HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-11/06/2014 Hearing 1
1 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD ZONING BOARD OF APPEAL
COUNTY OF SUFFOLK: STATE OF NEW YORK
2 ------------------------------------------- X
3 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
4
5 ------------------------------------------- X
6
7 Southold Town Hall
Southold, New York
8
9 November 6, 2014
10 : 52 A. M.
10
11
12 Board Members Present :
13 LESLIE KANES WEISMAN - Chairperson/Member
14 ERIC DANTES - Member
15 GERARD GOEHRINGER - Member
16 GEORGE HORNING - Member (Left at 2 : 15 p .m. )
17 KENNETH SCHNEIDER - Member
18
19 VICKI TOTH - Secretary
20 STEPHEN KIELY - Assistant Town Attorney
21
22
23 Jessica DiLallo
Court Reporter
24 P . O. Box 984
Holbrook, New York 11741
25 ( 631 ) -338-1409
November 6, 2014 Regular Meeting 2
1
2 INDEX TO HEARINGS
3
4
5 Hearing Page
6
7 P. M.V. FAMILY, LLC #6798 3-13
8 Richard Manfredi, #6799 13-16
9 Robert & Patricia Hovey, #6800 17-26
10 W. Richard & Wendy Bingham, #6802 27-51
11 JSF Partnership, #6806 51-57
12 170 Moores Lane Realty Corp .
• 13 (Ratsey Construction. ) , #6801 57-61
14 John E . Malley, #6805 61-68
15 Barbara Adams & Jan Nicholson
16 (CV) , #6792 68-83
17 MACH3 , LLC, #6797 83-107
18 Sean McCoyd, #6804 107-112
19 Janice M. Fliss , #6807 112-115
20
21
22
23
24
• 25
November 6, 2014 Regular Meeting 3
• 1 HEARING #6798 - P . M. V. FAMILY, LLC .
2 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The first
3 application before the Board is for P. M. V.
4 FAMILY, LLC . #6798 . Request for Variances
5 from Article XXIII Section 280-124 and the
6 Building Inspector' s April 25, 2014 ,
7 renewed August 29, 2014 Notice of
8 Disapproval based on an application for
9 building permit for demolition of an
10 existing single family dwelling and
11 construction of a new single family
12 dwelling, at ; 1 ) less than the code
. 13 required single side yard setback of 15
14 feet, 2 ) less than the code required
15 combined side yard setback of 35 feet,
16 3) more than the code permitted maximum lot
17 coverage of 200 , located at : 450 Sound
18 Beach Drive adjacent to Long Island Sound
19 in Mattituck.
20 Please come to the mic and state your
21 name for the record.
22 MR. NOTARO : My name is Frank Notaro . I
23 am the agent for this project . I have
24 documents for the Board. The other should
• 25 be elevations .
November 6, 2014 Regular Meeting 4
• 1 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay.
2 That is my favorite house . I know
3 that house .
4 MR. NOTARO : The other thing is, I
5 asked ( In Audible) on Sun Beach Drive,
6 which show different surveys and different
7 Coastal Lines, none of them matched up . The
8 one on the end doesn' t even have a survey.
9 This is one that I obtained from the LWRP .
10 It' s very interesting . None of the lines --
11 and my interpretation from the surveyor
12 was , when they extrapolate, the line itself
• 13 should be 15 feet wide .
14 MEMBER HORNING : Sir, could you give us
15 the average front yard setback?
16 MR. NOTARO : Well, I could do that . It
17 varies .
18 MEMBER HORNING : We might be able to
19 use that information .
20 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let me just enter
21 into the record that these three variances
22 amount to a single side yard setback of 10
23 feet, where the code requires a minimum of
24 15 . A total side yard setback of 25 feet .
• 25 The code requires 35 . A lot coverage of
November 6, 2014 Regular Meeting 5
1 24 . 6% of the buildable land, where the code
2 permits a maximum of 25% . Even the LWRP
3 acknowledges that because of the beach
4 property and because of the location of the
5 house, this is a ( In Audible) prevailing
6 pattern. It is conforming.
7 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Frank, where was
8 the piece that we did two years ago, is
9 this the piece that is adjacent to it?
10 MR. NOTARO: Yep . It was recently
11 subdivided. This is east of that property .
12 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I thought it was .
• 13 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Can you address,
14 Frank, the LWRP and maybe based on what you
15 just submitted, indicated the first floor
16 elevations?
17 MR. NOTARO : ( In Audible . )
18 (Mr . Notaro was not near a
19 microphone . )
20 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Any comments on
21 that?
22 MR. NOTARO: I don' t think that is a
23 problem.
24 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay. George, any
25 questions?
November 6, 2014 Regular Meeting 6
• 1 MEMBER HORNING: You already doing
2 pilings . Is there going to be any breakaway
3 lattices?
4 MR. NOTARO : It' s shown on that
5 elevation . That only.
6 MEMBER HORNING: New septic system, you
7 are going to do that . I was having trouble
8 reading your writing on the "Reasons" I
9 guess . Undesirable change . Can you just for
10 the record, run through the simple
11 reasoning ' s that you gave?
12 MR. NOTARO: I don' t believe it' s
• 13 really out of character of the
14 neighborhood. If you look at that screen,
15 in the corner .
16 MEMBER HORNING: Do you have a copy of
17 that?
18 MR. NOTARO : Yes , I did.
19 MEMBER HORNING: If you could just read
20 the statement?
21 MR. NOTARO : You know what, I don' t
22 have it .
23 MEMBER HORNING : We are just trying to
24 get it on the record, verbally.
• 25 MR. NOTARO: ( In Audible ) . Number two,
November 6, 2014 Regular Meeting 7
• 1 because of existing, the actual size of the
2 lots of the square footage . That is why we
3 are asking for a variance . Number three,
4 the actual size of the property is far
5 greater than the erosion line puts on it .
6 Because again, because of the size of the
7 property. The variance will not have an
8 adverse effect on the -- it will all be
9 located as indicated, and the proposed
10 septic system. I apologize ( In Audible) .
11 MEMBER HORNING: Thank you . And the
12 building predates 1957?
• 13 MR. NOTARO: I believe so . It' s pretty
14 old. I have a picture of the structure .
15 MEMBER HORNING : Has the Coastal
16 Erosion line been changed throughout the
17 years? There has been talk of it being a
18 shore line building up in that area .
19 MR. NOTARO: I did a house further west
20 on that street . There is a bulkhead that is
21 about 80 foot from the road . It' s buried in
22 sand . I don' t know what occurred . That is
23 where the original beach was . So they have
24 added 150 feet to this property.
• 25 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: It' s very simple .
November 6, 2014 Regular Meeting 8
• 1 They tried to build a water port on One and
2 Two . It was scheduled to be a nuclear power
3 plant , which is across from the Entemann ' s
4 farm. They sunk six to eight barges in
5 that and created a major erosion problem.
6 All the way down to the west side of
7 Mattituck Inlet . And there was tremendous
8 lawsuits . Houses had to be moved back,
9 including my father-in-law' s, 150 feet .
10 Unfortunately. They have an 800 foot lot .
11 The barges were subsequently removed. At
12 the time in 1974 , they were driving 19 foot
• 13 pilings in front of these houses . Trying to
14 shore them up so that they wouldn ' t be
15 taken by the Long Island Sound. And that is
16 what happened. That is why those bulkheads
17 are buried now . And so ( In Audible) after
18 the barges were removed. Several houses
19 down, which is now privately owned land,
20 are still very close to the shoreline . And
21 that is the story .
22 MEMBER HORNING : Sir, what can you tell
23 us about the 43 . 6% coverage request and how
24 that compared to the character of the
25 neighborhood or is not excessive compared
November 6, 2014 Regular Meeting 9
• 1 to the 20% that is allowed? I mean,
2 mathematically, it' s quite substantially.
3 MR. NOTARO: Yes . But mathematically,
4 if you take away the coastal erosion hazard
5 line, it' s 9% of their whole property. I
6 mean, they are paying tax on their whole
7 property. You know, I am just saying.
8 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: It' s also great
9 protection for the property.
10 MR. NOTARO: Absolutely.
11 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : What would be
12 useful to the Board, it happens to a lot
• 13 of people, the lot coverage relative to
14 the building and the land. What would be
15 helpful , is look at other variance
16 relief for lot coverage on this, just so
17 we have a comparison . The LWRP
18 acknowledges that it' s a development
19 pattern, it would be helpful to see if
20 there are other variances . And also for
21 side yards
22 MR. NOTARO: Sure .
23 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Side yard
24 variances, are very understandable . You
• 25 know, how come you cannot make
November 6, 2014 Regular Meeting 10
• 1 conforming side yards?
2 MR. NOTARO: Okay.
3 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Actually, you
4 got one side yard. So I don' t know why
5 that notice indicated -- I guess that is
6 because -- the combined is obvious . I
7 wonder if you could make that 16 foot .
8 MR. NOTARO: I will speak to the
9 client . Okay.
10 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: I have a
11 question . The calculations for your
12 buildable area, are they taken from the
• 13 -- I guess, you would call that the
14 southern portion?
15 MR. NOTARO : I believe so .
16 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: And you are
17 expecting that it' s approximately scaled
18 to 10 feet wide? I think it scales to --
19 MR. NOTARO : That is really the
20 question, because FEMA -- there is a lot
21 of interpretation that is going on .
22 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Right .
23 MR. NOTARO : I wish I could get
24 this . John did all these surveys . And if
25 you look at them from side to side --
November 6, 2014 Regular Meeting 11
• 1 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : But it' s not
2 consistency .
3 MR. NOTARO : I understand that . We
4 don' t have a scale . It' s not really the
5 surveyor' s fault .
6 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Right . Can you
7 find out from John, the surveyor, what
8 he takes these calculations from with
9 respect --
10 MR. NOTARO : Yes . I was also
11 informed that the Datum 88 , that is
12 where they take the measurement from the
• 13 heights from. And that is the one that
14 he uses . That is one of them. I think
15 it' s the same view that the LWRP are
16 using . It' s 20 , 000 feet looking down at
17 this . It' s very interesting . The line
18 clearly shows that the house on the
19 corner, it' s actually -- if you look
20 over here, it' s more in keeping with the
21 alignment .
22 MEMBER HORNING: One final question .
23 What is the difference between
24 November ' s revision and the original
• 25 survey that you originally submitted?
November 6, 2014 Regular Meeting 12
• 1 MR. NOTARO : You know, I don' t know .
2 MEMBER HORNING: The first floor
3 elevation, is that shown on the survey?
4 I was just wondering what the difference
5 in both surveys is?
6 MR. NOTARO : He did both surveys .
7 One has the ( In Audible ) and I asked him
8 in November ( In Audible) .
9 MEMBER HORNING: One foot elevation .
10 I mean, is that the only difference? The
11 one that we ' re going to consider is
12 November 5 , 2014 ?
13 MR. NOTARO: Correct
14 MEMBER HORNING: Elevation of 15
15 feet?
16 MR. NOTARO: Yes .
17 MEMBER HORNING: Thank you .
18 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay. Anybody
19 else?
20 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No .
21 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : How about we
22 do this, we may not necessarily need
23 another public hearing . What I am going
24 to suggest is that we adjourn this to
• 25 the Special Meeting in two weeks , which
November 6, 2014 Regular Meeting 13
1 will give you time to talk to your
• 2 client --
3 MR. NOTARO : Sure .
4 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: To see if you
5 can reduce the lot coverage .
6 MR. NOTARO : Okay.
7 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And if you
8 could get that into us and have no
9 further questions , we will just close at
10 the Special Meeting in two weeks .
11 MR. NOTARO : Sure .
12 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So I am going
13 to make a motion to adjourn to the
14 Special Meeting on November 20th .
15 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second.
16 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor?
17 MEMBER DANTES : Aye .
18 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye .
19 MEMBER HORNING : Aye .
20 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye .
21 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye .
22 (See Minutes for Resolution. )
23 ****** ********** ***********************
24 HEARING #6799 - RICHARD MANFREDI .
• 25 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next
November 6, 2014 Regular Meeting 14
1 application before the Board is for Richard
• 2 Manfredi, #6799 . Request for Variances from
3 Article XXIII Section 280-124 and the
4 Building Inspector' s August 12 , 2014 Notice
5 of Disapproval based on an application for
6 building permit for additions and
7 alterations to an existing single family
8 dwelling, at ; 1 ) less than the code
9 required single side yard setback of 10
10 feet, 2 ) less than the code required
11 combined side yard setback of 25 feet,
12 located at : 240 Sunset Path (Hilltop Path)
• 13 in Southold.
14 MR. NOTARO: My name is Frank Notaro . I
15 am here for Mr . Richard Manfredi .
16 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I certainly
17 remember the prior variances on this .
18 This is a proposal to enclose an
19 existing patio at grade .
20 MR. NOTARO : Correct .
21 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : On the second
22 floor overhang . This is a single side
23 yard setback of 14 feet, the code
24 requires 20 total . The side yard setback
• 25 of 11 . 7 feet . The code requires 25 . The
November 6, 2014 Regular Meeting 15
1 proposal is to enclose what is already
• 2 there . The side yard setbacks were
3 granted with the prior variances?
4 MR. NOTARO: Correct .
5 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : This is to be
6 a seasonal room or year round use?
7 MR. NOTARO : This is a seasonal
8 room.
9 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All right .
10 Ken, questions?
11 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: No . You are going
12 to remain the existing side yard
• 13 setbacks . There is a second story deck
14 above the one to enclose around -- I
15 mean, the first floor.
16 MR. NOTARO : It' s not increasing
17 anything that is there .
18 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: The rear yard
19 setback is fine . I have no other
20 questions . I was out to the site . This
21 seems very practical to what you are
22 doing and I don' t see any issues .
23 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You are going
24 to have a roof deck above that; correct?
• 25 MR. NOTARO : The other side to the
November 6, 2014 Regular Meeting 16
1 deck . That is what I have shown on the
• 2 plans . That was requested by the Town .
3 This is after the house was built .
4 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay.
5 MR. NOTARO: Whether it' s going to
6 be used as a deck, I don' t know .
7 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay. Eric,
8 any questions?
9 MEMBER DANTES : No .
10 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : George? Gerry?
11 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No .
12 MEMBER HORNING: No .
• 13 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All right . I
14 am going to make a motion to close the
15 hearing and reserve decision to a later
16 date . Is there a second?
17 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Second.
18 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor?
19 MEMBER DANTES : Aye .
20 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye .
21 MEMBER HORNING : Aye .
22 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye .
23 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye .
24 (See Minutes for Resolution . )
25 ******* *********************************
November 6, 2014 Regular Meeting 17
1 HEARING #6800 - ROBERT and PATRICIA
is 2 HOVEY
3 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: The next
4 application before the Board is for Robert
5 and Patricia Hovey, #6800 . Request for
6 Variance from Article III Section 280-18
7 and the Building Inspector' s
8 August 18 , 2014 Notice of Disapproval based
9 on an application for building permit to
10 enclose an existing roof deck at : 1 ) more
11 than the code maximum number of stories of
12 2 1/2 , located at : 125 Hilltop Path
• 13 (corner Hilltop Path) in Southold.
14 This is an existing roof deck with
15 an exterior rear . The enclosure, the
16 proposal to enclose that is 81x8 ' --
17 MR. NOTARO : The existing
18 observation deck ( In Audible) and we
19 would like to do an enclosure to that
20 234 square feet . That would be to the
21 house that is there, going down to the
22 second floor in the back of the house .
23 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It' s a pull
24 down stairs?
• 25 MR. NOTARO : They show it as a ( In
November 6, 2014 Regular Meeting 18
• 1 Audible ) . So it' s not a stair .
2 MEMBER DANTES : You are going to
3 have a fixed ladder on the interior?
4 MR. NOTARO : It just happens to fall
5 in the hallway there .
6 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is this for
7 storage purposes?
8 MR. NOTARO : Well , it' s for a
9 view --
10 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It' s a
11 beautiful view .
12 MR. NOTARO: For people to go up
• 13 there and have a couple of drinks and
14 enjoy the view . I wasn ' t trying to
15 create a third floor . This happens to be
16 an observation deck right now . And what
17 I did on another plan -- it may appear
18 that it' s a little bit high . That' s
19 because there is about 1 . 6 of space -- I
20 don' t know what is going on . On another
21 plan, elevation, I showed it of the
22 ceiling height, which lowers it a little
23 bit . I don' t know unless I open it up a
24 little bit to see what is going on . So
• 25 that was one idea . The other thing is , I
November 6, 2014 Regular Meeting 19
1 produced a drawing ( In Audible) because
2 the property is high . The enclosure is
3 recessed in on the house .
4 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And you are
5 not sure how --
6 MR. NOTARO : Well , I know ( In
7 Audible) they built another floor ( In
8 Audible . ) It was a garage at one time .
9 Theoretically, that first floor is
10 covered . That is why the second floor in
11 the back is really a grade in the back .
12 There is nothing down there . I would
• 13 think that was the garage basement .
14 MEMBER DANTES : Do you have a
15 variance for that?
16 MR. NOTARO : That was years and
17 years ago .
18 MEMBER DANTES : Okay.
19 MR. NOTARO : They had done a small
20 addition to the house .
21 MEMBER DANTES : And you are saying
22 that 50% that is there, was once a
23 garage by the slope?
24 MR. NOTARO : Correct . If you look at
• 25 all the elevations, the back of the
November 6, 2014 Regular Meeting 20
• 1 elevations looks like a roof story deck.
2 The front of the elevations, and that
3 also slopes upwards, as you are looking
4 at the house from right to left . It' s
5 close .
6 MEMBER DANTES : How does this
7 height, in considering the height,
8 compared to the neighboring properties?
9 MR. NOTARO : That is a good
10 question . I just have the elevations . I
11 happen to have another elevation here .
12 The overall height of this is 28 . 6 . Down
• 13 the street, you see this ( In Audible . )
14 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: How does one get
15 up there right now?
16 MR. NOTARO : Through the back
17 stairs .
18 MEMBER HORNING : Sir, can you tell
19 us again, this is a non-habitable space?
20 MR. NOTARO : Correct .
21 MEMBER HORNING: You are saying
22 there is not going to be heat there?
23 MR. NOTARO : It' s right on the
24 drawing .
25 MEMBER HORNING: No plumbing?
November 6, 2014 Regular Meeting 21
1 MR. NOTARO : No plumbing .
• 2 MEMBER HORNING: Is there going to
3 be some electrical outlets up there?
4 MR. NOTARO : Yes .
5 MEMBER HORNING: But no facilities
6 other than some electrical outlets?
7 MR. NOTARO: Right .
8 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It is a third
9 story by Building Department standards .
10 The question is heating and habitable .
11 Then it has to be sprinklered.
12 MR. NOTARO : Well , you have a stair
• 13 that doesn' t go to another space . You
14 can' t have an internal stair that goes
15 to another foyer or outside . Then it has
16 to be sprinklered. This has a door on
17 there and you just enter through there .
18 I just thought the stair was a great
19 idea . I also went over a couple of
20 things that were granted --
21 MEMBER DANTES : Can I ask you a
22 quick question, first?
23 MR. NOTARO : Yes ,
24 MEMBER DANTES : The State Fire Code,
• 25 so they consider it to be a third floor?
November 6, 2014 Regular Meeting 22
1 MR. NOTARO : You know, I could
• 2 present the first floor as over 500 of
3 the space .
4 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That is what
5 Ken was just whispering in my ear. I
6 think that should go back to the
7 Building Department and discuss if this
8 is really a third story.
9 MR. NOTARO : Well --
10 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It' s
11 substantial . There is a lot of variance .
12 MR. NOTARO : Well, I am looking at
• 13 this house right here . There is actually
14 a stair . And here is a retaining wall .
15 So it' s probably right on that edge of
16 500 . Maybe it' s a little bit more . They
17 may come back to us and say, "well , you
18 have stuff going on downstairs . " So we
19 don' t consider that garage --
20 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: It' s not a
21 garage .
22 MR. NOTARO : Correct . But I did make
23 copies of other approvals, and I think
24 they are much more severe approvals .
• 25 This is a seasonal type of addition .
November 6, 2014 Regular Meeting 23
1 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You would have
• 2 to raise the chimney --
3 MR. NOTARO : Yes .
4 MEMBER HORNING : The ones that we
5 were looking at before, certain number
6 of stairs --
7 MR. NOTARO : Correct
8 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The other
9 thing, for access , they have this whole
10 other stair, which is entirely
11 different .
12 MR. NOTARO : I mean, if you look at
• 13 the height of that, it' s not bad as
14 egress .
15 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It' s not bad
16 at all .
17 MR. NOTARO : Again, it' s not a
18 bedroom. Its not a bathroom. It ' s an
19 observation deck.
20 MEMBER DANTES : I think if we can
21 get some decisions in the past, I think
22 that would be enough information .
23 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It' s seasonal .
24 It' s conditioned for seasonal .
• 25 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: I have a couple
November 6, 2014 Regular Meeting 24
1 of questions . Can you get me the square
• 2 footage of the habitable space of the
3 first floor?
4 MR. NOTARO : The ground floor?
5 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Yes .
6 MR. NOTARO: Okay.
7 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: And the square
8 footage of the habitable space --
9 MR. NOTARO : I think it' s on the
10 drawings . I gave existing plans to the
11 Building Department as well . No, I don' t
12 have it . Okay .
• 13 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: And the proposed
14 square footage of your proposed
15 observation deck?
16 MR. NOTARO : Yes .
17 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: I see there is an
18 interior ladder?
19 MR. NOTARO : A ships ladder .
20 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Are you proposing
21 that because of the difficulty
22 installing a staircase?
23 MR. NOTARO: The house is not that
24 large . So it' s greater than what someone
• 25 would put up as a ladder . It has handles
November 6, 2014 Regular Meeting 25
1 on the side .
• 2 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Open treads?
3 MR. NOTARO : Yes
4 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: So that proposed
5 observation deck will not be closed off
6 below it?
7 MR. NOTARO : We can if we have to .
8 It was just a way of getting up there .
9 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Where would the
10 closure be applied?
11 MR. NOTARO : Here . I think I even
12 show the lines .
• 13 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: But the ladder
14 going up to the floor has --
15 MR. NOTARO: -- certain point .
16 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: So there is a
17 hatch that you have to open?
18 MR. NOTARO : Yes .
19 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Okay.
20 MR. NOTARO : I thought I showed
21 that .
22 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: My question was,
23 why you didn' t install a conventional
24 staircase . In looking at the plans, I
• 25 see the difficulty of the space . I don' t
November 6, 2014 Regular Meeting 26
• 1 know how you would be able to do that
2 without doing some major renovations
3 below . I would just like to see the
4 areas of the two below of what you are
5 proposing?
6 MR. NOTARO : Sure .
7 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: I have no further
8 questions .
9 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : George?
10 MEMBER HORNING: All set .
11 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Gerry?
12 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No .
• 13 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So I am going
14 to make a motion to close this subject
15 to receipt of the requested information.
16 Is there a second?
17 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Second.
18 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor?
19 MEMBER DANTES : Aye .
20 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye .
21 MEMBER HORNING: Aye .
22 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye .
23 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye .
24 (See Minutes for Resolution . )
25 *****************************************
November 6, 2014 Regular Meeting 27
1 HEARING #6802 - W. RICHARD AND WENDY
• 2 BINGHAM
3 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next
4 application before the Board is for W.
5 Richard and Wendy Bingham, #6802 .
6 Request for Variances from Article XXIII
7 Section 280-124 and Article XXII Section
8 280-116A ( 1 ) and the Building Inspector' s
9 September 17 , 2014 Notice of Disapproval
10 based on an application for building
11 permit for additions and alterations to
12 an existing single family dwelling, at ;
13 1 ) less than the code required front
14 yard setback of 40 feet, 2 ) more than
15 the code permitted maximum lot coverage
16 of 20% , 3) less than the code required
17 bluff setback of 100 feet, located at :
18 3973 Central Avenue (adjacent to Fishers
19 Island Sound) in Fishers Island.
20 MR. LARK: Good morning . Richard
21 Lark, Main Road, Cutchogue, New York, on
22 behalf of the applicant . Mr . Fitzgerald
23 will be speaking here in a moment . I
24 believe the Notices have been set and
• 25 the affidavits of posting have been set
November 6, 2014 Regular Meeting 28
• 1 and filed. So I am going to turn this
2 over now to Mr . Fitzgerald, who will
3 basically explain what his application
4 is .
5 MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you . Sam
6 Fitzgerald, 29 Hutton Avenue, Greenwich,
7 Connecticut . Appearing on behalf of the
8 owners, Richard and Wendy Bingham. So
9 the owners house is one of what they
10 have with three sisters . These are three
11 identical cottages since 1903 , as part
12 of the ( In Audible) Hotel that is on
• 13 Fisher' s Island. This is actually the
14 hay-day of the resort hotel area on
15 Fisher' s Island. There are none of them
16 that are hotels anymore . They have been
17 converted into single family summer
18 houses . The three sisters are the most
19 well known of the cottages , prominent .
20 Largely because of the view from the
21 water, which you see here . It' s rally an
22 icon on Fisher' s Island . Whether you are
23 out boating or coming to land, this is
24 what you see . Picture perfect and
25 perfectly intact beach houses . One thing
November 6, 2014 Regular Meeting 29
1 that I would like to point out about the
• 2 houses, which is relevant to our
3 discussion here, is that the second
4 floors were always much bigger than the
5 first floors . The first floor ( In
6 Audible) relative in the overall size of
7 the house . This is the inside of the
8 house here . Basically one-quarter of the
9 house . This is a large hall . Here is a
10 sitting room of a modern size . So the
11 Bingham' s have owned the house for many
12 years . Recently Mr . Bingham had a
• 13 stroke, which has left him virtually
14 immobile and confined to a wheelchair .
15 He cannot speak. He does have a very
16 clear mind. So the family realized that
17 the current configuration of the house
18 would not work for Mr . Bingham. This
19 past summer, he was sleeping here . There
20 is no bedroom on the first floor or
21 bath . We have narrow doors and small
22 doors . So it' s very clear that we have
23 to find a space on the first floor for
24 him. Our first thought, which was pretty
• 25 quickly, was to carve out a space on the
November 6, 2014 Regular Meeting 30
• 1 first floor for him and create a central
2 bathroom and bedroom. However, as I
3 mentioned before, the size of the living
4 space and size of the house is quite
5 small . We would actually -- if we tried
6 to add a bedroom to that existing floor,
7 it would make first floor living space
8 quite unusable . So the idea is to add-on
9 to the house . We know that there is no
10 legal buildable area on the lot and that
11 is because of the setbacks from the
12 bluff and the other setbacks . So what
• 13 Mrs . Bingham, who is the champion of
14 this project, she is the one trying to
15 get this done . She wants -- one is that
16 we meet the functional requirements that
17 gives Mr . Bingham an acceptable suite .
18 She is thinking that her kids will be
19 having children relatively soon . So she
20 sees it as a long term baby suite as
21 well . So there is need for a long term
22 strategy with this . She wants this to be
23 built as fast as possible . To get it up
24 and so he can enjoy it . The other thing
25 is that we do ( In Audible) and by that,
November 6, 2014 Regular Meeting 31
1 I mean, whatever we built, that we
• 2 preserve the view of the three sisters
3 from the water . That is why it' s
4 important just to really make a point,
5 that it' s crucial that it' s set far back
6 from the water that it doesn' t hurt that
7 view . So that was the first intention .
8 These are the first plans that are
9 submitted. So the plan was to be as far
10 back from the water as possible .
11 Mr . Bingham' s idea when they bought the
12 house, that there was always a large
• 13 shed that was there . It was on the
14 property line . ( In Audible) removing the
15 shed and reducing the nonconformity.
16 MEMBER DANTES : Excuse me, what is
17 the current lot coverage?
18 MR. FITZGERALD: 18 . 8 something .
19 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Mr . Lark, you
20 need to go to the microphone .
21 MR. LARK: To answer his question,
22 the present is the same, 18 . 2 and with
23 this modified proposal, it' s 22 . 2 . They
24 cut it back, the square footage .
• 25 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And the
November 6, 2014 Regular Meeting 32
1 setbacks from the bluff?
• 2 MR. LARK: That is further back
3 down .
4 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That is 54 . 5?
5 MR. LARK: Correct .
6 MR. FITZGERALD: That' s correct .
7 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We have two
8 packets here .
9 MR. FITZGERALD: I know .
10 MR. LARK: It' s basically the same,
11 except for these minor adjustments .
12 MEMBER DANTES : What is the main
• 13 houses' current setback from the bluff?
14 MR. FITZGERALD: It is --
15 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : 30 feet .
16 MR. FITZGERALD: 30 feet, yes .
17 MEMBER DANTES : So this will be well
18 behind the main house?
19 MR. FITZGERALD: Yes .
20 MEMBER HORNING: And what was it
21 again?
22 MR. FITZGERALD: 54 . 75
23 MEMBER HORNING: Thank you .
24 MR. FITZGERALD: So this is the
• 25 first plan . So that was the application
November 6, 2014 Regular Meeting 33
1 that we first did. We went back to the
• 2 drawing board and came up with this ( In
3 Audible) . Right now, this has a 10 foot
4 setback from the property line . This is
5 all added onto . We would love to do
6 that and build this side just as the
7 other houses have done . However, we
8 can' t do that .
9 MEMBER DANTES : The Notice of
10 Disapproval indicates a 1 foot setback
11 from the property line?
12 MR. LARK: I ' m sorry, that' s
• 13 correct .
14 MR. FITZGERALD: These are views of
15 Central Avenue . They look very different
16 from the water side . Central Avenue, the
17 front yard is the service side of the
18 house . Actually it still is . It' s for
19 parking . Garages . Sheds . Along the other
20 two houses , this house and the other
21 house, there is no buffer between the
22 house . However, this house and -- there
23 is a hedge there . Even though our
24 addition is going to be much more to the
• 25 property line, these two spots , then ( In
November 6, 2014 Regular Meeting 34
• 1 Audible) less impact and this will be
2 maintained . This is the Bingham' s house
3 right here . If you walk the
4 neighborhood, there is only two houses
5 ( In Audible ) that ( In Audible)
6 neighborhood. This house here and this
7 house here . You cannot see the Bingham' s
8 house from this point . What I did, I
9 went to these houses and took
10 photographs from their front doors to
11 the Bingham' s house . This is the front
12 door and this is the other neighborhood,
• 13 also looking at the Bingham' s House . I
14 have a photo montage of what the
15 proposal would look like from these
16 houses . What you will see, there is no
17 issues . I would like to make a point,
18 there is not going to be any more visual
19 impact from neighbors .
20 MEMBER HORNING : Sir, since you
21 mentioned going to the neighbors front
22 door to take a photo, can you give us a
23 fairly accurate distance from that front
24 door to the Bingham' s?
• 25 MR. FITZGERALD: It' s at least 175
November 6, 2014 Regular Meeting 35
• 1 feet from the first house ( In Audible )
2 feet .
3 MEMBER HORNING: Thank you .
4 MR. FITZGERALD: A lot of things in
5 that packet is a montage of what that
6 will look like . After we had applied for
7 the variances , we received a LWRP from
8 Mark Terry. I reviewed that and then I
9 forwarded to Mr . Lark and see how he
10 wanted to proceed with that . So I will
11 turn it over to him. Thank you .
12 MEMBER DANTES : Can I just ask you
13 one question? On the photo on the first
14 page, neighbor Number 1 , what am I
15 looking at?
16 MR. FITZGERALD: That is their
17 addition .
18 MEMBER DANTES : Okay.
19 MR. LARK: Just as Mr . Fitzgerald
20 said, Mr . Terry and the Board has a
21 letter in their file . A memorandum
22 letter where he found that the
23 application of the Bingham' s, I don' t
24 think it matters wether it was the first
• 25 or second drawing, because his remarks
November 6, 2014 Regular Meeting 36
• 1 are applied to either one . There are
2 three . And when I got them and looked at
3 them and got the FEMA map out , I then
4 called Richard Strauss who has a
5 tremendous amount of experience on
6 Fisher' s Island going back maybe 40
7 years or so . And I said to him, take a
8 look at Mr . Terry' s letter as to why he
9 is finding it inconsistent . Mr . Strauss
10 was puzzled. I know Mr . Fitzgerald has
11 spoken to him. I haven ' t . So I said to
12 Mr . Strauss what is the deal with these
. 13 issues that he raises? The first issue
14 that Mr . Terry raised was the FEMA flood
15 zone . Strauss then sent me a permit
16 which showed the limits of the flood
17 zone' s which was approximately 80 feet
18 from the proposed addition and elevation
19 of 13 . And I am going to hand that up to
20 the Board. And the first floor
21 elevation, where the proposed addition
22 on the ground level is 22 feet, and
23 where the first floor elevation and
24 existing is 24 feet . So the first thing
25 I am going to do is hand that up to the
November 6, 2014 Regular Meeting 37
1 Board . Because the Board that Mr . Terry
• 2 put in his file is very unclear . But
3 that one is very clear as to where the
4 FEMA line is . So the point being was
5 that he said, it would really not
6 interfere with this application. The
7 next remark that Mr . Terry made was a
8 test well for the drywells . Obviously
9 with the additional rood runoff and
10 everything else you are going to have to
11 have a drywell . So Mr . Strauss then
12 said, that test hole -- this letter --
13 he' s trying to make the point that the
14 letter of Mr . Terry is premature . This
15 is all the Building Department function .
16 Because at the time if the Board does
17 grant a variance, then the building
18 permit application can be processed.
19 Whereas now, as you well know, the
20 Building Inspector has stopped the
21 process pending what the Board of
22 Appeals action is , one way or another .
23 But if it goes forward, then the
24 Building Department is obligated to
• 25 follow the Stormwater Management site
November 6, 2014 Regular Meeting 38
1 plan that we have, that is reviewed by
• 2 the Town Engineer of the Town of
3 Southold . All is part of the building
4 permit application . And then if the
5 required by the Town Engineer, a test
6 well hole will be done . Mr . Strauss said
7 that is from his experience . All of
8 these properties in these areas, that
9 there will be poorly graded sands . That
10 the soil will be acceptable for a -- to
11 take the stormwater, as he has shown on
12 the plan, which you have before you . It
• 13 also makes the depth to the groundwater
14 there, which will be the approximate
15 area of 15 feet from his experience of
16 doing various things . The septic system
17 was the next thing that Mr . Terry raised
18 and Mr . Strauss said that is also part
19 of the building permit application and
20 since there is going to be an upgrade as
21 to whether or not , they want to refer it
22 to the Suffolk County Health Department,
23 and if they do, as Mr . Strauss expects
24 that they will, then they are going to
• 25 have to upgrade sewage system. It has
November 6, 2014 Regular Meeting 39
1 public water but the sewage system will
• 2 have to be upgraded to the new standards
3 now. He does not anticipate any problems
4 from which he has experienced in the
5 area . I am also going to put as part of
6 the record, Mr . Strauss' letter, that he
7 has asked me to give to the Board. So
8 that you would have it as part of the
9 record. He doesn' t understand why
10 Mr . Terry is interjecting comments at
11 this stage because that is the Building
12 Department ' s prerogative and it is not
• 13 his prerogative or not nearly before
14 this Board. He then goes on to
15 Mr . Terry' s recommendations and he says
16 they are going to have to do it anyway
17 to get the building permit and to go
18 forward with the CO . And the Bingham' s
19 according to Mr . Fitzgerald, are well
20 versed that they are going to have to
21 bring this house up to code . As you
22 know, most of the house is all
23 preexisting . I understand there was a
24 permit for a small addition added on a
• 25 number of years ago . Okay. So that is --
November 6, 2014 Regular Meeting 40
1 the comments of Mr . Terry are very good
• 2 and they are very helpful; however, they
3 really are premature at the present time
4 of what is before this Board. Okay . Now
5 the applicant is before the Board for an
6 area variance and it indicated in the
7 Notice and with the Building Department,
8 the applicant is really asking for three
9 variances . One of a front yard
10 variance, which is 40 feet under the
11 code for this zoning, down to a foot .
12 The 100 foot setback from the top of the
• 13 bluff is another one . And the third
14 variance, of course, is the lot
15 coverage, which is 20% in this zoning
16 area . So again, I will deal with the
17 elements that the Board has to consider
18 in balancing one from another . As to
19 whether or not there would be a
20 detriment to the health safety and
21 welfare of the neighborhood in the area
22 in general . Now the most significant one
23 of the five criteria is whether or not
24 this application is substantial . In
• 25 looking at the face of this and nothing
November 6, 2014 Regular Meeting 41
1 more ( In Audible) and I was so happy
• 2 that Mr . Fitzgerald did give you some
3 background of the situation . It looks
4 like it is very, very substantial . The
5 front yard is pretty deep but there is a
6 provision in the code for existing lots,
7 you can go 300 feet on the same side of
8 the road and take the average of those
9 three and calculate them. When I
10 discussed this with him, it came out to
11 10 . 5 . When you put that on the map --
12 on the revised one, it is really for
• 13 your consideration here today. So then
14 we start out with a 7 . 5 . As
15 Mr . Fitzgerald said, ours is about
16 10 feet . So then when you look at it,
17 it' s really a 9 . 5 application down to
18 the 1 foot down to the closest spot of
19 this house . The way that they cornered
20 it in . So on the surface it looks like a
21 huge variance but in the final analysis,
22 it' s not . It' s not as bad as it looks .
23 Also as pointed out, because these roads
24 in this area are really service roads .
• 25 They are not major arteries of Fisher' s
November 6, 2014 Regular Meeting 42
1 Island. Historically, they got built up
• 2 to the road . Mr . Strauss did point out
3 to me, that the Board did grant a
4 variance on the neighboring property,
5 which is right here, 2 . 5 feet because of
6 the nature of the road and the house is
7 preexisting . Mr . Fitzgerald noted that
8 it would destroy the value if it was
9 moved any closer, of the property. It' s
10 true . One of the things we have discuss
11 is whether or not the hardship was
12 self-created. Yeah, it is . In the
• 13 technical sense of the word, but
14 Mr . Bingham' s situation, which I
15 understand cannot be considered by the
16 Board in granting or denying a variance,
17 brought us to a head . So Mr . Fitzgerald
18 was very successful in keeping the
19 architectural integrity of the house .
20 Long range was also considered in
21 keeping it with the family. So
22 considering that it' s not a well
23 traveled road, the 1 foot didn' t really
24 bother me . What was really interesting
• 25 when I started to look at it now, they
November 6, 2014 Regular Meeting 43
1 used it right up to the pavement . There
• 2 was some kind of a storage shed, trees .
3 All kinds of things going on . From my
4 understanding, they are going to remove
5 the structures and keep the fence
6 because it just worked out that way. So
7 in effect, the closest part to the road
8 is only 7 feet in one spot and 11 at
9 another . And then it moves away and
10 there is no impact at all . For your
11 records , a variance that you did give
12 was for File #6684 of the Zoning Board
• 13 of Appeals . The other thing was
14 questions asked on the 100 foot setback.
15 Existing the 30 . 1 from the coastal
16 erosion line and the existing house and
17 the proposed is going to be 54 . However
18 from the top of the bluff, the existing
19 is 55 and this proposed will be 80 . 8 ,
20 which lessons . We already got the
21 nonconforming variance already with
22 where it is . This doesn' t aggravate it .
23 It makes it less . The lot coverage was
24 somewhat of an issue when I started to
• 25 analyze it . I realized that the
November 6, 2014 Regular Meeting 44
1 buildable area here is very, very small
• 2 even though the property area seemed to
3 be much bigger . You have the 18 . 2% that
4 exist today . With the modified
5 application -- oh, it wasn ' t discussed
6 -- it will be reduced 510 square feet .
7 It does have a covered porch, it' s only
8 for storage . It does have a covered
9 porch of 118 feet . So it came out to
10 22 . 2% . So we ' re going to be asking for
11 a variance of 2 . 2% above the 20% . That
12 is how that calculated out . The other
• 13 elements , I already mentioned,
14 self-created. I think it' s fairly clear
15 from Mr . Fitzgerald' s analysis that you
16 have from him, that this will not create
17 any undesirable in the character of the
18 neighborhood and the nearby properties .
19 And it' s in keeping with the
20 architectural view from the water .
21 Sheet #7 , I think that speaks for
22 itself . The rendering that he made from
23 the water, you can hardly discern that
24 this is even added on. And you have that
• 25 in your packet . So I don' t think looking
November 6, 2014 Regular Meeting 45
1 at it realistically that the variance
• 2 will effect the neighborhood. Can this
3 happen any other way then a variance,
4 no . There' s a lot of nonconformity. That
5 is why they are here. The
6 substantialness, I covered. The
7 environmental things for the land. The
8 Health Department would get involved.
9 The Building Department would get
10 involved. There is going to be very
11 little construction on the property by
12 the street side . So there really will be
13 no impact . I believe that requirement is
14 satisfied. I think in looking at
15 everything and the need for the
16 applicant and what Mr . Fitzgerald has
17 done, I think the Board can grant the
18 variance using the balancing techniques
19 that you do, in varying one thing
20 against the other in determining the
21 health safety and welfare of the
22 neighborhood. I can answer any
23 questions .
24 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I think the
25 best way to do this rather than ask for
November 6, 2014 Regular Meeting 46
1 a new Notice of Disapproval, just submit
• 2 an amended application, which will then
3 make the substantiality of the prior
4 variances in the original application .
5 That way we can write up a decision . I
6 don' t have any questions . I think you
7 have answered all the questions . You
8 were very thorough in your presentation .
9 You answered all the LWRP questions and
10 concerns . We are behind schedule .
11 MEMBER HORNING: It' s unfortunate
12 that we are behind schedule . There is no
• 13 doubt about it . When you are talking
14 about the LWRP Policy #3 , and the reason
15 why I want to go at this is because I do
16 live there and I live in the adjacent
17 neighborhood. I travel that road
18 frequently. It is a frequently traveled
19 road. It' s not a service road for three
20 houses . So the statement here that the
21 road is lightly traveled, is really an
22 incorrect statement . It is a paved road
23 that is frequently traveled by anyone
24 that wants to drive there . The variance
• 25 that was granted for the neighbor was
November 6, 2014 Regular Meeting 47
1 for an unimproved dirt road, for the
• 2 neighbor that had road frontage on three
3 yards . So it' s a completely different
4 application . I just wanted to note that .
5 Having said that , I would like to ask
6 why the proposed addition couldn ' t be
7 pushed back a little more from the front
8 road and why it could not be even with
9 the existing premise?
10 MR. FITZGERALD: The service road
11 was more trying to describe the use of
12 that road. It' s right off --
13 MEMBER HORNING: It certainly is .
14 They have a sign, "Slow . Children. " You
15 are right . There are many people that
16 travel that road. Certainly. The plan
17 came about a much larger than was
18 proposed. It was brought down . It' s a
19 lot smaller . We have reduced it to the
20 smaller size possible . We have to have a
21 certain size bathroom to make it
22 accessible . And it just worked out plan
23 wise . What we are trying to do is not
24 push the building any more to the west .
• 25 We are trying to keep it so the overall
November 6, 2014 Regular Meeting 48
1 impact to the street is reduced. So it
• 2 would be better to have a shorter
3 addition, wider, certainly than longer .
4 MEMBER HORNING: It certainly looks
5 better . If you go back 1 foot from the
6 setback, that is a 9% reduction . It is
7 pretty substantial .
8 MR. FITZGERALD: Yes, it is . We
9 would have to mitigate that difference
10 there .
11 MEMBER HORNING: Again, what would
12 be in this space here that would be
• 13 creating that 1 foot setback that
14 couldn ' t be located somewhere else?
15 MR. FITZGERALD: This is the
16 bathroom and this is the bedroom. Here
17 we have the sitting area . And so it' s a
18 lot of ( In Audible) in the house with
19 the bathroom right here . We have stairs
20 going up here . It' s important for
21 Mr . Bingham.
22 MEMBER HORNING: This is a bathroom?
23 MR. FITZGERALD: Yes .
24 MEMBER HORNING: Instead of having
• 25 two proposed 1 foot setbacks , maybe you
November 6, 2014 Regular Meeting 49
1 can just have one? The other being
• 2 whatever is the existing of the 10 foot .
3 I am just pointing it out . It' s a
4 frequently traveled road. The design is
5 much more appealing . I personally like
6 the design .
7 MR. FITZGERALD: We have gone
8 through many, many generations of
9 designs . A lot of thought was put into
10 the design to make a plan that would be
11 -- that would give the Bingham' s what
12 they want and also be sensitive to
• 13 Zoning . So this is how it sort of shaked
14 out for us . So we thought that this
15 would make the plan really work for us .
16 MEMBER HORNING: It is a balancing
17 act --
18 MR. FITZGERALD: It is .
19 MEMBER HORNING : You are proposing
20 55 from the bluff, which is good but we
21 might be willing to concede a little
22 more on the bluff side if we have a
23 little more front yard setback. One foot
24 is pretty minimal . Now, there is
• 25 vegetated area .
November 6, 2014 Regular Meeting 50
1 MR. FITZGERALD: And that hedge is
• 2 actually right on the road . It' s not
3 right on the property line . It' s 7 or 8
4 feet back. The property is really
5 defined by the hedge . A hedge and a
6 fence . That was there before they bought
7 the property.
8 MEMBER HORNING: Thank you .
9 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anything else
10 from anyone else?
11 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No .
12 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there
• 13 anyone in the audience that would like
14 to address this application?
15 (No Response . )
16 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay. Hearing
17 no further comments or questions , I am
18 going to make a motion to close the
19 hearing and reserve decision to a later
20 date .
21 MEMBER DANTES : Second .
22 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor?
23 MEMBER DANTES : Aye .
24 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye .
• 25 MEMBER HORNING: Aye .
November 6, 2014 Regular Meeting 51
1 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye .
• 2 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye .
3 (See Minutes for Resolution . )
4 ********** ******** ********************
5 HEARING #6806 - JSF PARTNERSHIP .
6 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next
7 application before the Board is for JSF
8 Partnership, #6806 . Request for Variances
9 from Article III Section 280-15 and the
10 Building Inspector' s October 3 , 2014 Notice
11 of Disapproval based on an application for
12 building permit for accessory garage, at ;
• 13 1 ) proposed location at less than the code
14 required front yard setback of 55 feet, 2 )
15 less than the code required minimum side
16 setback of 20 feet , located at : 1430
17 Esplanade (adjacent to Hog Neck Bay) in
18 Southold.
19 MR. WEBER: Hi . My name is Fred
20 Weber, East Maple Road, Greenport, New
21 York. I am here representing JSF
22 Partnership, which is John and Susan
23 Fallon . They are the owners of the
24 single family dwelling, 1430 Esplanade .
• 25 The property is located in R40 Zone and
November 6, 2014 Regular Meeting 52
1 at 78 , 000 square feet, it' s a
• 2 nonconforming lot even though it' s quite
3 large . They would like to construct a
4 two-car garage with additional space for
5 accumulating yard equipment, bicycles ,
6 kayaks and etcetera . They recently sold
7 the house in Mattituck and now this
8 Southold house is their full-time
9 residence and kind of overflowing with
10 some items that really need to be put
11 into a garage . We are proposing a
12 structure, 24 feet wide, which provides
13 two garage bays and then space in the
14 back, which would 8 feet deep, which
15 would be for equipment and miscellaneous
16 storage . It' s to be made to look like a
17 North Fork barn design . Obviously the
18 location of the garage is the issue . The
19 site itself has several unique features .
20 The first being that it' s on a flag lot
21 and the flag lot from the street to the
22 bulk of the property is 480 feet . That
23 makes the property itself remote from
24 most of the surrounding neighbors . You
• 25 can actually see the driveway here . This
November 6, 2014 Regular Meeting 53
1 is taken from the entrance gate and
• 2 looking down . This is where the garage
3 will be . Also backs up on two sides ,
4 which would be dedicated open space .
5 Quite a large space, and in addition to
6 that, Evergreens that are dead and go
7 around that whole property. And finally
8 it is a waterfront lot and 37% of the
9 lot, which is the whole waterfront
10 section of the lot is an area that they
11 can' t ( In Audible . ) So those are kind of
12 the unique aspects of the property. As
• 13 far as locating the garage, we obviously
14 don' t want to locate it on the waterside
15 of the house . To located it any north
16 east corner of the property. That is
17 where the underground utilities come
18 onto the site . They have the sanitary
19 system that is basically located north
20 western section of the property. So we
21 would need to maintain decent setbacks
22 from the sanitary system. We want to
23 maintain access to the driveway and also
24 a visual separation from the house . The
• 25 Zoning is created for visual privacy.
November 6, 2014 Regular Meeting 54
1 That is really not much of an issue for
• 2 this particular property. Being that
3 this is a flag lot itself almost creates
4 an unconventional relationship . So it
5 already has a significant setback
6 distance for that . This is where we
7 would like for you to consider the
8 location of the garage .
9 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It' s a very
10 unique parcel . Lot #43 , adjacent to the
11 right-of-way.
12 MR. WEBER: That is actually owned
. 13 by Susan Fallon .
14 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay.
15 MR. WEBER: Who is here today.
16 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I noticed
17 driving in that the property is flat and
18 grassy and on the water, it' s
19 undeveloped. I just wanted to question
20 the use . That is owned by the applicant?
21 MR. WEBER: Correct .
22 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well, you have
23 covered all the reasons for why it is
24 proposed where it is . Just let the
• 25 record show that it' s proposed at 20
November 6, 2014 Regular Meeting 55
1 feet and because it' s a AC Zone, it' s 55
• 2 feet for the principal setback. Just
3 based on the development of the parcel
4 already, that is not possible .
5 MEMBER HORNING: Did you say that it
6 was 140 feet or 80 feet --
7 MR. WEBER: 140 feet from the
8 driveway. From this point right here,
9 from the bulk of the property.
10 MEMBER HORNING: And can you tell us
11 who owns Parcel A, open space?
12 MR. WEBER: Owned by Angel Shores
• 13 Homeowners Association .
14 MEMBER HORNING: And it' s going to
15 be open space forever?
16 MR. WEBER: I would think so . I
17 don' t think that they can change that . I
18 think that is open space and when the
19 subdivision was created .
20 MEMBER HORNING: Did you have any
21 alternative design ideas, such as this,
22 other than an attached garage?
23 MR. WEBER: You know, based on the
24 floor plan of the house and the layout
• 25 and the existing rooms of the house,
November 6, 2014 Regular Meeting 56
1 windows and views and egress, it doesn' t
• 2 really work .
3 MEMBER HORNING: And the house was
4 built around 2009?
5 MR. WEBER: Correct . It might have
6 been finished in 2010 .
7 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Gerry, any
8 questions?
9 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No,
10 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Ken?
11 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: No questions .
12 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Eric?
• 13 MEMBER DANTES : No .
14 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay. Anyone
15 else in the audience wishes to address
16 this application?
17 (No Response . )
18 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I am going to
19 make a motion to close this hearing and
20 reserve decision to a later date .
21 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second.
22 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor?
23 MEMBER DANTES : Aye .
24 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye .
• 25 MEMBER HORNING : Aye .
November 6, 2014 Regular Meeting 57
1 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye .
• 2 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye .
3 (See Minutes for Resolution . )
4 *** ************************************
5 HEARING #6801 - 170 MOORES LANE
6 REALTY CORP . (RATSEY CONSTRUCTION)
7 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next
8 application before the Board is for 170
9 Moores Lane Realty Corp . (RATSEY
10 CONSTRUCTION . ) , #6801 . Request for
11 Variances from Article XI , Sections 280-50A
12 and 280-49 and the Building Inspector' s
• 13 May 30 , 2014 , renewed July 30 , 2014 ,
14 Amended October 6, 2014 Notice of
15 Disapproval based on an application for
16 building permit for addition and
17 alterations to an existing commercial
18 building, at ; 1 ) less than the code
19 required front side yard setback of 100
20 feet, 2 ) more than the code permitted
21 maximum lot coverage of 300 , located at :
22 170 Moores Lane in Greenport .
23 Please come to the podium and state
24 your name for the record.
• 25 MS . CLARK: Hi . My name is Lucy
November 6, 2014 Regular Meeting 58
1 Clark and I work Ratsey Construction and
• 2 I reside at 611 Main Street in
3 Greenport .
4 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So I am
5 looking at a -- the amended notice,
6 indicating that the average bulkhead
7 setback on the property is along that
8 street, is 24 . 1 feet, and the applicant
9 is proposing 26 . 4 feet for the front
10 yard setback, where the code generally
11 requires 100 feet . Again, the average
12 setback, we are looking at the proposal
• 13 of 26 . 4 . Also, the lot coverage of
14 33 . 4% where the code permits a maximum
15 of 30% in the B Zone . Current lot
16 coverage is 31 . 20 . And then the
17 Planning Board, Site Plan Approval is
18 required. Comments from the Planning
19 Board is offering that the proposal of
20 the addition is within the floor plan of
21 the existing foundation, from a previous
22 building . And this has existed prior to
23 zoning. In the LI Zone -- what I don' t
24 understand is how come the Notice of
• 25 Disapproval states that it' s a B Zone
November 6, 2014 Regular Meeting 59
1 and this says LI Zone .
• 2 MS . CLARK: It' s B Zone .
3 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It' s a B Zone .
4 MS . CLARK: The original approval
5 had said it was LI .
6 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All right . So
7 I think we understand what the variances
8 are . We have adjacent properties . The
9 existing building has a 5 . 7 side yard
10 setback . ( In Audible . )
11 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Okay. My
12 question to is , what was this before it
• 13 belonged to --
14 MS . CLARK: A bowling alley actually .
15 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: 100% right .
16 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That was a
17 quiz?
18 MS . CLARK: I am a native . I have a
19 photo . My older siblings used to go there .
20 I was too young .
21 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: In effect, what
22 I am saying, is that there is literally
23 no change in the building, which was the
24 original building built and then it was
• 25 taken over .
November 6, 2014 Regular Meeting 60
1 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All right , I
• 2 just wanted the record to reflect that
3 all of the variances that are before the
4 Board. I just wanted to save you some
5 time . We are way behind . Gerry, do you
6 have any other questions?
7 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I don' t have any
8 other questions . We have established
9 that the building is the way it is since
10 it was built, even though it has changed
11 hands .
12 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : George, any
• 13 questions?
14 MEMBER HORNING : No . Lot coverage is
15 the only variance right now?
16 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Front yard
17 setback.
18 MEMBER HORNING: Okay.
19 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : They are
20 proposing 26 .
21 MEMBER DANTES : The average is 24 .
22 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay. I got
23 the numbers correct but just mixed up .
24 It' s just the lot coverage . They are
• 25 behind that . We have gotten comments and
November 6, 2014 Regular Meeting 61
1 there is no issues .
• 2 Anything else?
3 (No Response . )
4 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We know there
5 is no one in the audience . Hearing no
6 further comments , I am going to make a
7 motion to close the hearing and reserve
8 decision .
9 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Second.
10 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor?
11 MEMBER DANTES : Aye .
12 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye .
13 MEMBER HORNING : Aye .
14 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye .
15 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye .
16 (See Minutes for Resolution . )
17 ********* *** *************** **********
18 HEARING #6805 - JOHN E . MALLEY
19 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next
20 application before the Board is for
21 John E . Malley, #6805 . Request for
22 Variances from Article XXIII Section
23 280-124 and the Building Inspector' s
24 September 25, 2014 Notice of Disapproval
• 25 based on an application for building
November 6, 2014 Regular Meeting 62
• 1 permit for additions and alterations to
2 an existing single family dwelling, at ;
3 1 ) less than the code required front
4 yard setback of 35 feet, 2 ) more than
5 the maximum code permitted lot coverage
6 of 200 , located at : 1330 Gillette Drive
7 in East Marion .
8 Please state your name for the
9 record, we are recording the minutes .
10 MR. LEONARD: My name is Jason
11 Leonard. I am an agent for the owner,
12 John Malley.
• 13 MR. MALLEY : I am John Malley .
14 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Welcome, both
15 of you . We are looking at a 10, 000
16 square foot lot with a proposed addition
17 for a single family dwelling with a
18 front yard setback of 27 feet , where the
19 code requires 35 feet . And lot coverage
20 at 24 . 7% , where the code requires 20% or
21 permits the maximum of 20% . What I have
22 from your application, your existing
23 house is 22 . 9% ; is that correct?
24 MR. LEONARD: That is correct , yes .
25 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And you are
November 6, 2014 Regular Meeting 63
• 1 proposing to add a front porch of 87
2 feet --
3 MR. LEONARD: Yes , that' s including
4 the steps .
5 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay . You had
6 a prior variance, which was lot coverage
7 at 23 . 80 , 10x10 deck and it looks like
8 the existing front yard setback from the
9 porch is going to be 22 . 3 feet?
10 MR. LEONARD: That' s correct .
11 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So you want to
12 add 3 feet?
• 13 MR. LEONARD: That ' s exactly right .
14 3 feet additional to the porch.
15 Is there anything else that you
16 would like to tell us about this
17 application?
18 MR. LEONARD: I don' t think there is
19 too much more . We would like to make the
20 porch more user friendly. Right now,
21 it' s a little bit restrictive . They
22 would like to add a couple of chairs ,
23 whether to sit and enjoy the front yard.
24 The existing porch is in need of some
25 repairs . That' s about all .
November 6, 2014 Regular Meeting 64
1 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Have you had
2 any information on what the average
3 front yard setback is on your side of
4 the street?
5 MR. LEONARD: I don' t think we have
6 an exact average of what is over there .
7 The neighbor directly to the north is --
8 I don' t have the exact number, but I
9 know they are much more closer to the
10 street . At least a few more feet from
11 what we are proposing.
12 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Do you know if
• 13 they got a variance for that?
14 MR. LEONARD: I do not know that .
15 MR. MALLEY : ( In Audible) I don' t
16 know if they got a variance for that .
17 And the neighbor even further down, is
18 the same .
19 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : If you could
20 provide us with that information?
21 MR. LEONARD: Sure, we could
22 probably come up with that .
23 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : One of the
24 things that we have to look at is
• 25 character of the neighbor .
November 6, 2014 Regular Meeting 65
1 MR. LEONARD: Whether they -- I
• 2 don' t know if the house was built before
3 or whether that was an issue but the
4 house to the north is at least 3 feet
5 closer then what we are proposing . We
6 also have numerous variances of what
7 were completed by your Board in the
8 neighborhood. They are similar requests
9 as far as lot coverage and setbacks .
10 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Just enter
11 your name into the record. We record
12 this for our public hearing process . You
• 13 can submit that for our file .
14 MR. LEONARD: This one, 26 . 8% lot
15 coverage was approved.
16 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: What is the file
17 number on that?
18 MR. LEONARD: File No . Is 6566 . We
19 have another one where a 29 foot setback
20 was approved. Also 2630 Gillete Drive .
21 That is File No . 6513 . We have 31 . 8
22 feet . We have another one of 23 . 8% lot
23 coverage approved. It' s very close to
24 what we are looking at . It' s the same
• 25 property . Previous variance for the same
November 6, 2014 Regular Meeting 66
1 property . I can certainly get the
• 2 setbacks on those neighboring
3 properties .
4 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay. Gerry,
5 any questions?
6 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Only to the fact
7 that when we -- you have a survey, 1966
8 survey. It becomes very difficult with
9 changes sometimes on a certain property
10 line . I don' t know how reliant that
11 survey is . Did you take any physical
12 dimensions from the front property
• 13 lines?
14 MR. LEONARD: Just off the survey.
15 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Do we know the
16 dimensions of anything other than just
17 taking it off the survey?
18 MR. LEONARD: ( In Audible)
19 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: The problem is ,
20 if we are not totally accurate, then you
21 have to come back. And that is the bad
22 part . What happens is, sometimes they
23 bury property lines when they change
24 roads and they resurface them and so on.
• 25 It' s a given if you are a foot, but I
November 6, 2014 Regular Meeting 67
1 gather it' s more than a foot . If you can
• 2 find markers, it would be really worth
3 wild. This is my opinion on the
4 situation .
5 MR. MALLEY : ( In Audible) found the
6 markers in the back .
7 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: It' s a
8 phenomenal amount of variance that you
9 are looking for. We understand the
10 situation though . No question about it .
11 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : One of the
12 things that the Board looks at when we
• 13 make site inspection, which we all do,
14 potential impact on the character of the
15 neighborhood. And it turns out , because
16 we know Gillette ( In Audible) back yard
17 of that house . It' s wooded, I can see .
18 Ken?
19 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: No questions .
20 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Eric?
21 MEMBER DANTES : No questions .
22 MEMBER HORNING: I am all set .
23 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there
24 anyone else in the audience who wants to
• 25 address this application?
November 6, 2014 Regular Meeting 68
• 1 (No Response . )
2 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay. Hearing
3 no further questions or comments, I am
4 going to make a motion to close the
5 hearing subject to receipt of additional
6 variances .
7 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I ' ll second that
8 motion .
9 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor?
10 MEMBER DANTES : Aye .
11 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye .
12 MEMBER HORNING: Aye .
• 13 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye .
14 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye .
15 (See Minutes for Resolution . )
16 ****************************************
17 HEARING #6792 - BARBARA ADAMS and
18 JAN NICHOLSON (CV)
19 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next
20 application before the Board is for Barbara
21 Adams and Jan Nicholson, # 6792 . This was
22 adjourned from October 2nd. I don' t need to
23 read the Notice of Disapproval into the
24 record. We have an amended plan, amended
• 25 survey that was submitted between the last
November 6, 2014 Regular Meeting 69
1 meeting and today. For the sake of time I
• 2 am just going to enter into the record,
3 what the proposed variance relief . At that
4 point, I am going to turn it over to the
5 applicants agent to present whatever it is
6 they like us to hear . First of all, there
7 is now a conforming bulkhead setback .
8 Second, there is an elimination between the
9 Diguyan club structure . There is now one
10 accessory garage in the side yard, where
11 the code requires a rear yard. We have a
12 front yard setback of 29 . 28 inches from the
• 13 principal dwelling where the code requires
14 40 feet . And we have an accessory garage in
15 the side yard. Then we have 16 . 238 in rear
16 yard setback, where the code requires 50
17 foot . Is that all correct?
18 MS . MOORE : Wonderful . Thank you .
19 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Just saving
20 you the trouble of going through all of
21 the variances . I see you have additional
22 material?
23 MS . MOORE : I do . Patricia Moore on
24 behalf of Jan Nicolson and Ms . Adams,
• 25 who is the owner and the seller of the
November 6, 2014 Regular Meeting 70
1 property. We were carefully listening to
• 2 your comments and the concerns of the
3 neighbors and my client pushed the house
4 back to the 75 feet, a conforming
5 setback from the bulkhead . That was a
6 significant change because as you can
7 see, the dimensions of the property
8 narrow as you go down . So pushing the
9 house back, several things . One is, we
10 maintain the setbacks that are presently
11 existing with the house that is there
12 today. As you know, we are planning
• 13 demolishing the structure but we are
14 prepared to maintain the setbacks that
15 have been historically said on this
16 property prior to zoning . Significant
17 prior to zoning . From our records from
18 before, from last hearing, the portion
19 of the house of the Diguyan Club, we
20 gave you historical information but in
21 pushing the house back, it made it
22 impossible to maintain the structure .
23 That was really an effort to make -- my
24 client certainly wanted to do it, but
• 25 Ms . Adams was particularly in keeping
November 6, 2014 Regular Meeting 71
• 1 the structure for the community . If it
2 can' t be done, it can' t be done . She' s
3 expectant of that fact . What we also
4 attempted to do, in listening to
5 Mr . Wendell' s comments , concerns on the
6 record or off the record, were keeping
7 the house and the activity of the house
8 away from his living area, his deck and
9 easterly side . And again, by pushing
10 the house back, we were able to push the
11 house away from the activities of our
12 neighbor . What I would like to go now to
• 13 is the new plan that I gave you . This is
14 all the new information that has been
15 placed on one plan for you . And to begin
16 with, corroborate with our point at the
17 last hearing, was that this parcel was
18 historically developed with ( In
19 Audible ) . So that this parcel, similar
20 to the other parcels along the street ,
21 facing the waterfront and designed to
22 treat their waterfront side one way.
23 Typically as a front yard but from based
24 on current regulations , from the water
• 25 or from the bulkhead. But important are
November 6, 2014 Regular Meeting 72
1 the rear yards of the back of the house
• 2 and that is a concept that has been in
3 place, Indian Neck Lane, since the
4 original creation of these lots . So our
5 -- while we understand that we need
6 variances because of the setbacks, but
7 in fairness and practical sense, our
8 variances are mainly due to the fact
9 that the property runs along Indian Neck
10 Lane, even though it is not developed or
11 designed to face Indian Neck Lane . That
12 would be a disservice to this property
• 13 to create a house that is facing Indian
14 Neck Lane as their primary front yard or
15 primary view-scape, versus the water . A
16 little common sense but certainly can be
17 corroborate by the orientation which is
18 the left side of our panels . We also
19 listen to the comments Mr . Dart made
20 about the character and the trees and
21 so-on . I will paraphrase,
22 "I think it was, "it was in your face . "
23 The house is going to be "in your face"
24 type of development . What we want to
• 25 point out is that, that is not the
November 6, 2014 Regular Meeting 73
1 attempt here . If anything, we are trying
• 2 to preserve the privacy of thero ert .
P p Y
3 And in effort to address the comments by
4 some of the neighbors as far as the view
5 scape from Indian Neck Lane, we do want
6 to try and address that and mitigate any
7 adverse feelings about putting the house
8 here, by preserving some of the larger
9 trees that have been historically
10 developed on this property. And if you
11 see the right lower panel , we have
12 identified in green, the tree that we
13 would like to preserve a large canopy
14 with beautiful trees . Essentially are
15 going to provide the buffer and lot line
16 and eliminate any views of the house
17 from the road. We ' re prepared to
18 preserve those trees as a condition of
19 any approval . Certainly a benefit to my
20 client as well as the community. This
21 area is wooded as you can see from the
22 upper right hand panel of the
23 street-scape . We will preserve that . My
24 client is not interested in buying a
• 25 property. This is not only a beautiful
November 6, 2014 Regular Meeting 74
• 1 piece to live on, it' s an investment . So
2 we try and preserve the investment and
3 the trees are certainly a valuable asset
4 to the property. In our -- you know, we
5 have obviously conflicting pressures
6 here . The community who doesn' t want to
7 push us away from Indian Neck Lane, our
8 neighbor, Mr . Wendell wants to push us
9 towards Indian Neck Lane . The result of
10 that is trying to create a very narrow
11 unappealing home and that is certainly
12 something that we are not interested in
• 13 developing here . So what we have come to
14 you with, I think are reasonable . As
15 Mr . Horning pointed out to try and
16 preserve the setbacks of these existing
17 structure, which we have in this case .
18 On the Wendell side, we are preserving
19 the existing setback of the existing
20 home at 16 feet . And I would point out
21 that by pushing the house back, we are
22 actually -- his setback, I believe is 36
23 -- 39 . He said, it was 9 feet with our
24 16 foot setback, that is a significant
• 25 -- almost a front yard setback. It' s a
November 6, 2014 Regular Meeting 75
• 1 significant setback between both homes .
2 Again, in an effort to preserve the
3 privacy of both homes . I would also
4 point out which is obvious in the plans
5 as well as your visual observation of
6 the property, while we are asking for
7 setback variances , Indian Neck Road does
8 have a green space . The roadway widens
9 down at the beach to provide for street
10 parking for the community, but then it
11 narrows down towards the north . So
12 visually if you look at our view-scape
13 photographs, you can see that the
14 placement of the house, visually, is not
15 going to look as close as it is, because
16 you have a number of feet between the
17 properties . Our property line narrows as
18 it goes back but at the same time, the
19 road widens as it goes towards the
20 water . So I have argued this in the past
21 and I know you have noticed it in the
22 past . Past homes have very large green
23 areas . We don' t use sidewalks out here,
24 but equivalent the area of a sidewalk
• 25 with grass . So the fact is, when you are
November 6, 2014 Regular Meeting 76
• 1 looking from the street , nobody can tell
2 where the property line begins or ends .
3 That is what we have here . We have some
4 small fencing, which can stay or go, I
5 don' t know . That is up to you if you
6 want us to keep it . If you don' t want us
7 to, we don' t keep it . The important
8 thing here are the trees .
9 MEMBER HORNING: Pat, is the fence
10 nonconforming?
11 MS . MOORE : The fence? No . No . I
12 think it was for a little extra privacy
• 13 that they used. With respect to our --
14 the house, the proposed house and the
15 lot coverage of the proposed house, it' s
16 only 14% lot coverage and that is with
17 reduction of buildable area from the
18 bulkhead. I asked just for information
19 ( In Audible) just something to think
20 about , when I asked the architect what
21 the square footage would be from the top
22 of the bank, and we are only at 15% . So
23 we are well within the 20% lot coverage .
24 So aside from the setbacks, which I
• 25 think you have heard enough from me with
November 6, 2014 Regular Meeting 77
• 1 complying with the legal setbacks, our
2 setbacks are reasonable and our lot
3 coverage is certainly within the
4 community. It' s a very lovely -- large
5 homes are along this waterfront . This
6 one will be of an Italian, the design
7 that was chosen, which again, is a
8 beautiful -- to each is own, but
9 certainly a beautiful architectural
10 style and we do have some Italian
11 structure in Peconic Lane -- North Road
12 -- on the north side of North Road . I
• 13 remember doing a variance for the house .
14 That one was a preexisting structure .
15 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Can I ask you
16 one question?
17 MS . MOORE : Yes . I am done with what
18 I think is my presentation . I can
19 address any other issues .
20 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: What kind of
21 utilities are you planning in the
22 garage?
23 MS . MOORE : Electricity for light .
24 That ' s it . Maybe water .
• 25 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: You would say a
November 6, 2014 Regular Meeting 78
1 hose bib --
• 2 MS . MOORE : A hose bib I would
3 imagine .
4 MEMBER DANTES : What size house
5 would fit on the property?
6 MS . MOORE : Oh, my. Remember the
7 property is narrowly --
8 MEMBER DANTES : I know .
9 MS . MOORE : I think I talked about
10 this last time . It runs away at 75 feet
11 to the rear yard setback. Again, we
12 don' t have a rear yard. That is our
• 13 problem. So matter what , we are a
14 nonconforming yard. No matter what we do
15 here, we can' t conform here .
16 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Should we see
17 if the audience has anything to say?
18 MS . MOORE : We would like the
19 opportunity to respond.
20 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I would like
21 to say one thing . We obviously took a
22 lot of testimony last time . And I don' t
23 want to impair anybody from having their
24 opportunity to address the Board . We
• 25 have everything written out and
November 6, 2014 Regular Meeting 79
• 1 transcribed. So what I would like you to
2 do is address this new application and
3 tell us anything that we haven ' t already
4 heard. Just for the sake of time, we
5 have other hearings after this one . So
6 please try and limit to what is being
7 said . If you hear somebody say something
8 and raise your hand, in receipt of it , I
9 guess . Please state your name for the
10 record.
11 MR. WENDELL : Good afternoon . My
12 name is Jonathan Wendell . I am the owner
• 13 of the parcel that is immediately
14 adjacent . I have legal counsel here . I
15 do want to make a comment about the
16 neighbor . First some background, at the
17 October meeting, it was reported that I
18 bought this parcel in 2008 . That is
19 correct . I bought my first home in North
20 Fork in 1988 . A few years before this
21 one . My wife and I bought our original
22 house in Southold as an investment . I
23 have been here for 26 years . I wanted to
24 retire here . I would like to ( In
• 25 Audible ) --
November 6, 2014 Regular Meeting 80
• 1 (Whereupon, Mr. Wendell approached
2 the Board. )
3 MR. WENDELL : It shows the proposed
4 structures and the existing structures .
5 It was prepared by ( In Audible) so I
6 could understand it better myself . I
7 hope it will help the Board as well . I
8 own the adjacent parcel . It is the only
9 immediate adjacent parcel . In fact, it
10 surrounds the Adams parcel and to the
11 north . To the south is the bay and to
12 the east is the road. My friend ( In
• 13 Audible) at the last meeting . My main
14 objective here is to be a good neighbor .
15 I am not going to comment on the size,
16 the shape or the aesthetics of this
17 structure . I only have one comment . I
18 would like to suggest, respectfully, a
19 25 rear yard setback for the proposed
20 structures as compared to the 16 feet
21 that is being proposed. This is a
22 suggestion to be constructive and in the
23 spirit of cooperation . So thank you for
24 the opportunity to speak. If you have
• 25 any questions for me, I would be happy
November 6, 2014 Regular Meeting 81
• 1 to answer them now or later on in the
2 hearing . Thank you .
3 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thank you so
4 much . Anyone else?
5 (No Response . )
6 MEMBER DANTES : The first question
7 that I have is that you wanted the house
8 pushed back? The house being too close
9 to the water?
10 MR. WENDELL: I did not speak on my
11 behalf the last time . I was sort of
12 hoping that the ZBA would withhold the
• 13 75 foot setback.
14 MEMBER DANTES : Why do you want the
15 applicant to be further from the rear
16 property line?
17 MR. WENDELL : Because 16 feet is
18 very close to my property line . Although
19 my current structure is 39 feet from the
20 corner, I can expand to a 20 foot
21 setback and I might want to do that in
22 the future before I retire . My house is
23 very small .
24 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay. Thank
• 25 you . Anyone else would like to address
November 6, 2014 Regular Meeting 82
• 1 the Board?
2 MEMBER HORNING : I have no
3 questions .
4 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Ken?
5 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: No questions .
6 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I have no
7 questions . We appreciate the plan that
8 has been submitted. Certainly more in
9 keeping with the variance relief . We are
10 now looking at three variances . We have
11 a front yard setback, a rear yard
12 setback and a side yard location for an
• 13 accessory garage, rather than front or
14 rear yard. And that is what is before
15 us .
16 Hearing no further questions or
17 comments, I am going to make a motion to
18 close this hearing and reserve decision
19 to a later date .
20 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second.
21 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor?
22 MEMBER DANTES : Aye .
23 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye .
24 MEMBER HORNING : Aye .
• 25 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye .
November 6, 2014 Regular Meeting 83
• 1 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye .
2 (See Minutes for Resolution . )
3 ****************************************
4 HEARING #6797 - MACH3, LLC .
5 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next
6 application before the Board is for MACH3,
7 LLC, #6797 . Request for reversal of the
8 Building Inspector' s determination, based
9 on the Building Inspector' s Notice of
10 Disapproval dated September 4 , 2014
11 pursuant to Article III , Section 280-13A
12 based on an application for a Pre-CO for
. 13 two dwelling units on one lot, at ; 1 ) "as
14 built" conversion of accessory storage
15 building into a second dwelling unit,
16 located at : 30 Smith Road (corner Indian
17 Neck Lane) in Peconic .
18 I will just enter into the record
19 for the transcript, that the applicant
20 applied for a Pre-CO for a principal
21 dwelling and a second structure on the
22 property. What the Building Department
23 determined was an accessory storage
24 building and a Pre-CO for that, and what
• 25 the applicant is asking for is an
November 6, 2014 Regular Meeting 84
• 1 overturn to acknowledge that that second
2 structure is in fact ( In Audible)
3 building for seasonal use . Did you
4 submit one of these, Pat?
5 MS . MOORE : Yes . Thank you . I have
6 given you -- the documentation that we
7 have given the Building Department ,
8 which consist of the two affidavits , the
9 original survey that didn' t go back to
10 the 50' s but in the 70 ' s, and showing
11 the original preexisting structures .
12 This property up here is as Lot #1 , a
• 13 subdivision that was approved in 1913 . I
14 had the title company send me the map
15 and it could only be sent to me in
16 little pieces because -- I highlighted
17 the lot . It' s Lot #1 . So given the fact
18 that the property was subdivided in
19 1912-1913, it would be logical that the
20 homes would have been developed
21 thereafter . In fact, on this property we
22 have a single family dwelling . Up on the
23 record, we are just showing a picture of
24 the poster . Some of these photographs ,
25 you may already have in your packet . I
November 6, 2014 Regular Meeting 85
1 will go over them as I am submitting . So
• 2 when my client first inspected the
3 property, the -- let' s call it the
4 "accessory building . " That is
5 essentially what it is . We would dispute
6 the Notice of Disapproval for the second
7 dwelling because it doesn' t qualify
8 under any definition as a dwelling . It
9 is seasonal . It presently has no heat .
10 It had electric heat . That certainly
11 would not give it the ability to be
12 occupied during the winter . It has a
13 kitchenette, but no stove . It has a
14 refrigerator . It has a sleeping
15 quarters . Call it what you want . It' s
16 sleeping quarters, habitable space to
17 the extent that it was used -- we used
18 to call it -- friends of ours had "bunk
19 houses . " That is what we called them.
20 That is where overflow families could
21 sleep . There would be some independence
22 between the two structures . There is a
23 half bath, which is a toilet and a sink
24 and no interior shower or tub . So again,
• 25 seasonal by it' s use, with an outdoor
November 6, 2014 Regular Meeting 86
1 shower . So when we got back from the
• 2 Building Department calling it a storage
3 building, we were just dumbfounded
4 because it didn' t make sense, didn' t
5 make sense historically. I pulled up the
6 different code provisions during zoning .
7 Under dwelling definition, it has to
8 have a certain living area, which it
9 does . It' s 850 square feet , however,
10 beyond that, it doesn' t have any other
11 conditions to make it a dwelling under
12 our dwelling. It cannot support
• 13 housekeeping facility for one family.
14 Independent of the main house . So I have
15 that zoning definition . But also I
16 pulled up from the State Code, the
17 definition of dwelling and we don' t
18 qualify as a second dwelling . Our
19 position has always been it is an
20 accessory seasonal sleeping quarters .
21 Sometimes you call it a cottage, bunk
22 house . On the Assessor' s card, they
23 called it "barracks . " I asked for it as
24 a seasonal structure, habitable,
• 25 containing kitchenette and sleeping
November 6, 2014 Regular Meeting 87
1 quarters . I didn' t know how else to
• 2 define it . I leave it to you to define
3 it . It' s very difficult to put a label
4 on something when you don' t know what it
5 is . It is certainly not the only one
6 similarly developed in town. In fact,
7 this area has a whole assortment of
8 cottages because some were seasonal
9 cottages on Indian Neck Lane . One of our
10 neighbors originally had it as a garage .
11 And there was a zoning variance that was
12 made to you to convert it to an
• 13 apartment to an actual dwelling . To give
14 it a single family dwelling definition .
15 So within this community there have been
16 historically developed properties that
17 have over time did improve .
18 MEMBER DANTES : Why did the Building
19 Department give you the Notice of
20 Disapproval?
21 MS . MOORE : Because I had to get to
22 the Zoning Board .
23 MEMBER DANTES : I mean, why did they
24 -- it' s kind of vague .
• 25 MS . MOORE : Because I wanted to
November 6, 2014 Regular Meeting 88
• 1 appeal the Building Inspector Pre-CO
2 determination . Gary Fisher' s
3 determination for the building .
4 MEMBER DANTES : No, I am saying, why
5 did he determine it as a storage
6 building?
7 MS . MOORE : Because Gary -- in my
8 history of here, if he can get away with
9 this, he does . I have had clients that
10 have -- had the Building Department tell
11 them take this out and take this out and
12 so on. And all of a sudden they have
• 13 abandoned the use that they had no idea
14 of . So in this case, it was caught in
15 time . Over the years I have done real
16 estate projects that I look at the CO
17 application and all of a sudden the CO
18 goes to a Pre-CO that I should have
19 tried sleeping quarters and cottage and
20 all of a sudden if the person starts to
21 deconstruct it, it becomes a storage
22 building . I don' t really know . He
23 wouldn ' t tell us . He said go to the
24 Zoning Board. I said, okay.
• 25 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Speaking of
November 6, 2014 Regular Meeting 89
• 1 the continuous use . I have some
2 questions . I see ( In Audible ) was that
3 new?
4 MS . MOORE : There was electricity
5 always there . Over the years in the
6 701s , the prior owner did try and make
7 space because the family was there . So
8 they did upgrade the electrical and that
9 meter looks relatively new --
10 MEMBER DANTES : It says electric
11 meter on the picture but when I saw
12 panel --
13 MS . MOORE : Panel . Is that what you
14 meant?
15 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes . Here is
16 the question. Clearly both structures
17 are undergoing significant renovation .
18 MS . MOORE : Well --
19 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well , the
20 principal dwelling . It' s a state of
21 disrepair at the moment and the
22 accessory building as well . It' s not ( In
23 Audible) let' s put it that way. That is
24 the point that I am making . Has this
• 25 building actually been used the past
November 6, 2014 Regular Meeting 90
1 summer and the summer previously?
• 2 MS . MOORE : Yes .
3 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And by whom?
4 MS . MOORE : Napolitano owned the
5 property -- well , actually he inherited
6 the property from his parents . He always
7 -- that was always sleeping quarters .
8 And from a child -- from the time, I
9 guess , teenager . He' s not that old . I
10 would say in his 50' s? Yes . He would
11 have been in high school at the time .
12 His family actually rented it out
13 independently. So the Napolitano Family
14 continued to use that . And when my
15 client -- it had bed structures,
16 bathrooms . Pretty much what it has now .
17 Does it need sprucing up? Absolutely.
18 That is no doubt . The Building Inspector
19 actually asked us to get a structural
20 certification to make sure that it was
21 safe and Mark Schwartz did provide that .
22 So that is in the Building Department ' s
23 records . As we were going through the
24 process, everything led us to believe
• 25 that we are going to get a Pre-CO for
November 6, 2014 Regular Meeting 91
1 the way that we asked. Because Gary
2 said, put a smoke detector in there .
3 Make sure it' s protected. We sent you a
4 picture . That is one of the pictures
5 that I gave you . As you pointed out, it
6 has it' s own separate electric panel . It
7 had been upgraded in the 70' s maybe .
8 1970 .
9 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Does it have
10 it' s own electrical meter?
11 MS . MOORE : Yes . He' s saying it in
12 the background . I am putting it on the
• 13 transcript .
14 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So my question
15 is then, if it has it' s own separate
16 meter, can we have copies so we can
17 verify continuous occupancy of the use?
18 Electrical bills from the past year and
19 the year before?
20 MS . MOORE : Yes, I did offer it . I
21 am sorry, I am just checking with my
22 client . Yes , we can -- my client doesn' t
23 have it in hand. But I will check with
24 Mr . Napolitano . He said, listen, if you
• 25 need anything, it' s at my house . We can
November 6, 2014 Regular Meeting 92
1 get that for you certainly .
• 2 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : When was this
3 property rented and to whom was it
4 rented? Do you know?
5 MS . MOORE : No . Seasonal occupants .
6 No, I don' t have the rental history.
7 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Very typically
8 a family compound or migrate workers who
9 are working seasonally .
10 MS . MOORE : Right . No, we never used
11 migrant housing . That I know . Whether or
12 not they were seasonal in the sense of
• 13 summer residents , that would be the only
14 people that would be able to rent there .
15 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Our member
16 from Fisher' s Island has to catch a
17 ferry. It' s winter hours now.
18 MS . MOORE : I am sure he will read
19 the transcript .
20 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Certainly.
21 MS . MOORE : He always does . As far
22 as the rental, it would have been
23 seasonal summer rental .
24 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : To a
• 25 household? To a summer individual?
November 6, 2014 Regular Meeting 93
1 MS . MOORE : Yes . A separate living,
• 2 non-family . He gave me an affidavit that
3 said he essentially rented it to
4 non-family members . That' s in the
5 Napolitano' s affidavit . Ms . Rhea, her
6 family, I had an affidavit, that she
7 couldn ' t tell me -- she' s actually a
8 neighbor living on Smith Drive but she
9 couldn ' t tell -- recall , her parents,
10 other than the occupancy of a sleeping
11 quarters . She couldn ' t tell me that .
12 Certainly it was always sleeping
• 13 quarters .
14 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We have
15 photos that you submitted of the septic
16 system and so on --
17 MS . MOORE : Yes .
18 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That is going
19 to be removed because I am assuming you
20 are upgrading the house? Or was that a
21 separate system for the seasonal --
22 MS . MOORE : That was a separate --
23 originally, I think it was connected. As
24 they were upgrading the sanitary system,
• 25 they actually found that the cottage --
November 6, 2014 Regular Meeting 94
1 that the accessory building had it' s own
• 2 septic tank . That is in the photograph
3 that I have given to you. You can see in
4 another photograph, plywood over the
5 hole . Then the actual pool or septic
6 tank top . So we are giving you the whole
7 -- the process of the sanitary. My
8 client is not willing to invest and in
9 making the house ( In Audible) as well as
10 the accessory building too . She wants to
11 make it safe . It' s not -- like we have
12 to maintain the use . That is a very
• 13 valuable use . As you know, they are
14 getting harder and harder to keep . Over
15 the years as families go on, they are
16 not maintained. They don' t invest the
17 kind of money that these kind of
18 structures need. My client is willing to
19 invest the use and maintain the
20 structure . And keep it safe for all
21 occupants .
22 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Will there be
23 a new foundation?
24 MS . MOORE : My client is an
• 25 architect . So he certainly is -- do you
November 6, 2014 Regular Meeting 95
1 want to answer it?
• 2 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You have to
3 come to the microphone and state your
4 name, please?
5 MS . MACHINIST : Hi . My name is Jo
6 Machinist .
7 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Can you spell
8 that , please?
9 MS . MACHINIST : J-O M-A-C-H-I-N-I-S-T .
10 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thank you .
11 MS . MACHINIST : And the intent is to
12 keep the two buildings exactly what they
• 13 are or what I thought they were . Both of
14 them would be just seasonal . Just for
15 summer . And then the one I was going to
16 change into an all year round dwelling and
17 the second one, I was going to keep as a
18 summer, seasonal . I am not keeping -- my --
19 I have great dedication to preservation .
20 And I want to keep the two bedrooms
21 looking as they look. I am going to
22 change the siding and the roofing and
23 the windows . And that' s it . That is why I
24 am surprised that it was said to be a
• 25 storage building . I have a separate septic
November 6, 2014 Regular Meeting 96
1 tank that is supporting bedroom. There
• 2 is a separate septic for the house . I am
3 replacing both of those because they both
4 have deteriorated. It' s more extensive than
5 I had originally thought .
6 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We all did
7 site inspection . Is the house on any
8 foundation?
9 MS . MACHINIST : The main house is on a
10 foundation . Putting a new crawl space
11 underneath. The second building, if I do
12 anything or I upgrade it, it' s going to be
• 13 on-grade and still going to be seasonal and
14 I am not going to give it a foundation .
15 MEMBER DANTES : The question that I
16 have is , the Town also has an accessory
17 apartment law. I was wondering if you
18 thought of it?
19 MS . MOORE : I was not able to talk
20 about that . But to be able to have an
21 accessory structure, detached structure,
22 you have to be a principal dwelling .
23 It' s still a summer home for her .
24 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Are you going
• 25 to heat it --
November 6, 2014 Regular Meeting 97
1 MS . MACHINIST : I am not going to heat
• 2 it .
3 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The main
4 principal dwelling --
5 MS . MACHINIST : Yes, I am.
6 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: I have some
7 questions . Why don' t you just attached
8 that accessory building to the one that
9 you are renovating? That would solve s
10 lot of problems , no?
11 MS . MACHINIST : I would be happy to do
12 that .
• 13 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: That would take
14 care of -- I mean, the proximity --
15 MS . MOORE : Yes, but we would also
16 have to get variances to attached to
17 nonconforming structures . We would end
18 up here asking for a variances to put
19 the two structures together .
20 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Well, we are
21 looking at the intent of having a
22 cottage and a dwelling --
23 MS . MOORE : Understand that is for a
24 value sake and for preservation . That is
• 25 how they have been since they were --
November 6, 2014 Regular Meeting 98
1 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: With all do
• 2 respect, so say you .
3 MS . MOORE : What?
4 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: I mean, we have
5 to look at all the evidence to make a
6 decision .
7 MS . MOORE : Based on the evidence .
8 MS . MACHINIST : The one thing that was
9 conforming ( In Audible) into the parcels --
10 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: That is what I am
11 saying. Then you can heat that accessory
12 structure if you would like or not .
• 13 MS . MACHINIST : And then I could do
14 the crawl space if I would like . I have
15 not touched that building .
16 MEMBER SCHNEIDER : It doesn ' t look
17 like -- I am not an Assessor . I don' t
18 value buildings . I don' t think it' s
19 really much there .
20 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Depends on
21 what your intent is . If you like that
22 separation and the historic presentation
23 and the way to go is to acknowledge the
24 barrack history in there and you know,
• 25 and if you could, demonstrate through
November 6, 2014 Regular Meeting 99
1 electrical bills and it has been used
• 2 continuously. That there has been no
3 discontinuation of that use . That
4 would be a strong standing that we have
5 to look at . You can bring the
6 construction up to code and so on, and
7 the foundation . We can limit the size
8 so that it wouldn ' t qualify as a
9 dwelling .
10 MS . MOORE : Attached you mean?
11 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I am talking
12 about detached. If it' s attached, then
• 13 it' s a different story. Importantly, it
14 has to be deemed not a demolition . You
15 have to strong enough to maintain that
16 this will not be a demolition .
17 MS . MACHINIST : What ' s going on with
18 the main building right now, it' s not a
19 demolition . It' s molding and rot that I am
20 preparing. In order to be -- to eliminate
21 the nonconforming, to attach the building
22 would eliminate the use issue .
23 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: That' s right .
24 MS . MACHINIST : What it would create is
• 25 unfortunately that it would then violate as
November 6, 2014 Regular Meeting 100
1 a dwelling, the yard. The minute you
• 2 attach --
3 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: What is that , a
4 side yard setback? I can' t speak to the
5 whole Board, but the building exist in
6 its present location without any
7 detriment to any neighbors .
8 MEMBER DANTES : I would agree with
9 you, Ken .
10 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: If they could
11 attach it, it would be a slam dunk for a
12 side yard variance if that was
• 13 necessary, in my opinion .
14 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : If you were
15 to attach it, it would be attached with
16 conditioned space . We would have to .
17 MS . MOORE : I think to be safe, as
18 you are making renovations, you don' t
19 want to end up with -- brought back here
20 for a preexisting structure .
21 MS . MACHINIST : ( In Audible) compactor
22 has been on a continuous basis . The
23 Building Inspector has been by at least
24 four or five times so far . In the name of
25 preservation, we are doing everything
November 6, 2014 Regular Meeting 101
1 upside down and inside out . It' s more
2 overwhelming then what I thought .
3 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : There is
4 rot --
5 MS . MOORE : If you want , you can
6 keep the hearing open and I can look
7 into the request of putting the
8 structures together . That way, you got
9 all the paperwork already. You don' t
10 have to reinvent the wheel .
11 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We would have
12 to get another Notice of Disapproval and
• 13 advertise because it ' s a different
14 application . The question is, if you
15 are going to attach them, it can get
16 tricky. You might not have to . That is
17 something to think about . Here we are
18 trying to explore different options . I
19 think what we want to do here is for
20 you to go back to the Building
21 Department and say, if we attach, what' s
22 involved? One could be a possible Pre-CO
23 for this building, then those existing
24 setbacks run with the property.
• 25 MS . MOORE : I have thought that
November 6, 2014 Regular Meeting 102
1 before, but in the past, ( In Audible) an
• 2 accessory structure to an attached to a
3 habitable space and making it a
4 principal structure, that they will then
5 impose all -- so I have to come back.
6 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You have to
7 come back --
8 MS . MOORE : Yes .
9 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The other
10 option is to do what we talked with the
11 other is, to leave it as unattached and
12 to condition the preservation of the
. 13 preexisting condition, but up to code .
14 MS . MACHINIST : And that is actually
15 fine with me also . My concern, and it' s a
16 real one . I have spoken to a lot of people
17 in the Building Department, that if I
18 attach things, all these -- all the
19 setbacks and zoning regulations will
20 disappear .
21 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It would be as
22 per the principal structure .
23 MS . MACHINIST : I don' t want to wait
24 another year and start this . I would like
• 25 to start this right away.
November 6, 2014 Regular Meeting 103
1 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You are going
• 2 to be putting in a new septic system.
3 MS . MACHINIST : I am. I am in the
4 process of applying for a new septic
5 system.
6 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I think if it
7 is a demo, and even though you have the
8 preexisting CO, then it' s --
9 MS . MACHINIST : And that is why we are
10 doing everything possible . It' s
11 unbelievable .
12 MS . MOORE : So we adjourn today?
• 13 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I think so . I
14 think we have flushed out all the
15 issues . Looking at a variety of
16 strategies . If you can give us utility
17 bills . Anything that you can do to show
18 continuous years and the previous years,
19 either by family members or whatever . We
20 need to know it has been occupied. Other
21 than the affidavits and the photos, we
22 don' t have anything else to show
23 continuous --
24 MS . MOORE : Let me just make a list .
• 25 So one, we are going to get you the
November 6, 2014 Regular Meeting 104
1 utility bills . Two, is the alternative .
• 2 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : There might be
3 electricity --
4 MS . MOORE : Previously they had
5 heart .
6 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It' s unheated?
7 MS . MOORE : Now. It had electric
8 heat .
9 MS . MACHINIST : It was a violation .
10 MS . MOORE : Gary made them remove
11 the heat .
12 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well, you can
• 13 show us what you have, during the summer
14 when people were in it .
15 MS . MOORE : So that is one . The
16 second avenue is the connection, okay.
17 That is a simple drawing. What I give to
18 the Building Department and the Building
19 Department tells me if I do this , what
20 are my variances . Right? Okay .
21 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : In other
22 words , if you applied for a building
23 permit to do that, what will the Notice
24 of Disapproval --
25 MS . MOORE : We would be back here .
November 6, 2014 Regular Meeting 105
1 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And the other
• 2 is to just rethink and renovation as an
3 accessory structure as we talked about .
4 Right now, it' s 850 square feet .
5 MEMBER SCHNEIDER : It' s 650 .
6 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It' s 650 . So
7 why did you say it was 850 . You said
8 earlier --
9 MS . MOORE : No, I said it did not
10 qualify -- oh . I think I said in my head
11 it was 850 . It was my mistake .
12 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So under no
• 13 circumstances can it be defined as a
14 dwelling . That makes more sense to me .
15 MS . MOORE : Thank you . That was my
16 mistake . We now have clarified that it
17 doesn' t qualify as a dwelling under any
18 circumstances .
19 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next thing
20 kicking in my head was attaching that,
21 it would then possibly become an
22 accessory apartment to a principal
23 dwelling, the answer is no . That and the
24 fact that you are not living there all
• 25 year round.
November 6, 2014 Regular Meeting 106
1 MS . MOORE : I think down the road
• 2 maybe .
3 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No .
4 MS . MOORE : Never mind . We start
5 getting into theoretical ' s .
6 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The code
7 allows for certain things .
8 MS . MOORE : Okay. Oh boy. We have
9 spent an awful a lot of time on this . So
10 it' s good that we have flushed this out .
11 MS . MACHINIST : Thank you very much .
12 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You ' re very
• 13 welcome . Is there anyone else in the
14 audience that wishes to address this
15 application?
16 (No Response . )
17 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay.
18 Anything else from the Board?
19 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No .
20 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay. Hearing
21 no further questions or comments, I am
22 going to make a motion to adjourn the
23 application to the next Regular Meeting
24 in December, December 4th at 1 : 15 . So
. 25 moved . Is there a second?
November 6, 2014 Regular Meeting 107
1 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second.
• 2 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor?
3 MEMBER DANTES : Aye .
4 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye .
5 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye .
6 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye .
7 (See Minutes for Resolution . )
g ********************** *****************
9 HEARING #6804 - SEAN McCOYD
10 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next
11 application before the Board is for Sean
12 McCoyd, #6804 . Request for Variance from
• 13 Article XXII Section 280-116B and the
14 Building Inspector' s September 30 , 2014
15 Notice of Disapproval based on an
16 application for building permit to
17 construct a deck addition to an existing
18 single family dwelling, at ; 1 ) less than
19 the code required bulkhead setback of
20 75 feet, located at : 3360 Minnehaha
21 Boulevard (adjacent . To Corey Creek) in
22 Southold .
23 So this is a deck addition with a
24 29 bulkhead setback. The code requires a
• 25 75 foot setback. With respect to the
November 6, 2014 Regular Meeting 108
1 site plan, you are going to put an
• 2 addition of a patio on grade . That has
3 the same bulkhead setback . The house is
4 35 feet from the bulkhead. The LWRP
5 indicates that it is consistent . The
6 deck is going to be over an at-grade
7 patio . It' s an inconsistent bulkhead
8 setback. The house is inconsistent .
9 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: My question is,
10 why do you need the stairs to come out
11 like that? You are now 29 feet from the
12 bulkhead. If you put the stairs from the
• 13 stairs where this is and create a small
14 -- you are allowed three square feet
15 platform when you come down off the
16 side . Then you have a 29 foot setback . I
17 have to be honest with you . I think it' s
18 the cutest little place I have ever
19 seen . However, I was there at flood line
20 time and it was just about to go over
21 the concrete wall . You want to stay as
22 far away as possible from that water as
23 you possibly can . I don' t know what it
24 would have looked like during Storm
• 25 Sandy.
November 6, 2014 Regular Meeting 109
1 MR. MCCOYD: That was it . I was lucky
• 2 enough to get ( In Audible . )
3 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: That is what I
4 would do . Excuse me, Eric, for chiming
5 in .
6 MR. MCCOYD: You were asking why I put
7 the stairs right off the back?
8 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Yes .
9 MR. MCCOYD: I guess the idea was --
10 it' s a small house . About 1 , 000 square
11 feet . It has a really nice window . The
12 reason why we wanted to put the stairs
• 13 there was the view. So you didn' t have to
14 see the railings . And I have my mother, she
15 is still alive, thank God, she has a broken
16 hip . She spends a lot of time with us out
17 there, and she can' t get down stairs
18 anymore . So we were hoping with the deck is
19 to be able to bring her out and so she
20 could see the grand kids running around and
21 this and that . It would just be easier
22 access to the dock and the creek like that .
23 So that was just my logic .
24 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: How old are the
• 25 kids?
November 6, 2014 Regular Meeting 110
1 MR. MCCOYD: Well, we have nieces
• 2 and nephews ranging from 1 to my oldest
3 guy who is 21 . So we have dozen kids in
4 that house at one time .
5 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : How high off
6 the ground is this?
7 MR. MCCOYD: You know, that is a
8 good question . Right now, I think I got
9 3 or 4 risers going up . We were thinking
10 it was right around 30 inches .
11 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : 36 inches , you
12 need a rail .
13 MR. MCCOYD: Either or, we were
14 going to put a rail .
15 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You would
16 want it anyway with the kids . Okay. This
17 isn ' t a pervious deck, it ' s wood?
18 MR. MCCOYD: Yep .
19 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay. Do you
20 know whether or not there are other
21 variances nearby? When I went out there,
22 it looks as though there are other decks
23 in that area? The adjacent houses are
24 closer to the bulkhead then yours, even
• 25 the proposed deck?
November 6, 2014 Regular Meeting 111
1 MR. MCCOYD : Yes . Especially on
• 2 either side . I think the whole block as
3 that as well .
4 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It looks as
5 though they are nonconforming those
6 decks . It' s certainly characteristic . Is
7 there anything else that you would like
8 to ask?
9 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: I had just asked
10 if you could move the stairs to the
11 other side of the house, and then you
12 would have 29 feet to the bulkhead .
• 13 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It' s still
14 going to be a 29 bulkhead setback, even
15 if you put them on that side .
16 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Okay.
17 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anything else
18 from the Board?
19 (No Response . )
20 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anyone in the
21 audience who would like to address this
22 application?
23 (No Response . )
24 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay. Hearing
• 25 no further questions or comments, I am
November 6, 2014 Regular Meeting 112
1 going to make a motion to close the
• 2 hearing and reserve decision to a later
3 date .
4 MEMBER DANTES : Second .
5 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor?
6 MEMBER DANTES : Aye .
7 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye .
8 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye .
9 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye .
10 ( See Minutes for Resolution . )
12 HEARING #6807 - JANICE M. FLISS
• 13 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The final
14 application before the Board is for Janice
15 M. Fliss, #6807 . Applicant requests a
16 Special Exception under Article III ,
17 Section 280-13B ( 13 ) . The Applicant is the
18 owner requesting authorization to establish
19 an Accessory Apartment in an accessory
20 structure, located at : 565 Old Main Road in
21 Mattituck.
22 So we have an application for the
23 use of a woodworking shop and an
24 accessory apartment .
• 25 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Yes .
November 6, 2014 Regular Meeting 113
1 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : This was
• 2 confirmed by the Building Department . We
3 have floor plans . The apartment is
4 already in place and undergoing some
5 renovations ; correct?
6 MS . FLISS : Yes .
7 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Please, state
8 your name for the record?
9 MS . FLISS : My name is Janice M.
10 Fliss .
11 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And you
12 submitted a property tax card and
• 13 driver' s license as proof that you --
14 MS . FLISS : Yes .
15 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Occupy the
16 principal dwelling?
17 MS . FLISS : Yes .
18 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And we have a
19 letter from the Special Projects
20 Coordinator indicating that the tenant
21 qualifies for the Affordable Housing
22 Registry.
23 MS . FLISS : Yes
24 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We have a
• 25 confirmation from the Building
November 6, 2014 Regular Meeting 114
1 Department saying that there is ( In
• 2 Audible) livable floor area is accurate .
3 MS . FLISS : So this kind of
4 happened . So I am now trying to get the
5 paperwork in order . My tenant kind of
6 got me pushed into this , faster than I
7 intended to go .
8 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : As you know,
9 we were all there and did a site
10 inspection . Ken, do you have any
11 questions?
12 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: The paperwork is
• 13 all in order .
14 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Gerry?
15 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: No . I know this
16 young lady very well .
17 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay. Eric?
18 MEMBER DANTES : I do not .
19 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay. Is there
20 anyone else in the audience who wishes
21 to address this application?
22 (No Response . )
23 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay. So
24 hearing no further questions or
• 25 comments, I am going to make a motion to
November 6, 2014 Regular Meeting 115
1 close this hearing and reserve decision
• 2 to a later date .
3 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Second.
4 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor?
5 MEMBER DANTES : Aye .
6 MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Aye .
7 MEMBER SCHNEIDER: Aye .
8 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye .
9 (See Minutes for Resolution . )
10 **** ***************************** *****
11
12
• 13 (Whereupon, the November 6, 2014
14 Public Hearings concluded at 3 : 02 P . M . )
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
• 25
November 6, 2014 Regular Meeting 116
1
2 C E R T I F I C A T I O N
3
4
5
6 I , Jessica DiLallo, certify that
7 the foregoing transcript of tape
8 recorded Public Hearings was prepared
9 using required electronic transcription
10 equipment and is a true and accurate
11 record of the Hearings .
12
13
14
15 Signature .
16 Jessi D ' llo
17
18
19 Jessica DiLallo
Court Reporter
20 PO Box 984
Holbrook, New York 11741
21
22 Date : November 18 , 2014
23
24
• 25