HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-10/02/2014 Hearing 1
1 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD ZONING BOARD OF APPEAL
COUNTY OF SUFFOLK: STATE OF NEW YORK RECEIVED
2 ------------------------------------------- X
3 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
4 BOARD OF APPEAL.-
5 ------------------------------------------- X
6
7 Southold Town Hall
Southold, New York
8
9 October 2 , 2014
10 : 03 A. M.
10
11 Board Members Present :
12 LESLIE KANES WEISMAN - Chairperson/Member
13 ERIC DANTES - Member
14 GERARD GOEHRINGER - Member
15 GEORGE HORNING - Member (Left at 3 : 00 p .m. )
16 KENNETH SCHNEIDER - Member
17 VICKI TOTH - Secretary
18 STEPHEN KIELY - Assistant Town Attorney
19
20
21 Jessica DiLallo
Court Reporter
22 P . O . Box 984
Holbrook, New York 11741
23 ( 631 ) -338-1409
24
25
2
• 1
2
3 INDEX TO HEARINGS
4
5
6 Hearing Page
7
8 Michael Ranson, #6753 3-6
9 Douglas & Lee Biviano, #6760 6-9
10 Michelle Pelletier, #6784 9-15
11 20-32 .
12 Doris L . Wills Trust, #6794 15-20
• 13 Kyle Matthew Nichols , #6795 32-40
14 Ryan & Christina Wilsberg, #6796 40-45
15 Barbara Adams & Jan Nicholson, #6792 45-100
16 North Fork Community Theater, #6793 100-105
17 Patrick & Robin Walden, #6790 105-116
18 Depot Enterprises , #6791 116-132
19 William F. Grella &
20 Gary D . Osborn, #6773 , #6789 132-145
21
22
23
24
• 25
October 2, 2014 Regular Meeting 3
• 1 HEARING #6753 - MICHAEL RANSON .
2 MR. GOGGINS : So it was adjourned
3 until today to figure out what the legal
4 status of the gazebo was . So we went
5 through a long process of getting
6 affidavits and information . There was a
7 Pre-CO issued for the gazebo that was
8 issued on August 7 , 1994 . So that makes
9 the issue moot . So there is a Pre-CO. So
10 all we are talking about is the shed.
11 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Do you have
12 copies for our file?
• 13 MR. GOGGINS : I have it here . If you
14 want to take my copy?
15 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Apparently, we
16 have one in the office file . I am glad.
17 Just for the record, once again, review
18 what the shed is? I just want to make
19 sure that I am correct . The dimensions
20 that I have according to the drawing that
21 is submitted, the shed is 20 . 3 inches from
22 bulkhead?
23 MR. GOGGINS : Correct .
24 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And it' s 10
• 25 foot 4 inches by 4 foot 3 and 5 foot 9
October 2, 2014 Regular Meeting 4
• 1 high at the back end?
2 MR. GOGGINS : Correct .
3 MR. GOGGINS : There is no electric,
4 heat or water . It' s for storage only?
5 MR. GOGGINS : Yes .
6 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anything else
7 that you want to remind us of?
8 MR . GOGGINS : No . It' s storage only.
9 When I took pictures , what I did see, a
10 lot of people on the bay, people keep
11 their beach chairs along the bulkhead --
12 between the pilings and the bulkhead, or
. 13 they just leave their stuff along the
14 beach . The benefits of having a storage
15 shed like this is to be able to store
16 things such as this in the shed .
17 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : What is the
18 square footage? 10x4 . So it' s
19 approximately 40 square feet . Does the
20 Board have any other comments or questions
21 at this time? George?
22 MEMBER HORNING : We are only dealing
23 with the shed?
24 MR. GOGGINS : Correct .
• 25 MEMBER HORNING: So the LWRP sites it
October 2, 2014 Regular Meeting 5
• 1 as inconsistent and one reason is that the
2 accessory structure ( In Audible ) and then
3 it goes on to say that it says it should
4 be as far away as practical . So how do we
5 mitigate that inconsistency?
6 MR. GOGGINS : You are going to have
7 beach chairs and stuff like that . You
8 don ' t want to have them stored in the
9 garage . You want to have them closer . It ' s
10 a typical waterfront use to have a storage
11 shed.
12 MEMBER HORNING : But you said the
. 13 fact that there would be no electric and
14 no water hook-up would be mitigating
15 factors?
16 MR. GOGGINS : Absolutely. You don ' t
17 want to have water because of obvious
18 septic issues and so forth . You are not
19 going to have people coming off the bay
20 and using it . As I said before, for the
21 people that leave their stuff on the
22 beach, you could have a storm and it go
23 into the bay and be blown all over . Part
24 of the benefit of living on the bay is to
• 25 have the waterfront view .
October 2, 2014 Regular Meeting 6
. 1 MEMBER HORNING : Thank you .
2 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anything else
3 from the Board?
4 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: No .
5 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anyone else in
6 the audience that wishes to address this
7 application?
8 (No Response . )
9 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Hearing no
10 further questions or comments , I will make
11 a motion to close this hearing and reserve
12 decision to a later date .
• 13 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second.
14 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor?
15 MEMBER DANTES : Aye .
16 MEMBER HORNING : Aye .
17 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye .
18 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye .
19 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye .
20 ( See Minutes for Resolution . )
21 *** **************************************
22 HEARING #6760 - DOUGLAS AND LEE BIVIANO
23 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next
24 application before the Board is for
• 25 Douglas and Lee Biviano, #6760 .
October 2, 2014 Regular Meeting 7
• 1 This application was adjourned from
2 September 4th . I think we did read the
3 legal notice because someone might had
4 been in the audience . I will read it
5 again . Applicant requests a Special
6 Exception under Article III , Section
7 280-13B ( 13 ) . The Applicant is the owner
8 requesting authorization to establish an
9 Accessory Apartment in an accessory
10 structure, located at : 1125 Pequash Avenue
11 ( corner Willow Street ) in Cutchogue . This
12 accessory apartment was before the Zoning
13 Board previously for a Special Exception
14 permit . You are the knew owner of the
15 principal dwelling; is that correct?
16 MR. BIVIANO : That is correct?
17 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Can you state
18 your name for the record.
19 MR. BIVIANO : My name is Douglas
20 Biviano .
21 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thank you .
22 Since that time, I think the time was for
23 a Special Exception for an accessory
24 apartment in an accessory structure, which
25 was granted . That was in May 2012 . There
October 2, 2014 Regular Meeting 8
• 1 have been no changes whatsoever to the
2 apartment inside or outside?
3 MR. BIVIANO : That is correct .
4 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The person that
5 is currently occupying the accessory
6 apartment is the same?
7 MR. BIVIANO : Yes .
8 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : How long is
9 that lease for?
10 MR . BIVIANO : We did a year lease and
11 it' s not up until the spring, April or
12 May.
• 13 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And that
14 applicant is listed on the affordable
15 housing registry?
16 MR . BIVIANO : Yes , he is .
17 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We have
18 received documentation from you that this
19 is your principal dwelling and so on . The
20 apartment, just for the record, is 800
21 square feet livable floor area and did
22 receive variance relief for 50 square
23 feet , for beyond the maximum of 750 square
24 feet that is permitted. I believe we would
• 25 have to carry that over .
October 2, 2014 Regular Meeting 9
• 1 Okay. Anything from the Board?
2 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No .
3 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there anyone
4 in the audience that would like to address
5 this application?
6 (No Response . )
7 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Hearing no
8 comments or questions , I will make a
9 motion to close the hearing and reserve
10 decision to a later date .
11 MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Second.
12 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor?
• 13 MEMBER DANTES : Aye .
14 MEMBER HORNING : Aye .
15 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye .
16 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye .
17 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye .
18 ( See Minutes for Resolution . )
19 * * *** *** ***************** ************
20 HEARING #6784 - MICHELLE PELLETIER
21 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next
22 application before the Board is for
23 Michelle Pelletier . This was adjourned
24 from September because we did not have the
• 25 postings . There someone here to represent
October 2, 2014 Regular Meeting 10
1 that application . Because no one is here,
2 I am going to make a motion to adjourn
3 this to November . Is there a second?
4 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second .
5 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor?
6 MEMBER DANTES : Aye .
7 MEMBER HORNING : Aye .
8 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye .
9 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye .
10 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye .
11 You know what I am going to do, it' s
12 unfortunate that the applicant is not
. 13 here . I think if the Board wishes to take
14 testimony now, I will rescind my previous
15 motion and allow you to speak what you
16 wish to tell us . Is that acceptable to the
17 Board?
18 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Yes .
19 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor?
20 MEMBER DANTES : Aye .
21 MEMBER HORNING : Aye .
22 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye .
23 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye .
24 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye .
25 Please come to the mic one at a time
October 2, 2014 Regular Meeting 11
• 1 and state your name and let us know what
2 you would like to tell us .
3 MR. GRANDINETTI : My name is Ralph
4 Grandinetti . I am a homeowner in the
5 community. The shed is presently being
6 used to accommodate a horse and a donkey.
7 There are a number of issues that
8 community members have including property
9 evaluation, allergies, etcetera . I have
10 spoken to the Town Code enforcer and his
11 point is , the issue of the horse is a
12 non-issue . That the horse is allowed in a
• 13 residential area . That the shed is less
14 than 40 feet from the property line and
15 she is not in compliance with that . The
16 shed is also being used for accommodation
17 of the horse and it shouldn ' t be . And when
18 I asked about that concern, I was told
19 that it was voluntary compliance . In other
20 words, the horse can come and go as it
21 wants . There are other accessories on the
22 property. Another shed . The one in
23 question is supposed to be for tools , a
24 lawn mower, etcetera . And it' s not . It' s
• 25 being used to accommodate a horse . I have
October 2, 2014 Regular Meeting 12
• 1 a photograph to that effect .
2 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We have all
3 been to the property. Just so you are all
4 aware . Everyone on the Zoning Board does
5 a site inspection . So we have all seen
6 exactly what is on the property . We have
7 seen the shed that you are referring to .
8 We have seen the animals that are there .
9 Let me understand, I am not sure I
10 understood what you said. We do know that
11 a horse is permitted on residential
12 property. But what are you saying that the
13 code enforcement said about the shed that
14 is being used --
15 MR. GRANDINETTI : The shed is there
16 for the horse . It' s not there for the
17 horse . What' s there in that shed,
18 shouldn ' t be in the shed. It' s kept open .
19 The horse comes and goes . It' s what is
20 called voluntary compliance . It
21 accumulates from the yard, the maneuver . I
22 don ' t think that is what the intent is . If
23 the maneuver is to be removed daily, it
24 shouldn ' t be moved from one to a truck on
• 25 the side . And my opinion was , anybody --
October 2, 2014 Regular Meeting 13
• 1 they are not complying to your directives
2 on how this horse is supposed to
3 maintained .
4 MEMBER HORNING: You mentioned the
5 Building Department?
6 MR. GRANDINETTI : Yes . I have
7 spoken to Mr . Verity about it . And
8 apparently, in order to accommodate an
9 animal, there must be a 40 foot setback
10 from any property line . That is just not
11 possible on a residential lot .
12 MEMBER HORNING : This one?
• 13 MR. GRANDINETTI : Yes .
14 MEMBER HORNING: Thank you for that
15 clarification .
16 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We will have to
17 check on what the code says about that . A
18 shed doesn ' t have to be like 5 feet from a
19 property line . And I think that is what is
20 here now .
21 MR. GRANDINETTI : A shed should not
22 be complying with an animal .
23 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Understood.
24 MR. GRANDINETTI : There are other
• 25 issues . I am on the Board of a local
October 2, 2014 Regular Meeting 14
• 1 community Board, and they want to know
2 what is the Board doing about this? We
3 have registered a complaint with the
4 Building Department and I really have not
5 received any official word on the outcome
6 of that .
7 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That was the
8 proper thing to do what you did do . The
9 Board -- we will have to check. We are
10 here because of the structure, obviously .
11 The accessory structure . That is what we
12 review . We will have to find out what we
• 13 can do, if anything, about domestic
14 animals . I honestly do not know off the
15 top of my head what is compliance . We just
16 got a message that the applicant thought
17 that the hearing was on at 10 : 45, which is
18 what they were on last month, and they are
19 on their way over . So I think what I would
20 like to do is just delay any further
21 testimony . We can go on to the next
22 hearing and just come back shortly . We
23 have another hearing scheduled at 10 : 20 .
24 We can go on to that and then talk about
• 25 whatever you want to talk. Maybe get a
October 2, 2014 Regular Meeting 15
• 1 little more clarification .
2 MR. GRANDINETTI : The notice in the
3 Suffolk Times stated 10 : 00 .
4 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay. I am
5 going to make a motion to suspend this
6 hearing until the applicant arrives .
7 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second.
8 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor?
9 MEMBER DANTES : Aye .
10 MEMBER HORNING : Aye .
11 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye .
12 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye .
• 13 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye .
14 (Whereupon the matter was delayed. )
15 ********************* ** *****************
16 HEARING #6794 - DORIS L . WILLS
17 TRUST
18 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next
19 application is for Doris L . Wills Trust,
20 #6794 . Request for Variances from Articles
21 XXIII and XXII , Sections 280-124 and
22 280-116B and the Building Inspector' s
23 August 4 , 2014 Notice of Disapproval based
24 on an application for a deck addition to
• 25 an existing single family dwelling, at ;
October 2, 2014 Regular Meeting 16
• 1 1 ) less than the code required single side
2 yard setback of 15 feet, 2 ) less than the
3 code required bulkhead setback of 75 feet,
4 located at : 1815 Bayshore Road (adjacent .
5 To Pipes Cove ) in Greenport .
6 Is there someone here to represent
7 this application?
8 Please state your name and spell it
9 for the record .
10 MR. WILLS : My name is Richard
11 Wills , W-I-L-L-S . I am a trustee for the
12 trust .
13 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay.
14 MS . DWYER: Nancy Dwyer . I prepared
15 the drawings .
16 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay. Well, we
17 have some issues with the Notice of
18 Disapproval back and forth on what is the
19 proposed setback to the bulkhead. This is
20 a deck extension of an existing deck. We
21 have all made site inspection . The code
22 requires a 75 foot setback from the
23 bulkhead . We have a corrected notice now .
24 We have three different variations here .
25 43 feet 11 inches . Okay . All right . The
October 2, 2014 Regular Meeting 17
• 1 LWRP that this is consistent . The side
2 yard setback of 9 . 6 feet, where the code
3 requires 15 . That is the existing side
4 yard?
5 MR. WILLS : Correct .
6 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And there is
7 no proposed changes?
8 MR. WILLS : Correct .
9 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And so you are
10 proposing a deck addition that is the same
11 one as the existing one and that is --
12 what is the actual deck of the proposed
13 additional .
14 MS . DWYER: ( In Audible) .
15 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You are adding
16 6 foot of deck? It' s going to be 39 foot
17 length . This property bulkhead is -- the
18 one to the rear has a bulkhead and the one
19 to the north has no bulkhead . Let me see
20 if George has any questions?
21 MEMBER HORNING : No, I don ' t have
22 any.
23 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I would like to
24 ask a question . I am looking at the
25 survey and it says proposed CENTRY,
October 2, 2014 Regular Meeting 18
• 1 C-E-N-T-R-Y and account on the -- on the
2 right hand stand, standing at the road and
3 looking at the house .
4 MS . DWYER : I think that is proposed
5 cellar entry.
6 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Okay .
7 MS . DWYER: The cellar entry itself
8 would be the retaining wall and just a
9 couple of steps down .
10 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: This beautiful
11 area of Bayshore Road. What is left, after
12 this is constructed as a side yard?
• 13 MS . DWYER: 4 feet .
14 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I would really
15 like to see 5 feet . Does it have to go in
16 that location?
17 MS . DWYER: The deck wants to look at
18 the waterside of the house .
19 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: It can ' t go on
20 the front yard --
21 MR. WILLS : The front yard is going
22 to be the front of the house . I would say
23 it would be an eyesore in the house .
24 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: It can be covered
• 25 by bushes .
October 2, 2014 Regular Meeting 19
1 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Architecturally
2 speaking, it' s pretty hard to relocate the
3 structure .
4 MS . DWYER: ( In Audible) .
5 MR. WILLS : The garage is actually on
6 a slab . Do you follow what I am saying?
7 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I understand. Can
8 you make it a little bit smaller to make
9 it exactly 4 feet?
10 MR. WILLS : We could do that .
11 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Thank you .
12 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Does anyone
• 13 else have anything?
14 MEMBER HORNING : Can we go over what
15 the existing deck is located at?
16 MS . DWYER: The existing deck is
17 located at 49 feet . We are proposing 43 .
18 MEMBER HORNING : With a 6x9 30 foot
19 extension?
20 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Perhaps you
21 could just add into the record that you
22 will be adding an at-grade patio that
23 wouldn ' t require additional relief?
24 MR. WILLS : We want to put a table .
• 25 It' s just too narrow to do that .
October 2, 2014 Regular Meeting 20
• 1 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay. Anyone
2 else?
3 (No Response . )
4 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anyone else in
5 the audience that wishes to address this
6 application?
7 (No Response . )
8 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Hearing no
9 further questions or comments , I will make
10 a motion to close the hearing and reserve
11 decision to a later date .
12 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second.
• 13 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor?
14 MEMBER DANTES : Aye .
15 MEMBER HORNING : Aye .
16 MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Aye .
17 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye .
18 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye .
19 (See Minutes for Resolution . )
20 ************ ** **************************
21 HEARING #6784 - MICHELLE PELLETIER
22 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I am going to
23 make a motion to resume testimony on
24 Michelle Pelletier, #6784 .
• 25 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second.
October 2, 2014 Regular Meeting 21
• 1 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor?
2 MEMBER DANTES : Aye .
3 MEMBER HORNING : Aye .
4 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye .
5 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye .
6 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye .
7 We had started this hearing because
8 there were neighbors that were here last
9 month . Last month we didn ' t take
10 testimony, we adjourned the matter . The
11 applicant is now here . Do you have any
12 other green slips?
• 13 MR. TEMPLETON : Steven Templeton and
14 Michelle Pelletier .
15 MS . PELLETIER: Two of these
16 neighbors actually do not live in the
17 neighborhood. So they didn ' t return it . We
18 sent them to the Connecticut address or
19 what was on the file .
20 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let' s do this,
21 let me review what the variance relief
22 before the Board is . We have four
23 "as-built" accessory structures . One is a
24 hot tub . The second is a deck and a shed,
• 25 which is 6 x 7 . 6 that is in a side yard.
October 2, 2014 Regular Meeting 22
• 1 The code requires a rear yard location .
2 Then we have a --
3 MS . PELLETIER: May I speak?
4 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Then we have a
5 10x10 . 3 shed with setback of 4 . 3 and 4 . 8
6 feet from the property line, where the
7 code requires 5 feet . It' s cited in the
8 Notice of Disapproval . This is a corner
9 lot with two front yards two rear yards
10 and a side yard. So what would you like to
11 tell us about the accessory structure .
12 MR. TEMPLETON : ( In Audible . )
• 13 (Mr . Templeton, can not be heard by
14 the microphone . )
15 MR. TEMPLETON : There are other sheds
16 that have gotten variances .
17 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That is not
18 before the Board . The one that is closer
19 to your hot tub is not before the Board.
20 How big is the deck?
21 MS . PELLETIER: Are we referring to
22 the deck that is near the hot tub? It says
23 on grade 2x4 . It' s completely movable and
24 liftable . Its on grade and removable .
• 25 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay. That is
October 2, 2014 Regular Meeting 23
• 1 what you are here for . Your neighbors had
2 started to testify and perhaps what we
3 would like to do is to reiterate, so you
4 could hear what their concerns are .
5 MR. TEMPLETON : ( In Audible . )
6 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I think a
7 couple of those inches are pretty De
8 Minimus . Perhaps we can get some
9 comments . They are concerned primarily,
10 not so much the accessory structures which
11 is what is before this Board. They are
12 concerned about the animals that you have
• 13 using that shed .
14 MEMBER HORNING : I think they should
15 move the shed and make it compliant with
16 the setbacks . Then you are clearing up
17 that variance . That is not De Minimus in
18 my mind .
19 MR . TEMPLETON : ( In Audible) to the
20 shed.
21 MEMBER HORNING : Maybe try and get a
22 letter from them?
23 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All right .
24 Why don ' t -- I don ' t want to put words in
• 25 anyone' s mouth . So perhaps, I think it
October 2, 2014 Regular Meeting 24
• 1 would be best if they we ask anyone in the
2 audience who wishes to reiterate what
3 their comments were made . We do have it
4 recorded . You could get a copy of the
5 transcript if you would like or we can ask
6 the neighbors to address the applicant and
7 make their comments . If anyone wishes to
8 do so, please come to the microphone .
9 MR. MATHER: My name is Frank
10 Mather, I am 805 Osprey Nest Road, which
11 is -- oh, just outside the property
12 owners . From what I understand, every time
• 13 I understand, the door is open and the
14 animals are available . They have to do
15 something .
16 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : What we need to
17 -- you have to go and talk to the mic .
18 MR. TEMPLETON : Regardless of the
19 shed, the animals can stay. We don ' t need
20 a house . They don' t need to have a home .
21 We want to provide them one . If you drove
22 by today, there is no ( In Audible) . There
23 is no foundation . If you want to come and
24 see it, I would be more than happy to show
. 25 you .
October 2, 2014 Regular Meeting 25
• 1 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anything else
2 from the audience?
3 MR. GRANDINETTI : Again, Ralph
4 Grandinetti , I am 445 Osprey Nest Road. I
5 am on the community Board . I am a trustee
6 on the Board. We had an annual meeting,
7 this issue about the horse, and the horse
8 in the residential area has come up . There
9 are many people that have come to us
10 addressing the issue of property value and
11 allergies . Things like worms and runoff
12 and close enough to the water . These
• 13 issues are to be recognized for what they
14 are . I am trying to remember what I had
15 told you about before and the objections
16 and talking to the code enforcer and the
17 Building Department, and talking about
18 code compliance . And I don' t think
19 setbacks should be deemed ( In Audible) . I
20 have a photograph here of the horse in the
21 shed . The horse does leave the shed. If
22 you want to call it a barn . This structure
23 facilitates the animals .
24 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We will
25 certainly look at the photograph . I for
October 2, 2014 Regular Meeting 26
• 1 one, did see the horse and the shed, in or
2 out . What I need to do is perhaps, we
3 need to check into what the code permits
4 with domestic animals on the property . I
5 know horses are permitted in a residential
6 zone . I belive there are another animals .
7 It may not be appealing to you or some of
8 your neighbors but if the law allows it,
9 the law allows it . That is a civil matter
10 between neighbors . I don' t know . I will
11 have to look at it and find out . I will
12 look into voluntary compliance unless you
• 13 know what it means?
14 MR. KIELY : Code enforcement wants
15 to get voluntary compliance without having
16 to issue any violation . In this certain
17 situation, right now, any enforcement is
18 stayed because there is an application
19 pending by the ZBA. So Code Enforcement
20 can ' t do anything right now. It' s a State
21 Law and any enforcement is stayed.
22 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay. Any other
23 comments or questions from the Board?
24 MR. GRANDINETTI : Madam Chairman,
. 25 just as a point of information, the
October 2, 2014 Regular Meeting 27
• 1 private community in which the community
2 owns the road. Therefore, we should be
3 notified in addition to surrounding
4 neighbors of concern and our homeowners
5 association never received any notice?
6 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I think the
7 notices are only required to adjoining
8 property owners .
9 MR. GRANDINETTI : And the homeowner
10 association owns the road. Therefore, we
11 are adjoining to their property and we
12 should have been notified .
• 13 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Are you paying
14 taxes on the road?
15 MR. GRANDINETTI : Yes , we are .
16 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: So there is a tax
17 map number on the road?
18 MR. GRANDINETTI : Yes .
19 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Okay . That is an
20 interesting point . I will look at it . I
21 will tell you in a second . There is no tax
22 number on it .
23 MR . GRANDINETTI : We privately hire
24 one of the irrigation companies to plow
• 25 the roads . The Town has nothing to do with
October 2, 2014 Regular Meeting 28
• 1 maintaining the common properties .
2 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: So is your
3 complaint that you were not adequately
4 notified? Is that the issue?
5 MR. GRANDINETTI : Yes . We are
6 certainly aware of what is going on but I
7 think we should have been duly notified if
8 surrounding neighbors were notified .
9 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : If that is the
10 case, we don' t see a tax map number for
11 the road, but nevertheless , there is signs
12 legally posted in two front yards to
• 13 notify the public of the hearing . And
14 clearly you are your homeowners
15 association are clearly aware of it . If
16 there is an error, it may very well be
17 that, unintentionally, that was an
18 administrative error in our office .
19 MR. GRANDINETTI : Right . It' s just a
20 point of information because this has
21 happened before . Although I have
22 discussed it with the Building Department ,
23 they said to take it up with someone else .
24 I just think it should be addressed.
• 25 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All right . Is
October 2, 2014 Regular Meeting 29
• 1 there anyone else that would like to
2 address this application?
3 MR. TEMPLETON : ( In Audible . ) It' s
4 not my problem. I go above and beyond. I
5 have put in expensive ( In Audible . ) And
6 spread them around the property. I am
7 sorry that people don' t like it . The yard
8 looks good.
9 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Is there any way
10 you can move the plastic shed?
11 MS . PELLETIER: It' s tucked away to
12 the house . If we move it any more, it
• 13 would probably be minimal then what it is .
14 I will move it . I was trying to tuck it .
15 It' s a small plastic storage container . It
16 matches the house . It' s grey and white . I
17 will move it but it will probably be more
18 visible .
19 MEMBER HORNING : Do you store things
20 that you use for the deck?
21 MS . PELLETIER: I store hay in it .
22 MEMBER HORNING : So you could move it
23 next to the other shed?
24 MS . PELLETIER: I could move it .
• 25 MR. TEMPLETON : We chose this
October 2, 2014 Regular Meeting 30
• 1 position because of the shrubs and deer
2 proof.
3 MS . PELLETIER: We have a lot of
4 deer .
5 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anything else
6 from the Board?
7 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: No .
8 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No .
9 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anyone else in
10 the audience who wishes to make any
11 further comments?
12 MR. MATHER: ( In Audible ) the
• 13 intended use of the shed. Not the animals .
14 Just the use of the shed.
15 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : How big is the
16 shed?
17 MS . PELLETIER: ( In Audible ) .
18 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Come to the
19 microphone .
20 MR. TEMPLETON : The shed is 10x10 . We
21 hang up stuff in there . It' s preserved . We
22 go in there every now and then . It' s not a
23 barn . Be legal definition it' s not a barn .
24 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The Notice of
• 25 Disapproval determines it to be a shed by
October 2, 2014 Regular Meeting 31
• 1 notice of the building inspector?
2 MS . PELLETIER: Yes . They came many
3 times and measured it . They determined it
4 as an accessory shed.
5 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay. Counsel
6 is simply bringing to our attention, a
7 section of the code . I will read it so
8 everyone is simply aware . Horses are
9 domestic animals , other than household
10 pets , provided that such animals are
11 permitted uses in a residential zoned
12 district . Provided that such animals
• 13 should not be within 40 feet of any
14 residential property line . So what we have
15 to do is whether or not the shed is to
16 house the animals or not or is it a shed
17 that is multiple used and is incidental to
18 the presence of the animals . We will have
19 to deliberate and see where we come out
20 with the use of this shed . It' s determined
21 by the Building Department to be a shed.
22 Thank you . Okay. Anything else from
23 anybody?
24 (No Response . )
• 25 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Hearing no
October 2, 2014 Regular Meeting 32
• 1 questions or comments, I am going to make
2 a motion to close this hearing and reserve
3 decision to a later date .
4 MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Second .
5 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor?
6 MEMBER DANTES : Aye .
7 MEMBER HORNING : Aye .
8 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye .
9 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye .
10 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye .
11 (See Minutes for Resolution . )
12 **** ******** ****************** ********
• 13 HEARING #6795 - KYLE MATTHEW
14 NICHOLS .
15 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next
16 application before this Board is for Kyle
17 Matthew Nichols , #6795 . Request for
18 Variance from Article III Section 280-15
19 and the Building Inspector' s
2.0 August 18 , 2014 Notice of Disapproval
21 based on an application for building
22 permit for accessory in-ground swimming
23 pool, at ; partial location other than the
24 code required rear yard, located at : 830
• 25 Deerfoot Path in Cutchogue .
October 2, 2014 Regular Meeting 33
1 Good morning . Please state your
2 name, please .
3 MR. NICHOLS : Kyle Nichols .
4 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : This is a
5 proposal for a irregular shaped swimming
6 pool that is partially in a side yard. The
7 code requires a rear yard location . We
8 have two letters of support from neighbors
9 that is on our file . It would appear by
10 site inspection and looking at our survey,
11 it' s a technical rear yard is pretty tiny.
12 As a matter of fact , I am wondering, the
13 survey that we have, it looks as though,
14 the survey would show something bigger
15 that what looks upon site inspection . Did
16 you put a little screened porch addition?
17 MR. NICHOLS : That was on there from
18 the original owners . The past two owners
19 that have owned the house, I know them,
20 and they have all said that was there from
21 the original owners .
22 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I see . It
23 doesn ' t appear to be on the survey.
24 MR. NICHOLS : It' s on the town card.
• 25 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I am not
October 2, 2014 Regular Meeting 34
• 1 suggesting that it wasn ' t there or
2 permitted, it' s just an old survey . It' s
3 hard to determine what percentage is in
4 the rear yard or what percentage is in the
5 side yard. It looks like the whole thing
6 is in the side yard according to the
7 survey. You see? If you were to draw a
8 line from the back of the swimming pool,
9 here, you know, here is your house . If you
10 do that, it looks like your whole thing is
11 in the side yard. This says it' s
12 partially. It' s technical . I don' t have a
• 13 problem with it . You have no room in the
14 rear yard.
15 MR. NICHOLS : ( In Audible ) she had no
16 problem with it .
17 MEMBER HORNING : If you redesign the
18 pool shape and turned it or something, you
19 are saying that you don' t have a suitable
20 yard?
21 MR. NICHOLS : Correct .
22 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It' s farther
23 away from the neighbor . You have 14 feet
24 from the property line on the other side .
. 25 The property is already fenced. We have
October 2, 2014 Regular Meeting 35
• 1 all been there . Questions , Ken?
2 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: No .
3 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Nice swimming
4 pool . You have no thoughts of ever
5 enclosing this?
6 MR. NICHOLS : As in the pool itself,
7 absolutely not .
8 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: The property is
9 unique . It' s a wedge shaped. If the rear
10 property yard had been parallel to the
11 property line, it might have been
12 conforming?
• 13 MR. NICHOLS : Correct .
14 MEMBER HORNING : What made you decide
15 that type of design?
16 MR. NICHOLS : I thought it looked a
17 little nicer . Added a little contour and
18 made it look more nature . Instead of a
19 straight square pool .
20 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It looks like
21 it set back 60 feet from the road. Do you
22 have any intention of doing some evergreen
23 screening?
24 MR. NICHOLS : Possibly in the future
• 25 when I have some more money.
October 2, 2014 Regular Meeting 36
1 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Oh that? Does
• 2 this pool need a drywell?
3 MR. NICHOLS : Not that I know of . I
4 am not near water . Not near farm land.
5 From anyone that I have asked, no .
6 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : If this pool
7 needs to be backwashed, then a drywell
8 would have to be required. Sometimes they
9 are making pools now that don' t need that .
10 So we will have to see about that .
11 Equipment, pump equipment .
12 MR. NICHOLS : I am going to place it
• 13 at the back of the house so it would be
14 out of sight from the other houses . They
15 are very efficient and very low in sound.
16 MEMBER HORNING: Can we add a
17 condition for sound deafening around it,
18 would you be okay with it?
19 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Like a
20 Tupperware bin around it . We usually do
21 that . Better for you, you would hear the
22 equipment less and for the neighbors you
23 won ' t hear anything .
24 MR . NICHOLS : The equipment now is
• 25 very, very low in sound. So it' s not like
October 2, 2014 Regular Meeting 37
• 1 the old equipment , you hear click on and
2 off . Everything is very low from what I
3 am told.
4 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I am just going
5 to look and see if there is any
6 specifications that you submitted.
7 MR. NICHOLS : If I need to have it ,
8 then of course, I will .
9 MEMBER HORNING : It' s up to you to
10 tell us , if you have to empty the pool,
11 where are you going to put the water .
12 MR. NICHOLS : Right .
• 13 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : There is a
14 number three on this , that says it will be
15 equipped with a backflow protection
16 system.
17 MR. NICHOLS : So that the water can ' t
18 flow back out , I would presume .
19 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The best thing
20 would be if you could get a letter from
21 this manufacturer indicating something
22 having to do with the noise level of the
23 pump equipment , and it' s intended location
24 because it' s not on the survey. Also a
• 25 drywell for dewatering, if necessary or
October 2, 2014 Regular Meeting 38
• 1 not . Look, we are not experts on this
2 because there is so many different
3 designs . Could you just ask your
4 manufacturer or installers to write up a
5 letter of what the noise level is of the
6 pump equipment that you intend to install
7 and whether or not this particular system
8 requires a drywell?
9 MR . NICHOLS : Okay .
10 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Then we will
11 have the information that we need. There
12 is no need for putting conditions on there
• 13 for a sound proof barrier or drywell if
14 you don' t need it .
15 MR. NICHOLS : Right .
16 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there
17 anything else from the Board?
18 (No Response . )
19 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there
20 anyone in the audience who wishes to
21 address this application?
22 MS . LESKODY : My name is Jennifer
23 Leskody and I live at ( In Audible) Drive .
24 He is a very fine neighbor and doesn ' t
• 25 bother very much . I just wanted to let
October 2, 2014 Regular Meeting 39
• 1 you know that I am sure he' s doing the
2 best that could be done and I thank him
3 for all his work . Anyway, as I said, I
4 have known him for a long time . He' s an
5 excellent neighbor . His family is all
6 very nice people .
7 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thank you for
8 taking the time .
9 MEMBER HORNING : Are you an adjacent
10 neighbor?
11 MS . LESKODY : I can ' t hear well .
12 MEMBER HORNING : Can you ask this
• 13 woman where she lives in adjacent -- thank
14 you .
15 MS . LESKODY : My backyard looks at
16 his backyard.
17 MEMBER HORNING : Thank you . Is she
18 one of the people that submitted a letter?
19 MR. NICHOLS : Yes .
20 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anyone else in
21 the audience who wishes to address this
22 application?
23 (No Response . )
24 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Hearing no
• 25 further questions or comments from the
October 2, 2014 Regular Meeting 40
. 1 Board, I will make a motion to close this
2 hearing and reserve decision to a later
3 date subject to receipt of a letter from
4 the pool designer or manufacturer with
5 regards to noise and drywell .
6 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second .
7 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor?
8 MEMBER DANTES : Aye .
9 MEMBER HORNING : Aye .
10 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye .
11 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye .
12 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye .
• 13 ( See Minutes for Resolution . )
14 ******************** *********************
15 HEARING #6796 - RYAN AND CHRISTINA
16 WILSBERG
17 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next
18 application before the Board is for Ryan
19 and Christina Wilsberg, #6796 . This is a
20 request for a Waiver of Merger under
21 Article II , Section 280-10A, to unmerge
22 land identified as SCTM #1000-122-5-23 . 4 ,
23 based on the Building Inspector' s
24 September 2 , 2014 Notice of Disapproval,
• 25 which states adjoining conforming or
October 2, 2014 Regular Meeting 41
is 1 nonconforming lots held in common
2 ownership shall merge until the total lot
3 size conforms to the current bulk schedule
4 (minimum 40 , 000 square feet in this R-40
5 Residential Zone District ) this lot is
6 merged with lot , located at : 3549 and 4095
7 Ole Jule Lane in Mattituck.
8 Good morning . Would you state your
9 name for the record .
10 MR. WILSBERG : Ryan Wilsberg .
11 MS . WILSBERG : Christina Wilsberg .
12 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay. This
• 13 one looks complicated.
14 MR . WILSBERG : That is what our
15 lawyer said.
16 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It would
17 appear that the Planning Board in 1985
18 approved this subdivision of the lot and
19 the Zoning Board also in 1985 lot size ,
20 however, because I guess they all stayed
21 in the family, they merged
22 unintentionally. So we are here to figure
23 that out and get it back to an unmerged
24 property. What could you tell us about
• 25 this application?
October 2, 2014 Regular Meeting 42
• 1 MR. WILSBERG : We are going to do a
2 three bedroom residential home on it, and
3 keep it coherent with the rest of the
4 neighborhood. Not building a mic-mansion .
5 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : If you look at
6 the tax map, lot . 4 and . 5 split another
7 small lot to make two L-shape lots . You
8 have the undeveloped L-shape lot?
9 MR. WILSBERG: Yes .
10 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay. And the
11 other L-shape lot is developed with a
12 primary residence?
• 13 MR. WILSBERG : Yes . We recently
14 merged.
15 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You recently
16 merged what?
17 MR. WILSBERG : The L-Shape one .
18 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: What do you mean?
19 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I thought the
20 two lots were subdivided?
21 MR. WILSBERG: It used to be two
22 separate pieces . Now that is merged with
23 the L-shape property.
24 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The one with
• 25 the parcel and the undeveloped are both
October 2, 2014 Regular Meeting 43
• 1 L-shaped?
2 MR. WILSBERG : Correct .
3 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay. That is
4 when it was subdivided?
5 MR. WILSBERG: Yes .
6 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So how come
7 those two lots which were established that
8 way by the Planning and Zoning Board got
9 merged back together, what happened?
10 MR. WILSBERG : I guess Southold Town
11 Law .
12 UNKNOWN SPEAKER: ( In Audible . )
• 13 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And the family
14 name being?
15 MR. WILSBERG : Wilsberg .
16 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay. Is the
17 other property that is developed also in
18 the Wilsberg family?
19 MR. WILSBERG : Yes .
20 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All right . I
21 don' t have any more questions . Let' s see
22 what the Board has .
23 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: I ' m fine .
24 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Gerry?
• 25 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No .
October 2, 2014 Regular Meeting 44
• 1 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : George?
2 MEMBER HORNING : Just review this
3 with me .
4 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : This shows all
5 the prior . I think this answers all the
6 questions . All right . I think we can have
7 this decision made in two weeks . I know
8 that you are eager to get going with your
9 building plans and so on . I think that
10 this is a very technical matter and we
11 just need to sort it out . Now, how are we
12 going to do this? If we go an unmerge
• 13 them, are they still going to be in the
14 family name? Once they develop, it will be
15 fine .
16 Anything else from the Board?
17 (No Response . )
18 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anyone in the
19 audience that wishes to address this
20 application?
21 (No Response . )
22 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay. Hearing
23 no further questions or comments, I am
24 going to make a motion to close the
. 25 hearing and reserve decision to a later
October 2, 2014 Regular Meeting 45
• 1 date .
2 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second .
3 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor?
4 MEMBER DANTES : Aye .
5 MEMBER HORNING : Aye .
6 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye .
7 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye .
8 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye .
9 (See Minutes for Resolution . )
10 ** ************** ******************* ***
11 HEARING #6792 - BARBARA ADAMS and
12 JAN NICHOLSON
. 13 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next
14 application before the Board is for
15 Barbara Adams and Jan Nicholson (CV) #6792
16 - Request for Variances from Article XXII
17 Section 280-116B and Article XXIII Section
18 280-124 and Section 280-15 ( F) and the
19 Building Inspector' s May 28 , 2014 , amended
20 July 29, 2014 , amended August 4 , 2014
21 Notice of Disapproval based on an
22 application for building permit for
23 partially demolish and relocate an
24 existing single family dwelling as an
• 25 accessory building, construct a new single
October 2, 2014 Regular Meeting 46
• 1 family dwelling and construct a new
2 accessory garage, at ; 1 ) less than the
3 code required setback of 75 feet from the
4 bulkhead, 2 ) less than the code required
5 front yard setback of 40 feet, 3 ) less
6 than the code required rear yard setback
7 of 40 feet, 4 ) accessory building in
8 location other than the front (waterfront )
9 or rear yard, 5 ) accessory garage proposed
10 in a location other than the front
11 (waterfront ) or rear yard, located at :
12 8100 Indian Neck Lane (adjacent to Hog
• 13 Neck Bay) Peconic .
14 Good morning, Pat .
15 MS . MOORE : Good morning . Patricia
16 Moore on behalf of the Barbara Adams , the
17 owner and Jan Nicholson, who is the
18 purchaser . Ms . Adams could not be here .
19 She' s in Nepal . Jan Nicholson is here and
20 I hope that she will have a chance to
21 speak as well . I want to begin -- I don' t
22 want to read to you what has already been
23 submitted on the record because it' s
24 extensive and there is no need to read
• 25 resubmission . I do want to point out some
October 2, 2014 Regular Meeting 47
is
1 of the important points that I think we
2 should keep in mind, also for the benefit
3 of the neighbors that are not familiar
4 with this property. The first issue that I
5 have to address is character of the
6 neighborhood. And it ' s very obvious from
7 the Young & Young map and the property
8 survey, that it was developed in such time
9 that the other properties along the west
10 side of this stretch of beach, the size of
11 the property -- for the most part is
12 similar to the other . There are some lots
• 13 to the west that are significantly larger .
14 The adjacent property surrounds our
15 property . His property is significant
16 larger than ours . When we were
17 considering the development of this
18 property, two things were very important .
19 One was to place the house is a position
20 where you obviously preserve the views .
21 The value of this property is the view, as
22 in most waterfront properties . As the
23 property goes towards the north or the
24 back of the property, the property narrows
• 25 down . So the placement of the house as
October 2, 2014 Regular Meeting 48
1 it' s proposed is , one, in line with the
2 balance of the properties to the west .
3 You can see that on the survey there is
4 some uniformity. The setbacks for the
5 most part, the average setback is 52 feet .
6 Based on the records that I had from the
7 Town . And the width of the house
8 anticipates some variances from Indian
9 Neck Road as well as from is practically
10 our side yard. The problem is a technical
11 issue of Indian Neck Road, the front yard,
12 which makes the parcel as being designed,
• 13 and as it' s planned out , makes the
14 adjacent property line of Mr . Wendell a
15 rear yard. Common sense tells you that
16 the labeling of this property, the
17 setbacks and so on, makes no sense . If we
18 were to make a conforming proposed house,
19 the house would be at 75 feet and the
20 front yard and rear yard at 40 feet, it
21 gives us a depth of the house of 16 feet
22 going down to somewhere near 10 feet . The
23 length being a long narrow home . That
24 would certainly devalue the home . I have
• 25 gotten submission from the purchaser to
October 2, 2014 Regular Meeting 49
• 1 disclose the price . The price of this
2 property is two millions dollars . The
3 value of the property is based on the
4 proposal that is before you . The
5 contractor agreement -- the price is based
6 on receiving variances that allow the
7 development of the property the way that
8 it' s been proposed. I will let my clients
9 speak to the design of the home because
10 it' s her passion . With respect to the
11 setbacks , the 50 foot setback is certainly
12 within the X Zone . I did review the LWRP
• 13 comments and recommendations , and as you
14 know, the LWRP recommends inconsistent any
15 time there is a variance . That is just the
16 way the code is written . However, the LWRP
17 raises issues of the policies of
18 maintaining appropriate setbacks for storm
19 and preservation of the property. I do
20 want to point out , the house is excellent .
21 The house is presently at elevation 14 .
22 The flood zone is down between elevation
23 10 and 12 . The flood line of the VE Zone
24 is zoned at about close to the bottom of
• 25 the bank. So the property, that the mere
October 2, 2014 Regular Meeting 50
• 1 fact at elevation 14 has never -- by
2 evidence or by the owners representation
3 doesn ' t cause any flooding or any erosion .
4 This property is very safe . It' s very
5 environmentally stable property and
6 similar to other properties along the
7 road. So I would certainly refute the
8 conclusions that the LWRP and the policies
9 of LWRP . I also want to address two of the
10 files that LWRP raised. When I looked in
11 the computer originally for all these
12 variances and permits, the one did not
• 13 come up on record. It may have just been
14 put on record. I looked . Nonetheless, I
15 did find a copy of the two Trustees
16 permits . The Trustee permit with respect
17 to Tax Lot 8 , which he raises is owned by
18 Adina Mitchell which 7131 Indian Neck
19 Lane, Peconic . What was very interesting
20 with this application, the size of the
21 property is similar to our property. It' s
22 less than two acres . Less than one acre .
23 Most likely, given the location of the
24 Coastal Erosion Line and the bulkhead,
25 similar to this property, except for the
October 2, 2014 Regular Meeting 51
• 1 fact that the applicant was requesting a
2 two-story family house with a footprint of
3 5 , 625 feet and a deck of 1200 square feet .
4 So from the record, it appeared that the
5 first floor and second floor were 7500
6 square feet, 1200 square foot deck. That
7 is a significant house on a property of
8 similar size . There are many reasons not
9 to appear before the Zoning Board. One of
10 them could have been that that was a
11 significant house . That at 75 feet, the
12 Trustees would certainly have no objection
• 13 to its placement at 75 feet and that it
14 would be limited review beyond the
15 Trustees . So there are numerous reasons
16 why variances were not asked . I could
17 certainly surmise that given the size of
18 the proposed house, that would certainly
19 be my advice to the applicant . ` Wow, that
20 is a good size house . If you want to
21 develop what you' re proposing, don' t ask
22 the Zoning Board. " And in fact , that
23 application did not come to the Zoning
24 Board.
• 25 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well, there is
October 2, 2014 Regular Meeting 52
• 1 a lot coverage issue .
2 MS . MOORE : That property didn' t have
3 a lot coverage issue either .
4 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Assuming that
5 it' s conforming --
6 MS . MOORE : I am not arguing on
7 nonconformity. There is only the issues of
8 setbacks from the bulkhead . So certainly
9 there is no objection to the house that
10 has been put there . It looks like a
11 fabulous house . The other application was
12 Mr . Sukura' s property. His property is a
13 very large beautifully piece of property
14 and he chose to put his house to 75 feet .
15 Mr . Sukura is here . I will allow him to
16 speak for himself . That is fine . There is
17 really not much to say to that
18 application . I believe it was an
19 application to add a secondary bulkhead to
20 the primary bulkhead and stairs and within
21 a 100 feet put a house and sanitary
22 system. So what I will do is submit the
23 two files that appears in the Trustees'
24 records .
• 25 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let me just
October 2, 2014 Regular Meeting 53
• 1 state for the record, go over some
2 variance relief that is requested. The
3 bulkhead setback is proposed at 62 , where
4 the code requires 75 feet . This is for a
5 new single family dwelling . The front
6 yard setback is proposed at 29 feet , where
7 the code requires 40 feet . A rear yard
8 setback at 16 feet, where the code
9 requires 50 feet . A new accessory garage
10 in a side yard, where the code requires a
11 rear or front yard location . A partial
12 demolition and relocation of the existing
• 13 structure, has an accessory building in a
14 side yard, where the code requires rear or
15 front yard . That would be the -- how do
16 you pronounce it?
17 MS . MOORE : Diguyan (phonetic) .
18 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Diguyan . All
19 right . Thank you . So those are the things
20 that are being proposed for the site .
21 MS . MOORE : Yes .
22 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay. You
23 already made reference to the two
24 citations in the LWRP record, indicating
• 25 that the two homes that were actually on
October 2, 2014 Regular Meeting 54
• 1 it , in which the existing structures were
2 demolished and new structures built
3 conformed to the bulkhead setback. That is
4 what the LWRP indicated that it was a
5 conforming setback. The current structure
6 is actually 99 feet from the concrete wall
7 and 72 feet from the top of the bluff . The
8 proposed is 60 feet to the concrete wall
9 and 22 to the top of the bluff . I just
10 want to get the mathematical numbers into
11 the record . We have several letters to
12 look at from the community. Some of which
• 13 were just received this morning . We have
14 not had a chance to fully read. We did
15 have one letter that was previously
16 submitted. That letter supports the
17 preservation of the structure . Again, we
18 got some letters with some concerns and
19 objections . We have a letter of support
20 from the Southold Historical Society. A
21 letter objecting from the other neighbor .
22 We will have to go through all of those
23 and I am sure there are plenty of people
24 here that wish to provide the Board some
• 25 testimony. Just to let you know, we have
October 2, 2014 Regular Meeting 55
• 1 to read these carefully .
2 MS . MOORE : Yes . I would also ask for
3 a copy.
4 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Sure .
5 MS . MOORE : Thank you . I would want
6 to also point out that the proposed
7 setback of the proposed house are actually
8 maintaining the front yard setback of the
9 existing established house s well as what
10 is the technical rear yard. So that was
11 something that we purposely, my client
12 purposely did not to encroach any further .
. 13 I was somewhat not surprised, but the
14 interpretation of that rear yard -- we
15 only have one yard here . Because of the
16 property being a corner lot, in a sense
17 that the waterfront is a public access and
18 you have the road, it makes sense to
19 develop this property with the adjacent
20 properties , the westerly property line or
21 the rear yard, as the Building Department
22 has labeled it, as a side yard because
23 that is how it has been developed along
24 the shoreline as well as how this property
• 25 has already been developed with the
October 2, 2014 Regular Meeting 56
• 1 existing house . The garage makes sense .
2 The code does allow for accessory
3 structures of the waterfront . In this
4 case, we have the road being the technical
5 front yard . It would be impossible to
6 place an accessory structure without --
7 impossible to place an accessory structure
8 conforming to the rear yard requirements
9 because you essentially have 16 feet --
10 less than 16 feet . Even if you were to
11 make the house to 40 , it would still be
12 inadequate to place an accessory structure
• 13 to the west side of the structure . This
14 cannot conform to the code required
15 setback because of its design
16 configuration on the water and it' s long
17 rod frontage along Indian Neck Road. So
18 -- and that is very obvious for the Board.
19 I am stating for the record what is
20 obvious . I do want to put on the record --
21 will address Mr . Dart ' s petition, but I
22 wanted to give the Board, a photograph
23 that was taken from --
24 (Ms . Moore approached the Board. )
25 MS . MOORE : This photograph is taken
October 2, 2014 Regular Meeting 57
• 1 facing the water and showing the parking
2 area . The community is using the beach . I
3 believe that is area is parking by permit
4 only but if not, I stand corrected.
5 Nonetheless, right now both sides of the
6 street have fences to preserve some
7 privacy for this new home . The development
8 of my clients property will not impact the
9 parking in any way. If anything, parking
10 is more of an impact on the home, then the
11 home impacting on the parking . So the
12 issue of somehow another the new home is
• 13 going to adversely impact the communities
14 parking needs, I don' t see it , nor is it a
15 relevant point . I think the fact is , it' s
16 a road end and they have a right to it .
17 They have a right to the beach . There is
18 nothing in our application that implies
19 any adverse impact to those . I also have a
20 second photograph there that is an aerial
21 photograph of the road end . I know on the
22 record, you have photos taken of the road
23 in your original impact . Mr . Dart
24 essentially prepared a petition and went
• 25 around the community. Those that have
October 2, 2014 Regular Meeting 58
• 1 some standing and many of those who don' t .
2 With respect to the points that he makes ,
3 runoff and sewage, in fact , a new house
4 has to comply with new sanitary and water
5 requirements, Health Department standards .
6 So the fact that a new house would be
7 built there would eliminate any
8 nonconformities that this existing house
9 may have . I am sure that -- well certainly
10 they have pointed out one nonconformity
11 with the well that is in the Town' s
12 right-of-way. Not the first time I have
13 seen it . The Town of Southold -- in fact ,
14 I have spoken to the past Town Highway
15 Superintendent and those of you who have
16 been here for quite a long time know that
17 many times when parcels needed extra room,
18 the Highway Superintendent would consent
19 to wells or even sanitary systems on the
20 Town' s right-of-way . It' s very common in
21 the old days and given that this property
22 was developed in the 1900 ' s, it' s not
23 surprising . That would certainly be
24 corrected when a new well and sanitary
• 25 system will be put in . That will not be an
October 2, 2014 Regular Meeting 59
• 1 issue when a new house is built -- if a
2 new house is built . With respect to
3 archeological sensitivity. As you know,
4 this is a SEQRA Type II Action . It does
5 not require further environmental review .
6 In fact , our preservation of a building
7 1900 structure is recognizing a
8 sensitivity to preservation to a cultural
9 landmark or future landmarks in this town .
10 It' s interesting that Mr . Dart seems to
11 "poo-poo" our desire and that' s a
12 technical term, our desire to design this .
• 13 And I noticed his e-mail address is
14 diguyan@gmail . com. He must have had some
15 connection . He said he' s a member of the
16 club, but I was surprised that he didn' t
17 find the preservation of that structure
18 more important, and I know it' s -- I know
19 he ' s taken existing homes and preserved
20 them and renovated them. So I guess I was
21 a little surprised by his reaction here . I
22 am just pointing how those issues are
23 relevant to this . I already mentioned the
24 beach parking . With respect to trees, my
• 25 client, I know will want to preserve the
October 2, 2014 Regular Meeting 60
• 1 privacy. I noticed the trees are somewhat,
2 I am not an arborist, if you want an
3 arborist , you can certainly get one, but
4 visually a lot of the trees don' t look too
5 healthy. And my client in particular will
6 want to landscape and create some privacy
7 from the public road. We deal with the
8 Trustees typically on the vegetated
9 buffers . We have to look at it to see if
10 we have good drought and good species
11 rather than invasive species . So that is
12 something that we would address later and
• 13 the Trustee requiring a vegetative buffer,
14 which is certainly not an objection .
15 Again, the water, I pointed out, we would
16 have a conforming well location to Suffolk
17 County Health standards . If public water
18 comes down, certainly we would be
19 connecting to public water . He makes the
20 point of water drainage . We have a
21 stormwater code . The Building Department
22 addresses that . That is not an issue . With
23 respect to the accessory Diguyan Club,
24 again my client -- he raises a question of
• 25 use and I am sure that is a question the
October 2, 2014 Regular Meeting 61
• 1 Board has . It is -- the code has to be
2 non-habitable . It is not sleeping
3 quarters . My client actually is an art
4 collector . And one thing she wanted to do
5 was make it climate controlled and provide
6 for the storage of her art work. Aside
7 from that, if she could put a toilet and a
8 sink, great . That would be her
9 preference . When she' s in there for
10 inventory or dealing with the artwork, if
11 there is a bathroom nearby, as opposed to
12 going back. So the most that I would be
• 13 requesting the use of that building, a
14 toilet, a sink, and climate controlled . As
15 you know, anybody who has any paper
16 products in this climate, artwork in
17 particular, will become moldly in storage
18 if you don' t have a climate controlled. So
19 the purpose of the Diguyan Club is the
20 viewing and not for going inside the
21 building . So the inside of the building
22 would be a private space, and used for
23 storage only.
24 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The restoration
• 25 and preservation of this structure is to
October 2, 2014 Regular Meeting 62
• 1 be viewed essentially as a gallery?
2 MS . MOORE: No . No storage . Not
3 gallery. Display of artwork. Storage of
4 the collections .
5 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Not open to the
6 public?
7 MS . MOORE : Not open to the public .
8 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So the benefit
9 of the public of this historic structure
10 is?
11 MS . MOORE : Is viewing from the
12 street . Examples of the architecture . At
• 13 this point, I will have Ms . Nicholson
14 speak with respect to its value and
15 particularly the exterior value of the
16 property .
17 MEMBER DANTES : Can I just ask one
18 question?
19 MS . MOORE : Sure .
20 MEMBER DANTES : I am looking at the
21 plans and the Diguyan Club doesn ' t show a
22 bathroom.
23 MS . MOORE : The interior layout . Are
24 you looking at the outside or the inside .
• 25 MEMBER DANTES : It' s all on the same
October 2, 2014 Regular Meeting 63
• 1 page .
2 MS . MOORE : Okay. It' s just showing
3 open space now . I apologize . That is just
4 a change or a clarification . Thank you for
5 pointing that out . Typically accessory
6 structures are allowed a sink --
7 MEMBER DANTES : I understand that . It
8 just has to be on the plan .
9 MS . MOORE : Absolutely. We can have
10 that changed.
11 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I think, you
12 know, you have submitted really thorough
. 13 documentation to the Board and we have
14 heard a lot of testimony . I would like to
15 have the opportunity to address anyone
16 else who is here today. I believe there is
17 probably a number of people here that
18 would like to contribute some testimony.
19 So I would like to turn this over to
20 anyone in the audience who would like to
21 address this application . So that you can
22 pick up on points --
23 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Can I just ask a
24 question?
• 25 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : If the Board
October 2, 2014 Regular Meeting 64
• 1 wants to ask Pat some questions , that' s
2 fine or if you want to wait till the end?
3 Whatever the Board wishes . I think that' s
4 fine .
5 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I have one
6 question . And the question is , why can' t
7 you push this house back to a conforming
8 setback?
9 MS . MOORE : In particular, the
10 property narrows as you get further back .
11 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: You said that .
12 MS . MOORE : In addition, we have a
• 13 private area or a courtyard area . The fact
14 that the property is on Indian Neck Lane
15 does add to its exposure to some extent .
16 So and obvious the views are best from at
17 the 50 foot mark then anywhere else . In
18 line with all the other homes , that is
19 typically what we looked out . Not to pop
20 out any further . That is why we gave you
21 the Young & Young surveys to show the
22 houses along this stretch are almost
23 uniformly 50 feet . As the homes were
24 developed, the bulkheads were put in . Some
• 25 were further towards the beach and some
October 2, 2014 Regular Meeting 65
• 1 were more conservative and within a bottom
2 of a bank. So the existence of the houses
3 to the bulkhead are typically
4 nonconforming because the bulkhead has
5 come in later . The homes may have been
6 there but the bulkheads were added . So we
7 want to be in line with the other homes
8 and not pushed back to the 75 foot mark.
9 It changes for my client the whole feel of
10 the development of this property.
11 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I do
12 understand why your client would be
• 13 wanting to optimize its view . Although it
14 isn ' t addressed in the LWRP, it also
15 requires the Board to examine the view
16 sheds . And so, the community defines what
17 scenic is, and that is why I am interested
18 in hearing from the community. Clearly the
19 road end is something that many people
20 enjoy and have used over many years . We do
21 have a history of nonconformance with
22 regards to setbacks but we have a more
23 current history of what we have seen and
24 the recent flood damage and the
• 25 environmental catastrophe of Sandy. We do
October 2, 2014 Regular Meeting 66
• 1 have a history now of conformance of the
2 75 foot setback. We all want to consider
3 both the procident of Trustees
4 establishing setbacks from houses that
5 were demolished. There are nonconformities
6 as consequences of preexisting that were
7 before LWRP and so on . So we have to weigh
8 out the decisions thoughtfully and with
9 responsiveness and consideration of all
10 the issues that are brought before this
11 Board . And having said that, Gerry,
12 that was a very good question .
• 13 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I want to expand
14 on that .
15 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : If what you are
16 saying that the setback is requiring to
17 maximize views --
18 MS . MOORE : Well also private
19 courtyard for the family also .
20 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I just wanted
21 to clarify that .
22 MEMBER HORNING: For the clarity of
23 the verbal testimony here, I would like to
24 cover some ground quickly . The project
25 itself involve clearing down most of that
October 2, 2014 Regular Meeting 67
• 1 existing structure; is that correct?
2 MS . MOORE : No . The Diguyan Club is
3 the center portion of that house . So we
4 are not tearing that down to relocate it
5 to the north . The side wing --
6 MEMBER HORNING: On the property.
7 Then there is a further proposal to build
8 a completely new family dwelling on the
9 property?
10 MS . MOORE : Correct .
11 MEMBER HORNING: What happens to the
12 old footprint?
13 MS . MOORE : Well, it' s no longer
14 there . It ( In Audible ) the location of
15 the courtyard and the garage . So being
16 reused in the sense of its disturbed area,
17 land. If you kept the house that is there
18 presently, we would take up some of the
19 proposed house . And I haven ' t done an
20 overlay completely -- maybe on the survey.
21 No . Certainly, I could get that for you .
22 MEMBER HORNING : Yes . It would be
23 good . And typically, Pat , I see people
24 try and preserve their footprints as much
• 25 as possible and work with their footprints
October 2, 2014 Regular Meeting 68
• 1 and their existing setbacks . You are
2 going to eliminate all the existing
3 setbacks and then ask for setbacks that
4 are even closer to the water; is that
5 correct?
6 MS . MOORE : The existing setbacks ,
7 if we were to come back -- lets say that
8 it was a different proposal . My client
9 obviously doesn ' t want what you' re
10 suggesting but let' s say I came in with an
11 application that you suggest, I would
12 still be here with a variance because the
• 13 increase in the nonconformity would still
14 be applicable . The only variance that
15 would not be required would be the one to
16 the bulkhead. The front yard, rear yard,
17 accessory or any accessory structures that
18 might be required or desired would be
19 applicable . So it wouldn ' t eliminate
20 variances . It would eliminate one
21 variance .
22 MEMBER HORNING : I am not saying to
23 eliminate any variances per Special
24 Exception. I am saying that we work with
25 applicants to try and preserve their
October 2, 2014 Regular Meeting 69
• 1 footprint so they can preserve their
2 existing setbacks . Once they demolish
3 something, they lose rights to any
4 setbacks . The new codes are more
5 restrictive . So you want on brand new
6 construction closer to the shore, closer
7 to the top of the bluff then allows . As
8 Gerry was suggesting, we may not be able
9 to understand why the client would have to
10 do that . If they work with their existing
11 footprint, we could allow more things to
12 happen because they would have more rights
• 13 to that footprint .
14 MS . MOORE : Well , in our case, the
15 Diguyan Club original portion of the
16 building is worthy of preservation but not
17 necessarily worthy of preservation as a
18 house because of it' s nonconformity with
19 any of the State Building Codes . So to
20 preserve that for purposes as a dwelling
21 would necessitate significant
22 reconstruction . So the cost benefit
23 analysis of this, no matter what, the goal
24 here and my client and Ms . Adams wanted to
• 25 preserve that original structure to the
October 2, 2014 Regular Meeting 70
• 1 extent that it could be preserved. But my
2 client is prepared to say, well, if it
3 can' t be preserved, you know, everybody
4 will have to deal with that . It' s a shame
5 because there is a proposal here with
6 something to preserve its continuance for
7 the community. I think that is really the
8 conflict which is always the case when
9 deciding whether to demolish an existing
10 residence or build a new residence . In
11 most cases --
12 MEMBER HORNING : The difference right
• 13 now, it' s a principal dwelling and an
14 accessory dwelling and it' s entirely
15 subject to a discussion what is worthiness
16 if it is of that structure at all .
17 MS . MOORE : Well, I do --
18 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I think your
19 point is made . I want to move along .
20 It' s an important application .
21 MS . MOORE : Well , I do want to create
22 a full record.
23 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You will have
24 an opportunity .
• 25 MS . MOORE : Okay.
October 2, 2014 Regular Meeting 71
• 1 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there
2 someone in the audience who would like to
3 address this application?
4 MR. SOLOMON : Members of the Board.
5 My name is Michael Solomon . I am attorney
6 in Greenport and residence of the Town and
7 I represent John Wendell who is the
8 co-owner directly adjacent to the property
9 that this application is subject to . What
10 I see coming from the Board, I already see
11 what is recognizing the nature of the
12 complaint my client has . Mr . Wendell
• 13 bought his property in 2008 and when he
14 bought it in 2008 , the current property
15 was existing in the form that it currently
16 exist . It appears to me that the applicant
17 is coming here on some guide concerning
18 this historical preservation part of the
19 club, which I personally look at it on
20 behalf of my client, if you want to
21 preserve the integrity and historical
22 nature of the club, build around it on the
23 footprint and just leave it as it is . And
24 I know Mr . Horning raised the issue about
• 25 the footprint . I believe it' s critical on
October 2, 2014 Regular Meeting 72
• 1 an application of this nature because of
2 the current square footage under the
3 current code is 80 , 000 square feet . We are
4 dealing with a property of nonconforming
5 at 33 , 000 square feet . And now we have an
6 applicant and saying, not only do I want
7 to enlarge the house, but I want to move
8 the house closer to the water and I also
9 now want to add a garage on the property
10 and now I want to move the club to the
11 front of the property, purportedly just
12 for her own use . I mean, I understand it' s
• 13 concept that it looks pretty but
14 effectively, if you are going to try and
15 turn this into a storage facility and with
16 a toilet and then turns into some kind of
17 guest cottage with a couch and a bed,
18 which happens on a lot of these
19 applications . I believe three structures
20 is way beyond what is required on this
21 property . As it relates to the 75 feet to
22 the bulkhead, there is not one legitimate
23 reason that 75 foot cannot be complied
24 with . It' s just a matter of going back to
• 25 the drawing board . What may have to
October 2, 2014 Regular Meeting 73
• 1 happen, there may have to be a choice
2 made . Do you want to build a garage or do
3 you want to build a club? It could be an
4 option of A or B . Not the current A and B
5 and putting two accessory structures on
6 the parcel . Also what is interesting about
7 this parcel and Ms . Moore, who I have a
8 lot of respect for, is selling, well it' s
9 a waterfront lot , it really should face
10 the waterfront . This property is unique in
11 the sense that it' s in the ( In Audible ) of
12 the road. The frontage is primarily 300
• 13 feet of the road. The rear yard of this
14 property should be the rear yard that is
15 directly to Mr . Wendell ' s property and
16 should be looked at a side yard . If you
17 got 300 foot of frontage, it makes
18 absolute sense that ( In Audible) on the
19 road . That the garage is theoretically on
20 the road. If you want to overlook the
21 water, overlook the water on your second
22 floor of your decks . There is a big issue
23 being made of being on the water at 50
24 feet and being on the water at 75 feet .
• 25 There is a song that I love that says , "If
October 2, 2014 Regular Meeting 74
• 1 you are lucky enough to live by the water,
2 you are lucky enough to me . " whether it' s
3 50 foot or 75 foot, there is no reason
4 compliance can' t be made with the 75 feet .
5 The way Mr . Wendell looks at this, if you
6 bring that property back, that house back
7 25 feet, now you are going to start to
8 disturb the view that he has and the plans
9 that he had. The existing house that is
10 there now is on an angle . So if you look
11 at it, you will see one little section is
12 16-25 feet from Mr. Wendell ' s side yard.
• 13 On the new proposal, they are looking to
14 straight the whole construction out and
15 they are going to make it adjacent by now
16 15 feet . Not 25 behind him but 25 feet
17 closer to him. Turning the entire
18 structure within 15 feet adjacent to him.
19 That is a major variance to be going to a
20 50 foot required to a 15 . I think by
21 moving their house closer to the road and
22 reducing the front yard requirement , bring
23 the house closer to the road. Respect Mr .
24 Wendell ' s privacy of when he bought this
• 25 house in 2008 . This is a functional piece
October 2, 2014 Regular Meeting 75
• 1 of property. It' s just not being presented
2 to you. Where is the hardship? There is no
3 hardship? Somebody wants to sell a piece
4 of property with your approval at two
5 millions dollars . I don' t think it' s a
6 proper venue or avenue to come in here and
7 say, "I need your approval so I can sell
8 my property for two millions . And by the
9 way, if you need any expert testimony from
10 any appraisers or realtors , who can
11 indicate what the property would be worth
12 without the granting of the variance . So I
13 don' t see a hardship. Everything here is
14 being self created. We go through the five
15 factors . I don' t have to recite it to this
16 Board because you know it better than
17 anybody. Did you hit all the five factors?
18 This property is at the end of the
19 roadway. It' s at the end of this line of
20 houses that are really on deep lots . This
21 one you see, you can distinguish this from
22 the rest of them. The way it is now, it' s
23 sort of technically out of character
24 potentially, but that is the way it has
M25 existed for God knows how many years . So I
October 2, 2014 Regular Meeting 76
• 1 think the real answer, as much as I feel
2 badly when someone gets up and opposes an
3 application, this application is all about
4 finances . It' s all about money. It' s all
5 about somebody selling a piece of property
6 for two millions dollars and we would
7 respectfully request that the Board deny
8 the application . Thank you for your time .
9 MEMBER DANTES : What is the set ( In
10 Audible) .
11 MR. SOLOMON : His setback is
12 currently 43 something . It was originally
13 50 . There was a grant before he bought the
14 house and then another 8 feet for the
15 deck. My point is, he bought it that way.
16 It was nonconforming there . Nobody moved
17 the house . What is being proposed now is a
18 total demolition and a reconstruction .
19 MEMBER HORNING: When was his house
20 built?
21 MR. SOLOMON : I don' t' know the
22 exact year . Pat would know.
23 MS . MOORE : I think it was late
24 70-80 ' s .
• 25 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anyone else in
October 2, 2014 Regular Meeting 77
• 1 the audience?
2 MR. DART : Hello everyone . I am Ed
3 Dart . I am the neighbor that gathered
4 signatures from 40 of our neighbors . I and
5 they have some serious concerns about the
6 application . I was happy to hear
7 Mr . Wendell' s attorney address a lot of
8 the concerns . Said it probably better than
9 I . Those are the very same questions that
10 we have . I have already submitted our
11 names and our comments and our concerns
12 and letter form to your office, but I
• 13 wanted to restate verbally some of those
14 concerns and gain some answers to some of
15 questions . So if you would allow me first
16 to make my comment and questions . Now,
17 contrary to the position taken by the
18 application, we feel that if built as
19 proposed that it will indeed result in an
20 undesirable change in the character of the
21 neighborhood for all of us forever . Here' s
22 why this parcel is not isolated down a
23 long wooded driveway out of everyone' s
24 view, like many other parcels are . And
• 25 it' s not a generously sized estate parcel
October 2, 2014 Regular Meeting 78
• 1 calling for a estately manner house . What
2 it is , is one of the tiniest lots on the
3 street with over 300 feet of road frontage
4 and a highly visible and publicly utilized
5 location . I hope some of you have been
6 down Indian to see this .
7 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Everyone has
8 made --
9 MR. DART : You don' t have to live
10 there . You just have to drive down the
11 street and it will hit you on your head.
12 What happens there will effect all of
• 13 Southold . And again, contrary to the
14 application, we believe full compliance
15 with a 75 foot front setback is indeed the
16 new ( In Audible) for new construction here
17 at Indian Neck and throughout the Town and
18 for good reason and it must be complied
19 with . We note that the local report from
20 the Local Waterfront Revitalization
21 Program seems to support that contention .
22 Now, the historical significance of a
23 portion of that existing residence once
24 being used as Diguyan Club meeting house
• 25 is very debatable . I have been a Diguyan
October 2, 2014 Regular Meeting 79
• 1 Club member for many years and I believe
2 the true richness of this club history, if
3 you consider it a rich history, is
4 generally associated with a club house
5 that we have owned just down the beach for
6 the last 102 years and not with a shack
7 that we have rented for less than ten
8 years at the beginning of the prior
9 century. What we are concerned about ;
10 however, is the potential for the
11 continued use as a seasonally and
12 habitable space other than two accessory
• 13 structures . In speaking of accessory
14 structures . This application is seeking
15 two accessory structures . Both in the side
16 yard and both very close to the road and
17 highly visible to all passer-by. No other
18 property on Indian Neck Lane has three
19 structures this close to the road. To
20 permit such would be inconsistent and
21 insensitive to the neighborhood and
22 undesirable to everyone . Accessory
23 structures are not necessary. In simplest
24 terms , we feel that this is a very big in
• 25 our faces project and it must be toned
October 2, 2014 Regular Meeting 80
1 down considerably in light of its high
2 visible location and potential negative
3 effects on all of us . Now, I know you are
4 aware, but I am not certain that all of
5 the audience members that the individuals
6 designing the new construction is only a
7 potential owner . Not the current property
8 owner and she is not experiencing any
9 hardships and she will not experience any
10 loss if the requested variances are not
11 granted. This is a much different
12 situation then when you have the same
• 13 property owner who wishes to renovate and
14 make corrections to their home and may
15 need some accommodations to receive a
16 reasonable and practical result . To my
17 knowledge, this property has never been on
18 the open market . A different buyer might
19 have a greater sensitivity and a less
20 grandiose that could be more justifiably
21 accommodating by this Board. Now, just a
22 few questions . Ms . Moore addressed --
23 brought up some of my questions that I hd
24 submitted to you in written form. But we
18 25 are concerned about storage and runoff and
October 2, 2014 Regular Meeting 81
1 note that the ( In Audible) doesn ' t show
2 any provisions whatsoever, drywells and
3 cesspools, and we want to know how this
4 will be addressed and how this will be
5 assured that all will be safely contained
6 within the, you know, confined of the lot?
7 I am assuming codes will mandate that but
8 there is nothing shown submitted so far .
9 Maybe it doesn' t have to be shown . It is
10 of great concern to us and will be
11 mentoring going forward. And I brought up
12 the question about archeological
13 sensitive . I don' t think it something that
14 can be dismissed half handedly. This is
15 Indian Neck, which is presumed in Town of
16 Southold to be habitable by Native
17 Americans, Diguyan himself . Is any
18 consideration going to be given to an
19 archeological study of this area? Do you
20 think we should get some consideration for
21 that? And regarding the beach goer access
22 and all of that, is consideration going to
23 be given to ensure that all access to the
24 public beach will not be impacted during
is 25 any construction period? I am concerned
October 2, 2014 Regular Meeting 82
• 1 that it' s a tiny parcel and there will be
2 a lot of construction and equipment and so
3 on, and that could impede public access to
4 a beach . And likely -- will contractors be
5 utilizing the parking spaces intended for
6 our beach goers? Those are the concerns
7 that we have . I hope you can give some
8 consideration to that . Trees? I am
9 concerned about trees . What is going to
10 happen to all the many old trees on the
11 property? The onsite storage of excavation
12 and building materials? Construction
13 buffers? Drywells? After you have many of
14 those, you won ' t have any trees . So will
15 there be any protection for the trees?
16 Now, I hope there will be some concern
17 given to them. Now concerning water . What
18 will be the ( In Audible ) water? It is
19 noted that public water is not currently
20 available at that part of Indian Neck
21 Lane . And it' s noted that the current well
22 for that property is not even on the
23 property . It' s on the public right of way
24 off of the site in question . That
25 shouldn ' t have happened. I don' t think
October 2, 2014 Regular Meeting 83
• 1 it' s a good idea . Road damage? We are
2 concerned about road damage . Who is going
3 to be responsible for damage to the public
4 road that is likely to happen during
5 construction? Will it be properly repaired
6 without expense to the taxpayers and can
7 you stipulate that in your decisions?
8 Accessory usage? Can and will have
9 stipulate that the accessory structures
10 may not provide any sort of living
11 accommodation including bathrooms? I say
12 that because in beach-run area, four
• 13 walls , a toilet and a sink and shower and
14 you have yourself a beach cottage, a
15 summer rental or whatever . It happens all
16 the time . We want to make sure that this
17 doesn' t happen on this tiny little parcel
18 in our faces . The last one is I have a
19 question about the current Certificate of
20 Occupancy for that parcel . I don' t really
21 know where I am going with this .
22 Considering that the parcel has no onsite
23 water source, I don' t know how it can
24 possibly have a valid Certificate of
• 25 Occupancy.
October 2, 2014 Regular Meeting 84
• 1 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : If you would
2 like to answer the question and have
3 knowledge of it, come to the podium and
4 perhaps comment . However, the current
5 Certificate of Occupancy, if a structure
6 is going to be demolished they have no
7 concerns . It' s not relevant .
8 MR. DART : Okay. So it can be
9 conveyed without a valid CO?
10 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That' s a legal
11 question .
12 MR. DART : That is pretty much my
• 13 concerns and also the concerns of many,
14 many, many of our neighbors . I did not
15 receive certified letter about the --
16 because I am not an adjoining neighbor
17 like Mr . Wendell . I happened to see the
18 poster on the tree down there that I was
19 alerted as to what could be happening to
20 our precious area .
21 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We appreciate
22 you taking your time . I hope the audience
23 is aware, Mr . Dart submitted exactly what
24 he just testified to the Board and is part
• 25 of the public record . For the benefit ( In
October 2, 2014 Regular Meeting 85
• 1 Audible) despite the time, I think it' s a
2 concern to the community.
3 MR. DART : Thank you.
4 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there anyone
5 else who wants to make some comments? Come
6 forward. What I would like to request is
7 that we don' t go over points that were
8 already made, whether there is anything
9 new that you would like to say, you can
10 simply say, "I agree with what was said. "
11 We don' t take additional time repeating
12 ourselves . Is there something additional?
• 13 MS . GILLABURTE : I am Lori
14 Gillaburti . We have the smallest house in
15 the neighborhood. It' s very peaceful when
16 we would walk the beach . It was very
17 beautiful . Since Sandy, the bulkheads have
18 been rebuilt and the whole view entirely
19 different . I don' t know where you draw the
20 line in the sand but I would say the views
21 have changed greatly. I understand people
22 bought their property, how do you ( In
23 Audible) from erosion? I just would hate
24 to see a big old thing there . Thank you .
• 25 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thank you .
October 2, 2014 Regular Meeting 86
• 1 MR. RUSHIN : Ken Rushin. Regarding
2 the Diguyan Club that has been referenced,
3 there is many of us who think that ( In
4 Audible ) . To remove where it' s actually
5 is to another location, is not really
6 preserving it . In addition, the Diguyan
7 Club was originally there from 1902 to
8 1911 ( In Audible) all the stretch at the
9 time . They did not own it . When Mr .
10 Crowitz wanted to build his house, the
11 Diguyan Club was moved to its present
12 location, down west and that is where it
• 13 remains for well over 100 years . It seems
14 to me -- and by the way, I have talked to
15 several members of the Diguyan Club . You
16 have already heard from Mr . Dart . But two
17 long term members , they are thinking that
18 this is not necessarily at all and not
19 important . One of them is Mr . James Rich,
20 who most of you know is very interested in
21 preservation of this area . Has been a
22 member of the Diguyan Club for over 60
23 days . The other one is Mr . Overton Day. A
24 letter that you received from the
• 25 Historical Society is based on information
October 2, 2014 Regular Meeting 87
• 1 from Overton' s great aunt and her early
2 recollections of the Diguyan Club . In
3 fact, his reaction to me when I talked to
4 him about the plan was first a laugh and
5 went on to say that its of no significance
6 to us at all . The fact if that structure
7 ws not at the rear end of this lot, it
8 would make it much more possible to
9 achieve that 75 foot setback . Thank you .
10 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thank you .
11 Anyone else? Yes .
12 MR. MCNAB : I am Glen McNab and I
• 13 live at 665 Arrow Head Lead in Peconic .
14 Mr . Dart mentioned all of our concerns . I
15 am one of the signers of the petition . I
16 have two issues that I would like to make
17 real quickly. One is there appears to be
18 some confusion as to the rear yard setback
19 as was mentioned. It' s 50 feet . I would
20 like to have that clarified.
21 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The Notice of
22 Disapproval --
23 MR. MCNAB : That says 40 .
24 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It' s 50 feet .
• 25 MR. MCNAB : Okay. I just wanted to
October 2, 2014 Regular Meeting 88
• 1 make that clear . The other item would be,
2 obviously this is going to change the
3 character and aesthetic of the
4 neighborhood. Let' s say the purchaser of
5 the home made a 100 foot long driveway on
6 a 300 foot lot . That would reduce the ( In
7 Audible) driveway and thereby reduce the
8 parking . The idea here was this
9 construction was going to take over a year
10 to build. Obviously it' s going to be
11 impacted people who use the beach and so
12 on . As Mr . Dart said, you are running out
13 of room on that parcel that is going to
14 have three excavation sites drywells,
15 cesspools . Cement trucks have to have full
16 perimeter access . There is going to be no
17 place to park . There is a sign now that
18 says, "Parking by Permit . " Are they going
19 to get a permit? So we are talking about
20 an issue that is going to impact one way
21 or another, even though it might be for a
22 short time . Anther item, I would like to
23 mention, this is a unique lot . It' s a
24 corner lot . There was references made to
25 all the other nonconforming properties .
October 2, 2014 Regular Meeting 89
• 1 They all have long driveways . So the
2 entrance of their property indicates that
3 they have a front yard that faces north .
4 This yard is different . The last item, the
5 attorney mentioned she had issue with some
6 of the signators on this, I would like to
7 know what this might be? Can' t anyone
8 sign up and take issue?
9 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I don' t know
10 what the concerns were . It' s just voicing
11 concerns . I think she mentioned some did
12 not have standing, which is a legal term,
• 13 that they don' t have a right to come and
14 testify.
15 MR. MCNAB : Okay. Do I have a right
16 to be here?
17 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes . Anyone . We
18 listen to anybody who -- this is a
19 democratic place . We all live in this
20 Town . We are neighbors too . Anybody who
21 wants to come and talk --
22 MR . MCNAB : What would be the
23 issue --
24 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I don' t know, I
• 25 would have to ask, if you want that
October 2, 2014 Regular Meeting 90
• 1 answer, you could get the answer . It' s not
2 part of this application .
3 MS . MOORE : With respect to
4 objections by neighbors . There are typical
5 general oppositions and of course with
6 respect to weighing objections of
7 neighbors, generalized suggestions -- also
8 whose opinion weighs more strongly .
9 Certainly, Wendell -- I am not saying
10 anything . His opinion certain weighs more
11 on the concerns . Also the fact that the
12 community, as I am aware, the Rushin ' s got
• 13 subdivisions and variances for their
14 property.
15 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You have to
16 address the Board.
17 MS . MOORE : Sorry . Many of those
18 objections have variables that were issued
19 on their property . So when the Board is
20 weighing the change of the character of
21 the neighborhood versus adverse impact and
22 ability to conform and all the variances
23 that are requested, you are going to weigh
24 all the factors and the petition that was
is
25 submitted by Mr. Dart . You know, the
October 2, 2014 Regular Meeting 91
• 1 Board will weigh that . Did I state that
2 accurately?
3 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You stated
4 your opinion . You' re a lawyer .
5 MR. MCNAB: That is your opinion .
6 MR. KIELY : We prefer to air on the
7 side of due caution and let everybody
8 speak and let everybody have the
9 opportunity to be heard.
10 MR. MCNAB : I thank you for that
11 interpretation . As the attorney mentioned
12 this is a highly area . People use that
• 13 beach . You may note in your application
14 that one walking the beach and by coming
15 by carriage to the beach, that would
16 include more people of use of that area .
17 So thank you very much .
18 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I just want to
19 point out to the audience that we have
20 been at this for an hour and 15 minutes .
21 There are other applications before this
22 Board today. I don' t want to limit
23 people' s ability to testify but we have to
24 be as brief as possible . So if you would
• 25 like to come forward and add something to
October 2, 2014 Regular Meeting 92
• 1 the testimony, please .
2 MS . FREDA: Carol Freda, 7715 Indian
3 Neck Lane . I am adjacent to the proposed
4 property. Right across the street . I can
5 see Ms . Adams property from the front of
6 my property .
7 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Your home is
8 on the other side of the street?
9 MS . FREDA: I am right across . I am
10 on Indian Neck Road . And I can look from
11 my driveway across to the proposed. I see
12 Indian Neck Lane every day of my life . I
• 13 see all the traffic come down . I see the
14 people walking . I see the people come down
15 to look at the water . It' s a very well
16 used road by the people of the Town .
17 People ride their bikes . People stroll,
18 they exercise . So I am concerned at what I
19 have to look at across the road for the
20 rest of my life . So that is my concern and
21 I thought I should express the fact that
22 Indian Neck Lane is a well loved lane by
23 the people in the neighborhood. They use
24 it all the time .
• 25 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Come forward.
October 2, 2014 Regular Meeting 93
• 1 MR. DURRETT : My name is Dan
2 Durrett . I am a residence of Southold,
3 particularly Greenport . I am glad to know
4 the democracy is at work, by way of full
5 disclosure my kayak is currently on
6 Barbara Adams property. All right . My
7 expert witness that I had consulted on
8 this project is unfortunately not here .
9 His name is Howard Minkly. He and I
10 discussed this project about two days
11 before he died. I had to coach him to his
12 guidance on this project . By way of full
• 13 disclosure, I am also a Board Member of a
14 North Fork Environmental Counsel . So you
15 can see, Ladies and Gentlemen of the Board
16 and audience, I am quite conflicted. I
17 spent my summer on Barbara Adam' s property
18 putting in not evasive plants as well as
19 removing of trees that cause a problem and
20 doing landscaping . Again, by way of full
21 disclosure . Further, I reside at the last
22 property that Barbara Adams sold in
23 Southold. I also attend the same church
24 that the prior owners attended. I did that
• 25 to put some context to my statement . I am
October 2, 2014 Regular Meeting 94
• 1 interested as a member of the North Fork
2 Environmental Counsel to see what kind of
3 determination that is made on this
4 decision by this Board because it will
5 have an impact on development and
6 environmental character and scenic views .
7 You have visited the site . Unless you have
8 visited and looked at it from the water,
9 you may not have the full appreciation . I
10 understand Ms . Adam' s great need and
11 desire to sell the property. Again, that
12 is why I am conflicting . I have seen Ms .
13 Adams before she left . If you don' t
14 believe me, I have a photograph . I asked
15 her about the sale of the property and
16 doing what was right . We have many
17 competing interests , from environmental,
18 zoning . I do not envy you . ( In Audible)
19 states, I ask you to just ( In Audible)
20 move forward on this . Thank you very
21 much .
22 MEMBER HORNING: Sir, can I ask you
23 a question? Are you the gentleman that
24 answered about the water source on the
• 25 property?
October 2, 2014 Regular Meeting 95
is
1 MR. DURRETT : Yes . When I need to
2 use the facilities, there is water there .
3 When I need to shower after landscaping my
4 understanding simply is that there is a
5 well that the water is drawn from. I have
6 no idea of its location other than I turn
7 it on . And there is water . My kayak is
8 there . I was there this morning to check
9 on it . It' s a beautiful piece of
10 property.
11 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay. Let me
12 ask the Board. We have taken lots of
• 13 testimony. I don' t think that we can close
14 this hearing yet .
15 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I need to make
16 one more statement .
17 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Any thoughts ,
18 comments?
19 MEMBER HORNING: We have not gone
20 over the LWRP at all?
21 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We did at the
22 beginning . Go ahead, Pat . If you have any
23 comments that you have not already made .
24 MS . MOORE : You do have this letter .
• 25 We emailed it or faxed it to the Board. I
October 2, 2014 Regular Meeting 96
• 1 do have the photographs, which I have
2 attached to this when it was a Diguyan
3 Club . That came from the Historical
4 Society . Some of the comments that
5 Mr . Solomon raised, I think are, you know,
6 it' s obvious that Mr . Wendell would prefer
7 that we make the property line between the
8 properties a rear yard with a maximum
9 setback. Pushing the house forward the
10 road. The neighborhood prefers that we not
11 do that . The reality is , as the house gets
12 pushed away from the bulkhead, it narrows .
• 13 And what we end up with is a house that is
14 about 10 to 12 feet in width . A decision
15 that denies variances and requires
16 compliance with the code, quite frankly, I
17 think it would be arbitrary and
18 capricious , given the way the property has
19 been developed and the other properties in
20 the neighborhood and the fact that this
21 property meets the code, would result in
22 what would be equivalent with the design
23 of the house of a mobile home . That would
24 clearly be a devaluation of the property.
• 25 My clients willingness to purchase this
October 2, 2014 Regular Meeting 97
• 1 property at that high price, two millions
2 dollars . Ms . Adams is local . She plans
3 to go to Peconic Landing . That is why
4 maximizing the value of this property is
5 important to her because she has to go and
6 relocate to Peconic Landing. That being a
7 personal need. But my client certainly has
8 the option of not buying this property but
9 the denials would impact the value of this
10 property in a very bad way. Having three
11 structures , we clearly need the lot
12 coverage . The accessory structure of a
• 13 garage is standard. With respect to the
14 Diguyan Club, it' s not personal desire to
15 use the property for a particular purpose .
16 We wanted to preserve the structure for
17 the community . What is in the structure
18 for storage . My clients -- my inquiry of
19 the client, was "Well, you can' t use it
20 for very much . What do you want to use it
21 for that' s there rather than just allowing
22 it to sit unused . " Just as an exterior and
23 structure of the early 1900' s . Her
24 suggestion was climate controlled storage .
• 25 Storage is a very noninvasive use . It' s
October 2, 2014 Regular Meeting 98
• 1 going to be a storage building .
2 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I think those
3 are all points that you made already.
4 Mr . Horning wanted to ask you some
5 questions on the LWRP .
6 MS . MOORE : Okay.
7 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We will be
8 adjourning to next month . We need to get
9 additional information . We may need
10 additional agencies, I am not sure . We
11 will get a copy of the transcript of the
12 hearing . Anyone else, can go to our office
• 13 and get a copy. That way you can continue
14 with the discussions next month .
15 MEMBER HORNING : For the sake of
16 time, I wanted to ask the applicant here,
17 the LWRP list three inconsistencies that
18 they are concerned with . Existing distance
19 from the high water mark of 142 plus feet .
20 So like 40-50 foot reduction from the high
21 water mark . The existing 99 foot bulkhead
22 setback will be reduced to about 50 feet .
23 A reduction of about 50 feet from the
24 distance of the bulkhead. The existing 72
• 25 foot top of the bluff distance, reduced
October 2, 2014 Regular Meeting 99
. 1 again, to 53 feet . We need some mediation.
2 How do you mitigate those factors is my
3 question? I also have a question for my
4 colleagues , the Notice of Disapproval
5 doesn' t mention the top of the bluff that
6 I mention and -- okay. So that answers my
7 question . So how are we mitigating the
8 other inconsistencies on this? You can
9 pursue it next time .
10 MS . MOORE : I will give you
11 mitigation for it .
12 MEMBER HORNING: Okay.
• 13 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : If anyone in
14 the audience wishes to submit anything
15 into writing between now and next month,
16 we will welcome the comments . Is there
17 anything else? If you have nothing to say
18 other than what you have said, we will be
19 reading the transcript . Is there anything
20 else between now and then you can submit
21 it to the office .
22 Is there anything else from the
23 Board?
24 (No Response . )
is 25 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The other
October 2, 2014 Regular Meeting 100
• 1 option for you, Pat, is to consider an
2 amended application . To take into
3 considerations comments that you have
4 heard today. The Board will take into
5 consideration an amended application . So
6 all of those are available to both the
7 applicant and the audience . The next
8 regular meeting is Thursday, November 6th .
9 I am going to make a motion to adjourn
10 this to that meeting at 1 : 30 .
11 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second.
12 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor?
• 13 MEMBER DANTES : Aye .
14 MEMBER HORNING: Aye .
15 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye .
16 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye .
17 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye .
18 (See Minutes for Resolution. )
19 ********************* ********************
20 HEARING #6793 - NORTH FORK COMMUNITY
21 THEATER
22 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next
23 application before the Board is for North
24 Fork Community Theater, #6793 . Request
• 25 for Variance from Article X Section 280-46
October 2, 2014 Regular Meeting 101
• 1 (Bulk Schedule) and the Building
2 Inspector' s June 23 , 2014 Notice of
3 Disapproval based on an application for
4 building permit for additions and
5 alterations to existing theater building,
6 at; 1 ) less than code required rear yard
7 setback of 25 feet, located at : 12700
8 Sound Avenue in Mattituck .
9 Would you state your name for the
10 record, please .
11 MR. STROMSKI : My name is Robert
12 Stromski , 44 Circle Drive in Jamesport . I
• 13 am acting as the architect for the
14 applicant .
15 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We have a
16 proposal for a rear yard setback at 11 . 1
17 feet, where the code requires 25 feet .
18 This is for an entry porch?
19 MR. STROMSKI : Covered porch,
20 correct .
21 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You received a
22 prior ZBA approval in 2011 to expand the
23 lot size?
24 MR. STROMSKI : Correct . It was a
• 25 subdivision from the church . I believe you
October 2, 2014 Regular Meeting 102
• 1 heard their testimony and application?
2 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes .
3 MR. STROMSKI : Just to try and give
4 the Board what is going on, the main
5 entrance to this theatre is this covered
6 porch is supposed to be located. For many
7 years there was only a vinyl or canvas to
8 cover that doorway with the small platform
9 that is there now . Since the Board theatre
10 has obtained the property and are now
11 owners of the parcel, the can do some
12 improvements that they wanted to do for
• 13 the property. One of the things that has
14 been important for them is to create some
15 more of a covered entry, due to the fact
16 that we have a number of people that do
17 enter into the building to buy tickets .
18 It' s not a very large lobby. So it' s
19 really necessary to provide for this
20 application, a 9 foot deep by 25 foot wide
21 covered porch . A lot of that would be to
22 house some of the patrons that are coming
23 to the theatre for performances and so
24 forth . So they could be out of the
• 25 elements . There is actually a room that
October 2, 2014 Regular Meeting 103
• 1 access to a particular area . We are also
2 trying to access a ticket window that is
3 accessible to that covered porch . I would
4 say it' s impossible to abide by the rear
5 yard 25 feet and have a walkway to this
6 doorway. We feel that the proposed
7 variance is in character with the
8 surrounding areas . It' s in character with
9 the surrounding building. And also we feel
10 that it' s the least amount of variance
11 relief required for the property. As
12 stated before in the variance application,
• 13 there is a 5 . 8 foot rear yard to the
14 building itself . That is more to deal with
15 proportions .
16 MEMBER HORNING: Do you have the
17 setback from the existing west corner?
18 MR. STROMSKI : 28 feet .
19 MEMBER HORNING: Is the southwesterly
20 existing setback, what is it there?
21 MR. STROMSKI : It' s greater that 11 . 1
22 feet . Probably closer to 12 feet .
23 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That would be
24 west?
• 25 MR. STROMSKI : That would be the
October 2, 2014 Regular Meeting 104
• 1 west . It' s a little over a foot from the
2 building .
3 MEMBER HORNING: So you are not
4 violating that?
5 MR. STROMSKI : No, we are not .
6 MEMBER HORNING : If you can get us
7 that actual setback?
8 MR. STROMSKI : Yes . I would just want
9 to verify that with the surveyor of
10 record.
11 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay. Anything
12 else from the Board?
• 13 (No Response . )
14 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anyone in the
15 audience that would like to address the
16 application?
17 (No Response . )
18 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Hearing no
19 further questions or comments , I will make
20 a motion to close the hearing and reserve
21 decision to a later date .
22 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second.
23 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor?
24 MEMBER DANTES : Aye .
• 25 MEMBER HORNING : Aye .
October 2, 2014 Regular Meeting 105
• 1 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye .
2 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye .
3 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye .
4 (See Minutes for Resolution . )
5 ******************* **** ************** **
6 HEARING #6790- PATRICK AND ROBIN
7 WALDEN
8 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next
9 application before the Board is for
10 Patrick and Robin Walden, #6790 . This is a
11 request for a Waiver of Merger under
12 Article II , Section 280-10A, to unmerge
13 land identified as SCTM #1000-41-1-14 ,
•
14 based on the Building Inspector' s
15 May 15, 2014 Notice of Disapproval , which
16 states adjoining conforming or
17 nonconforming lots held in common
18 ownership shall merge until the total lot
19 size conforms to the current bulk schedule
20 (minimum 40 , 000 square feet in this R-40
21 Residential Zone District ) this lot is
22 merged with lots 1000-41-1-12&15, located
23 at : 105 Main Street, 100 Wilmarth Avenue
24 and 1220 Wilmarth Avenue in Greenport .
• 25 MR. MCLAUGHLIN : Good afternoon . My
October 2, 2014 Regular Meeting 106
• 1 name is Kevin McLaughlin . I am the
2 attorney for the applicants and I ' m here
3 to represent Patrick and Robin Walden . The
4 first thing is , while the Notice of
5 Disapproval cites three lots as having
6 merged, if you look carefully at the
7 single and separate searches , I think you
8 will find that Lot #12 , which I will refer
9 to the monument, never merged . In fact,
10 the Estate of Dorothy F. Staples until
11 February 26, 2013, it' s rather confusing
12 and in speaking with the Building
• 13 Department, I understand their problem
14 because the deed, the purported transfer
15 of the property, in fact, it didn ' t
16 transfer the property because they weren ' t
17 from the correct ( In Audible . ) That
18 particular property was bought by Stuart
19 and Dorothy F. Staples in 1932 . Stuart
20 died in 176 . Then in 1979 their son,
21 Halsey, as executor of Stuart' s estate
22 transferred the property to himself with a
23 life estate in Dorothy. However, Dorothy' s
24 interest in the property was never
• 25 transferred to that deed. She died in 1991
October 2, 2014 Regular Meeting 107
• 1 and in 1996 Halsey purported to transfer
2 that property to Patrick and Robin Walden .
3 Again, he didn ' t have any authority to
4 transfer that property because it was
5 still partially in Dorothy' s name because
6 it had never transferred. To further
7 complicate that matter, in 2013, Stuart E .
8 Staples, who was the son of Dorothy and
9 the executor of her estate purported to
10 transfer the property to Robin Walden . So
11 there was an incorrect description in the
12 deed, so that didn ' t work. So they had to
• 13 do a correction deed a couple of days
14 later . So again until February 2013 ,
15 titles of that parcel remained in the
16 estate of Dorothy Staples and wasn ' t
17 transferred legally and lawfully to Robin
18 Walden until February 2013 . Now, the basic
19 lot which is the other lot on Main Street,
20 was bought by Stuart Staples in 1950 . He
21 transferred property to himself and his
22 wife in 168 . I 'm sorry, he transferred
23 title to Halsey. In 1996 Halsey
24 transferred that title to Robin . So again
25 Lot' s 12 and #14 never merged because they
October 2, 2014 Regular Meeting 108
1 have never been in common ownership . Lot
2 #15 , which is the lot behind these two
3 lots was originally purchased by Stuart
4 Staples in 1958 . In 1978 -- Stuart died
5 in 1976 . In ' 78 , Halsey, their son,
6 transferred the property to himself . And
7 in ' 96 that property was transferred from
8 Halsey to Halsey and his wife . So Lot' s
9 #14 and #15 were held by Halsey Staples
10 from -- both were held in his name from
11 178 to ' 96 . So a merger under those two
12 names and two lots did occur . This is the
• 13 third generation of the Staples family.
14 Robin is now married to Patrick. This is
15 the third generation of the Staples that
16 now has interest in these lots . The
17 monument business has been run out of
18 Lot #12 since I believe the 19401s . The
19 back lot that is owned by Halsey, which is
20 still in his name and the vacant lot next
21 door to the Staples monument is -- was
22 transferred over to both Robin and Patrick
23 in 176 . During all this time -- I did not
24 represent them at that time, they were
0 25 advised that it was a single and separate
October 2, 2014 Regular Meeting 109
• 1 lot . They paid for it as it was a single
2 and separate lot . They have received
3 separate tax bills for that lot since -- I
4 am sure they are going to receive one in
5 December as if it was a separate lot . So
6 under the criteria for a Waiver of Merger
7 the first criteria is basically, the lot
8 cannot be transferred to an unrelated
9 person . It has not . It has been
10 transferred within the estate of the
11 family. So that certainly satisfies . The
12 fact -- balancing factors . The lot is
13 comparable in size to a majority of
14 improved lots in the neighborhood. All of
15 these lots in this area are part of a
16 subdivision called Washington Heights . A
17 subdivision map was filed with the Suffolk
18 County Clerk in 1920 ' s . All of the lots
19 are of comparable size . This lot is
20 slightly larger than the other . If you
21 look at the tax map, you will see that
22 lots are fairly similar size . There used
23 to be a large house on this lot that was
24 torn down in the 1950' s by Stuart Staples ,
25 who is Robin' s grandfather . Since then it
October 2, 2014 Regular Meeting 110
• 1 has remained as a vacant lot and my
2 clients understanding, as a separate lot .
3 The next criteria, the proposed waiver
4 will not create any adverse impact on the
5 physical or environmental conditions in
6 the neighborhood or district . All we want
7 to do is recognize a lot that is basically
8 the same size . What my clients would like
9 to do with this lot is to put up a small
10 two bedroom house on the lot . Originally
11 an application was made to the Building
12 Department to build a small two bedroom
• 13 house on the lot and that is when the
14 Notice of Disapproval was petitioned by
15 the Building Department saying that it' s
16 not a buildable lot . I think Robin would
17 like to come up and explain to you what
18 her plans are with the lot . Trying to keep
19 it single and separate .
20 MS . WALDEN : Hi . My name is Robin
21 Walden . I live at 982 ( In Audible) Drive
22 with my husband and family. This property
23 has been in our family since 1928 . Mine
24 was the first started. Today my husband
• 25 and I would like to build a two bedroom
October 2, 2014 Regular Meeting 111
1 home on a piece of my property that has
• 2 been in our family for three generations .
3 Originally there was an old farm house on
4 the plot land which Kevin just said was
5 Washington Heights . That was farm house
6 for the land that was on this piece of
7 property . My grandfather demolished the
8 house back in the 50 ' s . We purchased the
9 vacant lot in 1996 from Halsey Staples
10 with our understanding that it was a
11 buildable lot . We have always received a
12 separate tax bill stating it as a vacant
. 13 lot . So why would we think any
14 differently? My daughter, who is 24 years
15 old, has recently finished grad school and
16 lives at home, like most people her age in
17 this economy . She is currently working at
18 Greenport school in the Kindergarten
19 program, which has been her dream job
20 since she started her educational program.
21 She has always wanted to work at the
22 school she graduated from and give back to
23 the community that molded her into the
24 wonderful, hardworking educated young
• 25 person she is today . Unfortunately, since
October 2, 2014 Regular Meeting 112
1 the rising cost of living and the lack of
• 2 ( In Audible ) in our town, my daughter is
3 considering moving upstate New York to
4 look for possible other teaching
5 positions . Many of her friends have moved
6 out of Southold Town due to her high cost
7 of affordable housing in our town .
8 Recently she has come to us and asked us
9 to find her a place to live but due to
10 lack of affordable housing, we have been
11 unsuccessful . My husband suggested that we
12 build a home for her on a piece of land
• 13 that we own . We have started the process
14 about two years ago . We have encountered
15 many leaps and hurdles but have moved on .
16 This may be the key to helping our
17 daughter stay in Greenport and find her
18 dream. We hope your approval of our Waiver
19 of Merger will help my husband and I be
20 one step closer in keeping our family
21 together . Thank you .
22 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I have a
23 question . Lot 5 or 15 , depending on which
24 lot number you are using . The one that
• 25 fronts on Wilmer, not the one that you are
October 2, 2014 Regular Meeting 113
• 1 calling the monument . We can ' t find any
2 kind of permit of Certificate of Occupancy
3 or any legal status for that specific
4 structure, can you address that .
5 MR. MCLAUGHLIN : I don' t believe
6 there is one .
7 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : How does
8 that --
9 MS . WALDEN : Can I say one thing? It
10 was actually the barn for the farm house .
11 So that structure has been there, it' s not
12 a newly built structure . I am just letting
• 13 you know.
14 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You are
15 probably helping us understand the
16 history. It was probably not used as a
17 residence, I presume .
18 MS . WALDEN : I don' t know that .
19 MR. MCLAUGHLIN : It' s my
20 understanding that it has been, I have
21 never bene in there but from what I have
22 been told, it has been in the same
23 condition that it is currently for some
24 30 to 40 years . Honestly, the Building
• 25 Department is aware of it .
October 2, 2014 Regular Meeting 114
• 1 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So what we are
2 doing is truing to unmerge these three
3 pieces of property. Although you maintain,
4 that lot has not merged with the other
5 two .
6 MR. MCLAUGHLIN : No . No . I am saying
7 that the vacant lot that they would like
8 to build on, has not merged with the
9 monument lot next to it . Those have never
10 been in common ownership . If you go
11 through the searches , I think you will
12 find that to be true . However, the back
• 13 lot that we were just discussing with the
14 CO issue, is technically merged with the
15 vacant lot in 1978 when Halsey Staples
16 owned, solely, by himself, both of those
17 lots . So what I believe we need from both
18 of you or requesting from you, a Waiver of
19 Merger, only for those two lots because
20 the other one has not merged with either
21 of them.
22 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You are looking
23 at --
24 MR. MCLAUGHLIN : Tax map lot 14 and
• 25 15, which is on the subdivision maps as
October 2, 2014 Regular Meeting 115
• 1 3 and 5 . .
2 MEMBER DANTES . Who owns 15 now.
3 MR. MCLAUGHLIN : 15 is owned by
4 Halsey and Janet Staples . This process was
5 started by another attorney and had
6 supplied the Building Department with
7 single and separate searches from an
8 abstract company, which I will be very
9 honest with you, was totally confusing .
10 Out of an abundance of caution, Damon said
11 he was going to include all three lots .
12 When I got involved in this and refilled
• 13 for the Waiver of Merger, that is when the
14 monument lot was never merged with the
15 other lots .
16 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay. So Lot 12
17 or 4 , the monument lot is a single and
18 separate lot owned by the Waldens . Whereas
19 15 and 14 , are merged under the estate
20 family name .
21 MR. MCLAUGHLIN : My interpretation is
22 they would have merged in 1976 when Halsey
23 Staples owned both of them simultaneously .
24 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay. Anybody?
25 Any other questions?
October 2, 2014 Regular Meeting 116
• 1 (No Response . )
2 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anything else
3 from the audience?
4 (No Response . )
5 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Hearing no
6 further questions or comments , I will make
7 a motion to close the hearing and reserve
8 decision to a later date .
9 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second .
10 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor?
11 MEMBER DANTES : Aye .
12 MEMBER HORNING : Aye .
13 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye .
14 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye .
15 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye .
16 ( See Minutes for Resolution . )
17 ****************** ***********************
18 HEARING #6791 - DEPOT ENTERPRISES
19 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next
20 application before the Board is for Depot
21 Enterprises, #6791 . This is a request
22 under Section 280-146D for an
23 Interpretation of the Town Code, Article
24 VIII , Section 280-38 , "Permitted uses" ,
• 25 appealing the Building Inspector' s
October 2, 2014 Regular Meeting 117
• 1 July 28 , 2014 Notice of Disapproval for
2 "as built" permit to convert the single
3 family portion of an existing
4 non-conforming fitness club building to a
5 retail flower shop (not a permitted use) ,
6 located at : 29325 Main Road ( Depot Lane)
7 in Cutchogue
8 MR. CUDDY : Good afternoon . Charles
9 Cuddy for the applicant . Julie Hanus is
10 with me . She operates the designs . She is
11 also a member of Depot Enterprises .
12 Initially she believed that she was in the
• 13 Business District and she could operate
14 the flower shop . But her flower shop is
15 not a retail flower shop. What she does is
16 she designs , as the name indicates the
17 business . She design flower bouquets and
18 designs flower arrangements for various
19 institutions . She has a great deal of
20 business, from various fire departments .
21 She does bouquets for their banquets . She
22 does not basically sell at their retail
23 store . She will state her income . Her
24 income does not come from over-the-counter
• 25 sales . I think that the definition of
October 2, 2014 Regular Meeting 118
• 1 retail store that is included in the code
2 is very similar to the dictionary. It
3 indicates that you are offering goods to
4 sell to the public basically as take-out
5 items . She really does not do that . If she
6 has any retail sales, very, very small
7 amount . Five to six percent . She really
8 doesn ' t want retail sales . She has
9 targeted marketing . She sends our various
10 brochures to varios institutions . She does
11 not have a retail presence, in the sense
12 that you come in and buy things .
• 13 Occasionally, she has had some people come
14 in the store . Basically she doesn ' t do any
15 retail sales . She does basically what is
16 permitted in this type of district . Under
17 the section of the code, which is A3G, it
18 says that you can have small businesses .
19 You can have real estate agencies,
20 insurance agencies, I think she has that
21 close of a type of business . She usually
22 gets her orders by either people coming
23 in, by telephone or by internet . So people
24 are seeing her based upon her marketing .
• 25 She takes basically their orders and makes
October 2, 2014 Regular Meeting 119
• 1 up their arrangements and sends them to
2 the sites . So she doesn ' t really have a
3 clientele that comes off the street and
4 wants to buy flowers . That' s not her
5 plan . That isn ' t her business plan . That
6 isn ' t what she does . She does a separate
7 thing . Not what happens what a florist .
8 I think I would like her to explain to you
9 -- she has made up a statement to show to
10 you for the first six months . I think
11 that will be helpful to you because I
12 think that is very important to understand
• 13 that her business is this way .
14 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Can I just ask
15 you a couple of quick questions relative
16 to that?
17 MR. CUDDY : Yes .
18 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : On site
19 inspection, it has a very public presence
20 on Main Road. The side walk entrance and
21 so on, very big signs that say special
22 events and displays . You know, it' s a
23 front entrance . So it has a public
24 presence then different from what you
• 25 described.
October 2, 2014 Regular Meeting 120
• 1 MR. CUDDY : She is also hoping that
2 people will come in since she does
3 weddings . She just has that type of
4 presence for people that are doing
5 weddings or funerals know that she is
6 there . It' s not to invite you in . She is
7 saying that she is not going to be a
8 retail use .
9 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well, we would
10 have to figure out technically, of making
11 a distinction between this persons
12 business model and an interpretation that
• 13 this is a permitted use . Because that will
14 then set a precedent that will kind if run
15 with the land, if it were, if this person
16 decides to sell the business . That is what
17 you are asking us to do?
18 MR. CUDDY : That is right to
19 essentially recognize its use .
20 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I did ask about
21 the outdoor displays and that . Counsel
22 just brought up the code section, 280-38 ,
23 use regulations under D1, it says, these
24 are additional standards under permitted
. 25 structures , except for a single family
October 2, 2014 Regular Meeting 121
• 1 dwelling should be subject to the
2 following, no outdoor storage or display
3 of any kind shall be permitted.
4 MR. CUDDY : We are willing to
5 certainly -- I am aware of that and
6 certainly that wasn ' t the intention to
7 test people by that . Again, it was for
8 the purpose for people to come into the
9 building, so she could supply them with
10 bouquets and such .
11 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You know, if
12 in fact , all of the presence was off of
• 13 Depot Lane, that would probably make a
14 difference to support your statement .
15 Again, 2 and 3 of that section describes
16 that all permitted structures shall be
17 visually residential ( In Audible)
18 architectural style of the existing
19 structures in the immediate neighborhood
20 and then certainly, a storefront of any
21 kind shall not be permitted. Well, this
22 is most definitely a storefront . Whether
23 it' s used in the most traditional way, the
24 code does require modifications in the
• 25 operations of a business --
October 2, 2014 Regular Meeting 122
• 1 MR. CUDDY : It has never changed in
2 the structure . That has always been the
3 same . I think this is saying that they
4 expected the building to be essentially
5 the same type that it is . If you ' re
6 saying to take down the side, then I think
7 that she would do that .
8 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I noticed a
9 split rail fence . How did that come
10 about?
11 MR. CUDDY : In 1984 , when there was
12 a site plan for this site, it was
• 13 originally improved with a driveway. In
14 1985 , when they got final approval , they
15 asked to take the driveway out . They only
16 got the 1984 plan, they thought that they
17 could put the driveway in . They could
18 not .
19 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Who put it in?
20 MR. CUDDY : The applicant' s did.
21 The florist . They did that thinking that
22 it was allowed . They subsequently found
23 that it was not allowed. They then put
24 the fence up.
• 25 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Eric, do you
October 2, 2014 Regular Meeting 123
• 1 want to start with some questions?
2 MEMBER HORNING : I just want to
3 start with C, the following uses are
4 permitted and except for residential
5 accessory uses and signs which are
6 governed by review or whatever, these are
7 subject to site plan review. My question
8 is, even having a sign out there might be
9 subject to review but her use, isn ' t that
10 subject to site plan review?
11 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It' s
12 commercial . It' s going to need it . The
• 13 Notice of Disapproval indicates if
14 granted, site plan review will be
15 required. My question being, the
16 application says , the owner' s choice in
17 flower shop is not a material use in the
18 site . Can you clarify what you mean in
19 that?
20 MR. CUDDY : Yes . I think the site
21 has been used historically. It was in, at
22 one time, a store in this very part of the
23 building . So I am saying that it did not
24 change . It did not change the structure of
25 the building . So I didn ' t think that it
October 2, 2014 Regular Meeting 124
• 1 was a significant change .
2 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : What is the
3 zoning of similar properties --
4 MR. CUDDY : This is an RO Zone that
5 includes two parcels . If you go to the
6 east, where the Christmas Tree Shop is
7 that is a residential zone . If you go
8 diagonally across where the auto body
9 place is , that is also residential zoned.
10 There is two businesses . That is what led
11 her to believe that this is HB District .
12 That area for thew most part is business
• 13 area . It continues on as you go further
14 down the street .
15 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well,
16 ironically with the Christmas Tree Store,
17 we had to determine it that it was a farm
18 stand, as you may recall?
19 MR. CUDDY : But it' s a remarkable
20 site .
21 MEMBER HORNING : How does a fitness
22 center begin to fit into --
23 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That' s a
24 different law .
• 25 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: You don' t even
October 2, 2014 Regular Meeting 125
• 1 want to go there .
2 MEMBER HORNING : I was just curious
3 because this doesn ' t fit into there .
4 MR. CUDDY : The point that I am
5 trying to make is that this is not a
6 retail business . She is not trying to be .
7 She will certainly comply with whatever it
8 is . I would like to show you her
9 statements so you are aware of the type of
10 money that she makes and she could
11 elaborate if you want .
12 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay. So the
• 13 front page is a summary and the rest is a
14 copy . Okay.
15 MS . HANUS : Hello . I am Julie
16 Hanus . I am the owner . I am here to have
17 to just inform you of our business . Our
18 business originally started with just fire
19 departments . Being that my husband is a
20 volunteer fireman . We did flower bouquets
21 for the fire department installation
22 dinners . That is really what generated my
23 business . That is my background. And I
24 have always done weddings as well . I also
• 25 have in my off season, I send out direct
October 2, 2014 Regular Meeting 126
• 1 marketing, fruit basket or poinsettias and
2 I give it to the doctors, corporate giving
3 for the holidays . I have my portfolio of
4 many different funeral homes . So when a
5 family comes in and purchases a package
6 right through the funeral home, then I
7 would agree to do their work for the them.
8 Many of them just do packages out, seems
9 to work very well . I do accept credit
10 cards through the phone orders or what
11 not . I think 6 . 5% is not funeral homes
12 and non fire department events . I am not
13 suer what else you are looking for?
14 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well, a
15 question that just came to me, this is not
16 -- we are not being asked to interpret the
17 code to say that this is not really a
18 retail use, a retail store . How would we
19 describe it then? What term would you
20 apply to the business that you are
21 operating and how is that legal within the
22 RO Zone District?
23 MR. CUDDY : I think it' s a floral
24 design shop . It' s a little different . That
• 25 is what she does and what she intends to
October 2, 2014 Regular Meeting 127
• 1 do .
2 MEMBER DANTES : Just a quick
3 question, on a daily basis , how many
4 potential customers or clients walk in off
5 the street?
6 MR. CUDDY : That would be looking to
7 buy.
8 MEMBER DANTES : That would be looking
9 to buy flowers?
10 MR. CUDDY : Very, very few . It
11 counts as 6% of her totals . She can answer
12 the question for you, but I have been
. 13 there many, many times . I have never seen
14 someone walk in . If you would like her to
15 answer --
16 MEMBER DANTES : Yes .
17 MS . HANDS : As a business, I have had
18 no people walk in my door . I ' ve had a
19 funeral that I have done via
20 Costar-Heppner funeral in Riverhead . As
21 far as walk-in' s , I haven ' t had any.
22 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So you don' t
23 have any issues with conforming to the
24 code that refers to the residential
• 25 appearance and no signage out of Main
October 2, 2014 Regular Meeting 128
• 1 Road?
2 MS . HANUS : To my recollection, there
3 was always a sign out in front of the
4 building when there was a business there .
5 Yes, I guess, we are talking about the
6 pergola that has the special events on it?
7 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes . It needs
8 to look like a residential property,
9 rather than a store front .
10 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: That is the
11 difficulty. You propose to do this with
12 the health club? It will still be in
13 operation?
14 MS . HANUS : Yes . That is separate
15 from --
16 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Do you rent
17 from the owner of the building or are you
18 the owner of the building?
19 MS . HANUS : I am the owner .
20 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Are you leasing
21 out of the rest? Do you own all of the
22 businesses that are there?
23 MS . HANUS : No . No .
24 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : There is a
• 25 fitness there .
October 2, 2014 Regular Meeting 129
• 1 MS . HANUS : That has been a health
2 club since 1986 . It' s continued use since
3 then and has been independently run since
4 1986 .
5 MR. CUDDY : Her and her mother
6 lease .
7 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay.
8 MEMBER DANTES : The other thing, it
9 says flowers and gifts on the side .
10 MR. CUDDY : She is aware of that .
11 MEMBER DANTES : There are no gifts?
12 MS . HANUS : Just for events .
• 13 MR. CUDDY : She is not selling them
14 separately . Some of them are used when she
15 brings them to events .
16 MS . HANUS : I rent them at weddings
17 and they go around the event posts .
18 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: So in looking at
19 your floor plan here, a conference room, a
20 display area, flower room. So you will be
21 doing all of the assembly and bouquets
22 here?
23 MS . HANUS : Yes . I have a work room
24 and then a sympathy room and that has
• 25 displays and we have a wedding room, that
October 2, 2014 Regular Meeting 130
• 1 is all the wedding room. We will set up
2 tables and we have arbors and examples to
3 show the bride . You know what I mean?
4 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Uh-huh .
5 MS . HANUS : Then we have a separate
6 room.
7 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Do you live there
8 as well? I see separate bedrooms and
9 dining rooms, kitchen .
10 MS . HANUS : No, I don' t live there .
11 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Is it there just
12 for the benefit of R0, Mr . Cuddy?
13 MEMBER HORNING : People do live
14 there .
15 MS . HANUS : A unit over from me . It' s
16 separate .
17 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Okay. So beyond
18 the work room. I thought that was all part
19 of it .
20 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That is rented?
21 MS . HANUS : Yes .
22 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Those continue
23 on as separate?
24 MS . HANUS : Yes .
25 MEMBER DANTES : So while you ' re
October 2, 2014 Regular Meeting 131
• 1 saying, yes , I can come off the streets
2 and buy some flowers, it' s not the
3 principal business and therefore would you
4 not interpret it as the retail business .
5 MS . HANDS : When I buy my wedding
6 flowers , I have to buy 10 percent for
7 breakage or whatever . I have probably less
8 than $200 . 00 in retail value . So he can' t
9 just come in .
10 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: I think the key
11 thing is , you are not going to go to her
12 establishment and buy roses or a floral
• 13 bouquet .
14 MS . HANDS : That is not my goal .
15 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: It' s not
16 permitted. It' s a retail use . However, if
17 I walk off the street and say, I want to
18 buy 500 roses and have them delivered to
19 my house, could that work.
20 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I guess it' s a
21 matter of scale .
22 MR. KIELY : Again, you have to go and
23 look back to the definition of retail . You
24 have to go and take out items .
• 25 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Okay.
October 2, 2014 Regular Meeting 132
• 1 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anything else
2 from the Board?
3 (No Response . )
4 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anything else
5 from the audience?
6 (No Response . )
7 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay. Hearing
8 no further questions or comments, I am
9 going to make a motion to close the
10 hearing and reserve decision to a later
11 date .
12 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second.
• 13 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor?
14 MEMBER DANTES : Aye .
15 MEMBER HORNING : Aye .
16 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye .
17 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye .
18 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye ..
19 (See Minutes for Resolution . )
20 ** ****************** ******* ************
21 HEARING #6773 & 6789 - WILLIAM F. GRELLA
22 AND GARY D . OSBORN .
23 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The last
24 application of the day is for William F.
• 25 Grella and Gary D. Osborn . I have to
October 2, 2014 Regular Meeting 133
• 1 re-read the legal notice . We have two
2 applications for William F . Grella and
3 Gary D. Osborn, #6773 . Request for
4 Variances from Articles XXIII , XXII and
5 III , Sections 280-124 , 280-116B and 280-14
6 (Bulk Schedule) and the Building
7 Inspector' s August 7 , 2013, amended and
8 renewed May 19, 2014 , amended
9 June 2 , 2014 , amended July 14 , 2014 Notice
10 of Disapproval based on an application for
11 building permit for partial demolition,
12 reconstruction, additions and alterations
• 13 of an existing single family dwelling, at ;
14 1 ) less than the code required front yard
15 setback of 35 feet, 2 ) less than the code
16 required single side yard setback of 25
17 feet, 3 ) less than the code required
18 combined side yard setback of 50 feet,
19 4 ) more than the code permitted maximum
20 lot coverage of 30% , 5 ) less than the code
21 required bulkhead setback of 75 feet,
22 6) more than the code permitted 2 stories ,
23 located at : 1200 First Street (adjacent .
24 To Great Peconic Bay) in New Suffolk. In
• 25 the Notice of Disapproval, it said the
October 2, 2014 Regular Meeting 134
1 wrong zone district . It is not
2 residential . It is MII . I am going to
3 open the second one at the same time .
4 It' s #6789, this is a request under
5 Section 280-146D for an Interpretation of
6 the Town Code, Article III , Section 280-14
7 (Bulk Schedule) , appealing the Building
8 Inspector' s August 7 , 2013 , amended and
9 renewed May 19, 2014 , amended
10 June 2 , 2014 , amended July 14 , 2014
11 Notice of Disapproval building permit for
12 partial demolition, reconstruction,
• 13 additions and alterations of an existing
14 single family dwelling, at ; 1 ) more than
15 the code permitted 2 stories , located at :
16 1200 First Street (adjacent . To Great
17 Peconic Bay) in New Suffolk. The MII Zone
18 kept some things the same and some things
19 changed .
20 MR. ANDERSON : That is correct .
21 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Some of the
22 setbacks are the same . Some are not . The
23 change on the variance relief is the
24 partial demo and reconstruction and
25 alterations . Front yard setback at 3 feet .
October 2, 2014 Regular Meeting 135
• 1 The code requires 35 feet is the same .
2 Rear yard setback at 25 feet, the code
3 requires 35 feet is the same?
4 MR. ANDERSON : No . No . Rear yard
5 in a R-40 is 35 . Rear yard in an MII is
6 25 .
7 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Then I got
8 that wrong . Rear yard setback is being
9 proposed at 25 ; correct?
10 MR. ANDERSON : Right . And it
11 complies .
12 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And the code
• 13 requires --
14 MR. ANDERSON : 25 in the MII .
15 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Now it' s
16 conforming . A single side yard setback at
17 2 . 7 feet . The code requirement is 25 foot
18 which changed from 10 feet?
19 MR. ANDERSON : That' s correct .
20 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Combined side
21 yard setback of 13 feet . The code requires
22 15 and that was changed from 25?
23 MR. ANDERSON : Correct .
24 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And bulkhead
• 25 setback at 21 feet . The code requires 75
October 2, 2014 Regular Meeting 136
1 feet . It' s the same?
• 2 MR. ANDERSON : That is correct .
3 Bruce Anderson, Suffolk Environmental
4 Consultants . The answer is , in some
5 instances it becomes more conforming and
6 some instances it becomes less conforming .
7 I had thought that the ( In Audible) that I
8 have already put in . Unless you want me
9 to go into the same presentation, with the
10 exception of changing numbers , I can do
11 that . As far as impact on the
12 neighborhood, as far as impact on the
• 13 land, as far as -- the relief is
14 different . The essential arguments remain
15 the same when it comes to dimensional
16 relief . I also note that the single
17 family dwelling is a permitted use . It
18 involves both the R40 and MII Zone . My
19 case is essentially the same . I have done
20 a little more research and a little more
21 thinking about this complexion of stories .
22 As you know, in an R40 Zone, as you know,
23 you are allowed to have two and a half
24 story' s . A ceiling height of 5 feet or a
• 25 ceiling height of 7 feet, as long as
October 2, 2014 Regular Meeting 137
1 7 covers more than 50% of the floor area
• 2 above it . That really doesn ' t matter
3 because we have a two-story house in any
4 event . So whether it' s in the MII or the
5 R40, it doesn ' t change the fact that you
6 have a two-story house . Nor does it change
7 essentially the interpretation as to
8 whether or not the unfinished space at
9 ground level constitutes storage . My
10 colleague and I were here as a matter of
11 community service, because many others
12 will be confronted or have been confronted
• 13 with that issue . And so I gave that a
14 little more thought and I want to read out
15 a couple of definitions straight out of
16 the Zoning Code . First is, what is a
17 basement . It' s defined as a storage of a
18 building partly below finished grade,
19 which has more than one half of its height
20 measured from floor to ceiling above the
21 average established curb level finished
22 grade . We can all agree that we don' t have
23 a basement . We are not proposing one . We
24 never had one . So the basement is not a
• 25 storage . It doesn ' t come into play. I note
October 2, 2014 Regular Meeting 138
• 1 the term, floor, is not defined in the
2 zoning code . But what does come into play
3 is the actual definition of story, which
4 reads , that part of a building, exclusive
5 of cellars but inclusive of basement . We
6 have neither basement or cellar here,
7 comprised between the level of one
8 finished floor and the level of the next
9 highest finished floor . Meaning, that the
10 floors have to be finished in order to
11 constitute a story. So the question
12 arises as to whether or not that space
• 13 that we will be parking under constitutes
14 a story. We would say clearly it doesn ' t
15 because it' s not finished space . It' s
16 unheated. It is enclosed by breakaway
17 walls . The function of floor plain
18 regulation . Remember this is a house that
19 is built in a high velocity zone . So it
20 must be built on piles . Then I went back
21 to the technical proposal, which is the
22 first time this came up . The technical
23 bulletin was released in December of 2013 .
24 So this is a very new thing . This is why I
• 25 think we are here on that question of
October 2, 2014 Regular Meeting 139
• 1 interpretation . In essence, the Building
2 Inspector is looking for guidance on
3 whether this is going to be considered for
4 storage purposes . We are lifting this
5 house to comply with flood plains . Page 2
6 contains two various statements . The first
7 paragraph reads that in many cases, the
8 floored resistant ( In Audible ) will
9 require elevation of the lower floor .
10 Okay, of the one family dwelling . That
11 contains a footnote . It says the lowest
12 floor of a building is the floor of the
• 13 lowest enclosed area including basements ,
14 which we don' t have, but excluding any
15 unfinished flood resistant enclosure that
16 is usable solely for vehicle parking,
17 building access, stairs , for limited
18 storage . Provided that such enclosure, is
19 not built to render the construction ( In
20 Audible) . Meaning we are providing to
21 elevate the building . This comes from the
22 standpoint of fire protection . So for
23 purposes of fire protection, the State is
24 saying we are going to consider that
• 25 unfinished basement and although not a
October 2, 2014 Regular Meeting 140
• 1 floor, it' s not a story under your
2 definition, but a story under our
3 definition because a firefighter, in order
4 to -- the first responder would be
5 ascending more than substantially one
6 flight of stairs . What that means for
7 purposes of this project, you have to
8 sprinkle the building, which we have
9 agreed to do . So what we are hoping that
10 comes out of this , is an interpretation
11 that is consistent with the definition,
12 that says in the event that we are
• 13 elevating a structure to comply with FEMA
14 and we have this unfinished space
15 underneath, even if we are using this for
16 parking, even if there is a stairway that
17 comes up to this space . It' s unfinished
18 space . It doesn ' t constitute a story for
19 purposes of zoning .
20 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It does state
21 it, actually highlighted. Under footnote
22 1 , to the extent of any law other than the
23 uniformed code, example any local zoning
24 ordinance, requires determination of a
• 25 number of story' s, story' s above grade
October 2, 2014 Regular Meeting 141
1 over a building, such determination should
• 2 be made in accordance with other
3 provisions of other laws and not in
4 accordance ( In Audible) and or accordance
5 with the guidance provided in this
6 technical bulletin . So you are right .
7 MR. ANDERSON : Thank you . I find that
8 a very difficult document to read.
9 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: It' s all over the
10 place . You did a great job explaining it .
11 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We are going to
12 see more and more FEMA compliance with
• 13 renovations that are more than 500 of the
14 structure . I think it can actually help in
15 general , going forward, with the Building
16 Department writing numbers . It' s an
17 important thing for us to use . The floor
18 is not finished above .
19 MR. FISCHETTI : You have piping. You
20 have plumbing in there . All of those areas
21 are closed off . You don' t want air
22 infiltration. It has to be sealed off .
23 MR. ANDERSON : Not only that, they
24 have to be fire retardant .
• 25 MR. FISCHETTI : ( In Audible) essence,
October 2, 2014 Regular Meeting 142
• 1 it' s open space .
2 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: A finished floor
3 would be in the confines of finished
4 space . Maybe not .
5 MR. ANDERSON : When we are talking
6 about a finished floor --
7 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: He is trying to
8 say the floor that we use to determine --
9 MR. FISCHETTI : ( In Audible) it could
10 be a finished floor or whatever .
11 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Exactly.
12 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It' s a vertical
• 13 dimension .
14 MR. FISCHETTI : That is the surface
15 that we are measuring .
16 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: It could be vinyl
17 flooring, marble flooring or whatever .
18 MEMBER HORNING: Or concrete .
19 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Okay.
20 MEMBER HORNING : I was reading into
21 that , that if it was below six feet that
22 it would not be a story, but it' s greater
23 than six feet .
24 MR. ANDERSON : For sprinkling only.
25 MEMBER HORNING : Well , the Building
October 2, 2014 Regular Meeting 143
• 1 Department considers it a another story
2 too .
3 MR. ANDERSON : They are really not .
4 They just want this problem solved for
5 them. This is our community service for
6 the day.
7 MEMBER HORNING: Maybe they should
8 not have written the Notice of Disapproval
9 the way that they did.
10 MR. ANDERSON : I do a lot of work in
11 the South Fork, a lot of homes are built
12 that way. A change occurred last
• 13 December . It kind of got mixed up with
14 Zoning . So you would not have confronted
15 this with until December .
16 MR. FISCHETTI : It has to deal with
17 fire code .
18 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We are going to
19 have to sort this out . What would be very
20 helpful, if in relatively lay persons
21 terms, you could reduce to what you just
22 said to a page or so . We know what our
23 code says . You have asked us to interpret
24 this . What I would think would be
• 25 beneficial if you could write something
October 2, 2014 Regular Meeting 144
• 1 that puts them together the way that is
2 very understandable . So that going
3 forward our determination will set a
4 precedent, for whereby people that just
5 need to bring themselves up on pilings or
6 just want to have storage underneath or
7 just open, similar to the space, so that
8 would -- for sprinkling purpose or --
9 MR. ANDERSON : You are just asking me
10 to provide you with a brief statement to
11 what the interpretation, we think would
12 say.
• 13 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No, I am not
14 asking you write an interpretation .
15 MR. KIELY : Memorialize your
16 interpretation in writing .
17 MR. ANDERSON : Right .
18 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Just summarize
19 it . It doesn ' t have to be terribly length .
20 You don' t want to overburden it with a lot
21 of technicality. Then it would become
22 unintelligible to someone that is not an
23 expert . Just so that we don' t have to wait
24 for the transcript to come out and we
• 25 don' t have to wade our way through the
October 2, 2014 Regular Meeting 145
• 1 technical java . I think that will help us
2 out .
3 MR. ANDERSON : I can have that for
4 you in the next day or two .
5 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Good, there is
6 no one else in the audience . I am going
7 to make a motion to close the hearing and
8 reserve decision to a later date .
9 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second
10 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor?
11 MEMBER DANTES : Aye .
12 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye .
• 13 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye .
14 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye .
15 (See Minutes for Resolution . )
16 *************** ********** ***************
17
18 (Whereupon, the October 2 , 2014
19 Public Hearings concluded at 3 : 06 P . M . )
20
21
22
23
24
• 25
October 2, 2014 Regular Meeting 146
i1
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
11 accurate record of the Hearings .
12
• 13
14 Signatu ___
15 J#ssi/ca ADiLallo
16
17
18 Jessica DiLallo
Court Reporter
19 PO Box 984
Holbrook, New York 11741
20
21 Date : October 15, 2014
22
23
24
. 25