed in the side yard?
10 MR. TRPICOUSKY : Correct .
11 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And we have all
12 been there to do site inspection . What would
• 13 you like us to know?
14 MR . TRPICOUSKY : The shed in question
15 has existed for many years . The homeowner
16 has put a sunroom to the addition of the
17 rear, which put the foundation line rear
18 ward to the shed. The shed would be ( In
19 Audible) below for the house . Thought of
20 moving it , but it would be quite a project
21 to do that . I have observed other sheds in
22 the immediate area . They are forward of the
23 rear foundation line . The shed is a small
24 structure and set well back from the street .
• 25 And conforms with the neighborhood . And has
September 4, 2014 Regular Meeting 55
• 1 not and will not have any detriment to the
2 surrounding neighborhood .
3 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You have
4 submitted photographs showing the interior
5 of the shed . So we see that there is
6 mechanical equipment in there . It actually
7 looks as though the shed is in the rear yard
8 from the street .
9 MR . TRPICOUSKY : It does .
10 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It ' s pretty well
11 screened from view of the adjacent
12 properties . I have no questions . Eric?
• 13 MEMBER DANTES : No .
14 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Ken?
15 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Yes . You said the
16 shed was built before the sunroom was built?
17 MR. TRPICOUSKY : Correct .
18 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Do you know when
19 the shed was built approximately?
20 MR. TRPICOUSKY : No, I don' t have a
21 date . Sorry. It' s been a number of years
22 but I don' t have a date .
23 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Do you know when
24 the sunroom was built?
• 25 MR. TRPICOUSKY : We had it on the
September 4, 2014 Regular Meeting 56
1 application . Say 2003 .
• 2 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Okay. I have no
3 further questions .
4 MEMBER HORNING: What' s the occasion
5 where you have gotten the Notice of
6 Disapproval? What would provide it?
7 MR. TRPICOUSKY : Hat happened was , when
8 we went to get a permit for the sunroom, we
9 went through a wetlands . ( In Audible ) Board
10 of Trustees I should say, for the sunroom
11 approval . They picked up the location of the
12 shed. They said that we needed a permit .
• 13 They had first thought we were going to
14 remove it and then we told them about the
15 difficulty that would try to have it
16 removed.
17 MEMBER HORNING : When you say "permit, "
18 are you talking about a Certificate of
19 Occupancy for the sunroom?
20 MR. TRPICOUSKY : Yes .
21 MEMBER HORNING: Okay. And you are
22 saying it' s not feasible to move the shed?
23 MR . TRPICOUSKY : It would be very
24 difficulty and very costly to do so .
25 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Sir, we have
September 4, 2014 Regular Meeting 57
1 checked our records and our file and there
• 2 is no affidavit of posting . You have to
3 have it . Just an affidavit saying that you
4 posted --
5 MR. TRPICOUSKY : I personally brought
6 it to them and I had it notarized when I was
7 there .
8 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We will check
9 our office again .
10 Anyone in the audience that wishes to
11 address this application?
12 (No Response . )
• 13 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All right .
14 Hearing no further questions or comments, I
15 am going to make a motion to close the
16 hearing and reserve decision to a later
17 date .
18 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second.
19 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor?
20 MEMBER DANTES : Aye .
21 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye .
22 MEMBER HORNING : Aye .
23 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye .
24 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye .
• 25 See Minutes for Resolution .
September 4, 2014 Regular Meeting 58
1 ************************** *****************
is 2 HEARING #6784 - MICHELLE PELLETIER.
3 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next
4 application before the Board is for Michelle
5 Pelletier, #6784 . Request for Variances
6 from Article III Section 280-15 and the
7 Building Inspector' s July 18 , 2014 Notice of
8 Disapproval based on an application for
9 building permit for `as built' accessory
10 sheds and hot tub, at ; 1 ) proposed location
11 other than the code required rear yard, 2 )
12 10X10 shed located at less than the code
• 13 required minimum side and rear yard setback
14 of 5 feet , located at : 53 (aka 350 ) Osprey
15 Nest Road (corner Harbor Road) Greenport .
16 MR. TEMPLETON : We apologize . My wife
17 actually did not send out the mailings . My
18 wife could not be here . I please excuse my
19 wardrobe . I was at the hospital last
20 night .
21 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You do need to
22 just state your name for the record .
23 MR. TEMPLETON : Stephen Templeton .
24 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Here is the
• 25 story . We have all been there to see the
September 4, 2014 Regular Meeting 59
1 site . And we are prepared to go forward .
• 2 However without the mailings, we legally
3 can ' t do that because the neighbors have to
4 be notified .
5 MR. TEMPLETON : Okay .
6 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So what I am
7 going to do, as long as you understand that
8 situation, I am going to make a motion to
9 adjourn to October . And we will carry on .
10 MR. TEMPLETON : ( In Audible) I will
11 make sure that this is done .
12 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You are using it
• 13 for hay storage, I think?
14 MR. TEMPLETON : Yes .
15 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Because it' s
16 listed on the survey as a shed . The Building
17 Department did not make an inspection --
18 MR. TEMPLETON : No .
19 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It' s a shed. It' s
20 almost like a large Tupperware . This one,
21 Gerry. The other shed in question is 4 . 8 and
22 4 . 3 off the property line . The Board has to
23 decide if it' s De Minimus . So let me do
24 this . So we' re going to adjourn this so that
25 your wife can be there and that other people
September 4, 2014 Regular Meeting 60
1 in the neighborhood who may have an interest
• 2 or not , are notified properly .3 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Can I just ask a
4 question? When you see "grant" .
5 MS . TOTH : This was granted in an
6 application back in the day. Prior to them
7 owning it .
8 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Okay .
9 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Hold on, folks ,
10 we' re adjourning because we should not be
11 discussing the details today .
12 MR. TEMPLETON : I will take care of
13 it .
14 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Just take care
15 of the mailing . So we are going to adjourn
16 for receipt and remail .
17 Is there anyone in this audience who
18 is here for this application?
19 ( In Audible ) .
20 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I hate to
21 inconvenience you, but without the mailings
22 going out legally to all of the surrounding
23 property owners , we really don' t have a
24 choice but to adjourn this to when this has
• 25 been accomplished . So normally I would take
September 4, 2014 Regular Meeting 61
• 1 tm, but given the fact that this is going to
2 be an incomplete hearing without that
3 requirement, Ia m going to make a motion to
4 adjourn to October 2nd . I apologize for any
5 inconvenience this may have caused you . I
6 will tell you this, if you wish to submit
7 any written tm between now and then, you are
8 certainly more than welcome to do that . We
9 will place it in our file . But I don' t
10 think that we can take tm today. I am going
11 to make a motion to adjourn this hearing to
12 October 2nd at 10 : 00 a . m.
• 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 #6780 - SONIA KARAKASH
23 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All right . The
24 next application before the Board is for
• 25 Sonia Karakash, #6780 . Request for Variance
September 4, 2014 Regular Meeting 62
1 from Article XXIII Section 280-124 and the
• 2 Building Inspector' s June 30 , 2014 Notice of
3 Disapproval based on an application for
4 building permit to construct additions and
5 alterations to an existing single family
6 dwelling, at ; 1 ) less than the code required
7 rear yard setback of 35 feet, located at :
8 1170 Third Street New Suffolk .
9 Please just state and spell your name
10 for the record .
11 MS . CHAMBERS : My name is Joan
12 Chambers . C-H-A-M-B-E-R-S, and I am acting
13 as an agent for Sonia Karakash .
14 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Terrific . Thank
15 you . So we are looking at a rear yard
16 setback at 32 . 6 feet , where the code
17 requires 35 . Looks to be an addition of
18 118square feet on a corner of the existing
19 rear of the ' s for storage right?
20 MS . CHAMBERS : Yes . It ' s a very small
21 house .
22 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And how is it
23 being accessed?
24 MS . CHAMBERS : The back of the house .
25 The kitchen, was redone in 1985 . They opened
September 4, 2014 Regular Meeting 63
1 up a section from the wall into that
• 2 area .
3 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay . I
4 couldn ' t figure that out . Let ' s see what
5 questions the Board has or unless you have
6 something more to tell us .
7 MS . CHAMBERS : Nothing . I am here
8 just to answer questions .
9 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Eric?
10 MEMBER DANTES : No questions .
11 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Ken?
12 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: No questions .
• 13 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : George?
14 MEMBER HORNING: I don' t have any
15 questions .
16 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Gerry?
17 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Were there any
18 additions made to the building without your
19 knowledge during the period of time that the
20 applicants have owned the property?
21 MS . CHAMBERS : I am not aware of that .
22 The Certificate of Occupancy is from 1985
23 and appears to have the existing footprint
24 of the existing house . So no, I don' t think
• 25 so . Nothing has been done since 1985 .
September 4, 2014 Regular Meeting 64
1 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Do you know where
• 2 the cesspools are?
3 MS . CHAMBERS : No .
4 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: So you wouldn ' t
5 know if they would run into a problem with
6 the cesspools in the back?
7 MS . CHAMBERS : Jeff Alex is going to
8 built it . He is aware of the fact that they
9 are in the side yard there or the front . I
10 can ' t say for sure .
11 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I was looking
12 there myself . Not that they ' re visible .
• 13 MS . CHAMBERS : Right .
14 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That' s all I
15 really wanted to ask.
16 MS . CHAMBERS : Okay.
17 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anybody else?
18 (No Response . )
19 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anybody in the
20 audience who wants to address this
21 application?
22 (No Response . )
23 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Hearing no
24 further questions or comments, I will make a
• 25 motion to close the hearing and reserve
September 4, 2014 Regular Meeting 65
1 decision to a later date .
• 2 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second.
3 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor?
4 MEMBER DANTES : Aye .
5 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye .
6 MEMBER HORNING: Aye .
7 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye .
8 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye .
9 See Minutes for Resolution .
10 * ******************************************
11 HEARING #6783 - JANET VAN ADELSBERG
12 Request for Variances from Article III
• 13 Section 280-15 and the Building Inspector' s
14 July 16, 2014 Notice of Disapproval based on
15 an application for building permit to
16 construct accessory shed and in-ground
17 swimming pool, at ; 1 ) proposed location
18 other than the code required rear yard,
19 located at : 4297 Wells Road (adj . To
20 Richmond Creek) in Peconic .
21 (Whereupon, the tape started during
22 testimony. )
23 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So there is no
24 outdoor shower?
• 25 MR. CICHANOWICZ : No . They are
September 4, 2014 Regular Meeting 66
1 proposing a shower but that is going to be
is 2 attached to the main house .
3 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So this is for
4 the concern of the side yard of whether
5 there has any vegetational wetlands?
6 MR. CICHANOWICZ : We would greatly
7 appreciate your consideration on this . In
8 the application, we have some included some
9 other evidence . I have others with me, as
10 additional places you have approved in the
11 past . I can give you .
12 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay. Dave,
• 13 because this isn ' t a survey and rather a
14 landscaped plan, we don' t have any kind of
15 real setbacks, nor do we have any drywell' s
16 for the pool or dewatering equipment might
17 be located and so on .
18 MR. CICHANOWICZ : The system that we
19 will put in do not require backwashing . This
20 has been a thing that we have been bringing
21 up to the Building Department and they' re
22 saying specifically to me, as long as you
23 put on your application, which we did, that
24 it' s a filtered swimming pool , then there is
• 25 no need for the Building Department to
September 4, 2014 Regular Meeting 67
1 require us to install a drywell . Now, if
• 2 there are other reasons on why you feel this
3 is necessary, I am sure, I could talk to the
4 owner about putting in a drywell .
5 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: What happens , if
6 you want to dump the pool?
7 MR. CICHANOWICZ : That certainly
8 becomes an issue .
9 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: This is not a
10 sarcastic statement . This is a pragmatic
11 statement .
12 MR. CICHANOWICZ : No, I understand.
• 13 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: If you had a
14 drywell large enough to accommodate, let' s
15 say, 1 , 000 gallons of water . And you had to
16 dump the pool, for whatever reason --
17 MR . CICHANOWICZ : I know from other
18 jobs that I have worked on, they come and
19 siphon water out with the garden hose . There
20 will be no water seeping into the ground.
21 That being said, that won ' t guarantee
22 anything .
23 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: You certainly
24 wouldn ' t want to kill the lawn .
• 25 MR. CICHANOWICZ : Absolutely not . There
September 4, 2014 Regular Meeting 68
1 has not been a real big issue . First of all,
• 2 the distance between the creek, we' re a good
3 180 feet from the high tide marks . And
4 that' s being conservative . So in this
5 particular case, I don' t feel too
6 concerned. If it was closer, then yes, I
7 would .
8 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Are you managing
9 this property? Doing the lawns? Anything
10 for this property?
11 MR. CICHANOWICZ : I was not . I was
12 made aware of the high tide during Hurricane
• 13 Sandy.
14 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Thank you .
15 MR. CICHANOWICZ : If you stated that
16 we needed to have a drywell on this project,
17 I am sure the customer would have no
18 objections . Otherwise, we are trying to do
19 all the right things . There is a lot of
20 good screening on the southerly property
21 line . That would be a good barrier . We are
22 abiding by all the normal setbacks by the
23 Building Department code . Hopefully, we
24 have answered all of your questions .
• 25 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Dave, we have a
September 4, 2014 Regular Meeting 69
1 survey here, 2013 , I don' t think -- what we
• 2 need to do is have the pool located on the
3 survey with the shed . So we can see what
4 those setbacks from the wetlands are?
5 MR. CICHANOWICZ : Sure .
6 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And you know,
7 because the landscaped plan is very
8 different then what a survey is going to
9 show us . You also have to show us where the
10 pump equipment, the mechanicals?
11 MR. CICHANOWICZ : Okay.
12 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Some people put
• 13 them in a shed .
14 MR . CICHANOWICZ : They are going to be
15 adjacent to the shed .
16 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay. It' s a
17 beautiful property . It' s served by a right
18 of way. Vineyards across the street . So if
19 we can get a survey of the proposed location
20 of the pool and shed and the setbacks .
21 MR. CICHANOWICZ : Okay.
22 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I don' t have any
23 more questions . Eric, how about you?
24 MEMBER DANTES : Yes . On the tax map
• 25 form, it says Peconic Land Trust . You
September 4, 2014 Regular Meeting 70
1 highlighted this . What does that mean?
is 2 MR. CICHANOWICZ : That must be a
3 type .
4 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I think that was a
5 mistake from real property tax service .
6 MEMBER HORNING : Can you move this
7 here, six feet?
8 MR. CICHANOWICZ : Really, the logistics
9 of the design, it does start to ( In Audible)
10 patio . They have a proposed raised patio
11 coming off the house, which transitions from
12 one area to another .
13 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Dave, we' re
14 recording this . So please go back to the
15 microphone . Just so we can pick up your
16 comments .
17 MR . CICHANOWICZ : It' s a design feature
18 more so . We are truing to be sensitive to
19 the wetlands and keeping it as far back as
20 possible . Yes , if we moved it six feet, it
21 would be out of your jurisdiction but it
22 does start to effect the quality of the
23 layout . For numerous reasons . We would be
24 starting out on a whole different
25 transition area . We would need steps . We are
September 4, 2014 Regular Meeting 71
1 looking to make the transition of one spot
• 2 into another as easy as possible . This
3 makes it much more convenient for them.
4 MEMBER HORNING: We are in charge of
5 finding the least nonconforming location
6 or the minimal of a variance as possible
7 and/or a conforming location where you could
8 not need a variance . It' s your job why you
9 can ' t --
10 MR. CICHANOWICZ : Well , I will
11 reiterate what I just said about the
12 design and location. The patio space around
• 13 the pool to the proposed patio . The house
14 is being remodeled . So there are changes
15 interior wise that are going to effect the
16 exterior . This is a master game plan that
17 would help pull everything together and
18 help the customer .
19 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You need to show
20 the percentage of the pool and the remainder
21 that would be in the rear yard, because it
22 lessens the variance .
23 MR. CICHANOWICZ : Okay.
24 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : -- where the
25 pool equipment is going to go .
September 4, 2014 Regular Meeting 72
1 MR. CICHANOWICZ : Okay.
• 2 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Then we will have
3 a complete application . Anything else from
4 anybody?
5 (No Response . )
6 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anyone else in
7 the audience that wishes to address this
8 application?
9 (No Response . )
10 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Hearing no
11 further questions or comments , I will make a
12 motion to close the hearing and reserve
• 13 decision to a later date, subject to a
14 survey showing the proposed pool and shed
15 and setbacks .
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 #6787 - ELIZABETH SADIK
September 4, 2014 Regular Meeting 73
1 ELIZABETH SADIK #6787 - Request for
• 2 Variances from Article XXIII Section
3 280-124 , Article XXII Section 280-116 and
4 Article III Section 280-15 and the Building
5 Inspector' s July 30 , 2013, renewed
6 May 23, 2014 , July 30 , 2014 , Amended
7 August 8 , 2014 Notice of Disapproval based
8 on an application for building permit for
9 additions and alterations to an existing
10 single family dwelling and "as built"
11 accessory shed, at ; 1 ) less than the code
12 required side yard setback of 15 feet, 2 )
• 13 more than the code permitted lot coverage
14 of 200 , 3 ) less than the code required bluff
15 setback of 100 feet, 4 ) Accessory shed in
16 location other than the code required rear
17 or front yard on waterfront property,
18 located at : 2300 Sound Drive (adj . To
19 Long Island Sound) Greenport .
20 MS . GIGLIO : Good afternoon, Madam
21 Chair and Members of the Board . My name is
22 Jodi Giglio of Bennet Enterprises here on
23 behalf of applicant, Elizabeth Sadik, who is
24 here with me this afternoon, if the Board
• 25 should have any questions for her . The
September 4, 2014 Regular Meeting 74
1 property is located on the north side . The
• 2 pool is 15 feet from the property line . So
3 it falls within the 100 foot variance that
4 we' re seeking .
5 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Hold on . You
6 have a side yard setback of 5 feet .
7 MS . GIGLIO: For the deck.
8 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And lot coverage
9 of 22 . 70 .
10 MS . GIGLIO : Right . That would
11 increase also .
12 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That would
• 13 increase the lot coverage . Then you have a
14 setback of 40 feet, where the code requires
15 100 . The house is currently set back at
16 77 . 3?
17 MS . GIGLIO: Right . She said she will
18 abandon that idea . So I will just go forward
19 with the application, if that is okay?
20 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I just want to
21 enter into the record, the fourth variance
22 here is a shed in the side yard where the
23 code requires a rear yard .
24 MS . GIGLIO: Yes .
25 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well, a front
September 4, 2014 Regular Meeting 75
1 yard on a waterfront property is also okay.
0 2 So go ahead.
3 MS . GIGLIO : So the variance request is
4 for lot coverage of 22 . 70 , Madam Chair, as
5 said. The side yard is 5 feet for the deck.
6 100 foot setback from the bluff from all
7 proposed structures . The existing shed.
8 Legalization of the existing shed in a side
9 yard. We believe if the variances granted,
10 will not create an undesirable change in the
11 nature or character of the neighborhood . The
12 neighbor to the east just received a
13 variance for a pool in a similar location .
14 The hardship is not self created because the
15 rear yard was established. Due to the
16 topography of the property, a large tree is
17 situated right in the middle of the property
18 at the top of the hill, which she is trying
19 to preserve . We believe this is the best
20 location for the pool but will listen to
21 any recommendations of the Board. The shed
22 is tucked away in the corner of the lot and
23 is tucked away in the corner from a neighbor
24 and by a fence . So you can ' t see it from the
25 street or the adjoining properties .
September 4, 2014 Regular Meeting 76
1 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The shed, what is
• 2 it used for? You need to come to the
3 microphone and state your name for the
4 record.
5 MS . SADIK: My name is Elizabeth Sadik
6 and the shed houses bicycles and some
7 gardening tools .
8 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : By the way, just
9 so you are aware, we have all been to your
10 property and inspected it .
11 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Thank you for
12 leaving the gate open . I would have had to
• 13 encroach on the other property .
14 MS . SADIK: That' s my brother .
15 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I thought so,
16 because you had a pass-thru .
17 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We are looking
18 at the fact on the survey, the bluff setback
19 on the corner of the proposed deck is 40
20 feet but that setback is taken from a ( In
21 Audible) that is on the adjacent property.
22 It' s not going to be 47 to the other
23 corner .
24 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That is the reason
• 25 they did it at 40 because they got the best
September 4, 2014 Regular Meeting 77
1 setback.
2 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : They are taking
3 it from the adjacent lot .
4 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: It' s the same
5 thing .
6 MS . SADIK: The reason I wanted the
7 pool in this position, because I had the
8 option of having it on the other side and by
9 my brothers property is because there is a
10 big rocky mound right where that tree is .
11 It was the most sensible thing that would
12 protect anything for the bluff because the
• 13 digging is right where that mound is . It
14 likes a supporting wall .
15 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay . Well, I
16 don' t have a particular concern with the
17 fact that you have located it this way or
18 that way. The big concern is the setback
19 from the bluff . 40 feet is close to the
20 bluff, when was your brother given a
21 variance?
22 MS . SADIK: July?
23 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Of this year?
24 MS . SADIK: Yes . He started building
• 25 it in July.
September 4, 2014 Regular Meeting 78
• 1 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I thought it was
2 a variance that ran with the land . I think
3 it' s that one . The bluff setback is even
4 closer . I have to look into when that
5 variance was granted. I believe it was
6 granted a long time ago and that he got a
7 building permit this summer, based upon a
8 very old variance .
9 MS . SADIK: Okay.
10 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It does speak to
11 character of the neighborhood .
12 MS . SADIK: Jodi and Michael did
• 13 inform me that he was coming before a Board
14 in July.
15 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Probably
16 Trustees .
17 MS . GIGLIO : There is a portion of the
18 rock that sticks out of the ground. That is
19 the easterly side .
20 MS . SADIK: When the pool will be
21 built, it will be built a little bit above
22 the ground and the deck will go around it .
23 It' s a semi-above ground pool . It' s not
24 completely in-ground .
• 25 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : What kind of
September 4, 2014 Regular Meeting 79
• 1 deck are you talking about?
2 MS . SADIK: A wood deck. That deck
3 that I have now, I would have to build it
4 out further .
5 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Because if you
6 had the patio on grade, you know stone,
7 because that would improve the setback . If
8 it was at grade, then that is going to
9 increase your setback.
10 MS . GIGLIO : As far as the deck, the
11 deck will be placed on two 2x6' s and
12 concrete setting . You know, the excavation
• 13 required for the deck is minimal .
14 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well , as far as
15 I am concerned, most of the variances that
16 are applied for, are not a terribly big
17 deal . The 5 foot variance would be
18 eliminated if you took away that deck and
19 placed an at-grade patio .
20 MS . GIGLIO : If she eliminated that
21 portion of the deck, would that please the
22 Board?
23 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Then you would
24 have a conforming side yard . That gets rid
• 25 of one variance .
September 4, 2014 Regular Meeting 80
• 1 The Board is obligated to grant the
2 lease amount of variance .
3 MS . SADIK: What if I move the deck a
4 little more to the east? The whole pool and
5 deck?
6 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : As long as you
7 have conforming side yards . That' s fine .
8 MS . SADIK: I can do that .
9 MEMBER HORNING : You would be
10 increasing the setback from the bluff .
11 MS . GIGLIO : If you move it further to
12 the east , you are going to be walking out of
• 13 the back and to the deck and right into the
14 pool . You can do a catwalk around the house
15 to get into the pool .
16 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It' s pretty
17 awkward.
18 MS . GIGLIO : So to be clear, you ' re
19 suggesting that the deck that is on the west
20 side of the pool be changed from a 10 foot
21 deck to a 5 foot deck?
22 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Here is the
23 thing, if you can move that over, you would
24 increase the bluff setback . You would
• 25 eliminate the wood deck and put something at
September 4, 2014 Regular Meeting 81
• 1 grade, you would probably increase
2 substantially the lot coverage, the
3 proposed lot coverage . One of the things
4 you have going for you in this particular
5 thing, and is sort of unique, you either
6 have flat property or something that slopes
7 to the bluff . In this situation, you have a
8 very large berm. The water would go back
9 towards your house and not over the bluff .
10 I think that is a helpful thing . I want to
11 check about those next door .
12 MS . GIGLIO: The applicant does not
• 13 have an objection in maintaining that 15
14 foot side yard setback on the side of the
15 property. So if you wanted to deny that
16 variance request . So we can eliminate that
17 variance all together .
18 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : There can be and
19 at grade patio that would not count as lot
20 coverage .
21 MS . GIGLIO : If she were to put a
22 patio at ground --
23 MS . SADIK: It' s not an inground pool .
24 It will be raised .
25 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Then I would
September 4, 2014 Regular Meeting 82
• 1 suggest that you put a pool inground with a
2 flat patio .
3 MS . SADIK: I can do that .
4 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So Jodi, you
5 understand what we are looking at . We are
6 trying to reduce lot coverage . We are
7 trying to eliminate a nonconforming side
8 yard and increase the bluff setback . The
9 shed, unless someone has any questions?
10 MS . SADIK: ( In Audible ) and I have
11 deck there . I was trying to eliminate all
12 those materials . I just wanted to have the
• 13 one deck and the pool .
14 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Any deck is going
15 to increase -- count in lot coverage .
16 MS . SADIK: I see .
17 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I think what you
18 should do, because there is some design
19 simulations here . Think about it and discuss
20 it with each other and come up with an
21 amended proposal . I would also like to see a
22 drywell for pool dewatering and a structure
23 for the pool equipment . It is LWRP
24 consistent . ( In Audible ) . We now have an
• 25 LWRP that we didn' t have before . There are
September 4, 2014 Regular Meeting 83
• 1 more potential impacts . It' s right in the
2 prior decision . So I want to understand now,
3 when we have more environmental science
4 before us and constraints , the Board can
5 justify a 40 foot setback when in the
6 previous decision, 65 for all future decks
7 and pools . I think what happened was , there
8 was an original proposal for a pool and a
9 deck and it was never built .
10 MS . GIGLIO: If you look at this , this
11 house is 65 feet from the bluff .
12 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I think that is
13 what they did. They went and put the house
14 there . So I think that is what happened .
15 How many pools do you think are along Sound
16 Drive .
17 MS . GIGLIO : I have an aerial photos
18 that show the pools in the area .
19 MEMBER HORNING: If you can move the
20 shed closer to Sound Drive --
21 MS . SADIK: I can do that .
22 MEMBER HORNING : Instead of having
23 four variances , you would have two .
24 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The Board does
• 25 fact finding at a public hearing . It' s not
September 4, 2014 Regular Meeting 84
1 really negotiations of you know, I will do
2 this and that . What we are trying to do is
3 exploring the practibility of being more
4 conforming and that is what we are throwing
5 out as options .
6 MS . GIGLIO: Understood . And I
7 appreciate your concern about the distance
8 from the bluff . But as indicated, there is
9 a huge rock mound --
10 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That might be
11 helpful if that was located on the survey .
12 MS . GIGLIO : It is .
• 13 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes . Right
14 here . Stones .
15 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Can I ask a
16 question? Why can ' t those rocks be used as
17 a formation for a ground level deck?
18 MS . GIGLIO : Those rocks are just
19 decorative . I think what the applicant had
20 in mind is that she would walk out on one
21 level and then jump in the pool . That is
22 what the architect recommended. She did say
23 that she would do a patio and an inground
24 pool .
25 MS . SADIK: ( In Audible . ) Visually
September 4, 2014 Regular Meeting 85
1 speaking, I think it would look a lot better
2 with a pool in the deck . It' s a modern
3 house .
4 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I would have to
5 say that I agree with you from an aesthetic
6 point of view but again, our obligation is
7 to look at relief from the code . I do
8 appreciate, you ' re going to spend money and
9 you want to make it look really nice and
10 exceptional as well . The Board has to
11 explore how greater conformity can be
12 accomplished . I don' t care if you had a
13 shed. It' s more of the nonconforming
14 location .
15 MS . SADIK: I could do that .
16 MS . GIGLIO: She could move to the
17 west side of the property, from a 10 foot
18 deck to a 5 foot deck.
19 MS . SADIK: Would that help?
20 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It would all
21 help . You can do an amended application .
22 You can include the bluff setback. The more
23 you are able to do that , the more the Board
24 would be able to justify relief. The Board
• 25 can also grant alternative relief . Saying
September 4, 2014 Regular Meeting 86
• 1 that this is the maximum what we can do and
2 when you have the design, submit it to us .
3 MS . SADIK: ( In Audible ) something
4 today.
5 MS . GIGLIO: We have gone back and
6 forth with the surveyor . I think we have
7 changed the pool location three or four
8 times since I have been on the case . This
9 is the place that she had finalized on the
10 location .
11 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Are you saying
12 that you can eliminate the deck around the
. 13 pool and --
14 MS . SADIK: Well , I have an existing
15 deck right now.
16 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : What about the
17 proposed deck on the easterly deck?
18 MS . GIGLIO : That would get shifted to
19 the east .
20 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And what about
21 the deck around the pool?
22 MS . GIGLIO: She wants to keep it . She
23 would eliminate that 5 foot and make it 15
24 feet .
• 25 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : What does the
September 4, 2014 Regular Meeting 87
• 1 Board want to do?
2 MEMBER GOEHRINGER : I would improve the
3 side yard setback to the west by reducing it
4 10 feet and let her move it 10 feet to the
5 west, which would then increase the setback
6 from the bluff and one variance .
7 MS . GIGLIO: Right now the pool is
8 proposed 8 feet to the house . It' s pretty
9 close to the house .
10 MS . SADIK: ( In Audible . )
11 MS . GIGLIO : Here we go again,
12 Elizabeth .
. 13 MS . SADIK: Back to the drawing board .
14 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You know what,
15 you are asking for a lot of variances . There
16 are four of them. We' re trying to work with
17 you .
18 MS . SADIK: What would be satisfactory
19 to you guys to approve it today?
20 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We don' t approve
21 it today. We fact find at public hearings .
22 Two weeks from today is the earliest . We
23 would have a draft decision and we would
24 deliberate .
• 25 MS . GIGLIO : So if I can get the
September 4, 2014 Regular Meeting 88
• 1 surveyor to make those changes ( In Audible )
2 or even more on the westerly side of the
3 property because she would be shifting the
4 property to the east .
5 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well , and the lot
6 coverage would be reduced. Well, the pool
7 doesn ' t count in the lot coverage . Why
8 don' t we do this, I am going to adjourn this
9 to the Special Meeting. That is what we
10 will do in two weeks . This way we can have
11 them time to submit an amended survey and
12 the Board will take a look at what that
• 13 proposal is . And if all the questions seem
14 to be answered, then we will close the
15 hearing in two weeks . Then we will probably
16 have a decision two weeks after that .
17 MS . SADIK: Would it wiser to have
18 one with the deck and one without the
19 deck?
20 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That' s fine . A
21 Plan A and a Plan B . And if you can move the
22 shed over to a more conforming location .
23 The other thing is , we have some swimming
24 pools on the water side there . I would like
• 25 to look at what the bluff setbacks are . Can
September 4, 2014 Regular Meeting 89
10 1 you get us those please? The aerial does
2 show the pools but it doesn ' t mention the
3 setbacks or whether they have had variance
4 relief .
5 MS . GIGLIO : I would imagine that that
6 could be done, I am not sure it could be
7 done in two weeks . To look at the
8 properties and then go to the Building
9 Department and do a search for all the
10 structures .
11 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : If you have the
12 address, it' s easier to find or if you can
• 13 look at the block.
14 MS . GIGLIO : Sometimes it' s difficult
15 when you ' re driving down the street .
16 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well, Vicki can
17 give you some of that .
18 MS . GIGLIO: I am sure .
19 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It seems to me
20 the property to the east is relatively flat .
21 It' s quite unusual to have a berm that is
22 draining things landward, then seaward .
23 MS . GIGLIO : I can do my best from
24 looking in the back of Elizabeth' s property
• 25 and counting the houses .
September 4, 2014 Regular Meeting 90
• 1 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is this correct ,
2 the existing lot coverage with the deck is
3 only 12 . 2%?
4 MS . GIGLIO: That' s correct .
5 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So you ' re adding
6 another 10 . 2% .
7 MS . GIGLIO: If we can get that down
8 to 20% , then that would be okay? Then it
9 would be for the pool and the second story
10 balcony and the deck.
11 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Eric, anything
12 else?
13 MEMBER DANTES : No .
14 MS . TOTH : Is the balcony in the rear?
15 MS . GIGLIO : Yes .
16 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So I propose to
17 adjourn this to thew Special meeting so this
18 gives you some time to provide the
19 information that we talked about . You ' re
20 going to try and optimize the bluff setback,
21 reduce the proposed lot coverage, perhaps
22 the size of the pool . You ' re going to get
23 the existing shed in a conforming location
24 and have two conforming side yards .
• 25 MS . GIGLIO : Okay .
September 4, 2014 Regular Meeting 91
• 1 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Then if we don' t
2 have any questions , we will close in two
3 weeks .
4 MS . SADIK: ( In Audible ) .
5 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anything above
6 counts as lot coverage .
7 MS . SADIK: ( In Audible ) .
8 MS . GIGLIO : I know what you are
9 looking for and I will talk to the surveyor .
10 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We are trying to
11 get you more conforming . You have to spend
12 some time with your agent and she will
• 13 explain to you some of the options . There
14 are several ways you can go about
15 accomplishing what we have talked about .
16 There are a bunch of variables . If I change
17 this, I can get that . That is a design
18 process .
19 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: It' s not, let' s make
20 a deal .
21 MS . SADIK: If I eliminate the shed --
22 MS . GIGLIO : I will explain it to you .
23 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : As I said
24 earlier, I don' t object to the shed . It' s
• 25 not characteristic to the neighborhood . I
September 4, 2014 Regular Meeting 92
• 1 don' t think the shed is the worst problem
2 here . I just want to see how we can
3 protect the bluff with the lease variance
4 justified.
5 So I am going to make a motion to
6 adjourn to the Special Meeting pending
7 receipt to an amended survey .
8 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second .
9 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor?
10 MEMBER DANTES : Aye .
11 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye .
12 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye .
13 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye .
14 See Minutes for Resolution .
15 ** * *********************** ***************
16
17 (Whereupon, the September 4 , 2014
18 Public Hearing ' s concluded at 2 : 30 p .m. )
19
20
21
22
23
24
• 25
September 4, 2014 Regular Meeting 93
1
2
3 C E R T I F I C A T I O N
4
5
6
7 I , Jessica DiLallo, certify that the
8 foregoing transcript of tape recorded Public
9 Hearings was prepared using required electronic
10 transcription equipment and is a true and accurate
11 record of the Hearings .
12
13
14 Signature •
15 J ssica DiLallo
16
17
18 Jessica DiLallo
Court Reporter
19 PO Box 984
Holbrook, New York 11741
20
21 Date : September 15 , 2014
22
23
24
25