HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-01/08/2015 Hearing January 8, 2015 Regular Meeting
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
COUNTY OF SUFFOLK: STATE OF NEW YORK
------------------------------------=--------------------------------------------------
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Southold Town Hall
Southold, New York
January 8, 2015
10:00 A.M.
Board Members Present:
LESLIE KANES WEISMAN - Chairperson/Member
ERIC DANTES—Member (arrived at 8:40 A.M. left at 12:10 P.M.)
GERARD GOEHRINGER—Member
GEORGE HORNING—Member (left at 2:11 P.M.)
KENNETH SCHNEIDER—Member
VICKI TOTH— Board Assistant
STEPHEN KIELY—Assistant Town Attorney (arrived at 9:07 A.M.)
January 8, 2015 Regular Meeting
INDEX OF HEARINGS
Hearing Page
ALLEN SANKOVICH # 6811 3 -8
BERRY & BERRY, LLC#6818 8- 21
SOUNDSIDE LANDSCAPE, INC. #6822 22- 28
ESTATE OF WILLIAM H. and MARY WOOD,JR. #6824 28 -38
ALANE KELLY#6819 38 -42
MARY MANFREDI #6820 42 -44
STELIOS and PENELOPE NIKOLAKAKOS #6825 44-48
115 COMMERCE DRIVE, LLC/2232 ROSES BROOK FARM, LLC#6823 49 - 56
55 COX NECK ROAD REALTY, LLC#6816 56 - 63
January 8, 2015 Regular Meeting
HEARING#6811—ALLEN SANKOVICH
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The first application before the Board is for Allen Sankovich # 6811
adjourned from December 4, 2014 by written request of owner. Request of Variances from
Article III Section 280-15 and the Building Inspector's July 21, 2014 Notice of Disapproval based
on an application for an "as built" location of an accessory in-ground swimming pool at 1) less
than the code required side yard setback of 5 feet, 2) less than the code required rear yard
setback of 5 feet, located at 1240 Longview Lane, Southold, NY. SCTM # 1000-88-4-45. Is there
someone here to represent this application? Could you please come to the mic and state and
spell your name.
MR. SANKOVICH : Good morning everybody. My name is Allen Sankovich. Happy New Year.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Happy New Year to you too sir. It would appear that we have a 0.1
foot setback and a 0.7 foot setback from the rear and side property line where the code
requires 5.
MR. SANKOVICH : Yes
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : There is a retaining wall that is determined to be a structure that is
what I guess at odds here with the code built to prevent runoff.
MR. SANKOVICH : Correct.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The neighbor's property according to your application you have a
building permit for the pool. The pool has conforming setbacks but the retaining wall is not.
How come you didn't build it to grade?
MR. SANKOVICH : This is the first time I've ever built anything and I had called the Town cause I
wasn't sure as what the right way to do things were. About a week or two before this whole
process started as far as the pool and the retaining wall and the builders had suggested and I
thought it was a good idea to build a retaining walls to prevent runoff. So I called the town and I
said I'd like to put retaining walls to prevent runoff and I had a question about how high the
fences should be and I have three small children so I wanted to put a fence around the pool and
an additional fence around the property for obvious reasons, safety reasons and when I called
they said everything that I stated was a good idea and that everything would be conforming.
The retaining walls are good to do to prevent the run off and neither the builder nor anyone
had told me about this setback for the retaining wall. I would have been more than happy to do
it the proper way when I had called but I just didn't know until it was too.late.
January 8, 2015 Regular Meeting
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Did they give you comments without benefit of your coming in with
a survey to show the proposed location. Did you just talk to them or did you bring in you got a
permit so you had to bring them a survey or something.
MR. SANKOVICH : Yes I did everything and no comments were made to me by anyone. Like I
said other than the phone call that I made to the town really that phone call initially was a
question about the fences. I didn't want to make the fences too high or too low obviously right
cause once the fences are up they're up and I wanted to because I was doing the two fences,
one around the pool and one around the property I really wanted to make sure that I did it the
right way. Again I have three small children and safety reasons and then I mentioned the
retaining walls as well and they just mentioned that's a good idea to do and I'm here now.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The grade appears to be much flatter you know on the other side of
your property.
MR. SANKOVICH : Yea if you see my property is very odd. I've put in some pictures. My property
grade is higher than the other two houses but on one side it's particularly higher you know so
that's just the way the grade was in the beginning when I bought the house. I remember when I
bought the house it happened just around hurricane Sandy and everybody had mentioned how
my grade was a little bit higher that's a good thing and so on and so forth but as far as the
grade goes I didn't change the grade.The grade was as is
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I'm just wondering I guess why you decided to put it in that corner
where it slopes down and requires retaining walls as opposed to making it less expensive
moving it over and building it cause part of that patio is really right at grade.
MR. SANKOVICH : Right. The primary reason is because I have three small children so my dining
room doors comes right out to the back yard and I was a bit afraid of making the pool right
there so God forbid one of the kids you know to run out that was the primary reason. Other
than that it's the first time I've ever done anything like this and I guess you learn from previous
experiences
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay, I don't have any further question. Ken?
MEMBER SCHNEIDER : With respect to you're the retaining wall the property to the north of
you or your rear yard how high is the retaining wall the top of the retaining wall from the
existing grade?
MR. SANKOVICH : Approximately 2 feet.Just maybe a little bit less.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER : So you say 2 feet plus or minus?
January 8, 2015 Regular Meeting
MR. SANKOVICH : Plus or minus yes.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER : And on the west side to retaining wall how high would that be?
MR. SANKOVICH : Again the same sir.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER : About the same. Do you have any type of drainage installed to collect
the water that lands on the concrete patio?
MR. SANKOVICH : Concrete patio no. I have obviously a lot of you know sewer septic sewer
systems around the house that I had to get by code and I got permits for. I spoke to my
neighbors both to the west and behind me there to ask them if there was any runoff.They have
just shrubs behind it.They said they didn't see any runoff because I guess the grade is okay and
it's not to the point where the grade is creating a runoff. I had spoken to my neighbors. I called
them. I asked them they said we'll let you know if we see a problem with that and they said
there is no problem now. I offered to put like a gutter on the end of the patio there to runoff.
They said they would let me know if that is necessary. I stuccoed the retaining wall it's very
difficult to see the retaining wall but I still felt like it was not a pleasant site to see so I offered
to stucco the retaining wall for my neighbor.They were very appreciative.They agreed and I did
that for them and at the same time I asked them about that they said if it becomes an issue and
we see a lot of runoff we will let you know and you can put some sort of you know creative
gutter there but they didn't let me know that there was a problem so but I'd be happy to do
something like that if it was necessary.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER : So the water that lands on your pool patio concrete deck there isn't a
problem for runoff for you neighbors. The water is collected I guess back onto your property or
in such a way where it goes onto your lawn or something?
MR. SANKOVICH : Correct, yes.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER : And your neighbor to the north the pictures show and from visual
inspection we see trees and shrubs. When you built that retaining wall did that affect those
plants at all?
MR. SANKOVICH : No, no not really. We had spoken I was there that day you know there were
some branches that were coming over you know and I asked what can we do with that and she
said you know anything that's on your property you can cut it back you know but we didn't
have to do much plus they're very nice trees anyway so no it was not an issue at that time nor is
it now. Really what I just want to say is I really tried to do the right thing you know when I did
this whole process by calling you know that's all I really want to do. That was my only intention
throughout the whole process to try to do the right thing.
January 8, 2015 Regular Meeting
MEMBER SCHNEIDER : And why was the retaining wall necessary?
MR. SANKOVICH : For the runoff because of the grade. It was explained to me that it was a
good idea and it's the right thing to do and I said okay then let's do it.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Okay I have no further questions.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : George anything?
MEMBER HORNING :Your building permit was issued last May in 2014?
MR. SANKOVICH :Yes sir. I believe so.
MEMBER HORNING :And then when did you commence construction of the pool?
MR. SANKOVICH : Oh let's think now hold on so gosh it wasn't till a long time after Let's see I
just finished well are you talking about the total building permit or just the one for the pool sir?
MEMBER HORNING The building permit for the pool.
MR. SANKOVICH : For the pool okay. The commencement started soon after that because I
remember Memorial Day weekend the pool was finished Memorial Day weekend. So, the
building started six to seven weeks prior to that 8 weeks maybe.
MEMBER HORNING : And then the retaining wall was built right after that?
MR. SANKOVICH : During that process right of putting together and there was all dirt there and
then before the patio went down it was like I said it was suggested to me to do the retaining
wall for runoff purposes which I thought would be a good'idea as well then to prevent runoff.
MEMBER HORNING : Does the pool itself have the conforming setbacks let's say that are shown
on the survey that you submitted.The pool is exactly at that location.
MR. SANKOVICH : Exactly yes sir.
MEMBER HORNING :And you don't really show the retaining wall too much on this. Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Gerry anything?
MEMBER GOEHRINGER : It may have been brought up but 1 do apologize I was doing work. You
have a dewatering cesspool to put any pool water in.
MR. SANKOVICH : Yes sir.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Okay and that's in
6
January 8, 2015 Regular Meeting
MR. SANKOVICH : It's in the middle of the lawn of the back yard there a very large one.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER : And the pool equipment is existing is that in a shed?
MR. SANKOVICH : It's in an enclosed area. It's in I put a fence around it with a gate and it's not
covered on top.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER :That's what I'm asking about.
MR. SANKOVICH : No it's not covered on top it's covered around. I have a fence that matches
the fence around the property.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Have your neighbors had any complaint in reference to the noise from
the pool equipment?
MR. SANKOVICH : No sir.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER : So it must be far enough away from their house
MR. SANKOVICH : It is and I put the type of system that's a little bit more efficient, saves energy
and it's quieter than the other ones.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER : What are we going to do about that Leslie?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Leave it.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Leave it.Thank you.
MR. SANKOVICH :Thank you.
MEMBER DANTES : No I think that about covers it.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anyone in the audience who wishes to address this application?
Okay hearing no further comments or questions I'm going to make a motion to close this and
reserve decision to later date. Is there a second?
MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Second
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor?
MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Aye
MEMBER HORNING : Aye
MEMBER DANTES : Aye
7
January 8, 2015 Regular Meeting
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye
(See Minutes for Resolution.)
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : What we will do is deliberate on this decision and 99% certainty it
will be ready two weeks from tonight we will be meeting in the other building. There's no
testimony we're done. You can call the next day you can sit in and listen if you want but there is
no need for to. You can call Friday let's say and Vicki will tell you what the decision was but we
will mail it to you anyway.
MR. SANKOVICH : Okay so all I have to do
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Once that decision is done you know assuming that you can go and
get your C.O.
MR. SANKOVICH : Okay thank you very much. I'm free to go?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes you are it's not jail. They did that earlier today. Thank you.
You're free to go. Go in good health.
HEARING#6818—BERRY& BERRY, LLC
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Berry & Berry, LLC. This
is a request for Variances from Article XI Section 280-49 and the Building Inspector's March 8,
2012 Updated October 24, 2014 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for change of
use; convert dwelling to Business (office) and construct a four bay garage with office above, at
1) less than the minimum lot size required for two principal uses, located at 41535 Main Road
(aka State Route 25) Peconic, NY. SCTM # 1000-75-5-13. Morning Pat.
MS. MOORE : Happy new year. Well I'll get started if you have any questions certainly interrupt
measIgo
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Pat would you put the mic down a little bit so we can get better
recording.
MS. MOORE : I have the both Berry brothers here who are the Berry & Berry applicants. I also
have Brett Kehl who is the design professional so we can refer if there are any questions I can
ask them to provide some additional information if there are any questions you have. I want to
begin with just some basic facts of the property. I know just for the record this is a business
property B Zone property. It is surrounded by the municipal property of the police station and
the highway department. The original plan was the renovation and preservation of the front
January 8, 2015 Regular Meeting
structure which was had been a house for the grandfather grandfather's house so the plan was
to renovate and preserve it since it had some family connection to maintaining that house
because an alternative had been considered which was demolish the house and build one
larger building. Chem Dry had been in the building in the front. It was rented while it was being
renovated so right now as the renovation it occurred as a residence but the intention is to
return it to its commercial use of an office. When I submitted the application to the Building
Department it was quite surprising that the Building Department took the position that there
were two principal uses when in fact it is as we've described throughout and in all the
paperwork it is one use of a business use permitted use. It happens to be contractor business in
this case it's Berry plumbing and any other type of similar type of businesses that need extra
space for storage and a small office. No retail is proposed at the site. The I submitted the area
variances for the size of the lot based on the notice of disapproval but in fact the building needs
no variances no setbacks variances. All setbacks all requirements under the code are being met.
So our position is that one we shouldn't be here for a variance and it requires some analysis of
the code. In B zone there is no specific language of a use per acre as in M2 for example you
have specific language that says one principal use per 80,000 square feet. Throughout the code
LB and B actually has language that specifically encourages multiple use buildings. They want to
see the code when it was adopted intended to have buildings that were not one monolithic
building in addition it was an intention in B zone because B zone allows much more general
retail uses to dissuade owners from building any kind of strip mall or strip type development. So
in 280-50 and 280-43 which are both B and LB there is specific language of the design elements
that are encouraged with respect to this zoned property. You can't come to the conclusion the
building department came to and comply with that section of the code. The only reason the
building department is essentially saying we've got two principal uses is because we have two
principal buildings,two buildings not the uses. We have one business contractor's business use.
So it left us a little perplexed. Go ahead George.
MEMBER HORNING : Pat isn't this because the one existing building is used as a residence now?
MS. MOORE : No. We've actually in our site plan show it as to be an office to be an contractor's
office. Essentially the whole property is being placed under one umbrella of the Berry plumbing
and you have Chem Dry that might need space. You may have an electrician that may need
space. In fact the Berry's are consolidating all of their operations and right now they have a lot
of equipment and materials and their garages and family garages we've got three generations
of businesses that are you know that are spread out in everybody's home or other buildings
and they want to consolidate everything so that all the material 1) gets out of I guess your
father has complained that he wants his garage back and therefore get all of your stuff out so
this building is the consolidation and the accumulation of all the Berry plumbing materials.
January 8, 2015 Regular Meeting
MEMBER HORNING : I mean you read the notice of disapproval and you come kind of conclude
that there is an existing single family dwelling it's used as a house and the intent to convert that
to a business use and then there is an additional business use of a new structure. That's how I
read the notice of disapproval.
MS. MOORE : I guess when I read it based on the site plan you give to the building department
there supposed to I can understand if we were continuing to use the dwelling in the front as a
dwelling in a separate contractors business in the back. That is not what we are proposing-so
it's almost as if they're ignoring our application and they it doesn't make sense.
MEMBER HORNING : What is the building used for right now?
MS. MOORE : Well right now I think you have somebody in there? Yea there's somebody there
living there temporarily till the back building can be built because they have to move their
business to a larger space. They can't move their plumbing operation into the little house in it
of itself. There needs to be a lot more room. So rather than moving everything in pieces
ultimately you're giving somebody a chance to live someplace while the construction the
operation is getting started.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Where's Chem Dry?
MS. MOORE : Chem Dry I think is I don't know where Chem Dry is. Oh his working from home.
I'm sorry he's in the garage of this property.
MEMBER HORNING :That's the garage you're going to tear down?
MS. MOORS Yes.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's proposed to be removed.
MS. MOORE : Yes
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Because we've all done site inspections just so you know we've all
looked at the property. I think what the my reading of it is that it's because it's a contractors
type of business but there's multiple tenants. There's more than proposed to be more than one
owner operator more than one business going on and the Planning Boards comments if you
look and I know you have a copy
MS. MOORE : I saw I responded to them
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : With regard to the parking for example they're very concerned
about the parking and the traffic impacts cause you're very close to Peconic Lane you know
coming exiting and entering that property and they're looking at the intensity of use on the
January 8, 2015 Regular Meeting
property more than anything else I think. This parking schedule according to site plan criteria
calculates spaces needed as 38 to operate two businesses.
MS. MOORE : But that has actually been corrected.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Hold on wait let me just enter this into the record and then you can
comment. A total of 19 are provided with a notation the applicant will provide an affidavit that
no more than 11 parking spaces will be required for the operation of the business on the
premises. Eight spaces are proposed to be located within the new building.There is no ability to
accommodate additional parking on the street or in a municipal lot and within adequate
parking the proposed intensification of the parcel could result in safety issues. Parking in the
State Route 25 right of way would interrupt the line of sight for emergency vehicles exiting the
Police Department. And then one other comment from them is the Board has concerns
regarding increased in traffic entering and exiting the lot and impacts to the residential
properties across State Route 25 so they believe the parcel is too small in size for the proposed
uses. Now whether you argue that it's one use with two or three tenants over time the if the
variance were granted a more intense use could actually be developed on the parcel on the
second floor of the new building we don't know what the future would hold and the Planning
Board is suggesting that that could be problematic. Can you address those issues?
MS. MOORE : Oh of course. I actually submitted the letter back December 23rd addressing those
issues.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes I've read it but I want to enter it into the record.
MS. MOORE : Not a problem. Okay to begin with we're continuing the use of the front dwelling
let's call it the dwelling in the front that was renovated that's going to continue to be as it's
always has been for the Berry plumbing or Chem Dry or some other contractor. My letter I
don't want to read the letter to you but in a sense it's the intensity of the uses is actually as a B
Zone property what we're proposing is the probably the most innocuous and less intense use
available in the B zone. We're not proposing retail which certainly would have some traffic
issues. The contractors use actually occurs in residential property throughout the Town. If it's
permitted in a residence because it's you know at their house they could operate their business
since it's relatively low impact on any kind of traffic or parking because you're not dealing with
any of the public coming to either your house or to this business. What we're talking about is a
contractor like the plumbing the Berry & Berry Plumbing leaving in the morning with all of their
tools and their equipment and going to the different job sites and then coming back at most
once or twice a day to retrieve additional product or equipment or whatever. It's a very limited
amount of activity that's occurring. Their complaint is essentially it's I'm guessing or I'm reading
between the lines the size of the building the volume of the building but the use of this building
January 8, 2015 Regular Meeting
is primarily going to be Berry & Berry. They need that space. The reason its split up is practically
we want to show there's enough space there for a different contractor but the reality is that
you've got one use. You could have one business that actually has multiple entities that are
owned as different entities and the interpretation the building department has given makes no
sense. It undermines in a sense our business zoning. We're talking about not what it could be
because the Planning Board some of this disingenuous comment because if you were to change
the use of the second floor you'd have to come in for site plan or you might have to come in to
the Zoning Board. It would depend on what that use is. We're being completely open and
upfront in saying no we are in a sense our office is accessory to the business. Our storage of
equipment is accessory to the business. Our parking we're actually allowing a space in the bay
of the garage for our work truck so we don't need to put our truck anywhere outside or at
home where we would be allowed to keep it. So it was the response that we got from the
Planning Board seems to go 1) contrary to the Town Board's professed support of small
businesses in this Town in particular an existing business that needs to grow or has grown
sufficiently to operate from their own site or from somewhere other than their home.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well let me ask you another question. The'Notice of Disapproval
indicates that site plan approval is required by the Planning Board.
MS. MOORE : Correct.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : When this concurrent jurisdiction both Boards are working very
diligently to try and coordinate things for the benefit of the property owner
MS. MOORE : Yes I understand.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So that we're all on the same page and we're not you know talking
one way and then another way and back and forth and making everybody jump through hoops.
It would be totally unnecessary if we had good communication. Sometimes what we would do
is adjourn an hearing for the Zoning. Board so that the applicant that has to has there been an
application to the Planning Board?
MS. MOORE : Oh sure.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay so it's already in there. So that perhaps further comments
further investigations with the Planning Board can take place that then can we can then put this
back on and you know after that's happened
MS. MOORE : Yea but my concern is that the interpretation of the multiple uses are multiple
principal uses it's just outright wrong based on the code analysis and reading the code so I
would agree that our discussion on is this building too much, is there enough parking and so on
January S, 2015 Regular Meeting
and we did clarify that the parking that was originally submitted Brett was using a general
parking criteria rather than in the code there's actually specific criteria so we ultimately
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes there is a bulk schedule.
MS. MOORE : So we ultimately it turned out that we meet the parking without any need for any
deviation or argument that we really don't need the amount of parking that the code that our
original site plan I believe the code that it was believed was needed. So, that's part of the
problem here.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well here's the dilemma it almost sounds as though you should be
applying for overturning of the Notice of Disapproval.'You know what I'm saying rather than
this is written as variance relief from an insufficient lot size for two uses. So, it's a little
confusing.
MS. MOORE : My application was for a request to overturn. I'm sorry.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : What council was saying was the other option is to ask for an
interpretation as to whether or not this constitutes two uses because we're a little restricted as
you know we can only operate on the basis of what a code enforcement official like the Building
Department gives us so
MS. MOORE : It's true but isn't it as a basic preliminary analysis of the Zoning Board, do you
need a variance. Is this a proper interpretation of the Building Departments of the Code that
the Building Department gave because you don't in a sense that's how I wrote the application I
was addressing well if we need a variance this is why we should be entitled to it the
surrounding neighborhood and the fact that it's just two buildings with the same overlying
umbrella of use.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well because but what you've done in your written submissions and
in your testimony just now is refuted the Notice of Disapproval you've basically said it's not two
uses. It's one use so I don't need the area variance that's more or less a summation I think so
I'm trying to figure out technically how the Board,should proceed with what's in front of us.
MS. MOORE : I think that what the problem is that however the Building Department has
interpreted this we're not really sure why or how they came to it because George comes up
with an analysis well because you have a house in the front? Okay that's actually a logical
conclusion
MEMBER HORNING :That's what it says, change of use convert dwelling to business.
January 8, 2015 Regular Meeting
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN.: Yea but the point is what they're doing is then creating a business
use in a B zone where there was previously a residence.That residential use will go away.
MEMBER HORNING : Well that's what I'm trying to understand is what are the two uses.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It will not be used as a dwelling. So there's a business use in the
front and a garage which is you are suggesting is accessory to the business use or different
business use?
MS. MOORE : Well it's all
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Another tenant another
MS. MOORE : The potential is the he could have a tenant in that separate building. If Berry
doesn't need the entire I'm sorry I'm just confirming with them. Berry & Berry is large enough
and they actually just so you know as far as plumbers go out here we all think that we're calling
Hardy Plumbing, Northfork plumbing whatever most of the plumbing operations out here have
been bought by one large corporate plumbing company. They all the small guys are going out
they're selling their businesses good for them, they're getting older and this is an option and
Berry & Berry is really one of the few remaining I think correct that are home town still owner
operated owner run businesses and the only way they can compete is to have the product in
their you know in their bins. The ability to serve their customers quickly and with the proper
materials and equipment so that's the business model that they have to fight and in order to do
that this is the practical the only way they can do it which is provide the sufficient space.
MEMBER DANTES : Wait do they plan on using the office space for Berry & Berry or do they
plan on renting the office space to another company?
MS. MOORE : Well come on up because you would know better because the drawing shows
one thing but I think practically you're doing something else.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Please state your name cause we're recording.
WALTER BERRY : Walter Berry.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay Mr. Berry what would you like us to know about how you are
going to use the property?
WALTER BERRY : We basically my parent we work out of my parent's garage at the moment and
they're getting up in age and we have five brothers and sisters so we know we can't stay there
forever so that was our plan on buying this piece of property that we can build a halfway
decent barn in the back even just to run the business out of.
1 a
January 8, 2015 Regular Meeting
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I think if the original proposal had not suggested that there would be
a second tenant then the second business quote would not of been a consideration. I think
they're seeing that your business plus another contractor on the property operating on the site
and I think that's where that's coming from. If you're saying that your intent is to use that for
yourself you know the house in the front which will be converted to offices or an office and the
garage in the back which is going to be your trucks and equipment and whatever I think that's a
different story.
MS. MOORE : Aside from what they're personally trying to do again the interpretation just
makes no sense because let's say that Berry & Berry grows sufficiently to have ten employees
okay god willing that's what they do what's the difference between ten employees going out as
plumbers versus Chem Dry and Berry& Berry with five and Chem Dry with one?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Wait, wait here it's just been pointed out to me on the survey site
plan I guess SP-1 on the bottom (inaudible) here there's a proposed sign. Top says Peconic
Plumbing and Heating Contracting LLC and then sign A B C & D suggest four other possible
businesses. So you gotta understand the confusion here. The Planning Board and I think our
Board is concerned not so much with what you're proposing to do with the garage and the
dwelling converted but how many businesses how much traffic is going to wind up on this site. I
mean that's what we want to try to clarify. If you're saying you're going to operate one business
there I think then a lot of the issues go away. If you're saying you want the option of renting it
to other contracting businesses then the intensification on that site and the parking do become
problematic and I think that's what the Planning Board's real concerns are. Did you want to say
something? Please enter your name into the record.
BRETT KEHL : My name is Brett Kehl I'm the designer. Contractor yard is an allowed use under
business. The contractor yard what's the interpretation of a contractor yard? A contractor yard
means you have multiple contractors coming into a yard.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : On a property with enough size.
BRETT KEHL : Now according to this if we have enough parking to accommodate the contractors
what is why can't it be a contractor yard for even if say there is two people in there or three
people in there? If the Police Department felt that that was a problem with blocking visual
view, leaving the Police Department they would have no parking signs along the road. So they
don't see it a problem they closed off we also asked if we could have the rear access reopened
and they said they wouldn't do that because there used to be years ago they'd go in and out of
the back but overall if we have the parking the Town Code permits the parking as long as you
have enough parking and you meet all the other criteria within the code setbacks, lot coverage
January 8, 2015 Regular Meeting
everything septic that's the code so now if we can't follow the code how are we going to follow
anything?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well the concern is that there's an office in front, there's a proposed
office above the garage, there's the garage and there's just the possibility of a great deal of
activity on a very small lot with potential impacts on Rout 25 turning in and out with being very
close to a corner intersection and possibly blocking views from the Police Station for emergency
vehicles are all things that I think are something you would have to address with the Planning
Board.
MS. MOORE : I would agree. Those are all issues that we're going to address with the Planning
Board because maybe they say you know what because we want to limit some of the activity
let's let you have two different fine Berry & Berry and Chem Dry needs to be there cause he's
historically been there and that's presented no problem whatsoever in the past but our
problem is that the interpretation the Board's acceptance of this application undermines
actually every zoning district in particular for example my office RO I have an office with space
where I have different occupants of each space. Now when I got site plan I'm telling you
personally how I dealt with it when I got site plan it was parking based on square footage, office
space based on square footage.
MEMBER DANTES : But why are they proposing two buildings? Why not just do one larger
building with the garage and office in that?
MS. MOORE : Well, we have the issue of the existing house where it just circulation wise
connect the only way you can do that is to connect the building to the front building and it just
both in circulation, aesthetics, architecture it's going to look it's going to look awful because
you're you know I guess you can do a good job with it but it just that wasn't going to be a nice
design to in fact preserve the residential look of the front. The whole reason that this house
was renovated is keep that residential look which was one of the issues the Planning Board
raised that oh it's you've got some residences across the street exactly that's why we wanted to
preserve that little house. The business needs the space so yes could it of been I mean it could
have been demolished it was we talked about demolition as you know making this application
so much easier but they really wanted to keep that house and in the long run they did a
beautiful job with it and I think that it does preserve the look
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well Pat that being said I think that's part of the dilemma because
you've got two buildings, an office with parking requirements and now a garage with an office
with parking requirements and I think that's where all of this confusion about how to define
what's going on that site is coming from. You just described your own building, yea one
building. You have maybe multiple tenants but they are in one building. I think that's where Eric
January 8, 2015 Regular Meeting
was going with that. So, we're trying to sort out what you know there's nobody on this Board
that doesn't support business activity just want to make that clear. But we have to
MS. MOORE : Exactly why it's so perplexing that we get an interpretation like this but as far as I
mean the code is probably most clear in B and LB which is have separate buildings. We have a
whole section on in a sense the architectural like HB on you know with what is the goal of the
renovation and the redevelopment of this site it's been in the code a long time encouraging the
use of separate buildings cause we don't want it to look like a long you know a strip mall on it's
side. This actually the fact that the barn inr the back will never even been seen from the main
road because of the activity in the front so again
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well here let's summarize this because it's very well stated actually
in the Planning Board's comments which is it's the position the Planning Board that the two
proposed uses, office and storage that's what they are seeing as two uses contain within two
separate buildings on the property although meeting the purpose of the B zoning district okay is
too intense of a use of the for the parcel size and location the variance request is greater than
100%. So back to if it's two uses then you will need a variance for insufficient lot size and if it's
not two uses we need to interpret the code to state that it's not two uses. Is that a fair
summary what's before us?
BRETT KEHL : If it's a contractor yard doesn't every contractor require an office?
MS. MOORE : Yeah and storage. I mean that's where I think that we're it's like I'm not
suggesting an office separate and apart from the parking and storage it's completely related so
when you say you know principal accessory when you're talking about a contractor in a sense
the office is the accessory part of the contractors business cause he's operating from a phone.
His main investment is the space he needs for his equipment and materials so you know I don't
see this as two uses I see one, one overall contractor and actually in B zone it's contractor or a
business office doesn't matter what you call it essentially the same it's I call it the umbrella I put
the umbrella and all of them are operating under that umbrella.
BRETT KEHL : And it doesn't state that the office has to be within the garage. It just says that
you know as a contractor office so you know and the other thing too is the upstairs even
though it shows on the plan that it's divided into four offices that could be open as one office. I
mean the thing is we're looking at right now we have two owners. He's got a secretary in there.
They each want their own office and we have a separate office if we use it for the other one or
if we just need it for his sons who are coming into the business.
MEMBER HORNING : Can I ask a question? Looking at the sign and looking at the advertisement
for the plumbing contracting and then having four other business signs with it so you
January 8, 2015 Regular Meeting
conceivably would propose to have five businesses are you saying that that's all one business
use if you have five businesses on that site?
MS. MOORE : Well it would be no different than in my office I have. an attorney who does
immigration that's my brother. It's no different we're all in spaces and everybody wants a sign a
plate but the amount of space that that person needs may depend I mean Chem Dry needs very
little space in comparison to Berry & Berry. It doesn't mean that he doesn't want his own sign
because that's the only way he's going to attract business.
MEMBER HORNING : Yeah I'm just trying to get this conceptually. And you were saying and I
.understand what you were saying about separate buildings and this and that and the Town's
intent so if there could be five separate buildings on this particular piece of property or any
property all with conforming setbacks with five different businesses you're saying that's all one
use.That's not different uses?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The use is not being defined as by the tenants.The uses being by the
activity. In other words it's not that there are multiple tenants. If all those tenants are engaged
in contracting
MS. MOORE : Exactly.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That's your argument. Now, I'm going to suggest what I suggested
earlier okay when I was going I was asking you how do you now intend to use it you said for
your family, business
MS. MOORE : His business.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And in future perhaps you'll rent out to whoever other contractors.
This whole headache would go away and you could go right to Planning Board and proceed if
you state in the record that your intent now and what you are proposing is to operate Berry &
Berry Plumbing from this property using the front house and the back garage okay. If in future
you want to have other businesses there we could deal with that in the future. We could just
simply.say this is one business and one use and then you could go to the site plan approval
work out the parking, work out whatever details
BR'ETT KEHL : Excuse me not to be sound weird or mean or anything but at the speed of
changing codes in this Town codes will be changed next week to not allow this or they may be
changed to allow something else on the property and not you know another code. Right now
we are building this property as per the code and that
January 8, 2015 Regular Meeting
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN I don't anticipate I don't think that that holds water. I mean yes
codes change over time but they don't in this Town it's been my experience they take a long
time to change. I mean there's a lot of hoops you jump through before code changes. What I'm
suggesting is that we get it done now while the code is what it is and its permitted okay. So
you're supporting my argument basically which is to say this is for the family business that's
why we built it. That's how we're going to use it. Go to the Planning Board work out the rest of
the details. We can then determine there's only one business use on here. You do not need an
area variance. But that's only if you're going to suggest that in fact and state that this is owned
by Berry & Berry with the intent of putting all of your plumbing stuff in that storage building
which is what you've told me. You were very honest-about it and I asked you and you answered
it and if you're going to stand by that we can dispense with this and move on to another
hearing.
MS. MOORE : So it would be essentially saying that this do we go back to the Building
Department and say you don't need an area variance?That would be the
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN We will write a decision that way. We will write it as an
interpretation. We'll just
MS. MOORE : Well that's what my only concern is that we're kind of perpetuating a wrong
interpretation of the code.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : If you remove the office space above the garage let it be open
storage or something you know that will solve it. What I'm trying to say again and again and I
don't know how many more ways I can state this did you know it's two separate buildings, two
different offices you know that's what's getting them all into this understanding that you're
dealing with two business uses instead of one business use and therefore the notice was
written requiring an area variance for insufficient lot size which you know would be a huge
variance because it's a little lot I mean you know you need a lot of square footage for two uses
okay. So, are you clear on what I'm saying? Is the Board clear on what I'm talking about?
MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Except for the Chem Dry situation. Of course we know is a business
but that's going into one of those
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : At the moment it's not going into anything.
MS. MOORE : At the moment he's evicted.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :That's right.This is Berry& Berry's Plumbing.
January 8, 2015 Regular Meeting
MS. MOORE : Exactly. When the garage is gone and that's really a sad state of affairs for Mr.
Chem Dry cause he's a great business you know to have. Maybe
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well wait a minute if we're going to adjourn this we need to adjourn
it with an understanding of what we're adjourning it for okay?
A.T.A. KIELY : Do you want to convert this to an appeal or an interpretation as opposed to an
area variance?
MS. MOORE : Well it's not really fair to them for to pay for an interpretation.That's why
A.T.A. KIELY : No no no we're converting it on the record right?
MS. MOORE : Well I think I did it under the way I presented it and the way I wrote it was
alternative relief
A.T.A. KIELY : Okay so we'll do amended decision cause you're asking for amended relief cause
you asked for both we'll pick one
MS. MOORE : Well but do we need 1 understand but technically if we're saying we're all one use
one business I'm not here so wouldn't it go back to the Building Department well without a
decision.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No you need a decision. They're going to stand by their Notice of
Disaproval.
MS. MOORE : Oh because of the office?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :They determined it to be two uses.They're not going to change their
mind. We have to overrule it.
MS. MOORE : Okay now I understand.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER : But doesn't it still need an area variance for the non-conforming sides to
the property for one use?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN. : No because it's permitted by zone. It's a pre-existing business.
MS. MOORE : Pre-existing lot in a business zone allows it to
MEMBER HORNING. : So the application would be amended by you removing the office space
above the new structure. That's what we're talking about?
MS. MOORE : Call it storage.
January 8, 2015 Regular Meeting
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Call it storage and it's going to be operated by Berry & Berry. The
applicants the owners the applicants. Then it gets you to Planning and then you could argue
about parking and any other issues that are relevant okay.
A.T.A. KIELY : And then like Leslie said fight the fight later on if you chose to lease it out fight the
fight later.
MS. MOORE : Yeah I think the fight should be in code committee that clarifies what's going on
because as the business community needs to know, professionals need to know.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Pat based upon what you've all said in the record the code is pretty
clear, the Notice of Disaproval is not as clear. Alright?You're welcome.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER : We're going to get a new
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I'm going to close this.
MS. MOORE : We're going to give you a new plan how's that?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let's do this I'm going to adjourn to the Special Meeting and then
you could submit between now and then a new plan. If we have any questions.we will adjourn
next month but we probably won't. We can then close it at the Special Meeting.There won't be
any testimony or questions there. If we have questions we'll leave it open so we can get them
answered but if we don't we'll close it in two weeks and we can proceed.
MS. MOORE : Okay
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Because we're going to have to approach this with a little creativity
to get this job done.
MS. MOORE : Okay thank you.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You're welcome. So I have a motion here to adjourn to the Special
Meeting what's the date?January 22"d
MEMBER DANTES : Second
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's seconded by Eric. All in favor.
MEMBER HORNING : Aye
MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Aye
MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Aye
January 8, 2015 Regular Meeting
MEMBER DANTES : Aye
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Aye
(See Minutes for Resolution.)
HEARING#6822—SOUNDSIDE LANDSCAPE, INC.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Soundside Landscape,
Inc. Request for Variances from Article XV, Section 280-64A and 280-63 and the Building
Inspector's November 5, 2014, amended December 1, 2014 Notice of Disapproval based on an
application for building permit to construct a commercial building for landscape contractor's
yard, at; 1) less than the code required front yard setback of 100 feet, 2) Fess than the code
required minimum rear yard setback of 70 feet, located at: 67575 Main Road (aka State Route
25) Greenport, NY. SCTM # 1000-52-5-58.3
Is there someone here to represent this application?
MR. ORIENTALE : My name is Gerard Orientale. I can answer any question that you may have.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes. Let me do this first of all. I just want to let you know sir we got
I'm going to give you a copy of a letter that we got from Planning Board. You're going to need
site plan approval anyways you know and when we have concurrent jurisdiction we try to
coordinate for the benefit of the property owners our reviews and I will go over this with you
but I'm going to give you a copy. What Planning has discovered is that when this minor
subdivision was approved right the Planning Board required a covenant and restriction on the
property of clause 8 which was concerned with potential traffic impacts cause there's not really
a right or a left turn off of main road into that driveway that you've got there. Basically in a nut
shell it and you could read the details it indicates that the they would potentially be putting on
the rear yard part of that of your property a cross access across Ratsey's property and out to
Albertsons. That's a C & R that's in place. 'You're not necessarily proposing to do it right this
minute but if you look at your survey your proposed survey you got like a car parked in what
you know along the side of the proposed building where it's located with the rear yard setback
that's where that access would go. So, what Planning would like to do is to have an opportunity
to cooperate collaborate with you and I know you got an application into them so that you
might look at potentially putting the building someplace else on the property that would be
equally convenient for you but that would not inhibit any future cross access that might be
required from actually or preventing it from happening because your building is there. It would
have to be a certain width for trucks to go in and out and if in fact you continue to need a front
2
January 8, 2015 Regular Meeting
yard and rear yard variance which is very likely if you move the building that way a little bit or
whatever then we could continue to look at that after you've had a chance to maybe think
through some of these issues with the Planning Board. For the record let me say that what you
are now proposing is certainly appropriate for the LI Zone that you're in you're already there
you're just looking to store vehicles and stuff in your existing operation. You're proposing a
front yard setback at 59 feet where the code requires 100 feet from a right of way and the rear
yard setback at 21 feet where the code requires 70 feet. Now Planning Board basically supports
the application relative to the use and so on and we've all been out to look at the site and let's
see do you have anything you'd like us to know about this? Would you like to state anything
into the record for the moment?
MR. ORIENTALE : The one question I have which I can probably find out as well is the right of
way that you're talking about to my knowledge was removed at time of closing.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :You mean the Covenant of Restriction was removed?
MR. ORIENTALE : Yea, well no maybe not the Covenant and Restrictions you're correct but I
thought that that right of way that cuts through Colin Ratsey's property was written off legally
on paper. It was actually supposed to be removed when to my knowledge when Colin
purchased the property and something never got filed and then when I purchased it got redone
but I'll look into that. I don't know if that changes anything or not.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay if you come up here I'm going to show you I'll say it's
important.
MEMBER DANTES :That would be in your title policy I don't know if we have that information.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : What they're talking about is back here see there it's there. Yea see
this would be too tight if you ever have to put a cross access in so we're talking about maybe
putting the building here or moving it
BRETT KEHL : Yea I was going to say if we went this way (inaudible) 25 feet plus you need no no
I'm talking about for your yea that's what I was thinking by the time you get your (inaudible)
fence line stuff like that safety zone next to the building so if we went say 30 or 35 feet here
and that went closer with that I mean the problem with putting it here is radius turns for
tractor trailers.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well you see that's why I want you to talk with the Planning Board
so that you can work out the best solution and we'll do it so it doesn't cost you anymore money
or anything like that or delay you in any way. See I think they'll have a problem with the
dumpster being over there. Those are small things but they can all be fixed pretty quickly in a
January 8, 2015 Regular Meeting
conversation or two with them. That way.we'll all be on the same cause you might need to
come back with an amended survey showing slightly different front and rear yard setbacks.
Maybe a slightly different location you obviously can't block your driveway there and you have
to minimize curb cuts anyway on 25 so I think the best way to proceed if it's alright with you is
to adjourn this for a couple of months let's say to let you go ahead and talk to them . They can
give us some feedback. You can then when you're ready just let us know we'll put you back on
and if you don't need a side yard then we don't even have to re-advertise, you know you don't
have to re-mail or anything. If for some reason you organized it so you need let's say a side yard
as well then you'd have to do one more variance that we would have to take care of. But at the
moment you know it's a pretty simple matter that way it makes no sense for us to grant you
certain setbacks when in fact the Planning Board is going to say that's not going to work so then
you would have to come back to us it's much better if we move it this way..
MR. ORIENTALE : If this right of way has been legally removed does that change things?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Sure. I think that's their greatest concern right now is that access for
traffic impacts but if that's not on there and you can show them that was fixed you may be
coming back with exactly what that is where the dumpster would move. We can't say until you
look into it.
MR. ORENTALE : I understand.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Look into it. Is the Board alright with this? George you okay with
that?
MEMBER HORNING : I am.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Eric?Are you looking at some title?
MEMBER DANTES : Someone gave us the Covenant a copy of the Covenants.
MR. ORIENTAL : Yes which I have as well.
MEMBER DANTES : So you just need to discuss with Planning and show them that it was
removed.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : If in fact that was the case.
MR. ORIENTALE : Which I believe it�was but I will look into that.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay and if it wasn't then you talk to them about how to make sure
that it's not that you don't prevent that from happening at some point should be necessary.
Okay?
January 8, 2015 Regular Meeting
MR. ORIENTALE : Alright.
BRETT KEHL : Sounds good.
MEMBER HORNING : Can I ask maybe it's I'm going the wrong way here or something I'm trying
to put this in perspective with relationship to the variance that was already granted for that
property as part of our file #5095 and we granted back in 2002 a front yard setback of 75 feet if
I'm getting this right and a rear yard setback of 41 feet.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Wait are you sure you're not looking at Colin Ratsey?
MR. ORIENTALE : No it's probably Wounded Knee Properties.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Oh yea before you were there. Sorry George.
MR. ORIENTALE : Cause they were in for the variance for 6000 square feet
MEMBER HORNING .: Let me see if I've got the right parcel. 52-5-58.3 was listed under
Corrazinni at the time. You're throwing out a different name. So this business of the Covenant
and Restrictions from the Planning Board didn't come up then that I know of and yet it existed
from 1988 or whatever it was
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You know where it came from George is that we automatically when
site plan is required as a benefit to good government in general and the property owners we try
to coordinate stuff so we always ask for their comments you know we send them up our
application and it's especially helpful if you have an application into Planning Board cause then
they have the data they need to do a better review to make comments of meaningful. I think it
was that situation and they're researching the property for our comments that this issue came
up and you know that's why we need to kind of resolve one way or the other and then we can
proceed. What time to you think you want two months three months or you want we can
adjourn without a date and you can just let us know.
MR. ORIENTALE : Yea we can do that.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Vicky is pointing out, I can do it six months and we can if you're
ready what I'm saying if you want to do it earlier you can say we're ready and we can schedule
it, we can do by Board motion or you know what I got a better idea let's do it for a couple of
months and then if you need more time you let us know we'll adjourn it for a little while longer.
Let's do it for a shorter time that way you don't have to re-notice anybody and if you need
more time you'll let us know.
MR. ORIENTALE : If we can do it for a month then that would be great.
January 8, 2015 Regular Meeting
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : February's probably already booked up. I think we're going to do it
for March.
MEMBER HORNING : Could I ask him what happened to this variance that was granted with for
a 60 by 50 building. That was never built correct?
MR. ORIENTALE :Correct. It was for 250 by 60 building.
MEMBER HORNING : It was referring to one a proposed building 60 by 50 then you're saying it
was never built and we so we granted variances I'm wondering what the status
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : What were they setback variances?
MEMBER HORNING : Yes, front yard and rear yard.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : But they're proposing something else, they're proposing something
else.
MEMBER HORNING : I know they are.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So that variance was never acted upon and although it runs with the
land if you're not going to use it if you're proposing something else it's mood.
MEMBER HORNING : My question why can't they build what was proposed in the original
variance in 2002? Why can't they build with those setbacks?
BRETT KEHL :Turning radiuses (inaudible) trucks it's a hazard between parking vehicles, people
walking around so this was open lot in the center so you can pull a truck in you get a truck
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Would you talk into a mic
BRETT KEHL : The biggest problem is the turning radiuses for tractor trailers you know the 40
feet trailer in a good 20 or 30 foot of front you're to get them to turn them around without
jackknifing or losing sight of something or running someone over in the yard or hitting
something is the largest problem we have so our biggest thing was to keep the building up
where it's safe
MEMBER HORNING Could you put this in writing because in the variance granted in 2002
which in my mind isn't that far back you know gave you a front yard setback of 75 feet you're
not asking for 59 okay. It gave you a rear yard setback of 41 feet and now you're asking for 21
so
January 8, 2015 Regular Meeting
BRETT KEHL : Their building was parallel to the rear yard. Ours is parallel to the side yard off to
the side of the entrance.
MEMBER HORNING : If you could put this in writing a rational for why you know this variances
that we were granted don't work for you?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well I would wait until they spoke to Planning because they may be
proposing something else so rather than waste your time right now if it's relevant then that's a
good idea.
MEMBER HORNING : If it's relevant yes.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Just for our records you know so we understand the history or the
property but you don't have to do that right now. Let's see what happens and Planning is
expecting you.
BRETT KEHL : We'll find out about the right of way too.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That's the main thing cause it make all the difference in the world in
terms of site planning.
MEMBER HORNING : And it begs the question now if variances are granted and they're never
acted upon what becomes of the variance?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Now we now there's time limits on variances. You got three years.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER : It doesn't fit their business plan.
MEMBER HORNING : Right, this is what I'm trying to get at.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well they legally have the right at any time to apply for different
variances (inaudible) that's previously granted. If the property owner does not chose to enact
them you know they have the right to request different relief. That supersedes the other. I'm
going to make a motion to adjourn this application to March 5th at 9:30 A.M.
MEMBER SCHNEDER : Second.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Second by Kenny all in favor?
MEMBER HORNING : Aye
MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Aye
MEMBER DANTES : Aye
7
January 8, 2015 Regular Meeting
MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Aye
CHAIRPERON WEISMAN : Aye.
(See Minutes for Resolution.)
HEARING#6824— ESTATE OF WILLIAM H. and MARY WOOD,JR.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for the Estate of William H.
and Mary Wood Jr. # 6824. This is a request for variances under Article III Section 280-9 & 10
and the Building Inspector's November 20, 2014, amended December 9, 2014 Notice of
Disapproval based on an application for Lot Recognition, which states "the identical lot was
created by deed recorded in the Suffolk County Clerk's Office on or before June 30, 1983 and
the lot conformed to the minimum lot size set forth in Bulk Schedule AA as of date of lot
creation." 1) the deed for the proposed Lot was recorded on December 9, 1971, 2) Lot area is
less than the minimum required size of 40,000 square feet, 3)the subject lot is merged with the
adjacent lot (13), located at: Reservoir Road (corner Winthrop Drive) Fishers Island, NY. SCTM #
1000-9-9-11 & 13. Would you state your name for the record.
KAREN HOEG : Sure good morning my name is Karen Hoeg. I am an attorney with Twomey,
Latham Shea and we are here to represent the Estate of William H. Wood and Mary L. Wood. I
have prepared a memo which outlines the particular facts and some the variance standards
which I've given to Vicki.This is a unique set of facts which I feel it's important to go through for
the record. Mr. Wood died March 3rd of 2013 a resident of Connecticut. Mr. Wood's estate
currently is in contract to sell lot 11. His will was probated in Connecticut and was admitted to
probate in Suffolk County NY so that his estate could pass real and personal property. Ancillary
letters were issued on September 12th 2013 to Nancy Wood, William Wood III and Richard
Wood the executors under his will and also his children. At the time of his death he was
married to Mary L. Wood and Mary died a month later on April 27th 2013 also a resident of
Connecticut. Her will was probated in Connecticut and was admitted to ancillary probate in
Suffolk County and letters were issued on September 12th 2013 to her children, Nancy Wood,
William Wood III and Richard Wood the executors under her will and as I said her children. A
copy of the decrees are attached to the memo that I gave. At the time of William H. Wood Jr's.,
death he solely owned the real property located at Reservoir Road in Fishers Island known as
lot 11 and Mary L. Wood solely owned the real property located at Winthrop Ave. known as lot
13. The executors do not own the property individually but in their fiduciary capacity as
executors under their Wills each lot has been held in single and separate ownership since a
time after July 1St 1983 and it is our position that they have not merged under Town Code
January 8, 2015 Regular Meeting
Section 280-10. By way of background in November 16, 1964 Race Point Corporation which is a
prior owner and the chain of title received a variance approval from this Board to divide
property which had insufficient frontage. The approval allowed the lots to be divided into
various separate lots. Three of those approved lots now make up lot 11 and 13 and is reflected
on the property card in the town. At that time lot 13 the lot currently owned by the Estate of
Mary L. Wood was improved with a residence. The other two lots were vacant. In 1965 Race
Point sold lot 11 and lot 13 to Michael B. Maw and on September 13th 1971 Michael B. Maw by
deed transferred the lots to William H. Wood Jr. and Mary L. Wood as tenants in common
having an undivided half interest. The deed was recorded at Liber 7039 at page 134 on
September 3, 1971. On November 26th 1971 William H. Wood Jr. by deed transferred to Mary L.
Wood the lot known as lot 13. A few days later the deed was recorded on December 9th 1971 in
Suffolk County Clerk's Office. On November 26th 1971 Mary L. Wood by deed transferred to
William H. Wood Jr. the lot known as lot 11 and this deed was also recorded on December 9th
1971. Since at least 1971 the property has been held in single and separate ownership as
confirmed in the provided single and separate certification. Lots 11 and 13 have been
recognized as separate tax lots by Suffolk County and each contain their own tax lot numbers.
The Town of Southold up zoned the lots at some point and placed them in separate zoning
districts clearly evidence that the Town recognized the lots as separate parcels. Lot 11 was
placed in a R80 zone and lot 13 in a R40. Each lot is also assessed by the Town Tax Assessors
office as a separate lot and the town property card even notes that notes on lot 13 that 3
parcels from 19.6 are now two parcels. In fact in 1985 the Town Building Department issued a
permit for storage building on lot 13. Historically the town has treated the lots as separate lots.
The application seeks lot recognition by the Town. Lot 11 was created by deed however the
County Clerk's Office recorded it a few days later on December 9th and based on the Town's
interpretation of Code Section 280-9 the date of recording determines lot creation not the,date
of the deed. The lot size requirement pursuant to bulk schedule AA that was added to the Town
Code on November 28th 1995 provides that prior to December 1, 1971 the lot size required in a
residential zone was 12,500 square feet. On December 2, 1971 the lot size requirement was
changed to 40,000 square feet. Should the Board determine that this technicality requires the
lot size be 40,000 square feet and not the 12,500 square feet then we would have been in
compliance with had the deed been recorded December 1St we need to seek an area variance.
Lot 11 is about 27,406 square feet and lot 13 is about 28,992. To the extent that the Board
determines that the property has merge which we do not believe that it has, we seek a waiver
of a merger. Now turning to the standards for an area variance it is clear that the benefit to the
applicant from granting the variances that weighs any detriment to the general health safety
and welfare of the neighborhood and the Town as a whole. This application is a result of a
technicality in a recording deed date and the lots have historically been treated as separate
lots. There will be no undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood or detriment to
January 8, 2015 Regular Meeting
nearby properties. The surrounding neighborhood consists of single family homes and the area
variance will allow lot 11 currently a residential vacant lot to be built upon and conform with
the character of the community. The benefits sought by the applicant cannot be achieved by
some method feasible for the applicant to pursue other than an area variance. The applicant is
currently under contract to sell the proposed vacant lot and in order for the residential vacant
lot to be recognized by the Town as a buildable lot an area variance would be needed because
the town interprets the lot recognition date is the date of recording not the date of the deed. In
this instance the deed was recorded a few days later on December 9, 1971. At the time the
deed was prepared and signed. It had complied with the 12,500 sq. foot requirement. It wasn't
until discussions with the Town Building Department that we learned that the Town interprets
lot recognition based upon the recording date of the deed which would require the lot size be a
minimum 40,000 sq. feet. Since we don't meet the 40,000 sq. ft. requirement we need to seek
the area variance and it should be noted that Section 280-9A1 of the Town Code does not
specifically state the Bulk Schedule AA minimum lot requirement. It's based upon the date the
deed is recorded in the Clerk's Office. The variance requested are not substantial. The variance
when viewed in relation to the existing structures and neighboring lots are minimal in nature..
Lot 11 will be continued to remain in conformity with surrounding properties and uses. It shares
the average street front of other lots in the community and neighboring properties would not
be impacted. It should also be noted that the lots were previously divided into three lots with
prior ZBA approval in 1965 and this application seeks the recognition of two lots more
conforming in size to neighboring lots. The application will not have an adverse effect or impact
on the physical or environmental conditions of the neighborhood or district. As discussed above
the vacant lot is in a residential zone and lot 13 is improved with a residence. They have existed
as is since 1971.The parties aren't aware of the lot recognition and code provision and the Bulk
Schedule requirements on November 26, 1971 when the lots were transferred to William H.
Wood Jr. and Mary L. Wood. These code provisions were not enacted until 1995 many years
after they had acquired the property. Due to a technicality in recording in absence of clear
language in the Town Code regarding the date of deed recording as being the controlling date
for lot recognition purposes we were forced to seek a variance. Towns Code section 280-9 lot
recognition states that A. a lot created by deed or Town approval shall be recognized by the
Town if any of the following standards apply and if the lots have not merged; 1.The identical lot
was created by deed recorded in the Suffolk County Clerk's Office on or before June 30, 1983
and the lot conforms to the minimum lot requirements set forth in bulk schedule AA as of the
date of lot creation. Clearly we have established the first part of this provision.as the deed was
recorded prior to June 30, 1983 and the second part of this test does not specifically state that
the lot conformance to minimum lot requirement is based upon the date the deed was
recorded. The Bulk Schedule AA itself does not clearly state that the controlling date is the date
of deed recording not the date of the deed. The lot creation date is solely based upon the
January 8, 2015 Regular Meeting
Town's interpretation. It is respectfully submitted that the variances requested be granted in all
respects.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay let's see if there are any questions. I presume that the
memorandum of law that you just gave all of us is what you just read in the record?
KAREN HOEG : Most of it is yes.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Then we'll see that's about all we can do in a situation like this is fact
find. Let's start with Eric and move down. Eric?
MEMBER DANTES : No questions.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER : I have no questions.
MEMBER HORNING : Let me ask about the driveway situation showing on you know the latest
survey it's showing the gravel driveway. What would become of the status of the driveway if in
fact lot 13 was sold as you're saying is under contract to be sold?
KAREN HOEG : Right lot 11 is under contract so the gravel driveway that's existing right now to
access lot 13 would be extinguished from use for lot 13 and a new driveway would be created
for lot 13.
MEMBER HORNING : From Reservoir Road would you figure?
KAREN HOEG : You know depending on the topography they could do it either from Reservoir
Road or from Winthrop Drive.
MEMBER HORNING : Winthrop Drive has a very steep grade. I know that from personal
inspection so I'm not sure if it's even feasible to put a driveway down through there but it
would be feasible on Reservoir Road.
KAREN HOEG : Right.
MEMBER HORNING : That would probably be the likely but you're saying that there would be
two separate driveways?
KAREN HOEG : Yes there would be two separate driveways. One to serve lot 11 and one to
serve lot 13.
MEMBER HORNING : Okay, thank you.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Gerry anything?
January 8, 2015 Regular Meeting
MEMBER GOEHRINGER : No.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anyone in the audience who wishes to address this application?
STEPHEN HAM : Stephen Ham 38 Nugent Street Southampton Happy New Year. I represent H.
P. Berniase and his wife who are the contract purchasers of this property and I'm here to
support the application. I think you can reach a conclusion without even considering a variance
application on this. I don't think we should be before this Board. There are two legal issues
here. One is merger and one is lot recognition. I think merger you can get rid of right away.
These lots have not merged, 13 and 11 are held in two different estates. The children of the
Wood family are the executors or each estate however they're different legal entities. There's
the estate of Mary Wood and the estate of William Wood. So that you can I think you can
dispose of that right away. The Building Department is flat out wrong on that conclusion. Now,
the key issue here is what date was the this lot created lot 11. You've seen the single and
separate search. I know that Miss Hoeg put it into the record. There is the deeds were they
acquired I think they acquired the property in the September of 1971 apparently a zoning issue
or a zoning up grade was up zoning was coming down the pike so they put them in the single
and separate ownership on November 26 of 1971.That's the date of the deed. I can tell you any
real estate lawyer will tell you that the date on a deed and the recording date are often several
weeks apart but usually at least a week or ten days especially when the deed is coming from
out of state going to the County. It's not unusual. Under New York law title is deemed to pass
unless you can prove otherwise title is deemed to pass to a new owner on delivery of a deed
and acceptance of a deed. How many closings have I been to where people are ready to move
in they don't wait for their deed to be recorded. If they're buying a house they move in that
day. The deed is usually recorded much later. I'm the one who pointed out this issue to the
Building Department just to get an interpretation cause I was familiar in Southampton on
merger cases at least as of 20 years ago I haven't faced it recently but in Southampton they
recognize for merger cases the date of acknowledgement of the deed unless it can be proved
that the deed was delivered at a later date. So, I think I did I wanted to make sure with Mike
Verity that he also agreed with that and I was very surprised when he came back and said no
it's the recording date and that's why we're here. I think you can make an interpretation that
under New York law this lot was created on November 26, 1971 and therefore the lower
standards of the bulk AA schedule should apply. If you don't reach that conclusion I mean it's
such a diminimus it's a real technicality to miss by a few days when it's very common to not
have it's clear their intention was to beat the up zoning that probably happened on December
1st or 2nd of 711 don't know that for a fact but the fact that the bulk schedule makes such a big
distinction I suspect that that's what happened back in 71. There is a major change in the
minimum lot area requirement so and there are no other variance if this lot is quote recognized
then we wouldn't even need to be before this Board because there is no other need or relief.
2
January 8, 2015 Regular Meeting
My client's planned to put a modest house on the property meeting all required setbacks and it
meets the frontage and depth requirements and so forth and so on. So, I just want to be here
for that purpose. If a variance is required I just did a quick map to show that these lots if you
look at the tax map there are some larger lots down the road a bit but you can see this fits right
in with the scheme in that neighborhood. When the Wood property was divided up it was
owned by Race Point Corporation.Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay, thank you. Does the Board have any other question? I'm just
about to ask if there is anyone else in the audience who wants to address the application.
MS. MOORE : Thank you Patricia Moore. I'm here on behalf of Mr. and Mrs. Litch who are the
adjacent property owners. It's the property that the house is located somewhat overlapping the
property line there's a porch that overlaps the property line and the driveway that is on lot 11. 1
have a memo with facts for the Board and I have for you Steve I'm sorry I don't have. I gave one
of you guys one without a blue back no it's here excuse me. Alright, just so it's so you
understand the circumstances the Litch family had been they were under the impression based
on observations of people coming onto the property that the property might be for sale and
about I would say what a year ago or so I they contacted me and we tried and I tried to reach
Mr. Hoeg and I think the only thing that we actually discussed or got was it was a letter to my
clients saying you know you're an encroaching driveway get off and I responded to that and
said well listen here's a survey and that driveway has been there since the 60's so it's staying
there you know let's deal with it and I never heard anything back until my client received the
notice that they sent me the required notice on this hearing. They oppose the variance more
because of factual issues that are there. The as I understand the history because one of my
requests was who's the owner here because we were under my clients were told that the
property actually sold so I would imagine based on the prior testimony that it's in contract and
it has not closed. Can that just be confirmed?
KAREN HOEG :That's correct.
MS. MOORE : Okay thank you so it's in contract and the other question that I had for the Board
was is the house staying in the Woods family or is that too being sold as a separate structure so
we have two sales occurring here? I would ask for an answer on that if the Board can inquire.
The history here is that Mr. Litch's Mrs. Litch's father actually purchased the property back in
the 60's from Race Point Corporation and I have exhibits of different surveys. The first exhibit
one is the subdivision of Race Rock and the and it shows the three lots that the Woods actually
Maw acquired before Woods and that property was all put in the same name. Maw bought all
three lots. Kenneth Peterson again the successor and the father of Martha Wood they bought
this property and the building that was actually positioned in the street the town had gotten
January 8, 2015 Regular Meeting
titled to Reservoir Road and they were they asked Mr. Peterson to remove and relocate that
building. So, exhibit number two is the building permit, C.O. that was issued to Mr. Peterson to
relocate that structure which it's unclear exactly what that structure was originally. It was part
of the Navy property. It may have been a storage building of some kind or an elaborate storage
building which was picked up and relocated and Mr. Grabe who was the contractor at the time
he provided an affidavit to give me an explanation as you can see back in May cause we were
trying to understand how'd the house get to where it is. Was actually the contractor that picked
up the structure put the house the dwelling that storage building was converted to a house and
placed it on the property the Peterson property with the driveway where it is all essentially at
the direction of the Town. The Town was present. They said you're going to put your building
there and this is where your driveway is going to be. Typical Fishers Island which is nobody ever
gets any surveys. I think we've heard that many a time. So the house is placed here and the
reason I'm giving you all this background is that the bottom line is that that house the Peterson
house now the Litch house and the driveway which is a paved driveway has been there since
the 60's and it's going nowhere, it's staying there. And my hope was thru previous
communications was that we could deal with it because Mr. and Mrs. Litch are getting along in
years. They are older and they've been asking the Woods listen why don't we take care of this,
let's clean this up, let's do something. But Mr. and Mrs. Woods most likely were sick and it just
couldn't be dealt with and ultimately they passed away. I'm very sorry to hear that but one
passed away shortly after the other. I think that before the Board can act on this if you're going
to grant a variance shouldn't you know what size lot and what issues and facts exists on the
property. We would for sure have an adverse possession claim. This driveway has been there
for over 50 years at this point. Certainly long enough and it was acquired by Maw with a survey
that showed that that driveway was there and the house was there so prior owners know that
that driveway and the house are exactly where it is. There's so many ways to address this to
deal with this. We can do an easement which would possibly not impact your area variance but
it might as a matter of fact it could be a lot line change which certainly would be an impact on
an area variance or adverse possession claim which would be litigation which ultimately take
the property out of the Woods hands and into Litch. The goal here is not to make this a bigger
deal than it is and turn this into litigation and that's why a year ago I was trying to make contact
with the Woods attorney and family and so on. Let's try to resolve this that's always my first
approach on anything. We really should have this resolved because the Board should know you
know what's the area of the lot that is being the variance that's being granted. I would point
out that the as far as Mr. Ham's arguments that you know when a deed is recorded rather
excuse me when a deed is signed, executed and delivered is the legal relevant point. This is the
second time or at minimum that I know that this issue has come up the Verity case is one that I
was involved in where Mr. Verity and Southold there was a deed from his parents that
apparently Wickham was the grantor the old ways of doing things we're talking about the 30's
1
January 8, 2015 Regular Meeting
or 40's was this transfer the old way of doing things was if you were selling a piece of property
and you gave a mortgage you didn't give the person the deed you'd hold onto the deed you'd
give them a mortgage when they paid off the mortgage you'd give them the deed. Well
apparently Wickham did this process with the Verity's and that deed got lost somewhere in
somewhere we don't know where and ultimately we found a photocopy of it. The deed was not
I take it back the estate found it recorded it but because the recording of that deed even
though the deed itself went back to the 40's wouldn't be recognized by the town and Verity's
had to come for an area variance and come in for a subdivision. So this is the second time
whether it was correct or not I can't tell you we you know
STEPHEN HAM :This case is easily distinguishable from that one Pat I'm sorry.
MS. MOORE : It's the second but it's a technical variance
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I understand this is like throwing another monkey wrench they just
get worse by the minute we needed this badly. We have to sort out whether or not this lot is
recognized. If it's recognized it may not require an area variance. The property lines are shown
on the survey. The driveway clearly is on that lot. The question is I'm not sure what our
jurisdiction is this a civil matter or is this something this Board is supposed to deal with cause
I'm not sure this is something that we can deal with. The lot dimensions whether,or not you
know it's encroaching it is clearly encroaching the question is how
MS. MOORE : No actually
STEPHEN HAM : Also can I say something?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Wait wait
MS. MIOORE : I'm sorry. Look at definition of area of an area variance and a definition of build
ability that's why it's relevant because depending on how this easement is treated or this
excuse me this driveway is treated it's what is left of buildable area and that's how you
determine the size of the lot so just like wetlands, easements, right of ways those issues are in
fact applicable to the definition of a lot. So that's the only reason I raise
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : If it in fact they are acknowledged rights of way but this is not the
case here. This historically exists but whether it was ever legally done is another story.
STEPHEN HAM : I'd like to make just two points on that. It's not it would at the worst it's a case
of what's called prescriptive easement not adverse possession. Adverse possession is where
you actually acquire title and the second point is it's done through a court proceeding. There's
no established just because she says she has the facts of this is no there's been no
January 8, 2015 Regular Meeting
determination of this by a court so it's totally irrelevant to this case and anyway it would be a
prescriptive easement Pat not a for the driveway not adverse possession prescriptive easement
which is to allow them to continue to use it in the same way it has been used. If they were to
establish that in a court and it would come up I suppose if my client having purchased the
property were to close them off from it but my client has agreed in the contract they're aware
of the encroachment to take title subject to it but it's totally irrelevant to your decision.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Does the Board have any questions? George anything?
MEMBER HORNING : Yea maybe one question. In terms of detriment to the neighborhood if in
fact this paved driveway was to provide access to your client is on someone else's property and
their closed off from it the detriment to that neighbor not the neighborhood but to that
neighbor would be most likely that they have to create another driveway on their own
property. Is that correct?
MS. MOORE : No, the way I would interpret that it affects the character of the neighborhood is
the driveway is existing the house location is existing so as you pointed out where's your
driveway you know for the house going to be now you're talking about the driveway where it
presently is the driveway for a proposed house and the driveway for the existing house.all are
going on Reservoir Road so I think that the facts are very important to you know if you grant a
variance or you grant approval to build another house here recognize that it's going to have a
driveway, it's gonna have access on Reservoir Road and you're gonna have to provide some
form of access for the house on Winthrop also on Reservoir Road. So you've got three
driveways all within a span of 50 feet maybe so that's the issue.
MEMBER HORNING : By the way it hasn't really been determined and I don't have a cleared my
mind if the town actually owns public right of way there where that ends because I do know
that a large section of Reservoir Road is private road and Litch's property might be on that
STEPHEN HAM : Yes I think the entirety of it is privately owned.
MEMBER HORNING : It may be Steve I would agree cause I never heard of it being
STEPHEN HAM : I don't know there it was ever owned by the Town. I know that's in that
affirmation from Mr. Grube but I don't know that it's ever been a Town
MS. MOORE : It looks like there is some documentation in the Town records for Race Point.
There was some documentation I think in the variance that was granted to I have a variance in
the record it was given to somebody in that immediate area and they were talking about it was
actually the variance granted creating these lots that I believe mention that the road was
dedicated to the Town but I wouldn't know for sure if it ever got done. I'm not sure it's
January 8, 2015 Regular Meeting
relevant.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well look we're getting on things that quite (inaudible) to this
application. Could you possibly put your comments that you just spoke verbally into the record
in writing and send it in.
STEPHEN HAM : Absolutely.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : including the response about you know your contract vendee's
reaction to this driveway. We all have to decide what exactly among the things in the Notice of
Disapproval really need to be addressed. We have a lot of documentation. We have a
memorandum of law, we'll have your comments, we've got your comments and I think we have
plenty.
STEPHEN HAM : First time I've been here without a memorandum I think.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I thought it was yours I said oh wait wait did you change law firms.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER : You know Mr. Ham things just happen sometimes.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay well we're gonna make you do one anyway. Alright, anyone
else in the audience on this application? No further questions or comments I'm going to make a
motion to should we close subject to receipt of your comments Steve or just adjourn to
MS. MOORE : Well I would like to have the opportunity to review the memorandum and his
comments with my clients (inaudible)
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay fine I'll do that and Pat you gotta go to a microphone please.
MS. MOORE : Oh I'm sorry we're just seeing if there's an extra copy so that I don't have to
come to pull it from your file.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : What of the her memorandum, Karen's memorandum? Fine but I do
want to reiterate while you're welcome to make comments as a concerned party I think it's
pretty clear that this whole business of the existing driveway is already being handled as a
matter between the contract vendee and the Litch family so I mean the Wood family so the
Estate of it it really is not quite before us. I don't think it's nothing to do with the Notice of
Disapproval. We've listened and we'll consider your comments of course but let me do this
then. I'll adjourn this to the Special Meeting subject to further written commentary alright and
Steve after you get us your comments Pat why don't you give the office a call and you know
we'll make sure you get a copy so you can.
STEPHEN HAM : I will send you one.
January 8, 2015 Regular Meeting
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay that's even easier Karen you'll want one too probably. Okay
that would be perfect.
MS. MOORE : When's your Special Meeting?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Two weeks the 22nd of January which time I'm sure we'll just close it
and we'll
STEPHEN HAM : If the Board is inclined to grant a favorable interpretation and or a variance my
client is most interested in getting started with this building before the summer. I just want to
get that in.
CHIARPERSON WEISMAN : We can go I think the best we can do is close it at the Special
Meeting after we've gotten everybody's comments and then have something ready two weeks
later you know like at next month at our next regular meeting we can (inaudible).
MS. MOORE : Thank you.
STEPHEN HAM :Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You're welcome. So I'm making a motion to adjourn this application
to the Special Meeting on January 22nd subject to receipt of written comments.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Second.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor?
MEMBER HORNING : Aye.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Aye.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Aye.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Ay.
(See Minutes of Resolution.)
HEARING#6819—ALANE KELLY
CHAIRPERSON! WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for # 6819 Alane Kelly.
Applicant requests a Special Exception under Article III Section 280-13B(14). The applicant is the
owner requesting authorization to establish an Accessory Bed and Breakfast, accessory and,
incidental to the residential occupancy in this single family dwelling, with three (3) bedrooms
January 8, 2015 Regular Meeting
for lodging and serving of breakfast to the B & B casual, transient roomers. Location of
property: 35995 Main Road (aka State Route 25) Cutchogue, NY. SUM # 1000-97-1-21. Good
afternoon. Thank you for your patience. This Special Exception permit is there's already a B&B
permit in place which is not you know which now you as a new owner need to reapply for. You
submitted documentation showing this is your principal residence.
ALANE KELLY : That's correct.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes would you please enter your name into the record so we can just
state your name for the recording.
ALANE KELLY : Sure Alane Kelly.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We have an electric bill we have a bank statement proof or
residency. And you'll be there full time year round?
ALANE KELLY :That's correct.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We've made a site inspection of the interior. You need five (5)
spaces on the site as you're aware.
ALANE KELLY : Yes for parking..
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Parking spaces and you certainly have room for it but it's a little bit
confusing I would say over there. My only comments and I mean best of luck on this I don't see
an issue but it would probably be a lot clearer and better if you I set you know concrete curbs
or something in place to show where the five (5) parking spaces are supposed to be.
ALANE KELLY : Yes absolutely. We have a plan to do that.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Good okay and some sort of a sign indicating that there is no backing
out onto Route 25.
ALANE KELLY : Okay.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN You have enough turning capacity on site so that you can drive
straight out cause it would be very dangerous to do otherwise.
ALANE KELLY : Okay absolutely we can do that.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let's see if there are any other questions. Start with Gerry on the
end and work this way maybe.
January 8, 2015 Regular Meeting
MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Wasn't that the site I've been in the property prior to your owning it
and it's a beautiful house unfortunately I was there after the fire also or during the fire being a
fire person in support of Cutchogue is the circular driveway that's on the neighbor's property
usable?
ALANE KELLY : Yes.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER : It is?
ALANE KELLY : Yes.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER : So therefore when you said that you can go out forward and there is
no backing out the use of that driveway would require that situation.
ALANE KELLY : Yes you can use the both driveways.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Yes you come in that way and go out whatever
ALANE KELLY : Exactly.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER : That's of course the main issue.Thank you very much.
ALANE KELLY : You're welcome.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : George?
MEMBER HORNING : I don't have any questions.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Ken ?
MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Just want to put on the record that this B&B was formerly known as
Andrews Legacy?
ALANE KELLY : Yes that's correct.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So how I guess he has no comments. So can you maybe submit to us
hand drawn on your survey you know where you are proposing the five (5) spaces?
ALANE KELLY : Sure.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay. Is there anyone else in the audience who wishes to address
this'application? Please come to the microphone.
1
January 8, 2015 Regular Meeting
MARIANNE TERRY : My name is Marianne Terry I'm the neighbor on the other side of the
driveway and I-support this B&B and I think Alane and her husband will do a wonderful job. I
hope you approve it.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thank you very much for your time what a relief.
ALANE KELLY : She's the other side of the driveway so
MEMBER HORNING : You don't have that common driveway. Are you Mrs.Terry?
MARIANNE TERRY : I am.
MEMBER HORNING :Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :This looks like it's angled parking is that what you're planning to do.
ALANE KELLY : Yes exactly yea.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay as long as it's clearly designated on the site so people just
know where and be very careful that you got enough like back out space you know you might
want to just take your car and figure it out. If it's different than this then just let us know.
ALANE KELLY : Okay, sure we'll do that.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I just want to make sure that there's adequate clearance you know
cause the shed's there it's fine if you want to keep it as long as you've got the spaces marked so
people know some B&B's actually put the name of the room
ALANE KELLY : Oh that's a good idea.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You know that they're staying at cause most B&B's name their
rooms or even if it's room one two three whatever that way they know they have a designated
spot.
ALANE KELLY : Okay sure.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : But it's entirely up to you that's just a suggestion.
ALANE KELLY : Okay we'll take a look at that.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright. Hearing no further questions or comments I'm going to
make a motion to close the hearing reserve decision to later date.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Second.
January 8, 2015 Regular Meeting
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor?
MEMBER HORNING : Aye
MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Aye
MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Aye
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye
(See Minutes for Resolution.)
HEARING#6820—MARY MANFREDI
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is # 6820 Mary Manfredi.
Request for Variance from Article XXIII Section 280-124 and the Building Inspector's November
10, 2014 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for building, permit for a second story
addition to existing single family dwelling, at; less than the code required rear yard setback of
50 feet, located at: 170 Hilltop Path (Horton's .Lane) Southold, NY. SCTM # 1000-54-1-29. Hi.
Just state your name for the record please.
FRANK NOTARO : My name is Frank Notaro. I am the architect for Mary Manfredi.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So this is a proposal for second story addition with a rear yard
setback of 25 feet where the code requires 50 feet that is the current setback and you're not
proposing any increase in the footprint or the setbacks, additions all within the footprint.
FRANK NOTARO : Correct.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let's see you have a prior 2008 variance ,relief for reconstruction of
an as built deck surrounding the existing swimming pool. I remember that one. What else if
anything you would like us to know.
FRANK NOTARO : Well just primarily it was it's only a one bedroom house right now. It looks
larger than that but it's one bedroom and Mary is at the stage in her life right now where she
does need around the clock care so we need at least one bedroom and as long as we were
putting one bedroom upstairs we might as well put two bedrooms for the expense of it so it
becomes a three bedroom house. The existing sanitary is a four bedroom sanitary system so it's
you know again the primary reason we're here is because of the odd shape of the property. Has
a long history Mary's dad owned the property and the original house was closer to the wetlands
the water and was shifted back and then they purchased this other piece of property so it
421
January 8, 2015 Regular Meeting
became this kind of L shaped property that they have right now. Can I answer any other
questions?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well let's see Ken?
MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Could you put an addition on anywhere on the house where it would not
require a variance?
FRANK NOTARO : No it's all what we're proposing (inaudible) within the existing footprint.
There is an upstairs open space so we can't really do anything there that's where the stair
comes up. Then there is a deck on the other side so we're basically taking the area of the one
story and going up there.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Yea I understand what you're doing but the question was could you add
an addition onto your home in an area that would not require an area variance?
FRANK NOTARO : I don't believe so because there are restrictions on numerous sides on this
property.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER : I would agree with that. Okay I have no other questions.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : George?
MEMBER HORNING : I don't have any site specific questions but I do want to point out Mr.
Notaro I think the topic came up last month if you were here about the difficulty that I have
personally with reading the script and you were going to have this thing typed out rather than
whatever in your very nice style here I'm not disagreeing with the style it's just that it's hard to
read and I'm not suggesting you use your thumbs like I see with text messaging but if you could
somehow type it out for us so that we can read it easier
FRANK NOTARO : Can I suggest that you have this application on line just like the Health
Department does and I can type it right in those spaces.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You know we actually talked about it. It's difficult because we have
to get so many copies from the applicant but if you can we've talked to Lloyd actually about
having a document on line that could be typed into the PDF you'd have to print. But there are
ways of putting a document in there you could fill in and so we're not unaware of the fact that
it would make life a lot easier. A lot of applicants just simply put in in the reasons see attached
and they type it up on a single piece of paper 1,2,3,4
FRANK NOTARO : I can do that cause I don't own a typewriter actually anymore.
January 8, 2015 Regular Meeting
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I don't own a typewriter either. I finally got rid of mine about 15
years ago. No of course not but I mean honestly that is one way to make it simple just type it on
your computer and just print it out. I can read it but I'm used to that. Surveyors and architects
know how to read single stroke lettering but it's Greek to some folks.
MEMBER HORNING : I can read it too I will admit that but it's difficult.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there anyone in the audience Gerry do you have any questions?
MEMBER GOEHRINGER : No.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there anyone in the audience who wishes to address the
application? Hearing no further comments or questions I make a motion to close the hearing
reserve decision to later date.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Second.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :All in favor?
MEMBER HORNING :Aye
MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Aye
MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Aye
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye.
(See Minutes for Resolution.)
FRANK NOTARO :Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You're very welcome.
HEARING #6825—STELIOS and PENELOPE NIKOLAKAKOS
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is Stelios and Penelope
Nikolakakos# 6825 Request for Variance from Article XXII Section 280-116A(1) and the Building
Inspector's November 12, 2014 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for building
permit for additions and alterations to a single family dwelling, at; 1) less than the code
required setback of 100 feet from the top of bluff, located at: 20795 Soundview Avenue (adj. to
Long Island Sound) Southold, NY. SCTM # 1000-51-4-13. Do you want to come to the podium,
are you representing the applicant or are you representing yourselves?
January 8, 2015 Regular Meeting
URAL TALGAT : My name is Ural Talgat I am representing Stelio and Penelope Nikolakakos if I'm
pronouncing it correctly I'm sorry I'm sorry if. I'm here to basically answer any questions that
you may have. The application is straight forward in front of you. Again the owners are here.
I've known the owners for probably 20 years as close personal friends. I've known the property
for that long. I've known the property with a concrete bulkhead that was installed way before
my time I think and I know it's been replaced these last two three years ago because of a
wonderful storm that we had that affected everybody. The existing house is has not been
changed since it was I think placed there by Mrs. Nikolakakos's father Mr. Kostas who did the
construction. It has remained as such a residence that has heat and plumbing in it. It's a full
time it's not a bungalow as per say seasonal it's a full time residence. It has heat it has plumbing.
and all that.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay, Ural did you get a copy of Soil and Water and you have LWRP?
URAL TALGAT: Yes
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay, there's a couple of things I'd like to talk to you about. Let me
just enter into the record what the issue is here. You're looking at a 47 foot setback from the
bluff where the code requires 100 feet that's the variance relief that's being requested.
Proposal is to square off the irregular shape of the house water side, add over existing concrete
terrace also roadside over the existing deck cover the porch on the landward side and second
story addition within the footprint that exists. The LWRP indicates that it's consistent with the
following concerns. We all observed on the site inspection the concrete cover that's on the
seaward side is that septic?
URAL TALGAT :That's not septic.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : What is the purpose of that?
URAL TALGAT : I believe it's a well.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Would you come to the podium oh are you alright? State your name
please.
PENELOPE NIKOLAKAKOS : Yea I tripped over my back I'm sorry. I'm Penelope Nikolakakos. I just
want you to know that the house has been in the family since 1964. My parents are deceased
and we bought my sisters out my husband and 1. The house originally_was much closer to the
bluff in 1964. It did not have a basement and a basement was built and the house was set back
or else we would be hanging off the bluff like my neighbors because during a certain time
period everyone wanted to be close to the water. My father was a marine engineer involved in
Greek shipping and the first thing he said no house should be hanging over the bluff because he
45,
January 8, 2015 Regular Meeting
knew the concerns of the waterfront. The well a new well was put in when the house was set
back. A couple of years later the well went for whatever reason. They had to dig up the whole
front yard to find the well because my father didn't remember where they dug up so instead of
having land over the well this cap was put on to identify the well alright so and the cesspools
are down by the street okay but we want to replace them because those too are 50 years old
because the house has been in the family for 50 years.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is that an active well?
PENELOPE NIKOLAKAKOS : Yes.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That's why you're not your keeping'the concrete cap in your patio
proposal?
PENELOPE NIKOLAKAKOS : Well what we're hoping is last year Suffolk Water did contact us and
we were shy two (2) people from Golden Lane to put in Suffolk Water. We are this year if they
do that again we're going to contact our neighbors. My concern is not the water, my concern is
that Soundview Ave. does not have any hydrants okay and if we have water on Soundview Ave.
at least up to our house there will be a hydrant in case of an emergency fire. So you know I
think everyone on the bluff should understand that too alright.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That's very helpful and it's much better to know that it's a well
rather than a septic system. You're going to replace the septic you're saying?
PENELOPE NIKOLAKAKOS : Yeah it's 50 years old. I don't recall how many rings there are. We
haven't had any problems with the septic system because it was primarily full time used as a
summer residence and then after that as a weekend residence.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The LWRP is suggesting a 15 foot vegetated buffer to protect the
house actually runoff onto the bluff and Soil and Water basically says that the bluff is pretty
stable except for down at the bottom. They're suggesting that no heavy equipment be
permitted within 25 feet which certainly makes a lot of sense I mean that's easy. Are you okay
with both of those things?
PENELOPE NIKOLAKAKOS : I don't think I have a problem with that. I mean I don't even want
them close to the bluff because that was a fortune to replace. Costello did the it was done I
think 2011 the wall was put up yeah the wall was again over 40 years old so after 35 years my
father said that it had a life of 35 years. We got about 42 years out of it and then our neighbors
had put up walls and sure enough after that 42 year mark everyone's walls started going so the
walls from us next door is a new wall the next house is a new wall and the other houses are
46-T-
January 8,2015 Regular Meeting
new wall so there are 4 brand new walls that were constructed within a year or two of one
another and they all went within a couple of years.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let's see if the Board has any questions. Gerry?
MEMBER GOEHRINGER : No, I was up there on a very blustery day, very beautiful and I really
don't have a particular problem I think we just have to take heed to the position of the pavers
as they are being requested to be laid so that the water doesn't go over the bluff and so on and
so forth. I'm mainly concerned about that.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yeah what are you gonna do with is it concrete or is it joints
permeable the pavers are they going to be the joints are they going to be permeable or
impervious?
URAL TALGAT : I believe our next phase of this would be going to the Trustees and I believe the
Trustees will not allow a concrete slab so they would have to be basically pavers, stone or
precast be placed on grade on sand.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : On sand okay yea that way at least some of the water would be
URAL TALGAT : It would be absorbed into the soil.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : There is a slope interesting slope on the property.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Excuse me one second what you could do is put a small little berm in
front of them so that the water actually runs back onto the pavers. I mean just a contour not
even a
URAL TALAGAT : When we start construction of that section we can make sure everything is
pitched away from the bluff towards the road side.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And given your history with bluff erosion I'm sure that's what you'd
want to do too. You're going to have to comply with 236 anyway that's the drainage the Town's
drainage code on site drainage is important. Well if putting in a 15 foot vegetative buffer that's
certainly going to help. As long as the land disturbance isn't you know 25 feet from the bluff
landward it should be fine.
URAL TALGAT : We don't have•a problem with the vegetative buffer we just have to have access
from the house to the stairs that go down to the beach.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That's fine. That's more than reasonable. You're gonna have to be
able to get to your steps. Anything else George?
471
January 8,2015 Regular Meeting
MEMBER HORNING : I really don't have any pertinent questions I will say though putting in
water Suffolk County water down there they might can look at insurance rates maybe suggest
your neighbors their insurance rates would actually go down too because in my neighborhood
they measured from a hydrant to the house to determine some portion of the fire insurance.
PENELOPE NIKOLAKAKOS : Yes thank you very much. I will bring that up but that's my concern
also is that we don't have a fire hydrant on the block.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Are you going to be using the existing walls in the house of the first
floor?
URAL TALGAT : When you say the existing walls of the house we're maintaining the existing
walls on the water side. The plate height is low it's somewhere around seven (7) feet so they
need to be increased up to eight (8) feet and then we're building a structure on that so we're
maintaining that and adding structure to that.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER : So you're maintaining the foundation.
URAL TALGAT : Foundation walls yes. The foundation walls will be maintained and if needed be
to be improved upon.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Okay but you're just going to add to the top of the foundation and then
build new walls and (inaudible) the house?
URAL TALGAT : Yes.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER : No other questions.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay anyone else in the audience who wish to address this
application? Okay hearing no further questions or comments I'll make a motion to close the
hearing reserve decision till later date.
MEMBER HORNING : Second.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor?
MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Aye
MEMBER HORNING : Aye
MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Aye
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye
January 8, 2015 Regular Meeting
(See Minutes for Resolution.)
HEARING#6823 115 COMMERCE DRIVE, LLC/2232 ROSES BROOK FARM, LLC.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for 115 Commerce Drive
LLC/Roses Brook Farm, LLC # 6823 Request for Variance from Article XV, Section 280-63 (Bulk
Schedule) and the Building Inspector's December 1, 2014 Notice of Disapproval based on an
application for building permit for construction of an "as built" third floor conditioned space to
an existing commercial building, at; 1) more than the code permitted maximum two stories,
located at: 115 Commerce Drive (Depot Rd.) Cutchogue, NY. SUM # 1000-96-1-1.2 Would you
state your name for the record please.
MR. KOSMYNKA : Marty Kosmynka I'm the manager for the 115 Commerce Drive and owner.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay so I we most of us here remember very well the construction
of the building that's now the subject of this application and the apartment which was
permitted based upon security issues and we stamped a plan for a let me see I think it was 1453
square foot apartment for a manager. Now based upon interior inspection and what the new
Notice of Disapproval says that there is now a staircase from one of the bedrooms that leads up
to a what is defined as a third story habitable space conditioned space. The code permits of
course a maximum of two (2) stories of habitable space and how does that come about?We did
do an inspection and it would appear that it's carpeted, it's sheetrocked. It has full head
clearance. I think there's just one probably inoperable circular window in the gable. What
happened there?
MR. KOSMYNKA : Can you hear me okay. Yea when we did the framing inspection the inspector
came by and I said can you know I can I do that. I put the staircase in and he said look you're
per.mitable to do this and I said fine probably cause the sprinkler system was in place and so I
went and did all that and then I didn't realize till I got the final and submitted the as built for
the attic that you know I didn't have permission from the Zoning Board and there was a
question mark with the Building Department if that could be heated upstairs and all those
wonderful things. So you know I and then I didn't even realize they put a phone jack in there
but it's all my fault. It wasn't meant to back end anything it just kind of okay can I do this I did it
and the engineer and architect says it's permitable by state code so it just kept on going down
this road and I didn't even realize that I had the issue with you guys: I do believe that the State
inspector has now inspected it. I think Mike Verity in the Building Department is working pretty
diligent to if you guys approve this third story there seems to be some flexibility in the code
that this could be considered to be and I'm not don't quote me on it that this could be an
January 8, 2015 Regular Meeting
office/some type of use not living area but some type of use that can be tied into it because we
have the commercial element on the first floor. Again I'm he might of spoken to you a little bit
better in detail than I but there are Mike's working it and my engineer and architect are
working on it but I think there could be some flexibility in the code to allow that usage up
there.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well it it's not you're not indicating a particular proposed use the
Notice of Disapproval just simply says the as built plans indicate a third story conditioned space
and only two (2) are permitted. What that would be doing is expanding the 1453 sq. feet of the
apartment by another 1000 square feet.
MR. KOSMYNKA : Well I think it's about 700 and it's not I mean they put the engineer put
conditioned on it but it's not conditioned there's no heat up there.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Not yet.
MR. KOSMYNKA : No not yet.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I mean but the duct work is all in there (inaudible)
MR. KOSMYNKA : Yea that's correct the air handlers are in place for the office and the
apartment. But yea again I mean I know I self-inflicted this but I truly didn't think that I was I
didn't think I was doing anything wrong there and I didn't catch the fact that I was only
permitted underneath with you're the variance for the watchman's quarters with that 1400 sq.
feet. _
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I mean were you what were you thinking when you did it that you'd
use it for?
MR. KOSMYNKA Well you know honestly you know the air handler the mechanical system had
to go up there so rather than a pull down staircase you know I got to a point where okay let's
just cause I had to make all the all the plans were designed exactly for that. The floor load was
designed for somebody being weight being in the attic because we knew the utilities had to go
up there and then it became a fact where are we going to put the pull down staircase. You
know that was all (inaudible) the elevation and the height was already predesigned and all that.
So then I said well let's put a staircase with a closet you know and then it kind of got to a next
step and then it's like okay you know put some sheetrock up there and I kind of started going
down this road not thinking I was doing something illegal to be very honest with you. Once they
said you got the sprinkler system in there you it became a question and then all this started to
blow up and then second egress and now they're telling me you know the State says look this
could be used as habitable space but not living then there's something with the second egress
January 8, 2015 Regular Meeting
is a requirement. Again it's a gray area but right now the intended use of it is to be non-heated
and storage. A useable for the mechanics up there and service those air handlers. But if the
State comes back Mike comes back and says we can allow a home office because you have the
commercial then it would become (inaudible) conditional space.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Obviously boxes don't need sheetrock and they don't need
carpeting. I mean clearly the project went a little farther than attic storage space. If it was that
if it had just been left open rafters and mechanical unheated this would not of been an issue. It
would have been you could of put in a pull down or probably a stair and it would of just been
access to attic storage space but given the height, given the finish and so on it is now a
something people could use. So here we sit.
MR. KOSMYNKA : And again I didn't realize it cause I wouldn't of done you know again I
apologize you know as I did the sheetrock I mean I was under the impression I was allowed to
do all these things and I actually said to Mike, Mike I'll tear before I got in front of your Board I
said I'll tear it all out and he said no, no, no don't do that don't you know we think there's room
in the code but you first got to admit to the Zoning Board and see if these folks would let you
you know I don't know where I am.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well finish your thought you what?That's what I'm trying to get at I
mean
MR. KOSMYNKA : I don't know if I'm putting my foot in my mouth right now I wasn't truly
looking to hide anything.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You're going to have classiest attic in town or you going to have a
space that can be used for the kids as a recreation room. The guy's got a couple of kids.
MR. KOSMYNKA :You're right. I don't know you know.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The Board has precedent for allowing so called attic space small
offices, you know no bathrooms usually occasionally a little look out for water view but they're
very minor and they're carefully looked at and they're always sprinkled. You had to sprinkle it
anyway so it's already got that because that's what the code for commercial building so I guess
I would like to explore you know what the option of what you want to do with it I mean it's easy
to say storage only whether or not that's enforceable, whether or not that's realistic I don't
know.
MR. KOSMYNKA : I think at the moment that the Building Department and the State are trying
to see if this can become conditional storage space.
January 8, 2015 Regular Meeting
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Conditioned storage space?
MR. KOSMYNKA : Yea conditioned I'm sorry conditioned. (inaudible) heat up there.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You need a heated storage space?
MR. KOSMYNKA : That's correct or a heated home office. You know I'm not clear on the code.
They're trying to work it out.
MEMBER HORNING : Sir we see a little round window in one diagram how many windows are
there up there?
MR. KOSMYNKA :Just the one.
MEMBER HORNING : One window in the attic. And how many ways to get to the attic, are
there just the one stairway
MR. KOSMYNKA : That's correct. The one stairway going up but in commercial space you don't
you don't have to allow you know the first floor doesn't have has fixed windows so in
commercial space you just need one egress coming out so I think that's where you know I
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :This is residential space.
MR. KOSMYNKA : Excuse me.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :The apartment is residential.
MR. KOSMYNKA : Right the apartment is residential I guess there's a question mark in the code
this is deemed residential commercial space on the third story then if I'm hearing correctly then
the second means of egress is not required. It would be treated as commercial space and I do
think that something to do with the sprinkler system. Once the sprinkler system comes into
play I believe somethings might be changed in that and there's heat detection up there too.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well it's a little confusing then because it sounds like you're not
totally clear on what you're allowed. The Building Department hasn't made a complete
determination other than to tell us that what you built is not permitted without variance relief
because it's a third story conditioned space. Even though you don't have the heat functioning in
it yet they're calling it a conditioned space cause mechanical is in there.
MR. KOSMYNKA :That's correct.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No it's not hooked up there, outlets up there, there's a phone jack
up there several of us went and did you know an interior inspection so we could see what was
January 8, 2015 Regular Meeting
what the plans weren't even clear cause the plans we.stamped didn't have that stair and didn't
have that space up there so
MR. KOSMYNKA : I think it's the determination first from you folks and then I go back to them
because if you guys deny it then it's a mood point you know and I don't know what happens
after that tear things out I guess.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well the bottom line is we do grant sometimes as I said a small could
be a very small home office or something usually that's in a house not it's quite unusual to have
an apartment of that size in a commercial building like that and it's only because of your
security requirements that that was allowed so this is a little unorthodox and if we do grant it in
a house it's usually a very small space not nearly as big as what you're finished space is up
there.
MR. KOSMYNKA : I think the finished space is about 700 square feet.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's 1000 according to the application here Planning Board it's a 1000
and the Planning Board calculated it at a 1000 and by the way we have a letter of comments
indicating that basically the Planning Board is not going to review an amended site plan because
it's not necessary because there's no impact on the site. There is you know this is within the
existing walls and (inaudible) of the building as it is and as it was granted so they really don't
have any action on this but that's where the 1000 square foot was calculated.
MR. KOSMYNKA : I mean maybe I'm thinking what they were considering to be the head room
cause it comes down
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well you know it's fully it's a fully habitable space I mean you have
you know (inaudible) walls you have knee walls that are about that high and the rest is you
know habitable space. So the Board has to decide whether or not to simply say this space can
be used for as unheated storage or it can be used for some other purpose but that purpose is
not yet defined. I'm wondering whether or not you want to talk to the Building Department
more to get an a clearer Notice of Disapproval like to propose a use for it as opposed to
conditioned. If that's the case we can adjourn and you could find out and we can continue or
we can close the hearing and just rule on what's before us.
MR. KOSMYNKA : My problem now is look I'm completely (inaudible) with everybody. I mean
this is a commercial business I have to get open I have to get going.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I understand.
January 8, 2015 Regular Meeting
MR. KOSMYNKA : It's been a very long process and I am done. I am have every I have Health
Department, Planning Board was on Monday fire inspections all been done you know
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well I don't want to hold up your C.O. I mean
MR. KOSMYNKA : Yea I mean and but I think that you know if the Board would say look if
Building Department rules that it cannot be habitable space and it can only be used as attic
space then you know they're one part of (inaudible) right so I have to do that you know. I think
that if you could just but I don't think they're going to rule until they know what you folks want
to do or allow me to do. I don't know if you can grant me the relief and say alright if the
Building Department rules that he can use it as a home office or whatever they're trying to do
as habitable fine but if the Building Department rules that it cannot be done according to State
Code it can only be used as attic space and not heated area then that's the way it goes.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well that's what I need to hear from them. I will prefer that they just
look into the Code and I mean there's no reason why they can't already know what the Code
would allow. You know what I'm saying. It's not about what we do it's what the Code will allow
and if they're saying there may be some permitted uses for that you know the Code would
permit you to have with that one egress then we ought to know what that is and that's what
we ought to grant you or we can simply say well give him (inaudible) of it should be unheated
storage.
MS, KOSMYNKA : Well I think you know they're going down a road to try to get (inaudible) and I
think they wanted to know what your thoughts are you know it's like they're working this end
of it and you're working you know if you said no then it's a mood point on their end and then if
you say yes with a question mark what we don't have a problem if it's allowed to be habitable
fine if it's not then it can't be habitable then it can be attic space.
MEMBER HORNING : May I comment this is Light Industrial Zone sir is that correct?
MR. KOSMYNKA : Yea L.I.
MEMBER HORNING : Right and according to your own application the maximum permitted
number of stories is two (2) is that correct also?
MR. KOSMYNKA : Yes
MEMBER HORNING : Okay so saying you know what the Building Department is gonna
determine or rule on it or whatever they already did. They ruled that they can't have the third
story space. That's what we're dealing with so they're not waiting for us exactly or you know
January 8, 2015 Regular Meeting
we're not waiting for the Building Department to come and say oh yea you really can use this
space they already said you couldn't.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :The Building Department waiting for the State to decide.
MR. KOSMYNKA : There's been some as of yesterday there was some the engineer is working it
out too. There's some drawings going back and forth on the attic space. There were some
measurements that needed to get recalculated. So I think that the State and Mike and my own
engineer are working back and forth on that.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN I'll tell you what it makes sense I mean what we're trying to do is
cooperate get this done. I know that you need your C.O. and nobody is trying to hold you up in
any way but we gotta get this right. I think what we should do is adjourn to the Special Meeting
in two (2) weeks. That gives two (2) weeks to sort these details out see what the State is see
what the Building Department is and then we can in two (2) weeks close the thing if we can get
that information sorted out. It'll get you farther I mean I would hate to say no to something
that then after the fact you might have been able to do.
MR. KOSMYNKA : I appreciate that.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You know what I'm saying then you got to reapply all over again
saying oops I could of done this and that's more money and more time.
MR. KOSMYNKA : I appreciate it.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN.: So while we're at it if we adjourn we don't have to you know do
anything other than see what information you can get together in the next two (2) weeks and
MEMBER HORNING : Second.
MR. KOSMYNKA : And I do think there's an answer coming very quickly.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yea it sounded like it, is the Board agreeable to doing that?
MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Yup.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright let's make a I'll make a motion there's nobody in the
audience there's no one else to address this. The motion is to adjourn to the Special Meeting
which is on January 22nd subject to additional information from the applicant and the Building
Department relative to permitted uses. Okay. It was seconded by who did that? George. All in
favor?
MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Aye
January 8, 2015 Regular Meeting
MEMBER HORNING :Aye
MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Aye
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye
(See Minutes for Resolution.)
HEARING# 6816—55 COX NECK ROAD REALTY, LLC
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for 55 Cox Neck Rd. Realty,
LLC this was adjourned from December 18, 2014 Special Meeting so I do not need to read the
Legal Notice into the record. Let's see we thoroughly reviewed everything that was submitted,
I'm assuming that everybody else has done the same. We've looked at the photographs, we
looked at 'the DVD you sent, we got comments from the Town Engineer and so on and so is
there anyone here either Mr. Bressler, Eric or Steve or somebody who would like to make some
comments to the Board on anything that your where your thinking is now after your reviewing
all of the information that's been submitted as well? You can't speak unless you go to the
podium. If you want to go to the podium you can just state your name for the record.
DENISE NOVARRA : Here I am Denise Novarra and I just want to say that I just learned some
new information today that I would like some time to process think about how I feel about it
about moving the whole structure.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let's get some more clarification as to what that means. Let's let
your attorney
ERIC BRESSLER : Madam chairman I would love to elucidate on that but unfortunately due to
the nature of the discussions we're not really
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I'm sorry Eric you have to state your name for the transcript but the
machine doesn't.
ERIC BRESSLER : Eric J. Bressler. Unfortunately due to the nature of the discussions we are not
at liberty to go into the details other than to say that there are active discussions concerning a
resolution of the differences at least as it would affect this Board between the objectives and
the applicant. What we had hoped to do was one of two things here today and that is put it
whatever additional information that we think ought to be submitted to the Board and then
either close the hearing or adjourn it to a Special Meeting in the not too distant future to give
the parties time to digest the particular discussions and proposals that were made as Mrs.
January 8, 2015 Regular Meeting
Novarra correctly pointed out she was made privy to the substance of these things moments
ago and we're not talking about a long term process here we're talking about a short term
process. So to summarize I think from our side we'd like to put in and complete the record with
whatever we need to do and then have you either close it or put it over to a Special Meeting
probably the Special Meeting is better because at that time there might be something further
to report to you vis-a-vis you know what we've been discussing and to otherwise take all the
testimony with the hope that we will be able to continue this dialog and arrive at a solution
obviously subject to what the Board wants to do because ultimately it's your determination but
we'd be hopeful that if we reached a resolution it's something that the Board would be
comfortable with as well. So, that's kind of a long answer to a short question which I did not
intend to answer anyway which is one of the details
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Love lawyers.
ERIC BRESSLER : Well I mean you know you know what this is all about and you know their
privileged and we're not going to share them until they come to fruition but I will say that they
are substantive enough that you know we are hopeful that some progress can me made you
know from dealing with me over the years I wouldn't say that if I didn't th'ink it were true. I just
go ahead and fight so we do believe that there is some substance to this so that having been
said if that's satisfactory to the Board madam chairman we'd like to do whatever it is we're
going to do and then have you determine what the next step is and give us that brief window to
try to come to terms with what's on the table.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let me ask Steve, Mr. Libretto would you make some comments
about that Mr. Bressler's comments.
STEVE LIBRETTO : At this point I can just comment that we are talking about, Steve Libretto as
agent for the 55 Cox Neck Realty. I can't comment much on it other than to say that we are
willing to make some accommodations to try to bring resolution to the issue.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well based upon that I think probably it's prudent to adjourn to the
Special Meeting. I don't know that there's any additional information the Board can take in in
writing or even written testimony unless you either or both of you had comments about each
other's material that you've had a chance to address. You could put that into the record now.
MR. BRESSLER : We do and we're ready to do that and I agree with Mr. Libretto which is rare
enough in this case that probably we ought to do that and then report back to you. I don't
know what the Board's schedule for Special Meetings is
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's two (2) weeks from today.
January 8, 2015 Regular Meeting
MR. BRESSLER : I think that would be more than adequate.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER : You're only going to take written comments though right?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yea I do want make you aware that the Special Meeting is not
recorded and I believe cause you were there I think you came once we deliberate on decisions
or discuss information or we have a draft decision but we don't take public testimony. People
can listen of course it's an open public meeting but there's no additional information that we
would take in from you or conversation that we would have.That has to be a public hearing. So,
if we can listen to whatever anyone in the audience wants to say today and then we can
adjourn to the Special Meeting (inaudible)to give you an opportunity to carry on with whatever
discussions you're having and see where you can get with that with the anticipation that we will
close the hearing at the Special Meeting in two (2) weeks and then proceed to make a
determination. Does that make sense?
MR. BRESSLER : Yes
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So, having said that let's see what anybody wants to enter into the
record now. Who wants to Steve is standing there so why don't we let him speak and then Eric
you and Joe
JOE FISCHETTI : Madam chairman can I ask one question. You made a comment that you had
the Town Engineer report. We got pretty much everything
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It wasn't a report he just emailed me last night and I was going to
enter it into the record cause it's literally a couple of sentences.
JOE FISCHETTI : Can I have a copy? Or you can read it to me that'll be fine.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I'm going to read it. Shall I read it before you get started?
STEVE LIBRETTO : I really don't have much other than to just say that what I've submitted for
the file is just in response what was submitted at the Special Meeting on December 18th
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Fine oh okay good so we can read this. We of course got you know
all kinds of information from all over the place and we all have read it and I think we pretty well
digested (inaudible) too. Let me just read what I got here was this was a request we sent both
the report or the comments from you Joe and also the one from Young &Young that Steve gave
to the Board and you've all seen both and the sent both of those to Jaimie Richter our Town
Engineer to get some comments if any and he said as follows. Leslie I stated in my Planning
Board review this project has been designed to meet the minimum requirements of Chapter
236 for storm water management. At your request I had the two (2) engineering reports
January 8, 2015 Regular Meeting
prepared by the consultants. While it appears that there are at least two (2) distinct sides to
this issue I stand by my original report. The existing storm water runoff generated at this site
would be considerably reduced if not eliminated by the'installation of the proposed design.
Please do not hesitate to contact my office if you have any questions. That's it. Okay. There is
enough of them to go around here? Just was a question procedurally about where they are
with Planning Board it's an open application as far as I know. They haven't finalized it yet. Yea
they haven't finalized it.
ERIC BRESSLER : So there will be opportunity for input?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Oh yea the site plan is you know stuff that's before the Planning
Board will be before the public you know.
A.T.A KIELY : It was held pending this Special Exception.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yea they want to see the outcome of this.
A.T.A. KIELY : The cart was before the horse with the Planning Board so now they reopened the
hearing subject to
ERIC BRESSLER : Yea I just want to make sure it is not solely for the purpose of receiving this
Boards report apropos you know what we think we're going to be able to resolve here.
A.T.A. KIELY : It's open as now.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's open. It's open. Planning Board has gotten quite far in the
process but depending on what happens here they will be informed fully the Planning Board
will be
ERIC BRESSLER : Let me be a little more specific for the record and that is having heard the
report of the Town Engineer from our point of view it understates the case to say that we're
disappointed however we will take that issue assuming a resolution here we will take that issue
back hence the question about whether that is still open and we'll let them deal with that.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well they certainly deal with drainage so you know it would appear
what is proposed now is going to substantially improve drainage on the property okay. But that
is not really what we are addressing at the moment I mean it's one of the things we've looked
at relative to adverse impacts as is our responsibility but I think what may happen I'll just be
candid if the parties involved come to some agreement of you know consensus as to how to
make this a win win situation then likely we will expect to receive an amended site plan and if
we get that that's what we stamp. That's what goes forth and that's what will wind up back at
the Planning Board along with the drainage.
January 8, 2015 Regular Meeting
ERIC BRESSLER : Yea I mean I just want to make sure that you know since we're not planning to
(inaudible) with Mr. Fischetti here today and you're taking whatever evidence you're taking Mr.
Fischetti will have an opportunity to be heard in front of the Planning Board persuade him of his
brilliance and the correctness of this calculation and that we're not forgoing that. That's the
sole
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All I can tell you is that the Planning Board the site plan approval
process is open. It's not concluded.
A.T.A KIELY : And it's recommended that you try to do global disposition and maybe you can
just address concerns with....and try to do a global disposition.
ERIC BRESSLER : Clearly we're going to do that I don't want to be foreclosed on having a forum
to argue about that if we're able to achieve an only partial resolution which you know would be
obviously beneficial. We can obviously argue about the engineering as long as you have a forum
to do it and then I'm satisfied.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We were watching the little thing go up and down here we want to
be sure we get it's very sensitive equipment.
ERIC BRESSLER : I don't need the mic I'll use my courtroom voice. Is your needle jumping?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You still need the mic because this is not for my ears
ERIC BRESSLER : As long as we have that forum and I'm assured that we do, then we will be
shared from Mr. Fischetti this afternoon
A.T.A. KIELY : Well this hearing isn't closed. It's being punted to the Special. So in the interim I'll
confirm that you have that forum with the Planning Board regarding (inaudible).
ERIC BRESSLER : Okay and if something gets fouled up there then at the Special Meeting
A.T.A. KIELY : You can ask for it to be adjourned to the next Regular
ERIC BRESSLER : For the purpose of Mr. Fischetti.
A.T.A. KIELY : Correct.
ERIC BRESSLER : I got it. Okay.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I think Mr. Libretto was that all you wanted to do was to say you
were submitting these comments in writing. Okay. So they will become part of the record.
presume you'll want a copy and anything that you have in writing please give a copy to
January 8, 2015 Regular Meeting
ERIC BRESSLER : Mr. Cuddy's received a copy.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay. Have you gotten a copy of this.
ERIC BRESSLER : No ma'am.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay we'll make you a copy.
ERIC BRESSLER : Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Look how fast we made a copy. I have to say this is one of the most
interesting application this Board has ever entertained. You keep me awake at night I tell ya.
What would you like us to hear?
ERIC BRESSLER : At this juncture given the discussion that we have had I would respectfully ask
the Board to adjourn this matter to the next Special Meeting which we understand to be two
(2) weeks hence.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay. Well the intent here is to give yourselves some time to have
ongoing discussion.
ERIC BRESSLER : That is correct.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : To consider possible resolution of conflict so that everyone walks
away feeling pretty good about the end result. Mr. Cuddy would you like to say something?
MR. CUDDY : Charles Cuddy for the applicant. The question I guess I have is what is going to
Happen in this meeting are we going to close the hearing at this time?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Today, no we're going to adjourn to the Special Meeting or really I
don't expect we are going to get anything more in writing but you never know you have that
option as long as it's open and anybody can submit whatever they wish. However, we've gotten
an awful a lot of information. I suspect we have a pretty clear picture of all of the issues that are
involved.
MR. CUDDY : Ok good writing can still be submitted?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Oh yes certainly. And the intent would be the hope that within this
two (2) week period some resolution can take place that would move this forward in a positive
way. I anticipate that we will close the hearing based upon what happens in those two (2)
weeks at the Special Meeting without any further adeu of any sort and then we'll just make our
determination.
0 �_
January 8, 2015 Regular Meeting
MR. CUDDY : Okay good thank you.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You're welcome. Yes but you have to come to the podium and state
your name.
RICHARD BEHMOIRAM : My name is Richard Behmoiram. So my question is
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Can you spell the last name?
RICHARD BEHMOIRAM : Oh sure Behmoiram. So we've been present at all these hearings and
we tried to make some headway to please all parties obviously this has dragged on for now I
believe this will our 4th meeting at the Special session. At that point is it possible if we come to a
resolution with the other party to get a decision rendered at that hearing for purposes of
expediting our application?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Here's the thing we won't be able to have a draft decision made
until we know what the end run is if you understand what I'm saying. If in fact between now
and then that is accomplished and it's accomplished fairly quickly and that information is
submitted to our office there is a slight chance and I say slight because we meet twice a month
that we may be able to really push that I may be able to just set aside a chunk of time or
whatever with some colleagues and maybe we can have a draft since you will have submitted
everything you know maybe we will have a draft for that Special Meeting but that's really really
hard. What I can promise is that if it's all kind of falling into place and we close two (2) weeks
from today two weeks hence we will have a decision.
RICHARD BEHMOIRAM : Okay I would just respectfully ask if it is possible I know we were
relatively close today if we can get that to you if you could understand'the position we're in and
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I do and there's no interest on our part in delaying property owners
whenever we can be efficient and get the job done correctly we proceed as swiftly as we can.
It's just part of our way of operating.
RICHARD BEHMOIRAM : Understood and I appreciate it.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We know that you've had a long process and we'll do our very best
to make things move as quickly as we can.
RICHARD BEHMOIRAM : Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN You're very welcome. Is there anyone else in the audience who
wishes to say anything.Anything else from the Board?
MEMBER GOEHRINGER : No.
January 8, 2015 Regular Meeting
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay, hearing no further questions or comments I'm going to make a
motion to adjourn this hearing to the Special Meeting on January 22"d
MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Second.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: All in favor?
MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Aye
MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Aye
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye
(See Minutes for Resolution.)
January 8, 2015 Regular Meeting
CERTIFICATION
I Elizabeth Sakarellos, certify that the foregoing transcript of tape recorded
Public Hearings was prepared using required electronic transcription equipment
and is a true and accurate record of Hearings.
Signature :
Elizabeth Sakarellos
1