HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-07/02/2015 Hearing 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
July 2, 2015
10:00 A.M.
Board Members Present:
LESLIE KANES WEISMAN -Chairperson/Member
ERIC DANTES— Member
GERARD GOEHRINGER— Member
GEORGE HORNING — Member (left at 2:10 P.M.)
KENNETH SCH N EI DER— Member
VICKI TOTH — Board Assistant
STEPHEN KI ELY—Assistant Town Attorney
'Ji.
July 2, 2015 Regular Meeting
INDEX OF HEARINGS
Hearing Page
William A. Penney, Ill and Sukru Ilgin (CV) # 6839 3 - 13
William A. Penney, Ill and Sukru Ilgin (CV) # 6840 3 - 13
Steven and Andrea Kolyer# 6860 13 - 21
Southold Farm and Cellar, Inc. (Meador) # 6861 21 - 27
Janio Spinola # 6869 27 - 34
Denis and Nancy Cole# 6864 34 - 38
William and Iva M. Felix# 6867 39 -45
James Morgan # 6866 46 -48
Michael Duff# 6868 48 - 51
David and Stephanie Sack# 6865 52 - 65
Pasquale Anthony DeFiore# 6870 65 -92
July 2, 2015 Regular Meeting
HEARING #6839 &# 6840 WILLIAM A. PENNEY, III and SUKRU ILGIN (CV)
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let me ask the audience please the first two hearings are inter-
related and they were adjourned from a previous hearing so I'm not going to have to read the
Notice of Disapproval again but how many of you are here for the Penney application? Ok that's
what I suspected. Why else would people be here so early in the morning if they weren't
interested in an application. Why don't we do this, I'm going to open these two hearing
simultaneously
MEMBER HORNING : Can we take their comments?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes of course of course it's a public hearing absolutely. One of these
applications is for a special exception permit to operate a gasoline service station with a
convenience store. That is a use permitted in that zone district by code but only upon review
and approval by the Zoning Board. The next application is for variance relief. As currently
proposed the conversion of the existing Penney basically RV sales and car detailing building will
be renovated and become a convenience store and there will be the construction of new
gasoline pumps being proposed and the variance relief application will require a setback for a
front canopy from front of the canopy at 23 feet from CR 48 where the code requires 100 feet
and a rear canopy at 84 feet from CR 48 where the code requires 100 feet and a one of the
front pump structures is 75 linear feet long. The code permits a maximum of 60 lineal feet. It
will also require site plan approval from the Planning Board. I just reiterated all of this so that
you're aware of the various issues that the Board is examining. Now it's possible that there's
two other issues here and it's possible that we will be continuing this hearing I'll get into the
reason why later. There is also something that I noticed that I didn't see in the Notice of
Disapproval which is that according to my reading the code pursuant to chapter 280-48 of the
Town Code the gas station use and the convenience store are both principal uses. That's due to
the proposed size of the convenience store. To be an accessory use which is permitted with a
gas station it would have to be 800 sq. ft. or less. This is according to 280-48 C4 (A) part of the
code. The lot is 65,166 sq. ft. in a Business B Zone so there are two principal uses being
proposed simply because a convenience store is not considered to be accessory to the gas
station because it's too big so that's another issue we need to look at. Why don't we do this is
there someone here to represent that application? The attorney is not here but I see the
contract vendee here. Is there anything you'd like to tell us about an update with the Planning
Board?
3
July 2, 2015 Regular Meeting
AUDIENCE MEMBER : Inaudible (away from microphone)
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : This application is before the Planning Board as well as the Zoning
Board. What I'm going to have to do however is because of the time and we don't want to
delay and be discourteous to our neighbors I'm going to take some public testimony alright at
this time so it's entered into the record. If any of you would like to come forth and make some
comments about this application please feel free to come to the microphone. What I would ask
you to do is state your name and spell your name and speak clearly into the microphone
because these comments are being recorded and they become part of a public transcript so
that we can go back and reread your comments and anyone's comments. Is there someone
here that would like to address this application at all?
CAROL BERTSCH : My name is Carol Bertsch and I'm here in opposition of the gas station and
convenience store for several reasons. The half mile stretch between 48 and 25 is the most
densely populated street in all of Southold. We have at least 200 people on this street at any
time. There are 12 private residences, 92 units at Founders Village and 4 businesses that attract
many customers and clients not to mention your comrades in the Town Hall Annex that is
adjacent to the bank property. The volunteer fire department in all of Southold Town does an
excellent job but if this permit is granted there are insufficient ambulances and EMT volunteers
to evacuate the residence and employees and clients and customers if there is an emergency
and who is going to make the decision to determine who will be rescued first, the little kids that
live on the block or the grey haired people who are in wheelchairs that live in Founders Village.
That's going to be a very difficult decision to make and there will be a traffic jam of epic
proportions with 94 residences trying to get out of Founders Village at the same time to
evacuate in case of an emergency. The site plan shows 6 gas pumps with a nozzle on each side,
12 nozzles and we have two stations gas stations within close proximity. One on 25 and North
Bayview which is a mile and a half away and the other on 48 and Peconic Lane just west of
Peconic Lane which is 2 1/2 miles away. The other day when I was coming onto Young's Ave.
from 48 I made the turn and I very purposely looked ahead and to the side for the egress exit
out of the proposed gas station I could not see until I was almost on top of the driveway any
cars coming out any possible cars coming out. There was not a car there at the moment. It's a
blind corner. One leads out one proposed exit leads out on to 48 there's a traffic light just east
of that. There is no safe way to make a left turn from this gas station onto 48 or onto Young's
Ave. to continue west. The gas station at 48 and Peconic Lane has a break in the island in the
middle for cars to safely cross over to make a left. There is no proposal on the highway on 48
for this. It's just a disaster waiting to happen. It's such an inconvenient spot. The gasoline tanks
will also be located underground immediately adjacent to the Peconic Land Trust farm. Any leak
from these proposed tanks is going to contaminate the soil and any vegetation and any organic
product will no longer be organic. It will be contaminated by the gasoline. One more concern is
July 2, 2015 Regular Meeting
the fact that gas stations with 24 hour convenience stores should have very bright lighting at
night to prevent accidents and robberies. Custer Institute is only 2 or 3 miles south and I know
that they require there be dark skies otherwise the telescope does not pick up our beautiful
starry heavens and another concern we want to know why there are 29 parking spots. Will this
become an overnight hang out for trucks or people waiting to be first in line at the Orient Point
Ferry? Another statistic I found was that gas stations and 24 hour convenience stores are
magnets for robberies sometimes with shooting sometimes without. They have to be very well
lit and very specifically located. The money has to be put in very safe places otherwise they
become a magnet for robbers. One of the top reasons for robbing a 24 hour convenience store
and gas station is that it's in a new location and the personnel is not trained they have not had
the experience of having this happen to them before if they're lucky enough to live through it. I
think someone else will talk to the fact about the police and how they are so concerned with
the fact of robberies on this at these stations and I thank you very much for listening.
ANTHONY PETERS : My name is Anthony Peters I also reside at Founders Village on Young's Ave.
I guess my comments would simply be in addition to Carol's comments regarding the
convenience store/gas station robberies on Eastern Long Island for 2015. What I was able to
see was that crime levels are so high in this category that the police are considering the
multiple investigations to be the highest priority to the department this year 2015. Just recently
in February of this year we had 9 armed robberies and one fatal shooting. The eastern long
island police commissioners are now ordering commanders of the homicide and robbery
divisions, the major case bureau and the bureau special operations to join forces due to the
very violent and dangerous nature of this crime spree. The target in this entire category are gas
stations/convenience store. The list that I've compiled goes on for the balance up until June of
2015 all in the same crime spree category all on eastern long island convenience store/gas
station robberies. Some with fatal shootings all at gun point. It seems to me this is Southold to
be a farm preserved community. The focus here on a 29 spot gas station/convenience store
seems very much at odds with what this community stands for and that's the nature of my
comments this morning. Thank you for listening.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anyone else who wishes to address the Board on this application?
ELLEN CORWIN : Ellen Corwin Founder's Village. I just want to say a few words. I think as this
process goes on many will address the traffic, the property values, issues. I want to say just a
few things about the quality of life. I wasn't born out here. I didn't grow up here but I chose to
live out here mainly because of the character and the quality of life. I think I can sum it up just
by quoting the open letter to the Mattituck residence 6/25 Suffolk Times by the developer and
owner of the property across from the Capital One site in Mattituck. In trying to I guess assuage
5
July 2, 2015 Regular Meeting
the concerns of residence he felt the need to say this location will not be a site for 24 hour
stores or gas stations. Thank you.
DONALD WAGNER : Good morning my name is Donald Wagner. I also live in Founders Village.
I've been in this village over 10 years and I've seen some changes as we all have in 10 years.
When we first came here there was another gas station right down that Young's Ave. on the
southwest corner of Main St. It's still a service station or maintenance but they don't sell gas
anymore and it's because they didn't weren't doing their business. As you well know out here
it's rapidly becoming a vacation place or the affluent and a retirement place for seniors such as
we are in Founders Village. In that category we are people who use who need gas for their cars
have had no trouble going down as Carol indicated about a mile and a half down the road and
you've heard no complaints about unable to get gas. The people coming out for weekends or
summer vacations they have their favorite gas station. They've filled up before they came out
here and then they have a need for it so my question is in view of the fact that all of the gas
stations have left they used to be I understand another couple in addition to the one on
southwest corner of Main St. They used to be here too but why aren't they here, because they
weren't able to do business so I ask you is can this place be profitable? No business should be
allowed to proceed unless they can be profitable and I really doubt as to the profitability of the
place. So please in your efforts here to make a decision consider this because I have no trouble
running all the way down Bayview Ave to the one gas station that's there and they keep the
prices reasonable for gas as you well know. You probably go there yourselves and so please
consider this. I don't really think we need all this increased traffic here on the corner of Young's
Ave and Route 48. Thank you.
CHERYL AMARA : My name is Cheryl Amara. I live on Young's Ave 2 houses in from where Tidy
Car sits now. First of all I want to thank my neighbors at Founders Village for speaking up
because everything they say is true and I agree with that. Up until we got the traffic light at the
end of Young's Ave. I've been there for almost 30 years now on that street. We had we would
average probably 10 to 12 accidents at that intersection every summer. Now that we have the
traffic light there it's down about 50%, 4 to 6 accidents a summer at that intersection. It's a
dangerous intersection because of the merges. To put a business right there on that corner is
really it doesn't make any sense. The other thing is I sat on my porch in preparation for this
meeting last week and I timed the traffic coming down our street which we all know is a lot and
every 15 seconds a vehicle went by my house and that was for an hour or so. So it's a heavily
traffic street, it's a heavily populated street and we can't just put the business on the corner in
its own little box because it affects the whole street and the whole traffic flow going down into
the village and coming back out of the village. I invite you to come and sit there on my porch
anytime. There are huge trucks that have to use that street for both Burts Reliable, IGA that's
like their main drag down to 25 and it makes it very problematic and very dangerous let alone
o
July 2, 2015 Regular Meeting
all the other safeguards that you would have to put in place to have gas tanks buried in the
ground near right on top of property that this Town decided to preserve so it's really it's not a
good idea. The last thing I wanted to say is we already have a 24 hour convenience spot, 7-
eleven and it seems to fit the needs. It's locally operated and it fits the needs of the community.
I don't see any reason why we need another 24 hour convenience store in the village at this
time. Nobody seems to be complaining. We have enough gas stations so I just really am totally
against this going forward. I think it's going to be a real heartache for the people living on the
street and actually people in the community as we add to that especially the traffic so that's it.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anyone else?
JOHN ABELE : My name is John Abele. I am a resident of Founders Village and a full time
resident of Southold for 15 years and a summer person before that. My question on this
proposal I just think it's the wrong place for a gas station and I refer to the traffic on Route 48. If
a westbound car tries to stop and get gasoline he's going to have to go through the eastbound
traffic, hold up the westbound traffic that's one consideration. The other one is that when the
cars come off 48 onto Young's Ave. very often they are going full speed and they make that turn
and they go right into it. If there is a car coming out of the gasoline station at that point there's
going to be a serious problem. I would also note this property has a lot of nice old trees that are
real old Southold and I'm sure they would not survive a gas station. Thank you.
JOHN STRODE : My name is John Strode. I'm also a resident of Founders. I would reiterate the
comments by I've been a resident of the Town of Southold since 1982. My as I said I would
reiterate the comments made by my neighbors. My primary concern today in a short term is
that we've all taken the time to come and express our concerns and so forth yet I don't see
anybody from the applicant here to address those concerns and I don't think it's very polite if
they intend to become neighbors. They haven't taken the time to be here and address all the
concerns that we've put on the record and so I don't know what the procedure would be but I
would ask that you leave this open so that we can hear from the applicant and I think it's
significant that the applicant is not here to address all of our concerns.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I can make some comments about that but sir the contract vendee is
here. You'd like to make some comments you need to come to the microphone and state your
name and spell it please.
SUKRU ILGIN : Good morning my name Sukru Ilgin. I'm the applicant. I can answer questions or I
can I listen all our neighbors I can answer some of them some of them are technical I cannot
answer that. First they said they have concern about the gas tanks buried in the ground and it's
July 2, 2015 Regular Meeting
going to be leaked. That's not going to happen because double wall tanks (inaudible). If
something happens all the alarms will go off it will shut the whole system. The second concern
they had that's the lights. We have (inaudible) in Southold Town it can go with by that what the
Town requires we can live with that and I don't know what other major issues is they say traffic.
Traffic is already there not going to bring any traffic and not going I don't think create more
traffic than whatever is there because we're not going to offer something special. People will
come on purpose to buy the gas there or(inaudible) but there is traffic like this existing there.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I don't know why the applicant's agent which is Charles Cuddy who's
his attorney and Garrett Strang who is the architect are not here. That is most unusual.
Something must of gone awry where they somehow messed up the date.
SUKRU ILGIN : I called both of them. I couldn't get probably something emergency happen.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well I will tell you this much. Procedurally as I mentioned earlier this
application is also before the Planning Board okay. The Planning Board has jurisdiction to make
some decisions about a lot of the concerns with ingress and egress and lighting and parking
spaces and so on. That's part of a site plan approval. It's also a public process. They will notice
the hearing as we do and any comments you may have you can follow up there with them as
well. I will also tell you that in order to grant the special exception permit for this use the
Zoning Board has to evaluate a set of standards which are in the code. It has to do with is the
proposed use in harmony with adjacent use districts and adjacent uses which would be both
business, agricultural and residential in this particular sites case and one of the things the
Zoning Board has the power to do is to put conditions upon approval if approval is even granted
that would mitigate any possible adverse impacts and they're extensive, they can be extensive.
What has to happen in order for us to know whether or not there are adverse environmental
impacts is a process called SEAR has to take place which is a state environmental quality
review. Now in this case the Planning Board is lead agency on the SEAR review and in order for
us to get their determination as to whether it's a positive declaration or negative declaration or
exempt we have to wait until they make that determination because depending on what that is
it will affect what we do and don't do. You see what I'm getting at? Anybody have any question
about it? I want to make sure you understand procedurally what's going to have to happen
here. So what we will do what we will have to do is adjourn this hearing either to a specific later
date or simply to adjourn until such time as we have the SEAR determination from the Planning
Board and then reschedule another hearing. At that point we'll have a lot more information. It's
very probable it's my understanding that the original survey that we have or site plan has
already been modified to some extent by the applicant with the Planning Board we don't even
have that information so we will need to continue to review this. So you're concern is going to
be addressed. We will not be closing this. We'll have ample notice again first of all as to when
July 2, 2015 Regular Meeting
the Planning Board is going to be reviewing this application so that if you so choose you may
you know go to those meetings and then when we have their determination we will reschedule
a hearing here and incorporate that information. By the way the reason we record everything is
because it is the public record and so anybody once it's typed up as our official transcript can
have access to it and certainly I am positive Mr. Cuddy and Mr. Strang will be reading today's
transcript and will be aware of those concerns and be made aware that way and will be
addressing them both with the Planning Board and eventually back here. So does the Zoning
Board do any of you on the Board have any questions at this time? I think probably because the
agents are not here and we don't have updated information from the Planning Board I don't
know what else we can actually do that's productive at this point. Was there another
comment?
PAUL LANCEY : Paul Lancey, Soundview Ave. 20 year plus resident. My concern, my wife is
against it I'm on the fence. Our issue is does the Board take into consideration that the
community is right now served just by one gas station that doesn't give the impression it's over
capitalized maybe on the fringe and with that circumstance maybe a second gas station that's
moderated and controlled okay and maybe in a style of the community may not be such a bad
choice considering that there is only one fringe gas station left in town and that's part of the
consideration. I think a little bit of a larger picture certainly a lot of the issues that people have
18 bays is frightening you know we don't want bright lights but also when there are gas
crunches and there's one fringe gas station you know we're not sure that survives is the
community well served by not having any gas stations is that part of your consideration in the
process?That's a question.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Yes that would be considered.
PAUL LANCEY : Okay so that is a concern something to think about.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You want to make another comment. Just restate your name.
ELLEN CORWIN : Corwin Founders Village and this just goes to what the Board has just said. I
just want to confirm the Board does have the power or the ability to reject this based on
changing the essential character of the neighborhood.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We do have the power to grant or deny special exception permits.
The standards for variance relief address character of the neighborhood. The standards for
special exception permits are a different section of the code and they have somewhat different
language in there but certainly that is a consideration. It has to do with harmonious uses and so
on. We're obligated to use these standards in making determinations. We don't just simply say
well you know sounds like a good idea you know we have to in our decisions address a range of
July 2, 2015 Regular Meeting
State statues, Town laws and so on and the applicant basically has to make the case in the
variance relief that it's not a substantial variance that it will not have an adverse impact on the
character of the neighborhood. That it does not have any adverse environmental impacts, that
they have no alternative that's conforming to the code. Those are all spelled out in our
decisions and actually they're spelled out in the application. If any of you really want to find out
more about it you can go to the Town's website, click on the ZBA and you can find the
applications there for variance relief and for special exception permits and you can just browse
through them at your convenience and you'll see exactly what sets of things we address.
Hearing no further comments or questions at this time I guess I'm hearing another comment or
question. Alright go ahead.
ALLISON LATHAM : Good morning my name is Allison Latham. I live on Old North Rd. and I
travel through this intersection of Young's Ave and County Route 48 many times every day. I'm
very familiar with the location and the traffic flow. I would first like to address the variances
necessary the area variances necessary as there are three area variances necessary for the front
canopy and the back canopy and the alterations of the building that is I believe substantial. In
addition the proposed setback for the front canopy represents a 69% reduction of the required
setback which is substantial. The size of the canopy and its proximity to the road will produce
an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood particularly that of Young's Ave.
because there are no other structures in the neighborhood as close to the road or as large as
that proposed. A gas station in this particular area which although zoned for business is
surrounded by residential properties and conserved farmland is incompatible with the
surrounding area because it greatly increases the commercial nature of the area with traffic,
noise, odors and lights especially if operated 24 hours a day as proposed. The applicant has
proposed to install a large number of pumps with their respective canopies now 6 reduced from
8. The cueing plan includes space for apparently is the typical number of 3 cars per nozzle, one
gassing and 2 waiting. That's potentially 36 cars, 12 gassing and 24 idling which doesn't even
take into account the 29 parking spaces which adds up to 65 cars being on this property
possibly at once. The difficulty is self-created as he is attempting to place an extremely large
scaled 24 hour convenience store and gas station on a lot which is not suitable for same for
numerous reasons. The benefit sought by applicant can absolutely be realized by other means.
The applicant can down size the proposal to include fewer pumps or to a use that's more in
keeping with the neighborhood and indeed the entire town. As to the application for the special
exception permit the applicant appears to rely on the fact that a special exception permit for
the operation for a gas station was previously granted by the ZBA in 1959. Respectfully this
reliance is misplaced for 6 reasons. First, both the general standards of section 280-142 and the
matters to be considered of section 280-143 were not exactly the same in 1959 as they are
presently. Specifically in 1959 section 280-142 included 4 general standards to be followed
July 2, 2015 Regular Meeting
whereas there are now 7. In 1959 section 280-143 included 12 matters to be considered and
there are now 16. Second, the Town did not have near the year round population or seasonal
traffic in 1959 that we experience now. Traffic could always increase during the summer
months but particularly it was Memorial Day thru Labor Day. Now it's really year round other
than the winter months. There wasn't as much ferry traffic in 1959 as there is now. Third, there
is always a problem with the plowing of this intersection as it appears that there is somewhat of
a territory dispute between the Town Highway Department and the County as to whose
responsibility it is to plow the intersection and as a result the intersection is never plowed
properly. There are typically only two lanes on Young's Ave. plowed so that for however long
the snow lasts which was quite a long time this past winter there are no turning lanes on
Young's Ave. to turn onto Route 48. Fourth, the gas station that was approved in 1959 was a
small mom and pop operation consisting of two pumps not remotely close to what is proposed
now. Fifth, while the pumps were in existence the property was also utilized as a garden and
nursery center and Mr. Frank Abrams received a Special Exception permit in 1960 to construct
two signs to advertise plants, shrubs and nursery stock. Finally, the property is surrounded by
residences including the high density residential Founders Village and farm land which the
Town has conserved which was not the case in 1959. The general standards utilized in
determining whether to grant a Special Exception Permit pose a problem for applicant. First the
proposed use will prevent the orderly ad reasonable use of adjacent properties as there will be
increased traffic, noise, odors and light pollution especially if operated 24 hours a day. Second,
the safety, health and welfare of the Town would be adversely affected by the proposed use at
its location as it is a very busy intersection. I'll discuss that in more detail shortly. The proposed
use is not compatible with its surroundings and the character of the neighborhood and of the
community in general with regard to visibility scale and overall appearance. The proposed use
represents a substantial intensification of the commercial activity at this location as it is
surrounded by houses and conserved farmland it is entirely incompatible with its surroundings
and character of the neighborhood due to its proposed size the increase traffic and lighting.
Indeed it is entirely incompatible with the character of the entire Town. There is no other gas
station in this Town that has as many pumps as are proposed here. There are gas stations that
have 4 pumps, 3 pumps and 2 pumps none as many as this. There are already 24 hour
convenience stores located in each of the Hamlets which is consistent with Town planning. A
second 24 hour convenience store within the hamlet of Southold is unnecessary and not
suitable for this location. The matters to be considered are also of great importance in this
application for a number of reasons. First, the proposed use will have a negative impact on the
residential property values in the surrounding neighborhood due to the traffic any loitering on
the property and the light, odors and noise coming from the property. Second and possibly
most importantly I have yet to determine how exactly anyone will be able to get in or out of
this site without causing traffic problems and accidents as this is not a simple intersection.
.'0000.
July 2, 2015 Regular Meeting
Somebody else spoke earlier as to the difficulties with traveling westbound on Route 48 and
trying wanting to get into the gas station at that entrance and that there's no provisions for
that on Route 48 right now. That car would completely block the westbound lane of 48 and that
traffic would be backed up past the traffic light and as far as making left hand turns from the
gas station onto Route 48 that also will cause major major problems. Also the entrance and exit
on Young's Ave. poses the same sort of a problem because that intersection if you're heading
eastbound on Route 48 and you want to make a right to head southbound on Young's Ave.
you're coming around that turn you're not going to see a car there and if that car wants to
make the left and it's going to have a problem. Also the traffic at that light on Young's typically
especially during the summer months backs up beyond where this proposed entrance and exit
is so you really wouldn't even be able to make a left to head back out onto Route 48 from that
area. Signs I know could be posted at both of the entrances and exits where you they say you
can't make a left hand turn but those don't really seem practical and typically they don't seem
to be effective. In addition to what I've already mentioned it would appear that this proposed
24 hour gas station and convenience store at this location is inconsistent with the Town's
Comprehensive Plan. The Town of Southold vision statement reads in part "Our citizen's cherish
Southold's small town quality of life and wish to preserve what we currently value while
planning for a productive and viable future. Future planning should be compatible with existing
community character." Respectfully I don't believe that this proposed gas station and
convenience store are compatible at all. The town of Southold 2020 Comprehensive Plan
Community Character introduction reads in part, "The bucolic quality of the Town is anchored
by the scenic quality, culture and history of the built environment landscapes and waterscapes.
The importance of preserving these qualities is paramount in maintaining the quality of life
within the town." The Town goals and objectives scenic resources reads in part "presently the
Town's scenic quality is one of the most important economic and social assets of the Town. In
1992 the NYS legislature recognized and identified NYS Route 25 and Suffolk County Route 48
the two primary roadways in the town as scenic byways through the NYS scenic byways
program. The transportation corridors are representative of the regions scenic recreational
cultural, natural, historical and archeological significance." The town's scenic quality is not
limited to our beaches and preserves but the entire town. People come to visit our town
because it does not look and feel like the rest of the island. It is a peaceful, beautiful, restful
place where everything is not necessarily right at your fingertips. This is special and if we allow
large scale commercial activities to be constructed where they do not belong we risk not only
destroying one neighborhood but possibly at some point down the line the character of our
entire town. Thank you for your time and your consideration.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : In the interest of time and the next hearing that's before us I think
we have taken a lot of testimony we've heard everything you had to say and at this point I'm
July 2, 2015 Regular Meeting
going to make a motion to adjourn this hearing until such time as a SEAR review has been
determined by the Planning Board and submitted to us at which point we will schedule another
hearing before the Zoning Board. Is there a second?
MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Second.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor?
MEMBER HORNING : Aye.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Aye.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Aye.
MEMBER DANTES : Aye.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye.
(See Minutes for Resolution)
HEARING #6860—STEVEN and ANDREA KOLYER
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Steven and Andrea
Kolyer # 6860 and this is an adjournment from the hearing on June 4th and so there's no need
to reread the Notice of Disapproval. Pat would you like to state your name and address the
Board.
PAT MOORE : Patricia Moore on behalf of Mr. and Mrs. Kolyer. We are really just wrapping up I
believe the last hearing. At the last hearing I promised to provide for you one a very simple tax
map a copy of the tax map showing which properties were developed and you can see the
remaining vacant lots in this development are the Kolyer's property and Mr. Boyd's property
there lot tax lot 7. So that's just a simple visual of what had already been submitted to the
Board. In addition I also in response to the LWRP and Planning Board comments at the last
hearing I pointed out that the issues that they were raising are standard typical issues that are
addressed in their standard covenants and restrictions for subdivision approval so I provided
what is a draft covenants on the Sutton subdivision. I'm still waiting for Planning Board approval
on the C&R's so I had to show it as a sample pending but this the language all the language
July 2, 2015 Regular Meeting
comes from the Planning Board with respect to pesticides and in this case in this particular case
this subdivision had specific building envelope and the clearing limitations which is in the code
but it is recited in the covenants and restrictions so that future property owners will know right
off the bat that the Town Code has clearing limits. So those issues were raised as the basis for
LWRP inconsistency and the Planning Boards comments and I believe that they're addressed as
the application proceeds. If the Board wants to condition our application on the Planning
Boards covenants that's fine it's duplication. I wouldn't suggest a covenant from the Zoning
Board as well as a covenant from the Planning Board but certainly if you wanted to reiterate
that you support the standard Planning Board covenants, that's fine we have no issue with that.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well as you know Pat we're very familiar with Sutton property and
some of those C&R's were generated from us and from the Planning Board I would presume
although we didn't I don't think we put it in our decision. I really don't want to talk about so
much about that except to say that the properties are substantially different certainly this is
waterfront the other is not however I could certainly see where some of those C&R's would be
applicable to this property and their examples. I do want to ask about this plaque that was
submitted you know with that you the thing that you submitted.
PAT MOORE : Oh the tax map yes.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The tax map. In some cases it looks as though the properties are
identified with acreage is that correct?
PAT MOORE : Acreage, oh like where it says 1.4 acers versus yea
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I'm looking at lot sizes on this particular document and the Kolyer's
lot is 1.2 at the moment correct?
PAT MOORE : Correct.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So I'm looking now at 16.7 which is 2.3 acres at 16.8 1.2 acres, 16.3
2.3 acres, 15.5 2.3, 15 1.8, 15.7 2.3, what's this one this is 1 acre that's lot 8 is one acre, lot 6 is
1.4 acres, there's another one here 13.1 which I don't think has the acreage on it that's quite
large so I'm looking at other lots sizes in the area and not all of them are called out. It's clear
that some of them are smaller but it would look as though the existing lot the subject property
is the same size or a little smaller than quite a lot of other lots along Robinson Rd.
PAT MOORE : Right, I can address that if you'd like. There are if you recall Paradise Point
consists of the original 63 subdivision with the Kolyer property being part of that subdivision.
Then there was Paradise Point 2 I believe and so these areas these different properties were
developed in different points in time and were they're showing differently. So for example the
July 2, 2015 Regular Meeting
first ones you discussed was 15.7 thru 16.3. That subdivision was developed with one acre
zoning but if you see that the lots they're numbered 13, 14, 15, 16 and then they have an
extensive piece of property to the bay. What they did is they combined the or they created the
lots along the road and then combined additional land which was all wetland. So if you actually
go and take a look at the parcels themselves under current regulations they are in fact under
buildable area where that in many cases where that dashed line appears because the parcels
when they were combined did not have the distinguishing the buildable area from non-
buildable area. So while the lots look quite large on the tax map they are in fact as far as
buildable area goes comparable to the 1963 development and if you recall from our surveys the
Kolyer lots lot 8 and 9 are with bulkhead and upland that is dry and each independently is not
encumbered by any wetlands the bulkhead regulations, the zoning setback from a bulkhead is
met 75 feet is not an issue here. We have plenty of significant building envelopes on each lot
independently and so it can be developed in conformity with the rest of Paradise Point. The lots
across Robinson Rd. again come from another subdivision not Paradise Point at Bayview I think
one considered Paradise Point 1 those are Bayfront lots and again they have the topography
that is typical of the Bayfront lot which is somewhat of a bank the upland a bank and then the
bay, the beach so the tax map in a two dimensional way doesn't really doesn't at all provide a
clear comparable of lot size because many of these lots are encumbered by environmental
regulations that if you were to look specifically at their building envelope are comparable so
what I was asked to do by Mr. Horning was just show which lots in particularly in the Paradise
Point subdivision because I treat that somewhat separately from other subdivisions that may
have been brought in as Paradise Point II and other names of surrounding subdivisions they
were subdivided much later on and this tax map really was only for the purpose of showing
which lots were has had houses and don't have houses. The question was well which of these
lots are developed and I said well I can show you house. I in one of the other the prior
submission I provided was the list of the homeowners, the lots sizes, square footages and so on
and in fact Mrs. Kolyer was instrumental in providing that. She identified what lots came from
what development if I remember correctly, yes so if you look at that document that exhibit that
specifically identifies where those lots come from as far as subdivisions. Where I compare this
lot most is to the lots within the same subdivision because as a subdivision in the Town of
Southold Paradise Point was a significant one was quite a large one. Certainly we don't have
subdivisions of this size anymore and all of the lots have except obviously Mr. Boyd's as I
pointed out before have been developed and are comparable in my opinion.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Just two quick comments and then of course George. Well number
one as you know every Board member has been out to the sight.
PAT MOORE : Of course.
00 5
July 2, 2015 Regular Meeting
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : and we have driven around because we have to look at the
character of the neighborhood so we know what's developed we know what's undeveloped.
We know what the typography looks like. We know what the you know environmental features
that are on the properties look like. We've walked it, we've driven it and you know we've also
done a lot of variances out in that area so we're quite familiar with it and at this point I mean
regardless of where it is almost a whole build out in that neighborhood clearly that's what
you're depiction on this tax map shows is that most properties are developed and so at this
point regardless of historically where those subdivisions came from, where those lots came
from the character of the neighborhood is the character of the neighborhood. It's just all
developed and there are different lot sized and almost all of them have some wetlands or
issues on them so I think that would be typical and characteristic which is why you know kind of
looking at what constitutes the size because you do have building envelopes that could conform
on these two properties and the point is the other lots that are larger also have building
envelopes that conform at some point on that property but they're larger properties even
though they have a lot of wetland restrictions on them. They have conforming building
envelopes so I just bring that up simply because I'm trying to really grapple with the subtleties
of this application. Really take into the consideration everything that you've presented to us
and everything that the neighborhood suggests that we look at. I'm going to George you had
some questions so ask you to take the floor for a moment.
MEMBER HORNING : I'm still confused by these lots and I appreciate the information which
ones have houses on it. The 1963 Paradise Point subdivision is that when it was 1963?
PAT MOORE : Correct yes.
MEMBER HORNING : How many lots were involved total number of lots?
PAT MOORE : Let me give you the map. The map is in your packet.
MEMBER HORNING : Well and then there's a list here map of section one Paradise Point at
Bayview and
PAT MOORE : Right that is the subdivision.
MEMBER HORNING : Is this the total subdivision Paradise Point or is that part of it?
PAT MOORE : Yes 16 lots are the Paradise Point original subdivision.
MEMBER HORING : Those 16?
PAT MOORE :Those 16 exactly. Then the lots on Bayside St. that comes from oh I'm sorry
July 2, 2015 Regular Meeting
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Hold on one second we've had a large coffee spill.
MEMBER HORNING : First time ever.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Gerry is going to get some paper towels.
PAT MOORE : Well nothing like a little break.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Coffee break.
MEMBER HORNING : Yea!
PAT MOORE : I can give you another copy.
MEMBER HORNING : Well this one is wrecked. Landed smack in the middle of it.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Hold on let's regroup for a second.
PAT MOORE : I have the document you were and this is the subdivision map that's in your
packet too but that's let's see what you've got. When I'm done I'll give you mine.
MEMBER HORNING :These dotted lines here are confusing me.
PAT MOORE : Wait are we on the record?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I don't know. Let's just make sure that we are.
MEMBER HORNING : We don't have to be.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No we are no I want you to be on the record.
PAT MOORE : Let me just clarify I think I know what your question is. What you're showing me
is the tax map showing you with the houses.
MEMBER HORNING : Right, these two that are labeled 19 and 20 where are they on that?
PAT MOORE : 19 and 20 let's see here it is.
MEMBER HORNING : We're talking about this and this.
PAT MOORE : Yea. That's actually right here.
MEMBER HORNING : Where is that on her list?
PAT MOORE : Right here. You want me to put a little check mark next to it?
MEMBER HORNING : Yea. Just write 19 or whatever.
July 2, 2015 Regular Meeting
PAT MOORE : No it's right here. It's already written.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You know what for purposes hold on for purposes of the transcript
we can't really have both of you be up here talking because Liz would never figure out how to
transcribe it so if there's something specific you want in the record come to the microphone
and state your name and then we'll do it that way or you can consult privately with Pat and
then she'll say whatever you want her to say.
MEMBER HORNING : And then this dash line. I mean the thing that's 150 feet I understand that.
Is that the entire width or is that
PAT MOORE : No. What happens is that it looks like between lot 19 and 20 there might have
been some changes to the property line so that the map was somehow or another they
changed the dimensions of the lot.
MEMBER HORNING : So you say there was a parcel in between here and the split the two other
properties
PAT MOORE : Yes ok thank you.
MEMBER HORNING : So these properties that are listed 19 and 20 with households in them we
don't have an acreage size but they're quite large because to the 150 feet plus additional
footage times whatever the depth of it is correct?
PAT MOORE : Well not quite. Remember that when you're looking at a tax map you're two
dimensional. If you looked at the building plans or the plans that are associated with 19 and 20
what you're going to find is that on the beach side it has a beach right here in front then it has
somewhat of a bank and then the house is built on the top.
MEMBER HORNING : Okay we're not concerned about the beach but the concern is the
chairperson was pointing out of course some of these are listed in acreage and some of these
are listed just footages
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : As numbers.
MEMBER HORNING : and you know we don't know for example for comparative purposes how
big lot 19 or lot 20 is because it's 150 feet plus another undetermined dimension multiplied out
and it doesn't equal acreage.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER : No I think the 150 is inclusive of that and that.
MEMBER HORNING : No it is not. Pat just said it was not.
July 2, 2015 Regular Meeting
PAT MOORE : No here if you look at the subdivision map okay if you look at the original
subdivision map those and it's a little confusing because they number differently than the tax
map but the ones that are on Town Harbor they call it Town Harbor which is Southold Bay you
have lot 1 is 100 feet wide, lot 2 is 100 feet wide, lot 3 is 100, lot 4 is 100 and they are their
dimensions run to 232 to the ordinary high water mark. How in '63 these lots got created. So it
looks like based on the tax map this one doesn't come from the subdivision because the first
one is lot 4. Paradise Point this I believe is the Zupa parcel that got split later okay so this is
Zupa, this 18 is lot number 4 right there on the original subdivision map.
MEMBER HORNING : Which is still 100 feet.
PAT MOORE : It's 100 feet. Lot it goes down. Lot 3 is a combination of looks like the two
neighbors bought lot 2 split it in half and one took half and lot 3 took half and lot 1 took half of
two because see how the tax map has a dashed line
MEMBER HORNING : Yes.
PAT MOORE : that shows a modification to the original map.
MEMBER HORNING : So it is 150 feet.
PAT MOORE : Correct it was split up because they took lot 2 and split it between the two of
them.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well let me point out just one other thing and you know then I think
we need to wrap it up a little bit. In addition to the square footage being proposed okay just for
just to reiterate this in the public record, Lot 1 is proposed as a non-conforming 25,873 square
feet, the code requiring 80,000 and with a lot width of 122.5 feet where the code requires 175
and lot 2 is proposed as non-conforming at 24,263 square feet with a depth of 152.7 non-
conforming feet where the code requires 175 so in addition to the lot size we need to look at
typical lot width and depth okay in that area cause those are variances right? Is that correct?
MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Yes.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Before we do anything else would you like to address that?
PAT MOORE : I think that you wanted to make a comment on that?
MEMBER SCHNEIDER : I think this woman wants to say something.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You want to say something before he answers this or
July 2, 2015 Regular Meeting
MARY ZUPA : My name is Mary Zupa. I believe the map you're talking about is my parcel and
the little parcel next door to me and then the (inaudible) house and my parcel was that little
piece next to me was broken off from my parcel and sold to them separately which is why I had
to come before you for a variance and the same people own the second piece so lot I'm not
exactly sure I'm one and then two and three. One is Basin Rd. Realty Trust they have a little
garage on there but they have it as a separate parcel with a separate tax map number for it and
this was done many many years ago maybe thirty five forty years ago not exactly sure of the
date and then they own there's a cottage next to it the next parcel. So it's my parcel then this
little piece that they bought after they lived in the next house. The owners, the four owners of
the property broke off that piece from my land and gave it to them for a small amount of
money to build a garage.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Please state your name.
STEVE KOLYER : Steve Kolyer I'm the applicant. I just wanted to add relative to this discussion
that two things. One, the relief that we're requesting is to do the split in a manner that was
identical to the original subdivision that had these two lots split. So in that respect we're going
back to the line drawing that was a part of the original plan subdivision and also which I think is
maybe became apparent in the particular map that Pat perhaps may have been showing you
moments ago is the original subdivision map from '63 that was filed for the subdivision as
distinct from the tax map places a lot more emphasis on the parcels on which dwellings were
eventually constructed and the size of usable land that was actually available for those
constructions and in that respect the relative sizes of those parcels in that subdivision appear to
us have appeared to us to be consistent with where we'd like this to end up with a rather than
inconsistent. We think that as Pat said that the tax map showing the long parcel lengths and the
aggregate acreage under water or under wetlands somewhat obscures what the original plan
filed was trying to do is to create fairly symmetrically comparable sized parcels as a filed map
you know as part of being the plan which is all to say what we think we're proposing is
something that is consistent rather than inconsistent with the original plan for the parcel sizes.
Notwithstanding that the aggregate acreages on the tax maps look different and have different
you know obviously look like are larger sizes they're relatively (inaudible).
ANDREA KOLYER : Andrea Kolyer applicant. The parcels on this map that are very long 15.7,
15.8 and you'll notice by that number that all of those long parcels after the dotted line that go
to the high water mark most of them are under water. One of them has a bridge going all the
way from the house to the beach. You can't walk there and the man that lives in 16.3 cannot
walk from his back yard to the beach. He actually has to go around the association deeded right
of way and the other people applied for a bridge but were denied within the past 10 years and
the other people have a meandering path through wetlands so as I recall from the notes that I
July 2, 2015 Regular Meeting
have from Paradise Point after that dashed line that long piece of property on those four
properties the developers gave those to them for a song they practically gave it to them
because they're completely underwater and undeveloped and they were done about 20 years
after the subdivision and they were just appended to those so it wasn't part of the original idea.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Thank you so much. Alright, George anything else?
MEMBER HORNING : No.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Ken, Jerry?
MEMBER GOEHRINGER : No we had just briefly discussed one thing.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anyone else in the audience who wished to address this application?
Hearing no further questions or comments I'm going to 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.
MEMBER DANTES : Aye.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye.
(See Minutes for Resolution)
HEARING #6861—SOUTHOLD FARM and CELLAR, INC. (MEADOR)
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Southold Farm and
Cellar, Inc. which is # 6861. This was adjourned from June 4, 2015 Public Hearing. I'm going to
open that hearing because we advertised it and as a consequence we need to do that. We do
however have a request from the applicant to adjourn to August 6th because a new Notice of
'J;.
July 2, 2015 Regular Meeting
Disapproval has been issued and the applicant has submitted a response to that and requests
that we adjourn so that Zoning Board cause we just got this would have time to actually look at
it okay. Now but what I will do is read what the new Notice of Disapproval has to say into the
record here. Is there anyone in the audience who wants to address this application? Okay so
then I will certainly do that but we will adjourn and we will review as per your request but we
have to take testimony if someone is here to do that. I've just been reminded through counsel
that because there are new variances involved here it does have to be publicly advertised as
such and so rather than addressing them here the best thing to do is to simply not discuss those
at the moment since we will be back here in August. So I will not read those new variances into
the record but what I will do is ask if someone has made the effort to come here to address the
application if they would do so at this time. Please state your name for the record.
ALLISON LATHAM : Allison Latham 1755 Old North Rd. As the applicant has requested an
adjournment of the hearing I would like to in large part reserve my comments regarding the
application until a further public hearing due to the amended Notice of Disapproval and the
amended application. However, I feel I must address a question posed to me at the last public
hearing on this matter by member Dantes to clear up any possible misconceptions. Member
Dantes had asked me if there is already a tasting room at this location and I responded in the
affirmative. He then asked me if I had spoken to the Code Enforcer and I responded in the
negative. To be clear the reason that I had not contacted the Code Enforcer was that I had
assumed as I think is quite natural that if one posts a sign with a business name and another
sign that reads open that one has applied for and received all of the necessary approvals to do
so. As it now appears this was not the case. You may certain I will not make that error again.
Regarding the future hearing I think that the Board should be aware of what I found through
my research thus far. First I have learned that the applicant obtained a NYS liquor license as a
farm/winery effective February 20th 2014. The applicant then applied for a building permit for a
farm stand on May 28th 2014 in which permit was granted on June 10th 2014. It appears
however that applicant never should have been granted that permit as applicant clearly did not
and does not meet the criteria for a farm stand and applicant never intended to operate a farm
stand but rather a tasting room. Second, there are several substantive problems with the farm
stand classification. First pursuant to Town Code section 72-6(A) (1) a farm stand is to be
located on lands used in bona fide agricultural production. The parcel which is the subject of
this application is 1 acre in size and there is no agricultural production on the 1 acre parcel.
Second, pursuant to section 72-7(A) at least 60% of the gross dollar value of all items offered
for sale at a farm stand must consist of agricultural products grown by the farm stand operator.
It appears from observation that the only agricultural product grown by the applicant is grapes.
These grapes are them processed into wine. Pursuant to section 72-7(B) no more than 40% of
the gross dollar value of all items offered for sale at a farm stand may consist of items
July 2, 2015 Regular Meeting
manufactured or process from agricultural products. Pursuant to section 72-4 wine is a
processed agricultural product. It therefore appears that the farm stand does not meet the
code definition of a farm stand and it never did. Code enforcement and the chief Building
Inspector and now the ZBA is to the extent it did not already know are now thoroughly aware
that applicant is operating a tasting room and not a farm stand without any approvals for same.
I am advised the applicant was told last week that the tasting room may not be open for
business. Applicant's tasting room was open this past Friday, Saturday, Sunday and Monday. To
my knowledge violations have not been issued to applicant. It is against this backdrop of failure
to obtain permits and continued operation in the face of direction to cease operation that this
application must be viewed. I will reserve all further comments until the revised application can
be fully reviewed. Thank you for your attention and your conduct.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Did you have some comments?
SCOTT LATHAM : Yea Scott Latham Allison's husband. I'm also 19 year town employee Police
Department. We are not anti-agriculture. We are not anti this is the third vineyard on this
particular property. There was always a plan for a winery on the lot across from Lucas Ford on
the Horton's Lane side of the property. Since the original vineyard was planted the Land Trust
has purchased various pieces and the whole place is preserved. It used to be two wineries ago
or two vineyards ago. It was a plan for a large agricultural building on the Young's Ave. side
corner of the property which was it was never done because the California wineries sold so that
was never built. Subsequently Land Trust came in and I believe they bought the property rights
with the Town or perhaps with Sang Lee I don't know what the exact arrangements are but it's
all agricultural land and there's 55 acres next to it John Sep's agricultural land. The Grigonis
property across from us is preserved agricultural land. This is a 1 acre parcel with a home which
was owned two owners ago was Volosick, Stanley Volosick. His brother was the famed
blacksmith in Greenport that everybody's got a picture. The tasting room now is his old
blacksmith shop. It's a converted barn. It's a house now with a tasting room and now they're
asking for a 40 by 90 building on a one acre piece of property. It's a little intense for what we
have in the neighborhood. If they can work you know if it's a case of we bought a winery we
bought the land to plant grapes but did not do due diligence because the rights were sold and
we can't build on a production facility on County owned or Town owned preserve farmlands.
That's not of any concern you know it's due diligence or you know they were sold a bill of goods
I don't know what the answer is but it's not something that mitigates or it's not something that
should allow it to put up a production facility on our quiet little road.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let me just make one correction the Notice of Disapproval referred
to this as production. Production is growing it's growing of crop. It's processing winery is a
processing facility just to be clear. Distinctly different and that's all I'm going to say about it.
July 2, 2015 Regular Meeting
MEMBER SCHNEIDER : I just want to say something. Mrs. Latham, if you have notes or if you
have your written dialogue if you ever want to submit that to the Board the Board would
appreciate that as well.
ALLISON LATHAM : Yes I will e-mail them is that okay?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :That's fine. Vicki can forward them to us.
ALLISON LATHAM : Perfect I'll do that with both letters.
MEMBER HORNING : I have a question.
ALLISON LATHAM : Yes.
MEMBER HORNING : It mentions something about the other side of North Rd. in particular
54.3.2 or 4 and 24.4 and 24.5 were the development right sold for that those parcels across the
street?
ALLISON LATHAM : Across the street from
MEMBER HORNING : 54-3-24.4 and 24.5 AG parcels?
ALLISON LATHAM : Oh that are next door to us?
MEMBER HORNING : Right here I see that on that the development rights the Town has them
but we don't know about the ones across the street.
ALLISON LATHAM : Oh across the street the Suffolk County Water Authority property. There's a
pumping station right there.
MEMBER HORNING : Even though it's AG listed at AG property, we're not talking development
rights.
SCOTT LATHAM : No that's Suffolk County Water the next parcel is Dorothy Stepnoski and is a
small home and then the rest. Dorothy is about here.
MEMBER HORNING :Just curious.
SCOTT LATHAM : Yea that's this is the house in question.
MEMBER HORNING : Yes.
SCOTT LATHAM : This is Hamen next door. This is Grigonis that was recently sold maybe two
years ago.
July 2, 2015 Regular Meeting
MEMBER HORNING : I mean development rights are they're listed when but not
SCOTT LATHAM : Right across the street from this our house is right about here and Sepnoski
goes back and over.
ALLISON LATHAM : The tax map will show you they are over here.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We have to really try and get this in the record so that we need to
have one person speaking at a time and stating what your name is and into that microphone.
ALLISON LATHAM : Allison Latham. Lot 20 54-3-24.4 is right here and 24.5 is here so yea.
MEMBER HORNING : So 24.5 the development rights the Town owns.
ALLISION LATHAM : Right and I think what they did is carved out 8 acres which is alongside of us
and another parcel that the development rights are intact and then this is a house here and
then this is the Suffolk County Water Authority property and their property though is like right
around here.
MEMBER HORNING : On 24.5 the development rights were sold
ALLISON LATHAM : Yes.
MEMBER HORNING : off to the Town.
ALLISON LATHAM : That was recent.
MEMBER HORNING : Okay thank you.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I don't really want to do too much more with this application.
Certainly please come forward and state your name.
REAGAN MEADOR : My name is Reagan Meador. I am the applicant. I live on the property in
question along with my wife and two small children and I just wanted to real quick just you
know thank the patience of the Board for letting us do these adjournments. We want to get this
resolved as quickly as possible as well and you know we make the attempts we thought we had
to hopefully address a lot of the fears of our local neighbors and everything and I just obviously
there's concerns that have been raised and I just want to put on the record that we would love
nothing more than to discuss before the meeting or during or whenever what our hopes and
dreams are for this property and what are plans are to hopefully allay any fears that might be
so I just wanted to put that on the record. I also invite anybody and everybody to knock on our
door at any time if they'd like to come and see what's happening over there.
5
July 2, 2015 Regular Meeting
MEMBER DANTES. : I have a question. So then was it Code Enforcement sent you a letter or
asking
REAGAN MEADOR : No, no sir. I'm asking for an adjournment yea.
MEMBER HORNING : And what was the stated reason?
REAGAN MEADOR : We only received the Notice of Disapproval.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's the Notice of Disapproval I gave it to you and there are
additional variances that were not addressed in the original and as a consequence we're going
to adjourn at the applicant's request. He submitted some comments with regard to those
variances that are now before us and that's all now part of the public record part of our file and
so that gives everybody an opportunity including the Board and any neighbors to review what is
now the current situation of variance relief and we'll be back in August to do that.
MEMBER DANTES : One more question. Who from the Town sent them a letter or notice to
cease operations?
ALLISON LATHAM : I last week I spoke with Mr. Verity in the Building Department and I was just
inquiring as to why a farm stand permit was ever issued and kind of what was going on because
actually we my husband spoke with Mr. Doherty the Code Enforcement officer and he was told
that the Building Department was working on it so I inquired with Mr. Verity as to what exactly
the Building Department was doing and he had told me that he had spoken with the applicant
and advised that they did not have the approvals and should not be operating.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright just out of protocol is there anyone in the audience who is
here to address this application? Could you please stand again Mr. Meador. Did the Building
Department at this point contact you and ask you to cease
REAGAN MEADOR : Oh yea for the no they just said that the Notice of Disapproval is in that we
are currently operating not in line with it but as long as we move through this processes quickly
as possible and things are resolved that we shouldn't have any issues.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So he did not tell you to stop operating the tasting room?
REAGAN MEADOR : I never got an impression at all no that we were told to cease operations.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You were only informed of the changes in the Notice of Disapproval.
REAGAN MEADOR : The Notice of Disapproval and that things needed to change.
July 2, 2015 Regular Meeting
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I think the record does now reflect the fact that this is clearly
operating as a tasting room without benefit of permit to do so. I'll just leave it at that. Anything
else from anybody? Okay I'm going to make a motion to adjourn this hearing to August 6th at 10
am. Is there a second?
MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Second.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor?
MEMBER HORNING : Aye.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Aye.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Aye.
MEMBER DANTES : Aye.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye.
(See Minutes for Resolution)
HEARING #6869—JANIO SPINOLA
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Janio Spinola # 6869 the applicant requests a Special Exception
under Article III Section 280-13B(13). The applicant is the owner requesting authorization to
establish an accessory apartment in an accessory structure located at 1235 Equestrian Ave
corner of Bell Hill Ave on Fishers Island. Someone here to represent this application? Please
come forward and state your name.
JARED TOLDO : Jared Toldo. I live at 1586 Montauk Ave Fishers Island.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It appears that Mr. Spinola is not present.
JARED TOLDO : He is not no.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Just move the mic up a little bit more sir so we can get you. Thank
you. We can explore certain things but it is not since so much of this kind of application
depends upon the residency of the owner of the property in either the proposed accessory or
the principal dwelling and the relationship with that proposed occupant it is not atypical for us
July 2, 2015 Regular Meeting
to ask the applicant to be present and to be sworn in to testify under oath about their residency
because I have a series of questions that you may not be able to answer because you're not the
applicant.
JARED TOLDO : Well as an appointed agent I think I might be able to at the current moment Mr.
Spinola is not occupying the main residence due to employment changes in the foreseeable
future he will be and so I think that down the road he'll comply. I don't know is there a period
of time he needs to live there?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Generally well he needs to live there full time year round.
JARED TOLDO : Year round. So it couldn't even it couldn't be a seasonal house for example?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No. The intent of the code when it was changed was to leverage
more housing units out of existing inventory buildings which is why certain restrictions were
placed on the occupancy requirements so if you have like a detached garage which is your case
the answer would be that generally someone would be living there and it's their principal
residence and the proposed occupant of the accessory apartment which could be the owner
and someone can live in the house they have to have a familiar relationship and that appears to
be the case here. Let me ask a few questions of you. I do want to just clarify that we do the
garage qualifies for 2008 date. You're proposing to connect it via conditioned space to a shed
which is a 12 by 12 shed 144 square feet. Now the it's labeled differently but I presume that
you mean that to be a bedroom space?
JARED TOLDO : Correct. That will be the only bedroom.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The garage is 389 square feet so if you put those together it's 533
square feet which then qualifies it for the you know cause it's more than the minimum of 450
square feet. The Building Department has to calculate livable floor area and they were only
counting the 389 square feet of the garage but it's within this Board's jurisdiction to look at it
and authorize the addition since it's conditioned space as legitimate livable floor area. Is that all
clear to everybody on the Board?
MEMBER GOEHRINGER : You're referring to the 389 plus the 126
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Correct. 144 and 389 yes.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Oh 144 because the other is a breezeway.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So I just wanted to get that into the record. When did your client
purchase the subject property?
July 2, 2015 Regular Meeting
JARED TOLDO : It had to be ten years ago.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And who's been living in it?
JARED TOLDO : He has been renting the main house. He is a caretaker on the island and has
been for twenty years and he had couple thousand square feet to himself and his family in the
last year a new I guess younger family has come in they're both living together in the same
caretakers quarters and eighty percent of his family's not able to join him. This is the second
consecutive season that they've traveled with this family you know and he's without his kids
and his family just him and his wife and then the other caretaker and his family are occupying
most of the caretaker facility.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Another property?
JARED TOLDO : Correct. His employers property. So the idea is he moves back into this house,
stops renting it and that would allow him to accommodate his whole family in the accessory
structure.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Now will they be there all the time or seasonally?
JARED TOLDO : Right now his employment is seasonal. If his employment terminates he would
be there full time so that's very much on it's not black and white.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yea because again the intent here is for the applicant to occupy the
residence one of the residences full time year round.
JARED TOLDO : Right. I would say it's inevitable but it's not black and white right now.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Does the applicant reside someplace else seasonally?
JARED TOLDO : He's with that same family in Florida.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So he lives in Florida?
JARED TOLDO : Yes.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And when is he on Fishers Island?
JARED TOLDO : Labor day through the end of September and then probably even at times
through November, Thanksgiving day.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Very infrequently.
JARED TOLDO : What's that?
July 2, 2015 Regular Meeting
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Very infrequently on Fishers Island.
JARED TOLDO : It's probably 5 months a year and he owns a business he owns another
commercial space on the island where he operates a liquor store so you know in terms of
transitioning from this employment he has now into what he's going to do in the future for
himself he has that you know mechanism there.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well we're going to have to see what the Board thinks about it but
you know this maybe a situation in which and I'm just talking out loud here thinking out loud
really and I don't know how the Board feels about it but to me what makes sense is to hold this
application open until your clients plans are solidified one way or the other so that he's
committed to being there full time year round with his daughter and her family being there at
least the vast majority of the year I mean what is the intent there? Just visiting, coming and
going, seasonally or what?
JARED TOLDO : For his daughter?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yea.
JARED TOLDO : Yes. But he wouldn't be renting it I mean I think that's a big part of the code.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well he can rent it for a dollar for all we care. I mean a family it's still
has to have a rental agreement attached if you look at that section of the code but it could be
nominal you know cause it's a family member. It's also possible to rent it someone who
qualifies on the affordable housing registry and that requires an annual lease. But again the
intent here was not to create seasonal occupancy at all in this code so I don't know how does
the rest of the Board members feel?
MEMBER GOEHRINGER : I would suggest recessing for without a date but placing into the
record that we're holding for 6 months something like that until we figure out
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Until he figures out.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Personally it doesn't meet the code.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No I mean if we were to make a determination to you know close it
right now and what I'm trying to do is cooperate. If we were to make you know just close the
hearing because we weren't here to have the applicant testify under oath but I certainly
confident that your comments are accurate. The bottom line is we would have to rule against
probably because he's not meeting the code requirements so rather than do that if we leave
this open for a while there is no additional cost really and that means that he can make his
plans accordingly and then if he qualifies then we'll carry on from there.
July 2, 2015 Regular Meeting
JARED TOLDO : Ok.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is that what the Board more or less suggesting or is there some
other options or
MEMBER HORNING : I have some questions that maybe they can work on those too in this
interim but to further the situation like for example I think the chairperson's trying to assist but
you know we have to meet our legal obligations too. For example if Mr. Spinola was asked
where his residency is right now he'd I'm guessing probably answer the State of Florida. If he
was asked where his driver's license was issued from I'd have to guess that he'd probably say
the State of Florida. Where is his child enrolled in school I'd have to say that I know it's the
State of Florida and so he's gonna have a very hard time establishing the residency requirement
to meet the special application specifics. I think we might need a survey of the property
because don't you intend on demolishing the shed?
JARED TOLDO : No.
MEMBER HORNING : What is the demolition plan as shown on this on your Al plan demolition
plan it's called.
JARED TOLDO : The only thing to be demolished or changed to the building at all is the two
garage doors that wall front being converted into just a single French door.
MEMBER HORNING : Okay so the shed would remain but be reconstructed is that accurate?
JARED TOLDO : Just connected to the garage that's it.
MEMBER HORNING : But the shed becomes what?
JARED TOLDO : A bedroom.
MEMBER HORNING : A bedroom right so it's going to be renovated. The setback is not shown
on this from the property line and I think maybe it should be because you're actually increasing
the size of a building and maybe we need to have that information. Maybe we need to have the
setback here. I don't know what the Building Department's involvement in issuing a building
permit I think he needs maybe a building permit to do this work.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : He will yes because it's not conversion it's just internal you know
sometimes you will have a detached garage and they're just going to convert that but the shell
remains the same, it's location remains the same. This is a little unusual in that you're gaining
the square footage by attaching to existing structures with conditioned space. I think the Board
is prepared to look at that in a flexible way when you go to get a building permit to do the work
'J;
July 2, 2015 Regular Meeting
they may then look at the setback and it may require variance relief I don't know. See Special
Exception permits the ZBA has original jurisdiction generally you don't go through the Building
Department you just come straight to the Zoning Board and so other issues are not quickly
identified. They didn't do that in I guess because he didn't acknowledge the shed addition or
connection in the livable floor area he didn't call out the fact that variance relief may be needed
for the setback. Are you following what I'm saying? He didn't do it because he wasn't using it.
He just said it doesn't meet the code required livable floor area. We do this internally. We send
this stuff to the Building Department so that he can confirm that it meets the code required
livable floor area and normally in doing that if there were any other issues involved with the
application like a setback they would identify that. But he had already determined it wasn't
qualifying. I think the Board is prepared to suggest that it probably is qualifying for square
footage or at least to be open minded about it.
JARED TOLDO : I think the gross square footages of each area were included in the plan right?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes they were but he only looked at the garage. From his point of
view you're converting an existing accessory structure and it doesn't qualify size wise. We
looked at the whole thing and said well there's two existing structures, you want to connect
them and if we look at all of that ultimately the apartment will qualify square footage wise. You
see what I'm saying.
JARED TOLDO : I do yes.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And I think we have the jurisdiction to do that. I think we're trying to
be open minded about it. But we really have to resolve the residency and if you can convey that
to Mr. Spinola
JARED TOLDO : I understand I will.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And let him know if he wants to proceed certain things are going to
have to be accomplished including his commitment on being on Fishers Island year round as his
principal residence. It doesn't mean he can't take vacation. I mean everybody does.
JARED TOLDO : Right well again this is about the future. It's eminent so there's already
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : How about we adjourn without a date oh alright you know if we
adjourn without a date then we would have to re-notice it when we had it so Vicki is pointing
out if we want to save you the money we'll give you a date. Want to do six months?
JARED TOLDO : Let's do six months that's fine.
July 2, 2015 Regular Meeting
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And then you know we'll rehear it. It would be December yea we
don't know January's date yet so we're going to put it in December. So we'll adjourn this to
December 3rd, wanna do like 10 am.
MEMBER HORNING : I have a further question Leslie. I do believe we need a survey showing the
setbacks.
JARED TOLDO : I have that with me but I
MEMBER HORNING : Alright and also there is a pond on the property and there are wetlands
and this survey does not show the extent of the wetlands and it does not show the septic and I
know that when we conversed on the site you folks were talking about chopping up the
concrete slab somehow of the garage and extending the septic line and I presume you know
water and whatever other utilities so we really need to see where the septic is on the survey
and how you're going to extend the septic to the existing garage and consider that and I don't
know if you need to go to the County Health Department.
JARED TOLDO : I was there this morning actually. There is no record of the septic so I spoke with
Dick Greevy. He did put in two additional leeching fields, drywells 16 feet deep but aside from
that there's no plan so we're going to have to get Dick Strauss out there and from CME and
probably do you know a survey of it.
MEMBER HORNING : Yes I would think so and we need to know kind of the size of the leeching
capacity matched up with I believe the number of bedrooms in the existing single family
dwelling and determine you know how many more bedrooms can be added to the existing
that's my understanding of how it works. Is that about right? So we are concerned about you
know wetlands, the proximity of the septic to wetlands and where the construction the
proposed construction proximity to wetlands, the placement of the septic system and the
setbacks shown because you're going to need a building permit.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright I think is there anyone in the audience who wished to
address this application? Okay hearing no further comments or questions I'm going to make a
motion to adjourn this hearing to December 3rd at 10 am.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Second.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor?
MEMBER HORNING : Aye.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Aye.
July 2, 2015 Regular Meeting
MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Aye.
MEMBER DANTES : Aye.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye.
(See Minutes for Resolution)
HEARING #6864— DENIS and NANCY COLE
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Next application before the Board is for Denis and Nancy Cole #
6864. This is a request for variance from Article XXII Section 280-116B and the Building
Inspector's April 23, 2015 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for building permit for
addition/alterations to existing single family dwelling that being a deck and in-ground
swimming pool at less than the code required bulkhead setback of 75 feet, located at 655
Albacore Drive (adj. to a canal) in Greenport. This is for a proposed swimming pool with a
bulkhead setback of 50 feet where the code for the Zoning Board request is 75 foot setback.
She's giving us character of the neighborhood.
PAT MOORE : Good morning or afternoon we're right on the cusp Mr. and Mrs. Cole are here.
This community is map of Southold Shores again a 1963 subdivision we were prolific in the 60's
with subdivisions. The house is presently at 75 feet from the bulkhead. My clients wish to
remove the deck that's there because we couldn't find from the old permits that the deck had
been constructed with a permit. Before my client owned the property so we don't have any
information about the deck that rather than argue about the deck it actually would be coming
down and the surveyor shows states it's a new deck but in fact its patio. In our description we
show patio and Pete Castillo provided plans and it shows it as patio. It's just because of the
grade of the property the patio needs to be elevated to make an area that is flat from the edge
of the house to the end of the patio so there is some regrading that's necessary all within the
area that has been described. So the patio would be at 50 feet from the bulkhead. The pool we
were very we went back to the drawing board many times with the surveyor backing into a
setback that would be reasonable 50 feet from the bulkhead. This is Southold Shores which is a
man-made canal, the bulkhead is predates zoning and the DEC so the bulkhead there is a one
that is not necessarily protecting from erosion and flooding it is a bulkhead that was part of the
creation of the canal when the canal was first constructed or excavated. So, the pool is the
July 2, 2015 Regular Meeting
minimum sized pool with a 16 foot deck and a 36 foot length with a 5 foot surround of the patio
to provide some movement or access around the waterfront side of the pool. What I've
provided you today is and I did it in color just to make it easier this area has many variances
that have been granted over the years. The yellow highlighted is variances of the setbacks to
the bulkhead. Those are the similar variance to what we need today versus just general area
variances so I didn't want to discount that variances were in fact given to the blue highlighted
parcels but since it's not an applicable comparable variance to what we're asking for today but
as you can see from the submission there are multiple variances of setbacks to the bulkhead.
It's just a quick view all of this is in the Town records and I attached the lexis list rather than the
voluminous decisions one after another just a quick over view. If you look at you've all been
there I'm sure so as you recall the back of the property has a bulkhead again on the canal then
an area that is a non-turf area and a retaining wall stone cement block retaining wall that brings
the grade of the property up and then the property slopes slightly on an angle towards the
house the house being the highest point. So you can see that again the deck and the deck area
right now creates an even surface for the home owners to walk out from their house so in lieu
of that deck it is going to be the patio and the proposed pool.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And that's elevated to 3 foot 11?
PAT MOORE :Three foot eleven is what we received from Mr. Castillo.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is that consistently all the way around at three eleven?
PAT MOORE : Well at its greatest point it's 3.11 because the property grade is at 0 it's at grade
at the location of the door the egress from the house it's really it's the highest point being the
point that is closest to the canal so and in some areas the side as you can see or if you look at
the pictures that I included it shows it but on the sides of the house that area is it's probably
lower also so it's somewhat it deviates depending on which side if you're looking at the east
side, west side or right behind. I'm happy to answer any questions. This is relatively a straight
forward application for the Board.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Eric has one.
MEMBER DANTES : The only question I have is have you reviewed the LWRP report?
PAT MOORE : I didn't get it. No.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We better give you a copy. Well we'll just you know it's determined
to be inconsistent. Part of the problem is they want verification that the proposed pool is
outside of the FEMA flood zone AE cause it's not verified on the survey.
July 2, 2015 Regular Meeting
PAT MOORE : Yes we actually provided an updated survey. We delivered when we received this
to confirm that the flood zone line is actually out of any of the pool or pool area.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Do we have that?
PAT MOORE : I think I gave that to you right Vicki? Or am I confusing with another? I think it's
the other application. I apologize. Oh you know why? Because it was actually it is actually on
the survey already so maybe that's why. If you see on the survey that I have it says (inaudible-
speaking away from the microphone).
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It doesn't show on the plans it does show a drywell but where are
you planning to put the pump equipment?
PAT MOORE : The pool equipment? I have the homeowner here.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay would you just state your name for the record.
DENIS COLE : Denis Cole. It would probably be on the right side of east side of the house as you
look at it.
PAT MOORE : Where there's a cut kind of bite in the patio.
DENIS COLE : Probably on the side on the very side of the patio.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is it the twelve foot side yard you're looking at?
DENIS COLE : I believe it is.
MRS. COLE : We'd be willing to put it wherever you suggest and
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Typically we will condition these sorts of things that the pump
equipment be located in a sound proof container for your benefit and also your neighbors
because who needs to hear that stuff coming and going and we would often we don't have any
objection from anybody on this application. We would often move it as far away from the
neighbor if they had a problem with it but we don't seem to have that in our file anyway so just
wanted to let you know that typically we would want to know where you're going to put it and
we would ask you to put it in a sound proof container. Alright let me see what I want to look at
this new survey. Ok it's now flood zone X is what yes and the other side is an E okay good. Pat
can you do us the courtesy of getting a copy of this survey that Metzger stamped. It's not you
know this one isn't stamped the one you gave us which is fine for us but for our office
application I'd like to have the seal on there.
PAT MOORE : Sure do you want an original or you want me to email it to
July 2, 2015 Regular Meeting
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : An original please.
PAT MOORE :That's fine. We probably got it as an email so that's fine.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well at least that we got through to that. It's fairly pump equipment
these days is fairly shallow I don't think it would have it wouldn't count from the Building
Department anyway in that side yard it's not gonna I just want to try to you got a much bigger
side yard the other way but it's very
MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Wouldn't a closer proximity to the pool be to an advantage?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Sure.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Put it on the other side by the shower or something. I don't know it's
PAT MOORE : We can discuss it with the pool company. (talking with client : do you have any
objection to moving it to the other side if it makes more sense it doesn't matter to you ok) Yea
common sense
MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Pat you know if you're going to be a patio a raised patio it means all the
plumbing has to go underneath the patio and if something breaks ah it's just me.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No you're right. Actually functionally it's I think you're right but also
then you don't encumber your 12 foot side yard which is smaller. You have a very generous
space on the other side and you can just tuck it in someplace on that side wherever your pool
company tells you it works best. Cause you got that gravel you know this sort of boat launch
thing it's much more generous will have no impact on any neighbor. Alright is there anything
else anyone has a question about?
MEMBER DANTES : How do you plan on what's your plan for drainage on the proposed outdoor
shower?
PAT MOORE : Oh the outdoor shower it would have I believe we've talked about yes a drywell
underneath. The Health Department doesn't want people to pipe it because then it's
considered gray water so you're better off just having it soak into a dry well just a natural.
MEMBER DANTES : Is this pool system require a dewatering?
PAT MOORE : Well we have a dry well showing.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :There is a drywell noted 6 by 8 drywell. Not on the survey.
PAT MOORE : Yea we have the detail showing on the drawing.
July 2, 2015 Regular Meeting
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anything else from anybody?
MEMBER HORNING : So we could condition it to have a dewatering
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :They have it.
MEMBER HORNING : Yea.
PAT MOORE : We have it already I would say if applicable because some of the pools now don't
require anything but if we need it we'll have to provide it.
MEMBER HORNING : Have it in the condition.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER : No indication this would ever be enclosed is that correct?
PAT MOORE : No. The patio itself you're talking about?
MEMBER GOEHRINGER : I'm talking about the pool.
PAT MOORE : (talking with client) inaudible That's quite expensive but you're seeing those now
so
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay anything else from the Board? Anyone else in the audience
who wants to address the application? Okay good hearing no further questions or comments I
make a motion to close this hearing reserve decision for later date.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Second.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor?
MEMBER HORNING : Aye.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Aye.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Aye.
MEMBER DANTES : Aye.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye.
(See Minutes for Resolution)
3
July 2, 2015 Regular Meeting
HEARING #6867—WILLIAM and IVA M. FELIX
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for William and Iva M. Felix
application # 6867. This is a request for variance from Article XXII Section 280-124 and the
Building Inspector's May 13, 2015 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for building
permit for a 2 story addition to existing single family dwelling at less than the code required
minimum side yard setback of 10 feet located at 760 Oak Street adj. to Eugene's Creek in
Cutchogue. This is a side yard setback at 3.3 feet where the code requires 10 feet. The lot is
non-conforming at 8,933 square feet. The second story proposed second story addition will
maintain the existing 3.3 feet side yard setback and you're proposing to enlarge an existing first
floor bedroom and so on the landward side to make it both parts of the house two story create
an entry and kind of a loft reading area above all on the landward side of Eugene Creek.
Anything else you'd like to tell us? Please state your name.
NINA JORDAN : Hi Nina Jordan. I'm the applicant and just a few things. I have Mrs. Iva Felix
here. Her husband had a doctor's appointment and couldn't attend. They currently have been
using this as a summer house and they're looking to retire and live here full time and in turn try
and gain the space that they're going to need to live there full time as they love the area and
due to the non-conforming nature of the lot and the proximity to the water you know we tried
to keep everything in the frontward side of the building as you can see and from a design
standpoint you know it's fairly limiting because it is non-conforming. I'm just trying to keep a
nice flow within the house. We were following that 3.3 foot setback again because of the width
of the property we really were quite limited. We're not making the addition very wide. We're
trying to keep it fairly narrow which goes along with you know length of the property and the
existing house. There are other homes on that block that I did take a photo of I don't know if
you want to see or not. There is one in particular that looks like it's also quite close to the
property line as well just like we're proposing but one thing that I do think we have in our favor
is that on this side of their property and again I do have a couple of photos I can show you.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes please submit them when we finish speaking and then
NINA JORDAN : There are some tall evergreens so that it will keep privacy between their house
which is right there 3.3 feet away with the house on the other side of the property so I just
want to give you guys these photos. I didn't bring enough copies for everyone.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : While you're coming up to the approach do you have any more
green cards?
3
July 2, 2015 Regular Meeting
NINA JORDAN : Yes I have one green card and then I printed out the tracking on the third that
we never got back which they said would be sufficient.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Ok that's great. Just so you're aware every board member has
visited the property. We've come out we know the neighborhood.
NINA JORDAN : The Brown residence is also very close to the property line and the fence when
they put this addition up and then just as far as the aesthetics of the neighborhood there is also
a house on the block that has a very modern feel that we're trying to go for as well. So I just
thought those would be helpful.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Do you have a copy of the LWRP report?
NINA JORDAN : I believe hold on one second.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : If not I have a copy here I can give you.
NINA JORDAN : Is that the memorandum?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yea. Now let's just bring in to discuss a couple of the things that are
pointed out in that memorandum. I just want I'm going to jump to the ones that I think are
quite important in that memorandum. The onsite septic it's seaward of the existing structure?
NINA JORDAN : Yea.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : On the seaward side. There is no sanitary permit on record with the
Town.
NINA JORDAN : For that system?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yea.
NINA JORDAN : Oh.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That's what it says. The LWRP coordinator you know who does this
research for us indicated and there's also no C.O. for the seaward deck.
NINA JORDAN : Right we're in the process of working on that with the Building Department.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Ok.
NINA JORDAN : So we're not adding bedrooms per say. We're expanding the existing first floor
bedroom downstairs for them and we're just expanding areas so we're not proposing any
July 2, 2015 Regular Meeting
additional bathrooms or bedrooms but I don't know how you handle in your jurisdiction the
non-record of the existing sanitary system.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well the Town needs to inspect it.
NINA JORDAN : Okay
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :That's what has to happen.
NINA JORDAN : Oh right which is stipulated here.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Just to make sure that there's no you know issues with seepage or
any kind of pollution of the creek because you know normally we would have that on record.
There would be a permit with septic system and there doesn't seem to be one that they can
find. If you can turn up one you know fine but I would imagine what you need to just talk to the
Town Engineer about going out and inspecting it and determining you know that it's safe and so
on and then you're working on the C.O. for the deck that may require
NINA JORDAN : Working on the C.O. for the deck.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Do you know what the setback is to the bulkhead there?
NINA JORDAN : To the bulkhead?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :The retaining wall you know of the deck.
NINA JORDAN : Hold on I have the survey here. I don't have a scale with me. It looks like it's 42
to the deck from the property line so I would say probably 20 feet to that existing concrete
retaining wall if that's what you're speaking of.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well what the Building Department will do is if you need a setback
variance to get the C.O. for the existing deck they'll write it up that way and we can proceed.
NINA JORDAN : Right okay.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : But that was discussed in the LWRP. What we have to do in order to
make a determination is find ways to make his determination of it being inconsistent,
consistent. We can say with the conditions imposed herein it is now consistent. We can't grant
any relief that isn't in our judgement consistent with the LWRP. So we have to look at the
possibility of a non-turf buffer or landscape buffer to mitigate any potential runoff from the
deck. The second story addition is a side yard variance and even though he suggests that it
might be made to conform sometimes we do say alright if you're doing a second story addition
step it back farther away from the property line. But in this case it looks from an architectural
July 2, 2015 Regular Meeting
point of view the house is so small anyway that to do that would be a hardship. I mean it would
be very awkward aesthetically and very difficult to accomplish.
NINA JORDAN : Exactly. And just to confirm I do also have photos of that
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Oh fine.
NINA JORDAN : I also have photos of the back so you can see the retaining wall. It was existing I
mean they've been there 21 years.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It would appear they probably won't even side it or they probably
would of done so at the time.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER : They may so don't say they may.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No Vicki spoke to (inaudible) well apparently they're working on it. If
they do then we'll take it from there but at the moment Vicki seems to feel they're just working
on just legalizing it because of the date the structure was built.
NINA JORDAN : So again we're talking about the bulkhead the retaining wall.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Can I ask a question?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes please.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Based upon the LWRP is there a possibility that the new addition could
be moved over five feet thereby making the side yard at that addition at 5 excuse 8.3 feet?
NINA JORDAN : Well we I don't know if you guys have copies of the floor plan. I do have a copy
of the architectural plans.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We do.
NINA JORDAN : It's a narrow house and we're trying to give them bedroom and an entry area so
due to the narrow nature of the lot and the house it just seemed to be the only way we can
really get them the space for a decent sized sleeping area and entry way was to follow that line
of the 3.3 or 3.4 feet from the you know existing side wall of that house. We did go through
quite a long period of design possibilities on this project and you know.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER : I understand that but the point in question is what difference does it
make we're dealing with the same exact plan okay but just by moving it over and I'm going to
say this from a standpoint of not LWRP but a standpoint of firefighting. That house is three feet
off the line.
July 2, 2015 Regular Meeting
NINA JORDAN : Right.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER : It is impossible to fight a fire the length of that proposed situation
okay and I realize that many of the houses down there are extremely close to the line there's
no question about it they all preexisted zoning and that's the reason they are and the only one
that I think you have a picture of that we just recently dealt with was the one down farther
toward the turn you make on the opposite side of the street and yes there were some
concessions to the side yards on that particular one and there was great concession by the
applicant to minimize the width of the house. Secondly is the patio at grade that you're
anticipating?
NINA JORDAN : Yes in the front.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER : So that no part of that patio will be out of grade it will completely flat.
Is that correct?
NINA JORDAN : Yea just you know some pavers or something on the ground cause they like to
sit at the front and on the side there that's their main you know area.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well the point is that even if it were the reason I said what I said
earlier because even if it were moved over you still couldn't use that side yard to access
anything because the existing house is there at that point so I think it's better to keep that clear
on the other side which is why you asked whether it was at grade so you could get equipment
or whatever over it.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Yea but at five feet it only puts it basically where the you see the angle
showing it so I mean it's you know I don't worry about the architectural look of it I look more
about what the possibility of pardon me
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I said you would if you had paid for it.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER : I'm more concerned about some compromising with the LWRP
coordinator and secondly from the standpoint of getting around the house okay and you know
it's just very very difficult. I'm just throwing that out there.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well I think if you look at the floor plan and the way it's been
constructed
NINA JORDAN : The bedroom would then be blocking the kitchen.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's twenty two feet wide please you have to speak into the mic and
state your name.
July 2, 2015 Regular Meeting
IVA FELIX : My name is Iva Felix. I'm the owner of the house and we're trying to make this
livable for me and my husband and the dog. Now if we would do what the gentleman suggests
the property is narrow and long and you know we have little front yard by the (inaudible) but if
we would move it by that amount that means I think one big tree would have to go and also I
have across the street wonderful neighbor. If I told her what I planning to do she says still I
going to have little sliver of the view to see the water like I see now. I said the way of how the
plans are and if I get a permit for this yes you're going to have your view and this is important
for me too because if I would have the old house and then put the five feet back there I
understand also the problem with in case of the fire but that addition just go front and the
house next to me is little backwards so all that new addition is open. Nothing is really blocking
there and there is no one at the house there.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : As I said we've all visited this site. We also know the neighborhood.
There's a lot of variances that take place in that the other thing is that the proposed addition is
actually in front of the house that's right adjacent with that side yard at 3.3 feet so it's not
going to change anything for them particularly plus they're also at a much higher elevation.
They're actually their property is much higher than yours.
NINA JORDAN : I think she was speaking of her neighbor across the street.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Across the street for the view but I'm just simply saying if you leave
it at the 3.3 feet it's not really gonna have much impact on the neighbor that shares that
property line.
NINA JORDAN : And I believe the houses will still be within ten feet apart as far as like any fire
you know state code and what not you know the structures would not be too close for that.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER : I'll go down and take a look at that again.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Ok Jerry I mean Member Goehringer is a firefighter he's always our
conscience when it comes to safety and that's why he asked the question he did plus he was
pointing out the LWRP. It's our obligation to explore in the record whatever options and what
hardships they might have and not have so that's why he brought that up.
MEMBER HORNING :The LWRP is recommending a template.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I know but you know then you're going to have an L shaped house
you know that's going to have all kinds of jogs in it. It would be hard to construct, not very
feasible financially given you know the and then when you look at the internal layout I can't
help myself I'm an architect by training so I look at those things from a property owners point
of views what's worth investing in you know does it pay for me to build this thing. Alright is
NYb
July 2, 2015 Regular Meeting
there anything else from anybody else. Well there's no one else in the audience but you two so
I'm going to make a motion to close the hearing reserve decision to later date. Is there a
second?
MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Are we waiting for the deck and everything or
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No if there's another issue we could always condition this based
upon obtaining a certificate of occupancy for the deck.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER : And septic inspection?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And a septic inspection yea cause you're going to need to do that
anyway.
NINA JORDAN : Yea exactly.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So it just means we'll proceed with the request that you've made of
us for the side yard and we will indicate that the conditions of approval include inspection
approval (inaudible) and a C.O. for the deck.
NINA JORDAN : Okay fair.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Good with you guys? Okay Motion to close reserve decision. Is there
second?
MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Second.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor?
MEMBER HORNING : Aye.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Aye.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Aye.
MEMBER DANTES : Aye.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye.
(See Minutes for Resolution)
5
July 2, 2015 Regular Meeting
HEARING #6866—JAMES MORGAN
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Good afternoon. The next application before the Board is James
Morgan # 6866. This is a request for variance from Article XXIII Section 280-124 and the Building
Inspector's May 15, 2015 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for building permit for
additions and alterations to an existing single family dwelling at less than the code required
minimum side yard setback of 15 feet located at 600 Harbor Lights Drive in Southold. Is there
someone here to represent this application? Please state your name.
JAMES MORGAN :James Morgan.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : This is for a proposed side yard setback at eleven feet where the
code requires a minimum of fifteen feet. It would appear that you're maintaining the existing
non-conforming side yard.
JAMES MORGAN : Yes.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And it's a proposed one story addition on the rear of the house.
JAMES MORGAN :That's correct.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : What else would you like us to know about this application?
JAMES MORGAN : I've been in the house for fifteen years. I want to put a new master suite on
and renovate some other rooms in the house which was already approved the kitchen, family
room and bathroom.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The Board did receive a letter of support from one of your neighbors
let that be known. Do you know if there are other non-conforming side yards in your particular
area?
JAMES MORGAN : I believe there are I'm not positive. I think the neighbor to my left I believe is
also non-conforming 700 Harbor Lights, Campbell but I'm not positive.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Just for your information all the Board members have visited the site
so we've all driven around the area and taken a look at your property. You're sort of on a
private right of way actually where you're proposing the addition kind of on a corner.
JAMES MORGAN : Yes.
July 2, 2015 Regular Meeting
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So you have technically two front yards.
JAMES MORGAN : In front that's the association's lot. That's the Park Harbor Light Association.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Eric you want to start, questions?
MEMBER DANTES : You just maintain the existing side yard setback?
JAMES MORGAN : I am yes.
MEMBER DANTES : That's the only question I have.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Ken?
MEMBER SCHNEIDER : No questions.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : George?
MEMBER HORNING : Have you considered any alternative designs?
JAMES MORGAN : I did. I considered building up but you know I like the ranch style. I've been in
the house fifteen years. I'd love to stay in Southold and I think as you get older a ranch style
house is great you don't have to take the stairs.
MEMBER DANTES : I think building up you would still need a variance.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yea if you were probably maintaining the existing footprint and just
going up you'd still be adding non-conformity.
JAMES MORGAN : And if I did build up the side of the house that I would put the addition on.
MEMBER DANTES : So either way you would need a variance.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Jerry anything?
MEMBER GOEHRINGER : I was going to say I can't understand why you can't move that
magnificent ranch over just a little bit. I have no questions.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there anyone in the audience who wishes to address this
application? Please come forward and state your name.
JOHN ABELE : I'm John Abele of Southold. I own the property at 500 Harbor Lights Drive
immediately adjacent to Mr. Morgan's property and I have no objection to his proposal. I'm in
favor of it.
July 2, 2015 Regular Meeting
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thank you very much we appreciate your comments. Anything from
anyone else? Hearing no further questions or comments I'm going to make a motion to close
this hearing and reserve decision to a later date.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Second.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor?
MEMBER HORNING : Aye.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Aye.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Aye.
MEMBER DANTES : Aye.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye.
(See Minutes for Resolution)
HEARING #6868— MICHAEL DUFF
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Michael Duff # 6868.
This a request for variance from Article XXIII Section 280-124 and the Building Inspector's May
11, 2015 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for building permit for additions and
alterations to an existing single family dwelling at less than the code required front yard setback
of 35 feet located at 145 Lakeview Terrace (aka Tuthill's Path) (corner Private ROW) in East
Marion. Just state your name please.
EILEEN SANTORA : My name is Eileen Santora. I'm here representing the Duff family.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So this is a front yard setback from a right of way at 15.8 feet where
the code requires a minimum 35 feet. Looks like you want to do a 14 by 10 foot screened porch.
EILEEN SANTORA : Yes.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Eric do you want to start with questions?
MEMBER DANTES : Have you considered any design changes that would alleviate the variance?
July 2, 2015 Regular Meeting
EILEEN SANTORA : Excuse me.
MEMBER DANTES : Have you considered any proposals where you wouldn't need the variance
or you would need less of
EILEEN SANTORA : Not really because where we can put a screened in porch would be then
we'd have a rear yard setback problem. It's a corner house so we have problems. The other
neighbors on that right of way as you can see even on my survey that I presented are so close
to the right of way. There's a garage about three feet off of the right of way and then if you go
further down there's an existing home a few feet probably like seven feet ten feet on the right
of way. There's no neighbors to the that's the neighbors to the west it's really just their back
yard and there's no objection there and as I say it is a corner lot. They're good friends with the
people across the street and there's no problem with the Gaipa's.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : What's the current setback from that right of way. Is it 25.8?
EILEEN SANTORA : 25.8 so the existing is not to code.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And is there a logical reason as to why the porch should be there
and not someplace else.
EILEEN SANTORA : Well there's an entry from the front door well they use the side door into
the kitchen really as their front door and that's where they park on the Tuthills Path but there is
a door that we would use to go in from the house to the screened in porch without disturbing
any bedrooms. It's a very small cottage as you can see on the plan the door.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So spatially it's the only place that makes sense.
EILEEN SANTORA : Right.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Eileen have you had a chance to look at Jamie Richter's comments?
EILEEN SANTORA : No I never got them.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Never got a copy?
EILEEN SANTORA : No.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay we better make sure you get a copy. I'll tell you what it says I'll
ask Vicki to make a copy. I'll explain what it is. Mine's all marked up. He's actually reviewed the
application for compliance with 236 which is the Town's drainage code. All the properties
around there they have drainage issues as I'm sure you well know and he says that currently a
majority of storm water runoff from this site is directed by the private right of way which is
July 2, 2015 Regular Meeting
sloped or pitched in the direction of the town road know as Bay Ave. Alright what he's
recommending is the submission of a storm water plan for compliance with chapter 236 with
your application for a building permit. Then he said the Building Department would then
forward those plans to his office for review and comment. I think his review is going to be
based on the amount of new and pervious surfaces being created at the site and let's see what
else he has to say.
EILEEN SANTORA : Well any runoff that will come off the road will go up off the road. Any
runoff that will come off this new roof structure will go into a drywell and if he does wish we
can put another drywell for the existing cottage (inaudible) runoff. They these people have
purchased this house in the last year so they are doing improvements on it. They are removing
things that are there. There was an existing wood platform deck that they're removing that
wasn't to code they're removing that as you can see on the survey. But there would be no
problem.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well so I presume they would have no issue with conditioning any
variance relief based upon the submission of a storm water plan for compliance with chapter
236 that you're going to have to do anyway.
EILEEN SANTORA : Right, right.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That way the Building Department can send it on to the Town
Engineer to make sure that it's okay and if not they would tell you what you need to do.
EILEEN SANTORA : Okay.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's just such a you know all around in that area Bay Ave and all the
little side road all the way down to Rabbit Lane
EILEEN SANTORA : Marion Lake it's Marion Lake right?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yea. Okay Eric anything else to ask about or Ken?
MEMBER SCHNEIDER : No, no questions.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : George anything?Jerry?
MEMBER HORNING : I have one minor question. Your access to the right of way that is the left
hand turn from Tuthills Path kind of?
EILEEN SANTORA : Right.
July 2, 2015 Regular Meeting
MEMBER HORNING : Does the applicant have access to that portion of that right of way? Is that
where you told me they parked in there.
EILEEN SANTORA : No they park on their gravel driveway on Tuthill Path. It's on the survey.
That's where they park.
MEMBER HORNING : Okay and then you drive past that driveway and then there's a right of
way and it dead ends.
EILEEN SANTORA : And it dead ends.
MEMBER HORNING : Right do they have legal access to use that right of way? That's my
question.
EILEEN SANTORA : Yea.
MEMBER HORNING :They do?
EILEEN SANTORA : Yea. It's a road for everybody to go on.
MEMBER HORNING : Right.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMANA : Anything else from the Board? Okay is there anyone else in the
audience who wishes to address this application? Hearing no further comments or questions I
make a motion to close the hearing reserve decision to later date.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Second.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor?
MEMBER HORNING : Aye.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Aye.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Aye.
MEMBER DANTES : Aye.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye.
(See Minutes for Resolution)
July 2, 2015 Regular Meeting
HEARING #6865— DAVID and STEPHANIE SACK
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for David and Stephanie
Sack. This is a request for variances from Article XXIII Section 280-124 and Article XXII Section
280-116 and the Building Inspector's May 6, 2015 Notice of Disapproval based on an application
for building permit for demolition of existing dwelling and construction of a new single family
dwelling at 1) less than the code required front yard setback of 40 feet, 2) more than the code
permitted maximum lot coverage of 20%, 3) less than the code required top of the bluff setback
of 100 feet located at 445 Glen Court adjacent to Long Island Sound in Cutchogue. Let me just
enter into the record here that this proposal is to demolish an existing dwelling and construct a
new single family dwelling with a front yard setback at 25 feet where the code requires a
minimum of 40 feet lot coverage at 25.1% where the code permits a maximum of 20% and 50
foot setback from the top of the bluff where the code requires a minimum of 100 feet from the
top of the bluff. We have four letters of support from neighbors. We have a letter of concern
from a neighbor about bluffs stability. We have property just to note is adjacent to a park or
playground area maintained I guess by the association and just so you are aware the Board has
requested comments in addition to the LWRP. The Board which has determined it to be
consistent and I'm sure Rob will explain why but we have requested comments from Suffolk
County Soil and Water with regards to bluff stability. They are really really expert Rob knows
that. It's not at all infrequent when we have a dune or a bluff to ask them to chime in as well to
let us know about bluff erosion, bluff stability and any potential mitigation that might be
required and so on. So, we have not received that yet so we will certainly take no action until
such time that is received. We're expecting it I would say within the next week or two probably.
They have to go out and inspect the site and you could imagine how stressed out that small
staff is running around looking at doing site inspections. So we won't be we will not be closing
this hearing today so that we can receive that information but we will cover all the bases take
all the testimony and get that into the public record. Alright so Rob please state your name as
the agent for the applicant.
ROB HERMANN : Good afternoon Rob Hermann of En-Consultants on behalf of the applicants
David and Stephanie Sack. Dave and Stephanie are here in the audience today also with their
architects for the project. The subject property is located at 445 Glen Court. It was originally
created in 1967 as lot 4 of the subdivision map of Birch Hills. The property is located to the east
of and adjacent to the undeveloped park and playground property of the Birch Hill Property
Owners Association and it's the most easterly parcel on this section of Glen Court before the
5
July 2, 2015 Regular Meeting
road is broken by Vista Place to its east. The property fronts Long Island Sound and the fronting
bluff which is a vegetated and stable bluff and protected at its toe by a functional retaining wall
or bulkhead which is in good condition. Because the area between the road and the bluff crest
is only 125 feet deep the combined 100 foot bluff setback and 40 foot road setback actually
create a negative building envelope for this property meaning that the placement of any new
dwelling on the property or any renovations or expansion of the existing would require variance
relief from the bluff and or front yard setback requirements and because this 20,000 square
foot parcel contains only 10,506 square feet of buildable land as defined by town code which is
the area here between the road and the coastal erosion hazard area boundary. The maximum
allowable lot coverage is only about 2100 square feet which is about 562 square feet less than
what currently exists on the property now. So this is why the requested setback and lot
coverage relief that we're seeking today is essentially unavoidable however we have worked
diligently with the owners and their architect to come up with a design that we feel
substantially improves on the existing conditions. Specifically with respect to concerns of this
Board and chapter 280 in the zoning code of the Town of Southold. This property is presently
characterized by a dwelling that is located at its nearest point 38 feet from the bluff crest. It's a
characterized by an attached deck with a hot tub on the seaward side of the house that is
located 25 feet from the bluff crest. It's characterized by a septic system consisting of a single
cesspool that is located 27 feet from the bluff crest. It has a total existing lot coverage of 25.3%
and the existing house is located 34 feet from the road. What we are proposing with the new
design in contrast to what is existing is a dwelling that will be located at its nearest point 54 feet
from the bluff crest which is a 16 foot or 42% increase over the existing non-conforming
setback. We've proposed an attached deck with a small plunge type swimming pool. Both of
which are located at least 50 feet from the bluff crest which is a 25 foot or 100% increase a
doubling of the existing setback to the existing attached deck and it should be noted that the
proposed setback to the 305 square foot pool also meets the current bluff setback under
chapter 275 wetlands of the Southold Town code. We're proposing a new conforming sanitary
system who's future expansion pool is proposed 50 feet from the bluff but who's active
leeching pool will be located more than 75 feet from the bluff which is a near tripling of the
existing setback to the sanitary system. We have a proposed total lot coverage of 25.1% which
is 5.1% over what's allowable by code but is actually a slight decrease 27 square feet exactly
relative to what is existing there today so we have an unusual application in front of this Board
where lot coverage will actually decrease as part of a variance request. We do have a proposed
front yard setback of 25 feet which represents an additional 9.4 foot encroachment on the
roadway relative to what is there today. However as I just described we are proposing this 9
foot decrease to the front yard setback in order to achieve a doubling or 25 increase of the
existing bluff setback versus what's there today and as explained in our application the
proposed 25 foot front yard setback is consistent with the character of the neighborhood which
53
July 2, 2015 Regular Meeting
consists of other properties similarly created in the 1960's by the Birch Hills and Vista Bluff
subdivisions. All of these properties are characterized by distances between the road and bluff
that measure less than the combined bluff and road setbacks which is why most if not all
contain dwellings and other structures that are located less than 100 feet from the bluff.
Several also have homes that are located less than their required road setbacks including three
with front yard setbacks that range from 20 feet to 30 feet pursuant to prior Zoning Board of
Appeals decisions. I outline these decisions in our application but I briefly describe them here
for the record. The Board has granted relief in the first case in 2008 case 6166 that established
a 20 foot setback for an altered dwelling with attached garage at 995 Glen Ct. which is located
five properties to the east. In 1992 under case 4104 the Board established a 30 foot setback for
an expanded dwelling at 645 Glen Ct. which is located two properties to the east of the subject.
And finally going quite a ways back in 1976 case 2134 the Board allowed a 25 foot setback
which is the same as what we are asking for today for a new dwelling at 255 Glen Ct. and that
dwelling is actually shown in figure 6 that should have been submitted that you should have
with your application and that is located two properties to the west. As I noted earlier the
property immediately to the west is an undeveloped parcel, the park and playground area of
Birch Hill Property Owners Association. The architects have come up with a rendering which I
have here but I'll pass out if the Board would like to see it and it shows an aerial view of Glen
Ct. with the other existing dwellings located along the shoreline relative to the roads with the
proposed site plan super imposed. So I'll pass that up. As the Board knows the application also
has to address the impacts on the physical and environmental conditions. What I would like to
do is simply reread for the record the narrative included with our application that addresses
this issue and will also summarize some of what we would call the best management practices
that have been incorporated as mitigation as part of the variance. Leslie I'm not sure if you
noted I think you noted in the beginning of the hearing that the LWRP coordinator had
reviewed the project and recommended it a determination of consistency of the Towns Local
Water Front Revitalization Program. I can also mention at this point that we have obtained a
title wetlands letter of non-jurisdiction from the NYS D.E.C. for activities landward of the top of
the bluff. We would not be able to file an application with the Town Trustees under chapter 275
until this Board has rendered a decision pursuant to the policy that the Trustees adopted within
the past year or so. The proposed project design and incorporated mitigation will result in an
improvement to the physical and environmental conditions. As a result of the project design
there will be 132 square foot decrease in the dwelling footprint and overall decrease in lot
coverage of 27 square feet a doubling of the bluff setback to structures from 25 to 50 feet and a
16 foot increase bluff setback to the primary dwelling from 38 feet to 54 feet. As project
mitigation approximately 1035 square feet of existing lawn that's maintained within 10 feet of
the bluff crest will be removed and replaced with native vegetation and a drainage system of
leader, gutters and drywells that is currently absent will be installed to capture and recharge
5
July 2, 2015 Regular Meeting
roof runoff. Together these measures will mitigate both the quantity and quality of surface
water runoff reaching the bluff by reducing the area of the property nearest the bluff and
wetlands potentially treated with fertilizers, pesticides, and insecticides increasing the setback
of those areas from the bluff and surface waters from Long Island Sound and creating an area
of more permeable soil and natural vegetation adjacent to the bluff that will serve both as a
sink and filter for storm water runoff and the contaminants potentially contained therein. Again
the entire property in the back now is currently a historically maintained lawn that runs right up
to the bluff. Additionally the existing non-conforming sanitary system that consists of a
cesspool located 27 feet from the bluff will be replaced with an upgraded system consisting of a
tank and leaching pool which will be located more than 75 feet from the bluff a 48 foot increase
or near tripling of the bluff setback to the active leaching pool. The small 305 square foot
plunge pool type swimming pool conforms to the 50 foot bluff setback for swimming pools set
forth by chapter 275-3(D)1 B4 and as additional environmental mitigation for the pool the pool
will be equipped with an ECO smart pool filtration system which utilizes a chemical free
ionization process for pool filtration in place of chlorination and other chemical treatment
processes. Because this system eliminates the use of chemicals for pool treatment it also
created chemical free pool backwash which will be directed into the proposed drainage system.
Finally, a project limiting fence and staked hay bales will be installed to contain site disturbance
and potential runoff during construction. The project design and incorporated mitigation
measures will this result in decreased lot coverage, increased wetlands setbacks, increased
bluff setbacks, upgraded sanitary system, and reduction of maintained lawn areas, improved
septic treatment, increased native vegetation coverage and increased drainage capacity,
thereby resulting in a significant net improvement to the physical and environmental conditions
of the site and the neighborhood. The applicants have spent some time contacting neighbors.
We did forward to Vicki several letters of support for the project including one from the Birch
Hills Property Owners Association. Before taking other speakers I will mention that we are
aware that there is some objection in the neighborhood to the style of the house. This is a
contemporary house. It is not a traditional the house does not have a traditional appearance.
What I would just like the Board to please keep any speakers focused on as you are not an
architectural review board. You're a board of Zoning Appeals and all of the setbacks that you
are concerned with the exception of a decreased front yard setback represents substantial
improvements to what is on this site. With concerns relative to bluff stability this is not a vacant
lot. This is a historically improved dwelling since the 1960's. There is a dwelling with a larger
footprint there today than what is being proposed and we are proposing to pull back away from
the bluff which is what the Zoning Board and Trustees have always asked us to do except we're
doing it in a way that creates some front yard relief but we've done it in a careful way to make
sure that the relief we're asking for is consistent with relief that this Board has granted in the
past whether it be several years ago or several decades ago. The character of the neighborhood
July 2, 2015 Regular Meeting
and the dwellings that exist today are established historically over time pursuant to decisions
that are granted over time and result in the neighborhood appearance that's there including
the front yard setbacks and so we hope that the Board will consider what we are trying to
establish here in terms of retreating from the bluff and actually reducing lot coverage and
increasing vegetative coverage as a significant tradeoff for what's proposed from the front yard.
As mentioned also it's not insignificant to note that the property is retained at the toe of the
bluff with a retaining wall or bulkhead now and that it is a well vegetative bluff area and
obviously pulling the structures away from that area can only result in an improvement in that
regard. With that I know you have to take other speakers. I'm happy to answer any other
questions you may have and also again the applicants and the project architects are here to
respond to any questions that the Board may have about construction methodology, design
etc. Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You're very welcome thank you for your presentation. I don't have
any questions at this time but do any of you I'd like to hear if there's anyone in the audience. Is
there anyone here who would like to address this application?You go ahead first and then
JOANN BRIEN : Hello my name is Joann Brien One of the homes that was mentioned as being
1976 getting a variance from the Board I bought my property in 1972 and have lived there since
1976 and my concern is in these forty years almost that we've been there we've never had to
have an existing home be demolished right down and including the foundation that is so close
to the bluff. Birch Hills Property Owners is an association of 16 lot owners. We maintain our
road, we maintain our park and playground everyone is responsible. We maintain the stairs to
the beach and we maintain the bulkhead. Our concern is possible damage to this with the
demolition of this home. We know that Stephanie and David have owned the home for a year
and a half and are very anxious to get going and build. We know that the winter of 2014 they
sustained burst pipe in their basement and significant damage to the foundation which
probably has added to the need to demolish the home. We recognized this. We also recognize
the kindness they gave us tremendous due diligence that they had done. They handed out
packets to the neighborhood. I'm really here today for some reassurance from the Board that
any damage to the common elements that maybe done it during the demolition and or building
of this establishment will be paid for by the people that do the damage. This is something that
in the past we have had issues like this. We have had problems where neighbors or adjacent
neighbors have needed access to our private road and we were concerned with possible
damage to the road with heavy equipment and now we have a home being demolished so close
to this park and playground staircase. My house is not immediately adjacent. It is to the west of
Stephanie and David's property on the other side of the park and playground so there's their
part my part and the park and playground in between us. That's what I'm really here for today. I
5
July 2, 2015 Regular Meeting
did not realize that you already got a letter from Birch Hills Property Owners but (inaudible)
directors asked me to deliver this I didn't think you'd already gotten it. Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Rob do you want to address that comment?
ROB HERMANN : Yea I'm not sure that it's really within my to respond to I think from what I
heard it sounds like a general concern that relates to construction methodology during
construction and it seemed like there was some concerns related both to potential damage to
the bluff and or the stairway on the adjoining playground property and also to the road because
this is even if we were not on the bluff even if we were not before this Board those concerns
would be typical rational justifiable concerns by neighboring property owners especially at sort
of the dead end here. I mean Glenn Ct. runs through but there's a land there and if you've been
to the property you would know that it ends and then there's a separation before you get to
the other road so any parking that's going to occur during construction is going to end up sort
of force within this are at the end of the road. We could certainly ask the architect and the
builder to provide some sort of a construction narrative or construction methodology that
would indicate hours of operation, days of operation in other words you know not having
foundation demolition on Labor Day Saturday kind of things but also with respect to the
damage. Honestly I'm not familiar how Southold Town Building Department normally handles it
but I would think for any project I don't know if there's bonding required or what's required in
terms of you know if a truck comes down and collapses part of the street you know.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Generally it's a civil matter. You know it's dealt within the
Homeowners Association Board. It doesn't really you know we can obviously ask for silt fencing
and things that would be on the site that would mitigate any damage from runoff or from
(inaudible) and wildlife and things like that.
ROB HERMANN :The only thing I mean I can ask you know Stephanie or David to speak today to
provide any assurances that the Association obviously they're new members of the Association
they're neighbors there and I think the last thing they want to do during this process is make a
whole bunch of people angry with them and I think that they're effort which was frankly
delightful and unusual for a client as part of this process to have asked me to get copies of what
I was submitting to you so that they could disseminate it throughout the neighborhood and
make their neighbors aware of what they were doing because I know sometimes we come into
a project like this the neighbors feel a little bit taken by surprise or sandbagged by an
application and so they took great pains here to make sure that the Association and the
neighbors were aware of it so the only thing I can do is assume they would have the same
neighborly behavior as they go forward. Obviously damaging the road way or the front of the
properties leaves them no better off than it would leave the neighbors.
July 2, 2015 Regular Meeting
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there anyone else who would like to address this application?
NICHOLAS YANNIOS : My name is Nicholas Yannios that's my brother Thomas Yannios. Our
family has been residents in Cutchogue since the early 1970's and over that course of time you
know we've seen a lot of erosion both on the along the coastline but also along the bluff the
edge of the bluff. If you look at the slides here we have aerial photos going back to 1994
showing the erosion of the shoreline up until to like the present time. Now we've created on
those slides it'll sort of contrast compare and contrasts like what happens with respect to the
you know to erosion so currently the current state of the bluff along our properties there's one
particular photo in there that shows just recently a very large boulder which rolled down the
cliff and smashed into the bulkhead of our neighbors property. Since we've been residents here
in our own property we've seen we've observed the age of the a recession of the edge of the
bluff of about 15 to 20 feet and we have bulkheads and we have taken environmental
conservation steps to mitigate the erosion by having all sorts of vegetation growing there yet
we still especially after a very major storm we still have a lot we still have this issue with the
erosion so our main concerns are what or we see that all the architectural and environmental
codes are being followed and we're glad to hear that. Our biggest concern is what steps are
being done by the so that during the process of demolition and construction that it doesn't be
stabilized the cliff and even though everything may appear it may loosen up the consistency of
the soil, it may remember that there that the northern edge of the bluff which is completely
exposed there is nothing to prevent any sort of large massive object from pushing outward and
destabilizing and causing the bluff to slope or you know descend further if and (someone
speaking from out in the audience)
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : If you're going to speak you're going to have to go to the
microphone.
THOMAS YANNIOS : I'm Thomas Yannios I'm one of the homeowners of the directly adjacent
home to the east and within the last few months we've had a brief the supposedly and
allegedly stable cliff has had a breach on a very heavily vegetated part of our bluff which this is
due to climatic conditions who knows but this attest as the boulder that smashed through the
adjacent the other adjacent property's bulkhead also shows these are both of these breaches
occurred on the most protected well bullheaded and heavily vegetated parts of the slope and
yet despite that climatic conditions or seismic conditions or whatever cause breaches so the
cliff is not stable and we're constantly noting the erosion. Our bluff rate recession rate is since
in the last 20 years has been about 15 feet.
MEMBER HORNING : Can we see the photos sir.
58
July 2, 2015 Regular Meeting
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : What they're going to do I'm just going to let the audience know I
have already have had a little discussion that these folks are going to print out their power
point presentation, the slides, the photographs and submit them to the Board as part of the
public record. Now I've already mentioned that we are going to be waiting for comments from
Suffolk County Soil and Water. We have extensive comments from the LWRP coordinator that
deals with these issues and Mr. Hermann has given us a very detailed scenario of how any
adverse impacts will be not only mitigated but improved. What I'd like to know is since the
architect is here there are construction methods that can be employed to ensure that there is
protection to the bluff area visive the use of certain kinds of heavy equipment and so on an so
forth. If they would like to do so and are prepared to address it now before the public would
you please come to the mic and make some comments about best management practices for
construction on that site.
CHRIS COY : Good afternoon members of the Board I'm Chris Coy of Barnes Coy Architects
Bridgehampton and New York. Yea the demolition of an old house like this is a fairly benign
affair. The excavator has a claw on the end of an arm arrives on a real vehicle so there's almost
never any damage to roads and then it's taken off the wheeled vehicle it's a trailer so it's only
driving on the property itself and it approaches the house to be demolished from the landward
side and the claw reaches out and begins to I'm sure you've all seen this it begins to take the
house away from the landward side so it never has to drive around on the bluff ward side and
so it takes the frame of the house down, deposits it into a dumpster that's waiting on the side
and then when that gets out of the way it then grabs the foundation piece by piece which in
this case is not going to be a big deal since it's already cracked and this is a very damaged
foundation to begin with. So we will just be extracting pieces of old concrete out of the ground,
turning around depositing into the dumpsters that are waiting on the side. So it's a very benign
and simple process. It takes a couple of days for a small old house like this and it's all gone. It
leaves a hole there and part of that hole will be used for the new excavation and it's we I don't
know if you know our practice but our practice is categorized by about 80% waterfront houses
not only in this area but all the country and indeed various parts of the world. So we're often up
against the requirement to respect very very fragile ecosystems and environments and I don't
think we've ever damaged a waterfront area by the demolition of the house. I mean that's
really not the thing and then as far as the construction of the new house goes again we use
methods like pumping concrete. So instead of having the ready mix trucks drive all over the
place and go close to you know the bluff and everything they would stay on the street side and
would pump the concrete overhead you've seen that too. So the pumping is also it's doesn't do
any damage to the area it's the best way to do it and it also results in the best foundation. So
methods like that really you know and any builder that would come to this job would be
experienced in doing this because we have a hand in choosing the builder. We also have a very
5
July 2, 2015 Regular Meeting
active presence on the site that's another characteristic of our practice so we would be there to
make sure that the builder's not doing anything stupid or making any mistakes because again
our name is on this as much as anybody else's and it wouldn't do us any good to have any of
the neighbors upset by this happening or if you know the last thing that Stephanie and David
want is the bluff to be damaged. That's why they bought the property which they want to enjoy
for year and years to come. I think that you know through the use of these methodologies
really there should be no worry and about damaging the bluff or the roads or the surrounding
areas belonging to some of the neighbors. Thank you.
THOMAS YANNIOS : Thomas Yannios 545 Glen Ct. the next door neighbor. I'd like to I'm that
said has any kind of vibration propagation studies with reference to the soil cohesion been
made on this bluff? That may be some of the information that you're waiting for. This is a big
deal. I know in California builders have assured their clients very adamantly and then
proceeded to have mud slides and lost the houses so yes I'm reassured but I want to see facts, I
want to see data that this bluff is safe for a rather you know a violent destructive process. I
mean you can one may mitigate the intensity of the physics involved but you are pulling apart a
concrete structure and that's going to cause tremendous amount of violate physics involved
that are going to impact on this very fragile geological patch and we are very very concerned
about this. Our stairs right there like 20 feet from the excavation and so far quite frankly the
evidence that we've had in terms of the homeowners considerations to neighbors have not
been impressive. First of all we were never contacted. We are the direct neighbors and we have
never been contacted by the homeowners about anything.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You have you are directly adjacent?
THOMAS YANNIOS : Directly.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You should have received here depends on how it's defined.
THOMAS YANNIOS : We received from you
CHAIPERSON WEISMAN : You're on the opposite your access is up through Glen Ct. going
around the other way. You're adjacent but you're rights of way way of getting
THOMAS YANNIOS : Is different.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is different. That is why you were not contacted because the office
has to there is a yellow sign posted you're aware but you were not mailed. The office
determines by looking at a tax map which properties are legally required to be notified okay.
The important thing is you are here and you do know about it but you were not it was
July 2, 2015 Regular Meeting
negligence on their part or our offices part. Rob maybe you want to make a comment about
that.
THOMAS YANNIOS : It's social negligence.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Hold on one second I want him to finish. Do you want to say
anything else?
THOMAS YANNIOS : Oh I have a lot to say.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Do you want time to say it now or do you want him to finish.
THOMAS YANNIOS: No I'd rather a dialogue cause he's got
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You can't have a dialogue. That is not how this works. I just want to
let you know Rob before member Horning is not bored he's not leaving because of that he lives
on Fishers Island and you could imagine the traffic for this weekend. He's got to make the ferry
back so he in order to make his reservation has to leave.
ROB HERMANN : George I knew I'd drive you out of this room one of these times.
MEMBER HORNING : It wasn't just you.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It is one of the reasons why all of these proceedings are recorded so
that everything is then transcribed and anyone has written access to every comment that was
made so member Horning will be reading the full transcript once it's available see what
comments he missed.
ROB HERMANN : I don't want to belabor the points but obviously there is a lot of interest. One
thing just for the record Leslie because I didn't want you to spend any more time on your
explanation the Yannios Family Trust in care of Thomas Yannios at 7 Stag Place Lindcroft New
Jersey was dually noticed as required by code. We sent a certified letter with return receipt
requested and one of the green cards that I handed up to Vicki was signed by someone it looks
like Mary Yannios on June 16th so I just want to clarify the record when there's testimony that
they were not notified of the project. That is simply false. With respect to our application again
it we've said it, it's in our application it's in my testimony but it bears worth repeating that this
is a historically developed site that is stabilized at the toe of the bluff slope with a retaining wall
and as described in great detail in our application and in my presentation the applicants
application is designed to pull the entire site development farther away from the bluff crest
than the existing development. In fact the Yannios's dwelling which shows on the site plan that
was submitted with our application will actually remain closer to the bluff crest that there is
such great concern about then the new dwelling that will be proposed here. So we will be
July 2, 2015 Regular Meeting
farther from the bluff crest than the speakers dwelling will be once this is done. With respect to
concerns about and that's with respect to the overall long term impact on the bluff. With
respect to the concerns of short term impact some of the bluffs in California are a little bit
different than the bluffs on Long Island Sound I don't think it's really necessary to get into that
conversation but typically on a sandy soil environment like we have up here with the glacial
terrain you don't normally have a concern about the demolition as Mr. Coy described of a small
dwelling like this with a concrete foundation having some sort of vibratory impact that's going
to bring down the bluff and along the entire shoreline. This is not the first nor will it be the last
application that the Board will hear for a dwelling demolition and reconstruction. I can't think
of any properties in over twenty years that I've been doing this or a contractor brought down
the side of a bluff as a result of a demolition of a cottage like this in construction of a new
dwelling that was actually going to be pulled farther away. Obviously if any damage was cause
to the fronting bluff it's the Sack's property and they would be the first ones to want to respond
to making sure that any damage was controlled but again I know you're going to hear from the
Soil Conservations Services you always do respectfully I don't think it's a legitimate concern for
this project but that can obviously be for the Board to decide.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I should also let the audience know that in addition to obtaining
relief from the Zoning Board the applicant will be requires to obtain permit from the Board of
Trustees. They are the entity that has jurisdiction everything that is seaward of a bluff okay.
They're the ones that have expertise and native vegetation they've already offered what the
Trustees will probably have imposed anyway which is a non-turf buffer rather than grass with
fertilizer and so on that could cause damage. So there's ongoing discussion they will have to be
before the Trustees. If the Trustees feel that they're any special construction methods they
need to employ hay bales and silt fencing are always in place in a project like this to make sure
there isn't run off and so on that's just standard so that's going to have to happen after the
Zoning Board makes a determination. Is there now what I'd like to do is give anyone else in the
audience who hasn't spoken an opportunity to do so if they're here and want to just to be fair.
Please come to the mic and state your name and tell us what you'd like us to know.
STEPHANIE SACK : Hi everyone my name is Stephanie Sack and I'm the my husband and I are
the homeowners at 445 Glen Ct. Thank you very much for seeing us today it's been a long time
coming. We're very excited at making Cutchogue our permanent home so we're super excited
and have all the interest in the world and sure everyone's concerns about the neighborhood
and the bluff stability and making sure that the house stays put for you know for a long time
coming. I really mostly wanted to come and introduce myself to everyone and also just reassure
our neighbors and kind of address Joann's concerns such as she spoke about. When we had our
neighborhood meeting a few weeks back and we spoke to everyone Dave and I made a
commitment to the neighborhood that should any issues or property damage arise you know
July 2, 2015 Regular Meeting
both to the bluff I mean obviously we would be taking care of restoring the bluff and making
sure that it stays stable and in the best possible you know shape but also anything to the street
or anything like that so we made that commitment to our neighbors face to face when we met
with them and I just wanted to go on the record and say that we would certainly take
responsibility. I'm a member of the board of directors for the Birch Hill Association and again
I'm you know the protection of the neighborhood is part of our utmost concern. I just want to
reassure that. If anyone has any questions for me I'm happy to answer them.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I have no questions at this time. I think the presentation was very
thorough and all of my questions have been answered and in the interest of the next public
hearing that's coming up I would refrain from just simply reiterating what's already been said. It
doesn't make sense to you know be redundant in repeating. Alright if you'd like to make a
comment please restate your name.
JOANN BRIEN : Joann Brien and I am not adjacent but between I'm lot number three. I was
supposed to when I stood up before an adjacent homeowner who is not present, who's out of
the country asked that I address the Board and say could her letter be read into the minutes of
this meeting. I think you said you received a letter from Barbara Ripple. She wanted her
information read into the meeting and I had forgotten to say that thank you.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You know what again in the interest of time would you do this I think
we may have it but would you kindly give when we're completed a copy of that letter. Oh you
don't have it. Well we're just going to check to see if we have it. We have a copy. Is there
anyone else who has not been heard who would like to address this application? Alright if you
had a concluding comment cause you did say that you had more that you wanted to say I would
ask you to do so now and to please be a succinct as possible. We're running behind now and we
do have another application to hear. So if there's something else you would like to say I'd like to
give you that chance. Please state your name once again it's only because it's being transcribed.
THOMAS YANNIOS : Tom Yannios the homeowner directly eastern adjacency. I have another
technical engineering question and if I can be answered without sarcasm this time it would be
appreciated. The mass affect the weight of this new structure it's footprint is smaller and that's
fine and we certainly don't have any objection to the setback from the road in fact that's a good
thing as it's been pointed out but what another factor that we're worried about is and this may
not be anything to worry about but I need information from the homeowners is the mass effect
of the house. The house what is it made of and how much does it weigh and does that play a
factor into the stabilization for destabilization potential for the cliff.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay thank you for your question. I'll see if the architect wished to
address that question and then we'll proceed.
July 2, 2015 Regular Meeting
CHRIS COY : Sure Chris Coy of Barnes Coy Architects. Yea there's I mean that's a very good
question but there really wouldn't be no mass affect. The house is of wood framing,
foundation's concrete. It probably in terms of weight I mean it you know the bearing capacity of
the soil is going to be addressed by your consultants. There's a wide range of bearing capacity.
Generally there's no house that would be permitted under the Zoning Code. It would overstress
the bearing capacity I mean we're not this is not a 70 story sliver building so really it's in our
view it's not an issue. We've never you know through the years of practice we've never seen
that to be an issue so I don't think that would be a worry that the new house would probably
weigh pretty much what the existing house weighs, really made out of the same stuff. Thank
you.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thank you. Alright we're going to complete this now unless there's
something of absolute that hasn't already been said or asked about. Okay anything from the
Board? Hearing no further questions or comments I'm going to poll the Board for a moment. Do
you want to adjourn to the Special Meeting in case there are some questions about anything
that Soil and Water submits or we can close now subject to receipt of that information? I don't
believe any additional hearing is going to be required but the Board certainly wants to take
their comments into consideration. So how do you want to proceed?
MEMBER GOEHRINGER : I think we should close the hearing at the Special Meeting.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Yea so do I.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright so what we're we have a meeting in two weeks. It's very
likely we'll have comments by then. What we will do by the way that Special Meeting is not a
Public Hearing. It's open to the public. We won't have a determination by then because we're
waiting for this comment from Soil and Water and then we will render a decision. Generally
that decision is written in two weeks. We have meetings twice a month you know in the
beginning is the public hearing and two weeks later is the special meeting at 5 o'clock in the
Town Hall Annex the Bank building and you can also call the office to see if those comments
have been received. You can foil it. It will be part of our public record if you want to see what
soil and water said you're more than welcomed to come and take a look at the comments. It's a
transparent you know process so we're going to adjourn this to the Special Meeting in order to
receive those comments from Soil and Water. It is very likely that we will close the hearing at
that time.
ROB HERMANN : Leslie I'm sorry. Assuming that you receive that between now and then could I
just ask if Vicki could forward that to us so that if there's anything in that letter we would need
to respond to and we could have a chance to that before you close.
July 2, 2015 Regular Meeting
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Of course. We would automatically do that. So I'm going to move to
adjourn this hearing to the special meeting on July 16th. Is there a second?
MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Second.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor?
MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Aye.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Aye.
MEMBER DANTES : Aye.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye.
(See Minutes for Resolution)
HEARING #6870— PASQUALE ANTHONY DeFIORE
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Pasquale Anthony
DeFiore # 6870. This is a request for variances from Article XXIII Section 280-124 and the
Building Inspector's amended June 5, 2015 Notice of Disapproval and there is another amended
one as of July 2, 2015 based on a building permit to amend permit #39646Z which is
construction of a single family dwelling to include additional porches, decks and an accessory
in-ground swimming pool at 1) less than the code required front yard setback of 40 feet (Sound
View Ave) 2) less than the code required front yard setback of 40 feet (Ryder Farm Rd) 3) lot
coverage at more than the code maximum allowed of 20% located at 110 Sound View Ave
(corner Ryder Farm Rd) in Orient. There are several variances here. We've had a couple of
Notices of Disapproval. Let me see if I could just review for the audience I presume you're all
here for this application. Let me take a look at the current Notice of Disapproval and are you
saying you can't hear me is that what that means. I will try is that better? Okay. I talk for so
many years I can't believe no one can hear me I guess that's part of the problem. Let me see if
Board members, Counsel please make sure I manage to get all of these in at the moment. Okay.
We are looking at a on a 20,794 square foot lot in the R-40 zone this lot has two front yards.
The front yard setback from Sound View Ave. is 34 feet where the code requires a minimum of
40 feet. The entry deck is at 32.6 feet from the second front yard which is on Ryder Farm Lane
where the code again requires 40 feet minimum. A proposed lot coverage with the swimming
July 2, 2015 Regular Meeting
pool is at 23.68% where the code permits a maximum of 20%. There is a rear yard setback of
the existing deck of 37.7 feet where the code requires a minimum of 50 feet. Let's see if there's
anything else. I believe those are all the variances that are being addressed in this application at
this time. Did I miss anything? At one point we've just received a new survey and a new site
plan relocating the proposed swimming pool with a ten foot side yard setback rear yard setback
which is conforming and it looks and it's now rectangular and it would appear that it is now in a
conforming rear yard. The pool is originally proposed was partially in the side yard. Just want to
get all these issues out so we can begin addressing them one at a time. I'm going to look at this
survey to see what the lot coverage is to see if that changed. This new survey is showing 23.3
you have 23.6? That was the old one. It originally the irregularly shaped swimming pool was
23.6% lot coverage this new survey is showing 23.3% lot coverage. So it's now 23.3% it's
reduced. Now in addition to these variances just to let you know I'm a professor of architecture
so one of the things I look at when I look at architectural plans are the scale that it's drawn in
and I look at obviously all of the bulk schedule requirements height, width setbacks and so on. I
pulled because we didn't have anything ledge able in our file I pulled the plans from the
Building Department and noted that the height on the structure was drawn in by hand. This is
not acceptable. We need to have a stamped licensed professional, a licensed professional who
can use a stamp better way to put it. I don't want the stamp on the professional just on the
drawings. We need to know exactly what the height of the existing structure is. In addition the
Building Department noted that there may be more than 40% width of the dormers on the
practically as built accessory garage. The code only allows 40% width of roof width that has to
be determined. There is also where are we here there's a permit for a full bath in the accessory
garage from the Health Department by code only a half bath is permitted in an accessory
structure. This would suggest the possibility of habitable space which is not permitted so we
will likely have to have an interior site inspection of that accessory garage. I just want to get it
all out so the applicant can address them in fairness and so anyone in the audience can address
them as well. So I need to find out what the use is, what the height is on the house and what
the dormer width is on the accessory structure. I want to see are you proposing a drywell. Most
swimming pools require a dry well for pool dewatering. Not all depends on the type of pool.
We're learning as we go along but there is no dry well noted on this survey. It may be on this
though let me take a look. We just got this also. Drainage, that's house, house, house do you
see anything I don't see anything on here for the pool. These are drywells for the house I don't
see anything for the pool. Okay before we do anything with the audience in all fairness I would
like to ask if there is someone here to represent this application and if so would they please
come forward and state your name and spell it for us and tell us what you'd like us to know.
GENNARO DEFIORE : Yes good afternoon Board. My name is Gennaro middle name Paul last
name DeFiore. I am the son of the applicant. I am also the builder of the home. I reside at 259
July 2, 2015 Regular Meeting
Harrison Ave Miller Place New York and this particular property was initially planned to be our
new year round home at number 110 Sound View Rd. As to the history of the application the
permits were submitted for review in December of 2012. They were approved in January of
2013. Essentially any encroachment as it would be or site coverage other than a swimming pool
was displayed on those permits plans. The permits were issued erroneously unbeknownst to
me. In January 2013 we commenced construction fortunately in all this time we had not built
any of the front yard porches. Some people might misconstrue what were work scaffolds which
are all but essentially removed by now as those particular decks or porches they are not part of
it. The rear yard decks have been changed somewhat but evidently even in the permitted stage
there was encroachment on the rear yard setbacks that I was unaware of. The Notice of
Disapproval has had four letters, three revisions. One of those revisions was an interest of mine
while we're going for these variances which I was not aware we needed any of into
construction of the residence we might as well you know request a lot coverage and it's only a
lot coverage variance for a future swimming pool not that I intend to build it but if and when a
buyer has a desire to put a swimming pool in better he knows that there is the ability within the
three year window that runs with the land if that variance is granted that he can build a pool of
a specific size. This particular site has not been over built. Even the additional porches or rear
decks when calculated in their totality stay under the 20% site coverage. The only thing and not
even in its entirety would be the swimming pool to push us to 23.3% site coverage. That again is
nothing that has been excavated for, planned or permitted for or started construction. The only
thing as (inaudible) that has occurred that has started construction that is in violation is in fact
the rear deck. As recently as last Tuesday two Building Department officials had come to the
site, reviewed the site in its totality saw nothing wrong with this rear deck being constructed.
The following morning I received a call saying we have a problem an additional problem. I then
came down to the Town Building Department that afternoon before I had gone away this past
weekend upstate to sit down and address all of these issues and I implored the gentleman
please is there anything else on this site plan on this application that needs to be addressed. If
this hadn't been found even this morning that you know a denial letter had not included those
rear yards setbacks as being in violation again going back to an approved 2013 January permit
as well as a renewed 2015 approved building permit. I had no idea of any of these items being
in violation. This was going to be our home. This was going to be our year round home. I have
had you know a relationship with the Orient Point area longer than most of the people who live
in the region are alive. It started in 1957. We went out for summer vacations in cottages on
Long Island Sound at the Dietrich road Green Acre Cottages. We went there for the next 13
years, loved it. Always came back admiring it going to the State and Town parks, County parks
always wanting to live there. We're looking for something to buy to build. We acquired a piece
of property before we actually broke ground we thought of and realized we're going to want to
move upstate. Had nothing to do with the neighborhood, the neighbors or any of those
July 2, 2015 Regular Meeting
conditions at that time. So we went forward with the plans that had been drawn for what is a
multi-generational home. There is some evidence that I will address those in the letters of
confusion as to what a multi-generational home is as opposed to a multi-family home. This is a
multi-generational home. This home was planned to be a nexus for great grandchildren,
grandchildren, son, daughter-in-law and applicant great grandparent. This was something
where anything of the accessory structure was designed and drawn accurately presented on
the December 2012 building permit plans and it has been drawn and built faithfully to those
drawings. As per the height issue all of the drawings all of them were made stamped by a
licensed civil engineer by Tide Runner Engineering. Why there is something hand drawn or
appearing to be hand drawn nothing was done after the fact. Those drawings were part of the
building permit document and if there were any requirements or confirmations of actual height
the elevations or the information on I think the overall site plan or an additional drainage plan
has copious notes showing the elevations of each floor level of the structure in relationship to
the overall average site elevation. It is all there.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let me just point out the drawings that we have are not in scale. It
says quarter inch scale.
GENNARO DEFIORE : Yes.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :They're Xeroxes, they're not in scale.
GENNARO DEFIORE : No that I do apologize because those are shrunk.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That's why I pulled the Building Department plans because they're in
scale.
GENNARO DEFIORE : Right.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And there's no call outs on those elevations. In other words there's
no dimensional lines showing exactly what the height is and as the gradient changes on the
slope of the property like you just described as the average height from grade to the ridge is not
noted on the building department plans.
GENNARO DEFIORE : Well on the set of plans there is a page I don't recall which page it is that
has all of these mean average existing elevations and the elevations of the floors and the
overall height.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Could you tell me what that height is?
GENNARO DEFIORE : To the best of my knowledge because I haven't looked at the plans in a
long time I believe it's about 70 feet to the uppermost which is the widows watch deck and the
July 2, 2015 Regular Meeting
mean average elevation of the property before construction was an excessive 35 feet so it is
under the 35 foot height elevation allowance for the structure. That I don't have in front of me
but that is factually in the set of plans. Now as far as I'm sorry and again that can be furnished
and again if there's something that's missing from that set of plans that was submitted in 2012
it can easily be validated without any modification to any numbers or statements of
anticipation or intent and that could be easily addressed by the civil engineer who I have been
in fact in touch with on a number of occasions due to a number of issues that this has this
project has been pelted with in code violation complaints and things of that nature. So this is
something very familiar to the engineer. We've talked about it in recent days because of other
matters and there is nothing outstanding with the code enforcement individuals that has any
sustained complaints or anything of a merited complaint that has not been addressed.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We would need to have at the very least a letter from the engineer
who serves as a P.E. and has a license indicating what the height of the dwelling is and
indicating what the width of the dormers are relative to the roof width.
GENNARO DEFIORE : I'm confused by this cause this is the first I'm ever hearing of it.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : An accessory structure in the code for accessory structures dormers
are not permitted to be more than 40% wide relative to the width they can't take up more than
40% of the roof of the width of the roof. You have a dormer on each elevation a window okay
and that was because they provide full height clearance and the intent was to ensure that that
highest elevation would not be habitable space okay so I'm just explaining what the code says
and why it was written that way alright. You said this is multi-generational and can I ask you
how you intended to use that you have a three car attached garage. You built an accessory
structure with another garage under it.
GENNARO DEFIORE : Correct.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And you have a permit for a bathroom. There's no permit but there's
an application Department of Health and the Building Department.
GENNARO DEFIORE : I'm interested to see where in the Department of Health they have
ascertained that there was an application for a full bathroom. There is and was approved an
additional sanitary line you know to the structure. It was inspected and approved. There is no
intent on either level to put a full bathroom. There was an intention to do a rough in only for a
half bathroom on the lower level the garage level which was going to be my workshop. Nothing
on the upper level is anticipated to be finished made habitable or any plumbing, heating any
facilities. It's not the intention it wasn't drawn that way and it was not intended that way so I
appreciate you bringing this to my attention. I know the people in the Health Department very
July 2, 2015 Regular Meeting
well. I'm going to ask them to set up a meeting with me to review the history of that application
all of the information and where interestingly enough they would of interpreted there was a
desire for a full bathroom. There never was.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Somehow in the Building Department's file. That information is in
the Building Department's file when I pulled it that's what I saw.
GENNARO DEFIORE : Well again this is the first time hearing of it. The Building Department had
it I wish they would of made me aware of it.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yea and you need a permit if you're going to put in a line for even a
half bath which is permitted by code you're still going to need a permit for that.
GENNARO DEFIORE : Well again we have
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :To tie it in to a septic system or
GENNARO DEFIORE : We have that on the site plan we have that I believe in the drawings. But
again I'll gladly sit down this is the first that I'm hearing that the Building Department has an
issue with this.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I don't even see well you know the plan that I've got for the garage
they're just really almost illegible. I'll show you and then maybe you can clarify it for me.
GENNARO DEFIORE : Sure you want me to come up there to get it.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let me just grab it and make sure I've got the right thing I don't want
to waste your time. This is the framing diagram this is where did I see that on here that's
foundation this is the garage floor plan showing a stair something that I can't even read. Is this
a wall this is a wall this must be are you going to use part of it for a workshop part for car
storage?
GENNARO DEFIORE : The whole thing was really going to be for a storage of my box truck as
well as it being you know for the workshop, materials, tools and so forth the whole space. The
whole downstairs correct. The upper level would be simply for storage. Can I see what you
have there as far as in addition to that there's a page I'm assuming there is a plumber riser
diagram on the page. Can I take a look at that and point something out to you? Can I come up?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yea sure. Please do.
GENNARO DEFIORE : Here is everything that (inaudible) the house. Here as you see workshop
accessory structure it shows a toilet and sink on the lower level and this above says attic
storage. That's been on the plans since December of 2012. So that only shows a half bath.
July 2, 2015 Regular Meeting
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : They didn't see the Building Department obviously missed this
because there's no permit for it and they should of given you a permit for it because a half a
bath is permitted per code.
GENNARO DEFIORE : Sure obviously.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And there are a number of other things apparently along the way
you know should have been cited and were not.
GENNARO DEFIORE : Absolutely.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So now's the time to get this all cleared up.
GENNARO DEFIORE : I think it's a good time and again I have total confidence in all the
gentlemen and ladies in the Building Department and I don't think this was anything more than
a human error oversight on their part. Whether it was on the initial plans, the renewal it was
only brought to my attention when I called the Building Department in April to say you know
we're getting to a point where we're going to be starting to do our front porches would it be
difficult to replicate those porches which have been approved on the north eastern side of the
front yard to match them and at that point at that very conversation and at that instant I was
told Gerry there's a problem with that and I said what is the problem. You know it was over you
know it was not seen. We didn't realize it but you're going to need a variance on these. Now
that's two years and three months two years of an initial permit and three months of the
additional renewal permit that I had no knowledge that there was any variances required on
anything that I had built or was going to build zero. So and I'm not using that as an excuse it's
an explanation so when you talk about this 40% dormer situation on the upper level this is
totally news to me. I had been made aware of what accessory structures could be and they're
in a pyramidic nature, ten feet off the property line they allow a maximum 18 foot ridge height,
fifteen feet off the property line they permit a 20 foot ridge height.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It depends on the size of the property. It is kind of a pyramid you're
absolutely right but it depends on the size of the property a maximum square footage is keyed
in not only setback and height but square footage of the structure up to a maximum of 750
square feet depending on the size of the lot.
GENNARO DEFIORE : This is the first time hearing that.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well and that code was changed a few years back because what was
happening was that people were building these huge pool cabanas. Some bigger than my house
I mean because they were allowed to. There was no limit there was a setback yes but there was
no limit particularly on the height or the square footage.
July 2, 2015 Regular Meeting
GENNARO DEFIORE : And the footprint on this for this accessory structure 24 by 24 is about by
the math off the top of my head about a 580 square feet.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yea no it's okay size wise.
GENNARO DEFIORE : So anything about this 40% above is I'm hearing this for the first time.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay well I can refer you to the section of the code that describes
the relationship between it's in the bulk schedule the size of the property relative to the
permitted size of the structure, the height the setback and
A.T.A. KIELY : 280-15C
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : 280-15C is the section.
GENNARO DEFIORE : Well again if I had been addressed of this when the plans were presented
or I even brought preliminary plans of this desirous home in April of 2012 and I gave them a
complete set of preliminaries at April or in December or in January of 2013 or this year at no
knowledge of a 40% restriction on the dormered area would of certainly conformed to it. It
would have been of no consequence to me. Now these have been built now the other problems
that exist in what would be described as self-created issues I do not accept that. What has
happened here is an inability to have addressed and chosen to either modify certain aspects of
the structure so these porches could have been in total conformity from day one or chosen to
roll the dice so to speak before I even got a permit to see if these things would be granted and
at that point we don't have physical concrete structures in place that have been in place for
over two years. We have been and again it's no disrespect to these Town of Southold I have
great respect for every aspect of the Town of Southold. I've been knowledgeable and aware of
these people for many years. I don't feel there's any purposeful deception but I even when we
had gotten to the point of having to have denials to find out we needed permits they've been
piece by piece by piece. There has been full site inspections and you brought that up. This
structure has been walked through by no less than two code officials and no less than one
senior Building Department inspector over these two years. There has never been a denial or a
purposeful evasion or desire to refuse any inspection. We have had interestingly enough code
violation complaints that have no foundation and we've addressed those also. So as far as it
goes if these any of them or all of them should have been all of them issued directed to me in a
April 2012 preliminary drawing or the submission of a December 2012 set of full plans anything
missing anything not properly labeled anything that didn't conform to any specific you know
chapter and verse of code I would of addressed them and we would of obviously had to address
them because we wouldn't of had a building permit. We wouldn't of been able to go forward
with a building permit because we would have had to come before this Board before any
July 2, 2015 Regular Meeting
ground was broken any money was spent and any literally tears shed. Now we're at a point
where we're not asking for any additional relief other than what had been granted by permit
even if it's erroneously. The only thing that's over and at the top is the swimming pool which I
have myself personally no intention of building. This is just as a secured safety net for
whomever buys it if they want to put in a swimming pool they'll find out yes you can cause this
has been approved and there's three years running or you can't right now you can try and
reapply because it's been applied for and denied. I'm taking that extra step.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay let me ask you this. Are you aware on the landward side of
Sound View Rd. cause seaward side is a different situation with regard to locations these are
now on a you're proposing a conforming location are you aware of other lots along Sound View
or Ryder Farm Lane that have excessive lot coverage that has been granted variances for that?
GENNARO DEFIORE : I am aware of and I've done some research and fortunately some of the
good people in the Zoning Board of Appeals this morning have assisted me and I only requested
that when finding coming away from vacation and going out to them bringing the balance of
our cards for this hearing and interestingly enough to let you know I go over what's required.
There was a radius notification requirement that was for 5 residences. I submitted to all those 5
and I submitted to 2 others that I wasn't required to because they're by points and over the
years I've gone to many, many, many Zoning Board of Appeals hearing and represented myself
and I covered myself with residences that were merely a point or across the street but not
entirely across the street. I received one of those additional notifications back in the mail. I
have the other one because evidently the Town of Southold post office crossed out the zip code
that I put in and put in an incorrect post office and that letter became undeliverable. It is a
mood point because it is not one of the five you required. As far as the history of what is
approved and not approved allowed and not allowed there is a history of virtually every aspect
of what we're requesting now as innocence of what people have or had that never got a permit
fully knowingly built something or tore something down and rebuilt it again and then then had
to go before Zoning Board of Appeals. One of them at least one of them interestingly is an
adjacent neighbor to one of the letters that was in opposition to this request. So I know of at
least six maybe seven by my mind's eye and it's a pretty good educated eye. In peripheral
passing not going off a public property that there are either sheds that are in violation of
setbacks, rear decks that are in violations of setback possible second story accessory structures
that exceed the 40%you're talking about that probably exceed the minimal side yard.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well what I would like you to address is what's on your subject
property that's before the Board which is excessive lot coverage with the swimming pool
proposal. Do you know of other variances for lot coverage that have been legally granted by
this Board for lot coverage that exceeds 20% in this neighborhood.
July 2, 2015 Regular Meeting
GENNARO DEFIORE : I had only requested a purview of all of block three of this subdivision.
That block three encompasses the seaward side of Sound View Rd. the landward side of Sound
View Rd. and then north side of North Sea. There were no less than four variances submitted
after the fact without permits exceeding the relief I'm asking for. Any rear yard, front yard and
any
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No, I'm not talking about setbacks.
GENNARO DEFIORE : But again I'm addressing in totality. I obviously at this point being queried
by the Board one day after getting the letters and seeing what I had to react to of adverse
comments on this application I didn't go that far because I didn't think it was fair to the people
at the ZBA to have to turn over everything you know in this eleventh hour today. I received
those letters because I went away for five days I got them yesterday afternoon so I ask for a
peripheral review. I am quite sure going forward there will be a multiplicity over the years of
variances granted for overall sight coverage because the other towns and the four towns that I
built in there have been many. I am quite sure especially
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I'm not asking about other towns.
GENNARO DEFIORE : Yea this town of Southold. I'm quite sure there are. I don't have them in
front of me but I'm quite sure they especially
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Wait a minute. The Zoning Board is when an application comes
before the Zoning Board we do our best to be helpful but it does not our obligation to make the
case or break the case for an applicant. It is the applicant's responsibility to present to the
Board compelling evidence that characterizes a neighborhood. The neighborhood has a number
of properties that have excessive lot coverage in a similarly sized piece of property then that is
a characteristic of the neighborhood. If there are no variances granted for excessive lot
coverage in a particular neighborhood then that's not characteristic of the neighborhood so
what I'm only trying to establish here we understand what happened. You were very articulate
in explaining the history of permitting process and this sort of fragmented way in which these
variances were disclosed. Having said that I want to now address the other thing that you are
proposing which is the lot coverage issue and all I'm asking is is excessive lot coverage to your
knowledge you know our office has been very helpful to applicants but the bottom line is we
should not be doing the homework for an applicant. We should not be going through all of the
priors in a neighborhood and handing them to applicants. It's really incumbent on the applicant
to either hire an agent who knows how to do that or to do it themselves. We can tell you how
we'd be happy to say here's where it is on laser fiche and here's where you can go and find it.
GENNARO DEFIORE : I'll gladly do it.
July 2, 2015 Regular Meeting
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I want this lot coverage issue addressed so that this Board can
appraise whether that's characteristic of this neighborhood.
GENNARO DEFIORE : Now one thing I would request on that basis and on that basis alone is
that part of the variance request be stayed because without that swimming pool over
percentage lot coverage we're in conformity on all our decks, our accessory structure our main
structure.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No, no, no, no, not in conformity. You mean the lot coverage yes.
Without the swimming pool you conform to lot coverage absolutely right.
GENNARO DEFIORE : We had actually a slight surplus that could be applied to the swimming
pool. So again if it's something where we need to establish and develop a history of relief of
overall site coverage specifically for that and that alone which only in this case would put the
swimming pool portion of variance request stayed. Everything else is in and under the overall
site coverage aspect. As far as
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well you can't if I understand what state means it means set aside
for the moment.
GENNARO DEFIORE : Correct.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We can't do that. We either have to grant it or deny it or you can
withdraw it. Those are the three options.
GENNARO DEFIORE : Well in this case then very simply we'll withdraw the request for over site
coverage because of the swimming pool. It's not critical to me. It's not critical to me in finishing
the house. The other aspects of it are critical because we would have had remedied if we had
known these in April of 2012, December of 2012 or January of 2013 that's a long time ago. We
could of very easily kept this entire project in program on track without variances or I would of
chosen to apply that.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay what we will need then is a survey without the swimming pool
and showing the lot coverage.
GENNARO DEFIORE : That can be done.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright now at this point I'm going to see who wants to say what in
the audience if that's okay with you. What I would like you to try to do is to recognize just one
thing. You may make whatever comments you wish but this Board is not an architectural review
board. Property owners have the right to build whatever way they wish when it comes to how
something looks okay that is everyone's right you know what I think is beautiful you think is
75
July 2, 2015 Regular Meeting
ugly. Those kinds of comments are not what is before the Zoning Board alright. We cannot
affect what a property owner wants to build other than the Bulk Schedule you know if its
setbacks and height and so on and so forth and so I would keep your comments directed
toward the variances that are in front of us. Why don't you come forward and state your name
and spell it please for the record. It's being recorded so that all these comments are available in
the future.
LOUISE FAGAN : Yes I'm Louise Fagan. This has nothing to do with but I know for a fact that the
foundation for this house was broken in 2012. I know it I live there. I also have watched it week
after week and so I don't know for how long possibly a year maybe less it was just standing with
a wooden frame raw wood in the rain in the snow and you saw that wood turn black with
mildew now is can you still live in a house with all that mildew in that wood that's my question
and my comment thank you.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well I will give you an answer. That is something that the Zoning
Board has no jurisdiction although the Building Department might cause it's gonna have to
meet certain codes standards and health standards and so on.
LOUISE FAGAN : Have they tested it for mildew?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I have no idea.
LOUISE FAGAN : Because the wood was black. It looked and it sat there forever and ever and
ever.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Honestly ma'am I really have no way of
LOUISE FAGAN : I know I live there I saw it week after week we commented about it all the
time. He broke ground on that in 2012.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay thank you. Anything else?
GENNARO DEFIORE : Can I comment on that?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yea sure you may.
GENNARO DEFIORE : First of all nothing was done in 2012. The permit was issued in 2013.
When it was issued they hadn't even had the opportunity to type it all up but they told me the
chief building inspector you can go ahead and do your clearing so we had nothing in 2012. We
owned the property in 2012 we did nothing with it in 2012. As far as two pieces of foundation
broken I'd like to know where they are because I don't see anything and that's my house.
July 2, 2015 Regular Meeting
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No, no I think what she was referring to is that you broke ground to
put in a foundation.
GENNARO DEFIORE : I don't know I got the gathering that it was that there's at least two places
that the foundation is broken.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I think you meant that the ground was the foundation was put in you
broke ground to put in the foundation. You know what that's really not relevant in terms of
what's before us if a stop work order had to be issued along the way somewhere the Building
Department should of done that. That is not in any way relevant to what's before the Board. So
let's be fair about it and really keep to what the issues are. I think I've made them very clear
and took a lot of time to go through the Notice of Disapproval to hear the applicant's response
to it now is there someone who wants to address the two front yard or rear yard setback
variances. We know that the lot coverage is about to be withdrawn alright. Please come to the
mic and state your name and spell it for us.
BRIAN RETUS : Thank you. Brian Retus my address is 235 Sound View Rd. Orient New York. My
home is on the seaward side and it's approximately 175 from Mr. DeFiore's property. I'd like to
thank you for allowing me to speak today. I've been there's been a lot of controversy in the
neighborhood about this project. I've been on the neutral side. I've gotten to know Jerry a little
bit in the beginning and I have a lot of respect for him as far as certain aspects of his career.
He's an excellent carpenter. Nobody can probably swing a hammer better than him and he's
very, very astute was very impressed by the fact he knew so much about the Town and how he
can utilize each inch of the property he told me that himself. I don't think it's any coincidence
that if you look at the setbacks on the original design that they're exactly 40 feet from the road.
Mr. DeFiore seems to be contradicting himself by saying he wasn't aware of this he wasn't
aware of that but then he's been a professional building for 40 years so I don't think that should
be an excuse at this point from a professional standpoint. Again I said I was a neutral
participant in the neighborhood but now the project has gone too far. I think the Board I know
you do Leslie I think you have a feel for our community. It's a small community I don't think
there is any property and this is my opinion that exceeds the lot coverage now I know he pulled
the pool but he's right at the border line. I think he's pushing the envelope as far as what is in
that home and I like to say that after studying this I must say that the setbacks given by the
Town by the Town code are quite generous and by that I mean by virtue of the add that the real
estate is run for this home keep in mind that this is on a .46 lot. This home will have five
bedrooms two of which will be masters, five bathrooms. It's advertised as having 7 porches and
2 decks and this is the interesting one it's also advertised as having 3 wet bars. It also states
that there's a fourth floor widows walk don't know what that is.
July 2, 2015 Regular Meeting
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Must be the roof deck.
BRIAN RETUS : Okay. The widow's walk itself normally that should be considered an attic space
correct? If it's a third floor.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : A third floor would be attic. Two and a half stories is all that's really
allowed in this town. If you have a third floor it has to be sprinkled by State code a fire
suppression system and it also has to get relief for habitable space from this Board.
BRIAN RETUS : I'm aware of that because I was in front of this Board about 6 or 7 years ago and
I appreciate the good work you did then. That third floor I don't know of any attic space that
has sliders going out onto a deck and then when you come out you go up to a fourth floor deck
which I guess that's what he means. My point is that I think the coverage and what the town
asked for the setbacks are quite generous especially if you could build that on a .46 lot I think
you're okay. My concern is the more the merrier okay and I know this has been an issue with
Town Board itself. There was an article last weekend excuse me the weekend before Newsday
that spoke of a five bedroom home in the Hamptons. Interestingly enough it's not in East
Hampton which everybody complains about or speaks about or knows about it was just outside
the village of Southampton so this is expanding this type of home ownership. This is a group of
young men that each year they find a house and there's between twelve and fourteen of them
that chip in and they rent this house for a week. That doesn't include their friends that they
probably invite over, children or what have you. I don't think that there is anyone in this room
including Mr. DeFiore that would want to live next to this house and I'm very concerned and so
are our neighbors in the community that that's going to happen with this home especially with
added decks and over expanding the lot coverage.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well let me comment I would really like the comments to be
directed toward what's before this Board. I can very well appreciate your concern the rest of
the Town has concerns too for all over the Town and as you all probably know Town Board is
currently looking into and very serious way what to do about short term rentals. We all know
it's been in the paper, everyone's aware of it I have one next to me they're a B&B we do
understand that but that's not something that this Board can do anything about.
BRIAN RETUS : Leslie the only reason I brought that up is to give the rest of the Board if they
have not seen the property
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We have.
BRIAN RETUS : And the community
July 2, 2015 Regular Meeting
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Every single one of us has been out and inspected the site even our
Board assistant has gone out to look at it. We do that with every application. Every single thing
that comes before this Board because the reason I asked about character of the neighborhood
is because we go out there to see what the character of the neighborhood is. It's one of our
standards that we have to address in our decisions in making a determination and so that's why
we drive around. We look to see what size the properties are. Are they developed? Are they
wooded, are there wetlands? We look at all of these things okay so every property including
this one has been seen upfront by the Board.
BRIAN RETUS : I recall that from mine yes.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And we've driven around. We know the neighborhood there's been
lots of variances there.
BRIAN RETUS : I only brought this up and I am regarding the setbacks when I mentioned what
the house already has okay. My feeling is that you know you add more decks you're going to
have more people, more space. I was going to discuss the pool being so close to my neighbors
but he's already withdrawing that?Am I clear on that?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes I think so. He wants to go ahead with the setback variances. Mr.
DeFiore let me ask you the decks along that are let's see you got that's not a deck Ryder Farm
Lane the setback of 32.6 feet that's not the deck is it?
GENNARO DEFIORE : On Ryder Farm it is the corner of the deck. It is the same front porch deck
that was submitted to the Building Department it was given a permit. It has not changed in size.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Oh here it is I see it now it's hatched it's okay. Then you have
another one on Sound View which is at 34.6.
GENNARO DEFIORE : Correct and its 34.6 versus 34 because as Mr. Retus knows very well he
has been what I considered a friend for a few years he had the opportunity I spent an hour or
so back in 2014 showing him the entire set of plans. He walked through it with me. He was
impressed with it. He was impressed so much he actually had a friend of his from Manhattan
and I gave them full right to go in and inspect the house who was interested in buying the
house so now I'm very confused as to what his concerns are. He knew about the decks. He
knew about the house. The third floor is not a third floor.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I'm not going to personalize this that's not where this is going. That's
between neighbors.
July 2, 2015 Regular Meeting
GENNARO DEFIORE : But when a statement is made that they have an abhorrence to something
that abhorrence could have been demonstrated in 2014 when I showed him the plans when I
walked him through the house and when he had an opportunity without any restriction and he
brought a friend of his from Manhattan who was interested in buying the house.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I want to ask you a question sir if I might. When I was out there
there was scaffolding out for construction. You said that's pretty much down now.
GENNARO DEFIORE : Almost all of its down. The only part that's left
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Are these decks built?
GENNARO DEFIORE : No. The only one that started construction was the only one I had been
made aware of that wasn't in violation of anything and that's the rear decks. One thing that Mr.
Retus brought out
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :The rear deck is started or built.
GENNARO DEFIORE : It was started because the there was no determination even at that late
date which was last week
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Said that it was non-conforming. I got that. What is the setback from
the from Sound View Rd. to the house?
GENNARO DEFIORE : To the house it's either 40 feet or 40.7. It is in conformity and what's
interesting and Mr. Retus is absolutely correct I am knowledgeable about a lot of things. This is
the only Town that I've built in that rear decks are not exempt from rear yard setbacks. They do
have rear yard setbacks but they're much more liberal than the main structure is concerned.
This is not my knowledge. This is the first house I built in the Town of Southold. I'm sorry I can't
be fluent in everything.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well but as someone who's you know a very experienced builder the
first thing you look at is the Bulk Schedule. However I just want to point out that the house
itself without the decks has a conforming setback to both to Sound View Rd. and to Ryder Farm
Lane.
GENNARO DEFIORE : As well as the rear yard. And again at what advantage would there have
been to me to have with my knowledge purposely design something, gotten a building permit
knowing by following this stream of thought that I'm a knowledgeable person that I could of or
would of built something that would have been in violation and that I would had a tear down.
What and this was going to be my home. What sense does that make. And as far as a third floor
condition it's not a third floor. We've gone through the NYS regional architect of code
July 2, 2015 Regular Meeting
enforcement in Hauppauge both in April of 2012 and then having to go through again in
December and January December 2012 and January of 2013 having to reiterate to the Building
Department it is a mezzanine it is permitted. It is within allowable code it is not considered a
story. Thirty three percent of the area that it oversees is the allowable space and that's the
allowable space we made so we do not have a third story. We do not have a fourth story attic
or walkway. It is the rooftop and it by nature of that it's treated as a mezzanine I'm sorry a man
sod roof condition and again gable roofs, hip roofs all have the benefit of thirty five feet to
midpoint of uppermost roof. (inaudible) are much more restrictive thirty five feet period and
that's it so we have the probability that there are roof lines in the region that exceed ours and
penetrate that area. We did not penetrate anything to reiterate.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We don't have because it wasn't before us we don't have floor
plans. We have elevations in our packet.
GENNARO DEFIORE : Right well I was told all you needed were elevations and anything
pertinent to the exterior. If you had requested floor plans I would of gladly submitted them. I
submitted and gave what was requested you want more you can gladly have it. I gave you more
notices to people that this was occurring.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You know what we're starting to repeat alright. You mentioned that
before we know the house is sitting in conforming setbacks. The decks are proposed at non-
conforming setbacks cause they have to be if they're in front of the house. The house is also
conforming in the rear without a deck. With a deck it's 37.7 instead of 40 feet which is fairly
small sorry 50 foot setback in the rear.
GENNARO DEFIORE : And for the Board's record there have been in the immediate region
variances granted for both front yard and rear yard setbacks that were more generous
percentage wise and I'm now having to request you know at this late date.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : In this neighborhood?
GENNARO DEFIORE : In this neighborhood yes.
MEMBER DANTES : Sir what was your variance for that you received?
BRIAN RETUS : Side yard setback for a shower and also the setback to the bluff but there was
already a porch there so that was an existing condition.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay do you have anything you want to add in your comments and
please address the (inaudible)
,J;
July 2, 2015 Regular Meeting
BRIAN RETUS : Yes as far as the fourth floor I was only reading Mr. DeFiore's ad it's not
something I made up.
MEMBER DANTES : I understand he probably should have been more articulate in the ad.
BRAIN RETUS : Yes yea I mean that's what we're reading and that's what everybody in the
neighborhood is reading but enough with that. Mr. DeFiore with the respect I have for him and
his ability I really think he can reduce the decks to conform and kind of help the neighborhood
out a little bit and I'm not here to say anything about the home but I am upset or I shouldn't say
upset but I am concerned about the setbacks especially since every available inch has been
used like I said the more decks the more people. We also had I won't get into this other one but
I believe you know the setbacks are interesting cause they protect the integrity of the
neighborhood and I understand variances are there to also protect the property owner as far as
if he has being harmed by those setbacks or hardships I should say. I don't believe Mr. DeFiore
will suffer any hardships if he's gotta reduce those decks a little bit. Just to work with the Board
work with the community. I think there'll be more hardship on the community if it was granted.
It just doesn't fit into the character of the neighborhood. The setbacks adopted by the Town of
Southold are to protect the community they make sense and I ask the Board to please afford us
that protection.
GENNARO DEFIORE : And again just in rebuttal to that
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anyone else? Just a minute I want to hear I really want to hear from
other people and then you'll have whatever time you need to make comments.
GENNARO DEFIORE : Fine.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :They've been waiting patiently. Please state your name.
JEFF CLAXTON : Good afternoon my name is Jeff Claxton. I live adjacent to the construction site.
When we got the certified letters certain people got a little upset and we put together a
petition and we went around the neighborhood and I'd like to read that to you now.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright.
JEFF CLAXTON : Ladies and gentlemen of the Board we the undersigned as property owners in
the Orient by the Sea community located in Orient New York formerly request that the Zoning
Board of Appeals reject the variance changes requested by Mr. Pasqaule Anthony DeFiore as
described in Appeals 6870. The structure located at 110 Sound View Rd. is not in harmony with
the aesthetics of our community either by virtue of size or architectural design. It requested
additions will only exacerbate this reality. We have suffered the encroachment of our legal
July 2, 2015 Regular Meeting
rights to quiet and enjoyment of our property at homes due to the extended duration of the
ongoing construction which began in the early spring of 2013. Granting the variance change
requested by Mr. DeFiore would only prolong the completion of the project. By his own
admission Mr. DeFiore has been a builder for over forty years. Mr. DeFiore knew the rules and
limitation of building such an enormous structure when he began the project. Therefore he
knew at the outset he was at maximum building allowance and his decision to add decks and a
pool is a deliberate attempt to circumvent the Southold building codes which limit the size of
his footprint. If in fact these decks and pools were so crucial to the project he should of
included them in his original plan and allowed for them to be built with accordance with
existing building codes. As evidenced by the site plan Mr. DeFiore has already pushed the
envelope regarding the setbacks of the structure allowing the requested additions would set a
terrible precedent packing so much on a .46 acre lot runs the risk of our community becoming
just another scrap of suburban sprawl similar to many western long island neighborhoods. This
is not the reason we chose to live here. The setbacks adopted by the Town protect the integrity
of these communities. Please afford us that protection. We went around and only got 65 names
on this petition because a lot of the people don't live there full time. Not one person that was
asked to sign the petition refused and people were calling to find out where and when they
could sign it.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thank you please submit it and we'll get copies to the Board. Who
else would like to address the Board?
BILL HOPPE : Good afternoon my name is Bill Hoppe. I live at 580 Uhl Lane in Orient and in the
interest of full disclosure I am right now serving as vice president of the Orient By the Sea
property owners association which is our neighborhood but I am here today only speaking for
myself and my wife Kathy. There are twenty two undeveloped property lots still in Orient by the
Sea and we think this request for variance will have a detrimental effect on the community if its
granted it would create a very worrisome precedent for the future development of those
properties. Now Mr. DeFiore the builder at 110 Sound View Rd. refers to this two year plus
construction project as his magnificent obsession. Now the house is impressive and it's
elaborate. If it was on a larger property lot the variances for porches and decks, swimming pool
which has been withdrawn would not be necessary and we wouldn't be here today. The
unfinished buildings at 110 Sound View Rd. already test the town building code limits in terms
of the footprint the scale, the bulk the height the form the size and the arrangement of that
building on the property. The four garages one of which is a separate two story building large
enough as Mr. DeFiore said to store his box truck may require even a complex driveway system
on Ryder Farm Rd. The builder advertises the living space as has been talked about as 6500
square feet multi-generational with porches and sun decks that are over 1500 square feet just
for the decks and porches. So this house is not on a mountain top so neighborhood context is
July 2, 2015 Regular Meeting
really important in this matter. Orient by the Sea is you've already been there it's a planned
community designed in 1956 by Walter Uhl who was a very well respected developer and
architect and if you walk around the neighborhood you'll appreciate the beauty the charm of
the streetscape. There are huge Norway maples and sycamore trees planted and the developer
put those there some 50 years ago. There is diversity in homes size, design and each
landscaping garden is unique. However, as you probably discovered there is an overall sense of
order harmony and open green space that helps to mitigate some of the storm water run-off.
Apparently the total square footage or impermeable surfaces at 110 Sound View is approaching
the code limit for lot coverage. We ask that the town enforce the 20% maximum for lot
coverage in order to preserve the remaining land for open space and mitigation of storm water
run-off. And secondly the setback rules were also were discussed here very important for our
community and the Sound View and Ryder Farm streetscapes will be compromised if the
variance for decks and porches is allowed. We ask the Town to uphold the required front
setbacks at 40 feet. And in conclusion we ask this appeal be denied in its totality.
LLOYD STRAUS : Hi I'm Lloyd Straus. I live at 125 Sound View Rd. in Orient and I will be brief. I
live directly across the street from the project and as Jerry will tell you I've been pretty quiet I
haven't been involved in the project at all but this is I just I think I agree with every one of the
speakers other than Jerry that spoken and the only thing I want to add is those of you who have
driven on Ryder Farm Rd. and Sound View it's already a dangerous road not dangerous maybe
an exaggeration but it's a difficult road having decks in the front of that Sound View and other
structures in the back on Ryder Farm will just make it even more unsafe. So I had a whole set of
other comments I think other people have already addressed them and I want recognize the
late hour on a holiday weekend but I think the importance of safety hasn't been mentioned yet
and I wanted to make sure that we got that on the table. It's not the safest corner in the world
and if you have decks coming on the front and the sides just going to exasperate the issues.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thank you anyone else? I actually would like to ask you the Board
often explores what we call alternative relief in other words you requested 34.6 foot and 32.6
foot front yard setbacks for decks. Sometimes we grant alternative relief without discussing it
sometimes we discuss it at the hearing and ask the applicant to tell us what you know if they
can increase that setback, how could you improve the setback, what would be the practical
difficulty in making those decks smaller or eliminating a deck. See what you think about it.
GENNARO DEFIORE : Well I can tell you right now as I and I don't want to belabor the one point
if we knew what we know today we wouldn't be where we are today because we would of
made a house in total conformity. I can't change foundations, I can't change structures.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : But your house is sitting in conforming front yard setbacks.
July 2, 2015 Regular Meeting
GENNARO DEFIORE : It's in a conforming front yard setback unbeknownst to me again rear yard
an front yard porch setbacks were not of an issue and they were even confirmed by getting
permits. As far as to mitigate these issues if they wanted to minima lize you know instead of
having six foot porches in the front or a projection that was approved in 2013 January of seven
points three feet we'll make them five feet will that make them happy I don't think so. This was
our home this was our neighborhood. Some of the people here come very strangely are very
about faced. I had never gotten this kind of resistance with the exception of two individuals
that are here. For whatever reason they chose to breach the situation that's their choice. I'm
limited in my choices and this is an unfairness to me. I have to make concessions that I didn't
know I had to make. Fortunately I didn't build these things. As far as the front porches are
concerned and an argument of site view you'll see in the design by way of any information that
was given to me by the town I put it in. The site plan shows a 40 foot angular cut right of way
for any planting or any trees so anyone coming around from Ryder Farm to Sound View or from
Sound View to Ryder Farm there is an additional preview of viewing. Nothing of the decks
nothing of the plantings would incur any encumbrance on people turning around. That was told
to me and I incorporated it and my engineer into his design my design.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well let me explain something when the Board of Appeals grants
variance relief from the code it is obligated under the law to grant the if justified to grant the
minimal variance practicable. That is what our obligation is not the maximum but the minimum
cause our goal is to eliminate non-conformity and to support the code but we're here as a relief
valve when there are practical difficulties sometimes lots were built a long time ago with
properties built a long time ago and the town put in zoning and then created a bunch of non-
conformity and they need to renovate their house so they have some real practical difficulties.
This was a piece of empty land I understand that there were permits issued by the Building
Department that did not catch certain things and that's on the Town but these decks have not
been built. Your house sits at a conforming location and I'm now asking you how do we justify
granting the non-conformance with these two front yard decks.
GENNARO DEFIORE : Well as far as the front yard setbacks again the foundations are in, they're
in conformity. If there is an issue that these porches would have been a non-conformity we
could of redesigned the house.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And you didn't know and we are now where we are so no need to go
back again and say if we'd of known. This is where we are now and we'd like your opinion
GENNARO DEFIORE : Right so instead of a 6 yard encroachment I'll ask for a 5 yard a 5 foot
encroachment because less than 5 feet you can't even put a chair on the front porch for people
to walk around the front.
uu w
July 2, 2015 Regular Meeting
MEMBER DANTES : At last the drawing I have shows that the decks are forty feet the house has
two different number on it shows the decks at forty feet and the house is forty feet.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Wait a minute you're looking at this?This new one that we just got?
Wait a minute we also got this survey.
MEMBER DANTES : The survey I mean the drawings and the survey are inconsistent.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yea ok this survey shows the house at forty feet and the decks at the
setbacks we've talked about. This enlargement
MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Are we referring to the July 2, 2015 revision?Are we?
GENNARO DEFIORE : The largest you could clearly it should clearly show an arrow from the
property line to the structure.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMANA : Wait a minute is this the rear yard? Hold on let me see member
Dantes is now pointing out they're not saying the same things. Would you come forward sir I
want to point out the inconsistencies here. So this deck is showing from here to here forty feet
from here to here forty feet okay.
GENNARO DEFIORE : You see there is no arrow any longer here. This was cleaned back it
touched here.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So you're not talking about from here to here.
GENNARO DEFIORE : No you're talking to the house and since this one did not have any deck
that was in question this arrow was remained at 40.7 feet so this is seven tenths of a foot
behind the setback line. This little point here is at the setback line similarly here.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So this survey is correct?
GENNARO DEFIORE : Absolute sure.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's just a matter of the (inaudible) on here because it stopped there
but it should of(inaudible) it's way through right to here.
GENNARO DEFIORE : No there's no intention to deceive anyone or to misrepresent anything. So
again when the Board asks for some flexibility I'm saying fine I'm not even asking for the depth
of the front yard porches I had been permitted for. But I am asking for is a front porch that a
person can put a chair tight up against the house and someone can still walk in front of them
without having to squeeze by a railing. By the way there are planter boxes in front of these for
,
July 2, 2015 Regular Meeting
aesthetic reasons to give them some color and that and those are by the way as well as the
steps so everyone here knows they're not even computed into any need of relief.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No landing and steps
GENNARO DEFIORE : No I'm talking about planter boxes and things of that nature because
everything we do is examined within an hour there's a person with the code enforcement
coming out and we diffuse the situation. It's now starting to interfere with the construction of
the house to the point that we can't get work done now and it's taxing and burdensome to the
code enforcement people to have to validate things that are in conformance. We're flexible and
we will give some you know concessions to what we had already been permitted on. We're not
exceeding the footprint. The rear yard the decks there they're asking for less relief than people
who already had built them didn't get permits didn't go through the town Building Department
rebuilt them without permits and then maybe they had to sell their house and they had to
come before this Board to get relief.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well sometimes people do do that and not just in this neighborhood
but the bottom line is we can't do anything about it you know we can't go around and say you
built that
GENNARO DEFIORE : Of course not but I'm here willingly presenting these situations that I did
not desire. I don't profit by them and because of mistakes that were made by the Town of
Southold I'm now suffering because of them. This is inversely the situation. I could of remedied
these things when they're on a piece of paper the way we had to change the pool because it
became a side yard rear yard where they already thought it was a rear yard. Where we had to
change the setbacks of a rear deck because they didn't think it was a non-conformity with the
rear yard. Where we had to change the distances for front porches and get on and on and on
and on and on. Anything I knew I adhered to that's my life that's the way I live my life that's the
integrity I have and for all of these things and what's come here today this is a very sad
reflection that most of these people might have been my year round neighbors. I'm very glad
that we chose before we broke ground to move somewhere else
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That's not relevant. Alright hold it wait a minute watch see I got one
of these judge Judy is in the court now okay we are not going to get personal on this it's not
relevant to the relief in front of us okay we've heard from all of you or almost all of you or a
number of you. We've heard from the applicant. Is there anything the Board has to say or
wants to question? We've already said two things. You're going to submit a survey that shows
the removal of pool and the proposed lot coverage is conforming. Two you're going to submit a
letter from a licensed professional engineer telling us what the height is of the dwelling and
verifying the width of the dormers okay on the roofs. We'll deal with it we'll see what how it
July 2, 2015 Regular Meeting
comes out and then yes just on the accessory garage and you're going to let us know you're
going to confirm that it's only a half bath proposed in that accessory structure.
GENNARO DEFIORE : Well again I'll find out what the Health Department has that I don't even
know they have. And again I'll go to the Building Department well it's too late now by the time I
get I want to find out what they have in the file that suggested a full bath.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :That's absolutely fine.
GENNARO DEFIORE : And I am also putting to the Board the flexibility to relinquish some of the
things that I had been permitted for and beyond that asking for a fair minded evaluation that in
its totality what we melt this thing down to are requests or variances that are less generous
than other people in the immediate vicinity have gotten in the past.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You have not submitted to this Board setback variances in the
neighborhood that have received variance relief. You talk about them and you say you think
that they're there but it would be very helpful and important to your case if you provided front
yard and rear yard setbacks that were similar to what you're requesting. I'll tell you what
because you're going to submit a new survey anyway the only ones
GENNARO DEFIORE : Here we are there's four of them here.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And are they front yard or rear yard setbacks?
GENNARO DEFIORE : These are rear yard setbacks and I think one of them is a front yard in the
immediate community. And percentage wise some of them are more generous or far more
generous than what I'm requesting under this distressed situation.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright we'll make copies of these and the Board will get these. This
is the kind of information that helps the Board determine whether or not something would be
typically occurring in that neighborhood or not.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER : What did you say about the survey Leslie?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : He's going to submit a survey with the swimming pool taken off so
that the lot coverage conforms. He's withdrawing that variance request. We can deal with
GENNARO DEFIORE : And I'll adjust the front porches to five feet instead of six foot depth or 7.5
feet. I'll keep them at five feet. It's the bear minimum for someone to sit and have someone
walk around. The one's in the rear yard the side yard you know we're not exceeding lot
coverage and they're not excessively large decks and other people have gotten granted relief.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : What's the depth of the two front yard decks now?
July 2, 2015 Regular Meeting
GENNARO DEFIORE : The depth of the front yard decks are six feet. Some points which were
granted permit they're I think you have 32.6 or 32.7 setback some of them were granted that
were 7 1/2 feet now I'm saying we'll keep them all at five feet.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Leslie are we going to get a new Notice of Disapproval?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I don't think we need to we have to see it as an amended
application. I think the Building Department has had enough with this poor man and I don't
want to send him back to the Building Department. We can grant if you're submitting an
amended survey then we will put this down as an amended application which means one of the
variances is withdrawn for the lot coverage. That's the easiest way for you to do it and for us to
do it. I think we covered most things. Gerry did you have a question?
MEMBER GOEHRINGER : I just want to go over Jerry could you please just go over so sitting with
the survey that I have the July 2nd you just submitted the setback to Sound View Ave. is right
now on the proposed porch is 34.6 what are you going down to thirty?
GENNARO DEFIORE : No no I'll increase it to thirty five.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Oh thirty five.
GENNARO DEFIORE : Right the closest one would be thirty five some of them would be 35.7 or
3 you know again it's a porch that any narrower you can't functionally use it as a front porch.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER : So you're at 35 then you'll be at that one the other two are
conforming 40.6, 40.40 is that correct?
GENNARO DEFIORE : Which ones no no I want to
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No no, no the decks are not conforming. One is 32.6 and the other is
34.6.
GENNARO DEFIORE : Right those anything will be 35 be minimum of a rear yard of a front yard
setback. Where the house sits 40.7 feet off of the property we'll pick up an additional benefit of
.7 feet because we won't be making that other seven tenths of a foot of deck of the porch. Any
porch will stay at five foot deck.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : What is the rear yard proposed the rear yard deck?
GENNARO DEFIORE : Well the rear yard back yard as it's drawn and was approved is 37.5
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's 37.7 I know but I'm asking how big the deck is.
July 2, 2015 Regular Meeting
GENNARO DEFIORE : Well the deck is twelve and a half feet deep and I mean that is not a
terribly deep spacious deck I mean you know people have sixteen, twenty feet. Twelve and a
half feet is not an excessively deep deck and you know we're even by way of if we had known
which we didn't that the fifty foot setback occurs to the rear decks more than half of this deck
is in conformity to begin with because it was north of that line. So you know there's a lot here
that is being made of actually very little
MEMBER GOEHRINGER : So we're staying at 37.7?
GENNARO DEFIORE : Thirty five foot minimum front yard double front yard on Ryder Farm Lane
on Sound View Rd. That is you know less of a relief than the 32.6 or 7 that had been granted
and permit on Ryder Farm and the I don't even recall it anymore how much is granted on Sound
View Rd. probably 34 feet.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Can you get us a survey you know in a week or something?
GENNARO DEFIORE : I can get you a survey in two days.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright fine.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER : You'll include all of that on it?
GENNARO DEFIORE : I'll include everything.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Here's what I think is the best way to do this. We may or may not
have additional questions I don't know but we've taken lots of testimony we certainly heard
your comment and will consider everything and what we're going to do is I'm going to make a
motion to adjourn this to the special meeting in two weeks. That gives you time to submit the
survey. If any of you have additional thoughts after you've heard what we've said today and
you wish to submit something in writing we're not going to have any more public testimony
cause we're not necessarily going to have another public hearing but we will look at everything
between now and two weeks. Our Special Meeting is on July 16th and so we won't have a
decision made by then because we're going to wait and see what we're going to get okay but
we will then close the hearing unless there's very substantial questions that we have which I
doubt will be the case. I don't know what else we can learn that we haven't already learned.
We'll then make a decision two weeks after that. So at the very latest a month from now we
will have a draft that we will before the public discuss and vote on.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER : I have one quick question do you know who the author of this survey is?
GENNARO DEFIORE : The author of the survey
July 2, 2015 Regular Meeting
MEMBER SCHNEIDER : That was submitted with your original application.
GENNARO DEFIORE : Well this is from this is part of the Tide Runner Engineering my civil
engineer you know Lou Schwartz. This is all part of the package.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER : This was the original permit package?
GENNARO DEFIORE : Well again the yea that site plan with all the data that's there which you
know gives and again part of it is cut off if you look in the upper left hand corner you have
elevations of main structure perimeter heights proposed you have all it's kind of cut off because
it was part of that's been there forever. This survey had to be modified a few times in real time.
Interestingly enough
MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Did you submit a stamped copy of this with your building permit or is
this site plan or is this actual
GENNARO DEFIORE : This was all part of the stamped set of it was a fourteen page set of plans.
And interestingly enough
MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Great we'll check it out in the building department.
GENNARO DEFIORE : to let the Board know we had to pay an additional fee this morning
because as of this morning when I called and spoke to the ZBA they weren't sure if they had the
most recent denial letter. The denial letter even though I met with the Town last Tuesday and
Wednesday had not been generated. If I didn't call over to the Building Department they
wouldn't of even generated the fourth denial letter the third revision and we wouldn't of even
been addressing the rear yard decks today because they would of forgotten to include it so I did
these things as quickly as anyone humanly can. When I found out information I reacted to it
and I tried to resolve it with full candor. There's nothing been hidden here there's no private
agenda.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright I think we've got everything here.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER : He answered my question thank you.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay I'm going to make a motion to adjourn this hearing to the
Special Meeting on July 16th for the purpose of receiving written testimony and an upgraded
survey eliminating the swimming pool and any priors conditional priors setback variances
GENNARO DEFIORE : I'll try and get some more research sure.
110
July 2, 2015 Regular Meeting
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We're going to get a letter cause we said about confirming the
height of the structure the percentage of the dormer width of the roof and the half bath only in
the accessory structure.
GENNARO DEFIORE : I should have these things resolved before the end of the week because
our lives can't go on without this resolved.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That's great the sooner the better and we'll let me reassure you we
will act as swiftly as we reasonably can. We have no desire to hold you up any further we just
need to digest all the information we've heard alright and make sure that we're thoughtful and
deliberative and fair.
GENNARO DEFIORE : Right cause we need some of these things are going to come to the tail
end of construction.
MEMBER DANTES : Second.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor?
MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Aye.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Aye.
MEMBER DANTES : Aye.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye.
(See Minutes for Resolution)
July 2, 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.
o
11
Signature : /
Elizabeth Sakarellos
DATE : � f�/20/5
93