HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-08/06/2015 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
August 6, 2015
9:58 A.M.
Board Members Present:
LESLIE KANES WEISMAN - Chairperson/Member
ERIC DANTES – Member
GERARD GOEHRINGER – Member (Absent)
GEORGE HORNING – Member
KENNETH SCHNEIDER – Member
VICKI TOTH – Board Assistant
STEPHEN KIELY – Assistant Town Attorney
?
August 6, 2015 Regular Meeting
INDEX OF HEARINGS
Hearing Page
Southold Farm and Cellar, Inc. (Meador) # 6861 3 - 31
Jay P. and Karen A. Quartararo # 6872 31 - 34
Michael and Erin Warlan # 6876 35 - 48
Brian Harris # 6873 48 - 52
Peter and Susan Honig # 6874 53 - 54
Emma Van Rooyen # 6871 55 - 59
Christopher Ariens # 6875 59 - 67
James Knobloch # 6809 67 - 77
?
August 6, 2015 Regular Meeting
HEARING # 6861 SOUTHOLD FARM and CELLAR, INC. (MEADOR)
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The first hearing before the Board today is for Southold Farm &
Cellar, Inc. (Meador) # 6861. This was adjourned at the applicant’s request from 7/2/15. This is
a request for variances under Article III Code Section 280-13A (4) & 14 and Article XXIII Section
280-124 and the Building Inspector’s April 9, 2015 amended June 19, 2015 Notice of
Disapproval for a building permit for conversion of an existing building to a tasting room and
construction of a new winery building at 1) (winery building) is less than the code required
minimum setback of 100 feet from a major road, 2) (winery building) located on a parcel less
than the code required minimum of 10 acres, 3) (winery/tasting room) constitutes more than
one principal use, 4) (winery building) at less than the code required minimum rear yard
setback of 60 feet, 5) (tasting room) at less than the code required minimum rear yard setback
of 60 feet located at 860 Old North Road in Southold. Before counsel gets started there are
some things that I’d like to clarify. How many of you are here for this application? I suspected as
such. Consequently I think it would be important to clarify exactly what the issues are so that
we are all understanding the same things alright? What the legal notice that I just read explains
is where there is non-conformance but I’d like to explain exactly what that means so everyone
understands it and what those non-conformities are. First of all this is a proposal to convert an
as built farm stand which received a permit for a farm stand which is an open permit. It did not
it was not used as a farm stand and it is an existing tasting room at this point and to construct a
new 40 by 90 foot winery building on the Meador’s piece of property their one acre lot. Now
you first of all need ten acres minimum in agricultural production to be a bona fide farm
operation okay. You need a winery setback from Old North Road is proposed at 60 feet. The
code requires a 100 foot minimum front yard setback. Two principal uses a winery with tasting
room and a residence that exists and has a certificate of occupancy are proposed on the
property. You need 80,000 square feet according to the code per use. That would be 160,000
square feet. The lot on which a winery may legally be built is 45,512 square feet. A rear yard
setback is proposed at 15 feet for the winery and at 4 feet for the tasting room where a rear
yard setback of 60 feet is required by the code that’s a minimum not it doesn’t have to be
exactly the minimum and this application will need site plan approval from the Planning Board.
Now one of the issues involved here I supposedly misstated something. You’re going to convert
an existing barn to farm stand as applied for that’s the permit that was originally obtained okay
from the Building Department and so and that is there is no C.O. on it alright. The permit was
for a farm stand not a tasting room. Now when the Meador’s purchased this property there are
two properties. One is the farm acreage that’s you know of growing grapes at the moment at
least 9 acres and it’s a 23 what is it 22 and a little bit more acres. There is a one acre lot where
the house is located. The development rights were sold to the Town in 1992 on the agricultural
?
August 6, 2015 Regular Meeting
property and what that does is means that that land has got to be an agricultural production.
You can’t do anything else with it. Normally on AG property if the development rights were
intact any grower would have the right to build a winery. However because the development
rights were sold what’s limited on that property is only the growing of grapes in this case.
Counsel is suggesting I enter into the sentence agricultural production is defined as commercial
purposes of crops, livestock and livestock products but not land or portions thereof used for
processing or retail merchandising of such crops. So the difference between a winery building
and which is a building that is dedicated to processing grapes and production is the productions
limited to growing. The original Notice of Disapproval misstated it and called it a production
building. It’s not. A winery is now clarified as a place in which you take the grapes you grow and
then you bring them there and you process the grapes to make wine so that building can only
be proposed cause it’s still an AG lot even though it’s one acre but it’s still agriculturally zoned
that is being proposed as a second use on that one acre lot. Now two things we can clarify
based upon what was presented to this Board by the applicant. They are willing to merge
voluntarily the agricultural parcels that are adjacent, the 22 plus acres with the one lot. What
that will do is eliminate one variance that will then qualify them cause they’ll have more than
10 acres as a farm operation. In addition it will eliminate a rear yard variance because that rear
yard property line is going to for purposes of the Bulk Schedule fade away. However because
the development rights were sold that property still remains that one acre still remains distinct
from the farm acreage because it has to stay in producing agricultural crops. So let’s see where
else we’re going with this. On a personal note I must say that variances that come before the
Board no matter how we might feel about our neighbors as people, as friends we are not legally
allowed to personalize variances. Why, because variances don’t go with the applicant. They run
with the land and any property can be sold. Say you have a really nice neighbor that wants to
build a new house next to yours real close to the lot line. They could be the best neighbors in
the world with you know people that you really care about. They could sell that property
through hardship, through death, through just deciding to move at any time. Those variances
when enacted stay there alright. So please understand that despite our personal feelings about
someone’s values, their beliefs, their goals and aspirations, their dreams we can’t use that as a
basis for making a determination. The law does not allow us to do so. I’m going to explain very
quickly what the standards are that we have to think about so you all realize that decisions we
make are consistently based upon the same set of standards and then at that point I’m going to
ask the agent to address those standards for us cause I know that’s what she’s prepared. The
law obligates the Zoning Board to examine five factors when making decisions and they are
then evaluated as part of a balancing test. These factors include the following. Town Law 1-
grant of the variance will or will not produce an undesirable change in the character of the
neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties. Town Law 2- the benefit sought by the
applicant can or cannot be achieved by some method feasible for the applicant to pursue other
?
August 6, 2015 Regular Meeting
than an area variance. We are obligated to grant the minimum variance reasonably required to
respect property rights as long as it doesn’t adversely affect the context of other people’s rights
and the neighborhood. Town Law 3- the variance granted herein is or is not mathematically
substantial relief from the Code. Are you asking for 100% relief, 50% relief or 3% relief you
know say from the Bulk Schedule? That would be mathematically substantial and if it is
substantial what factors mitigate that substantiality because there could be things that could
make it okay even if it’s substantial. Town Law 4- No evidence has been submitted to suggest
that a variance in this residential community will have an adverse impact on the physical or
environmental conditions in the neighborhood. We look at potential impacts, traffic impacts,
noise impacts, soil disturbance that would cause runoff those kinds of things. Town Law 5- the
difficulty has been self-created. In most instances that is the case and it’s because as we put in
our decision the applicant purchased the parcel after the Zoning Code was in effect and it is
presumed that the applicant had actual or constructive knowledge of the limitations of the use
of the parcel under the Zoning Code in effect prior to or at the time of purchase. Now if the
Town changes the law and you’ve owned that property under a different set of laws then it’s
probably not self-created it’s on the Town but I should also tell you that self-creation as a factor
in and of itself does not mean that variance relief cannot be granted. And finally the balancing
test. Town Law 6- grant of the relief is the minimum action necessary and adequate or is not
the minimum necessary and adequate to enable the applicant to enjoy the benefits of
whatever it may be in this case a winery while preserving and protecting the character of the
neighborhood and the health safety and welfare of the community. Those five factors have to
be balanced in this particular way. So that’s the legal frame work under which the Zoning Board
acts. You will notice that none of them have anything to do with the personal circumstances of
the applicant. We have had people come before us with illnesses of all sorts requiring ramps
and things like that and if we can justify it based on these factors fine but we can’t do it based
upon a personal medical condition. I just want you to be all clear about what the Board does
and how and why we do it. Enough said from me I thank you for your patience. I thought it was
important background and now I’d like to turn this over to the applicant’s agent. Would you
please state your name?
PAT MOORE : Yes Patricia Moore 51020 Main Rd Southold. I’m here on behalf of Southold Farm
& Cellar the Meador family and the extended family and all the supporters. I’m very happy to
see them here. I have provided to the Board previous to this hearing a memo that was
delivered on August 4 th and I know you have that in your file. That was providing you some
addressing some of the issues that I know that the Notice of Disapproval was raising in addition
I just provided to you today the area variance standards that you described for us to follow so I
am I will follow that analysis to a certain extent but I prefer not to read it if at all possible so we
have a more engaged conversation than the droning of my voice reading a document. Also
?
August 6, 2015 Regular Meeting
today I have the pleasure of a letter from the Long Island Farm Bureau which provided a letter
in support of agriculture. They are less familiar with the details of this project so we have we
asked them just for a general letter and we would hope that they would support us should this
go any further but I will deliver sorry we didn’t know the paparazzi was going to be here. Not
used to having a camera I try to avoid it at all possible. I will go through specifically the area
variance criteria but I’m going to highlight some of the issues here and I understand in your
presentation and you correctly legally presented to the community which is that this there’s
nothing personal in these Notices of Disapprovals or variances that come in. It is I want to say
purely legal and in this case we have Mr. and Mrs. Meador who are the owners of a boutique
hand crafted natural winery and I know that you’ve got lots of documentation on this. They
grow their own grapes on the development rights sold parcel and they have (inaudible) by the
community that’s here and certainly a lot of correspondence that came from outside the area.
You see that they have a great deal of support and praise for the product that they produce. So
they are I want to say the newest generation of wineries and winery wine producers which are
taking a different approach to wine production and why this particular sight would qualify for
all the area variance standards is that we’re not dealing with the standard winery. We’re
dealing with a very small as I said boutique winery which their tasting room is or I clarify the
record it was a pre-existing structure. It has a C of O. I did provide that to you in my August 4 th
submission. It was the original house and the original let’s call it a storage building shed I’m not
sure how it was described but that structure was there. So the wine tasting is a support
mechanism just like if you were selling watermelon or any other product that you provide. You
cut it you let your customer taste it so that they are persuaded that the product that they’re
going to get is of the highest quality and they won’t be surprised when they take it home it’s
going to taste the same way as the product that they got there on the farm. So that is a very
unique method. What I will have is Reagan testify to the processing that takes place here
because of the uniqueness of the product that he makes. It is hand crafted. It is very labor
intensive and it is not the kind of winery where they can ship off the processing in another
facility. There are limitations at other facilities with respect to their ability to process just
because of the volume that they get but also the care and the supervision that they can
provide. So it’s very specific this winery has a very specific model.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Pat can I ask you a question?
PAT MOORE : Sure.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Where is the winery?
PAT MOORE : It is on Old North Rd which is on its north of the North Rd. It is east of in between
of Hortons and Youngs Ave. You wouldn’t know it if you didn’t look for it.
?
August 6, 2015 Regular Meeting
MEMBER SCHNEIDER : What is the address of the winery?
PAT MOORE : Oh the address.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I’m sorry you have to address
REAGAN MEADOR : Reagan Meador 860 Old North Rd. So we use some of that space in the
tasting room and we also in the past had leased some space but we no longer have that
availability to us anymore.
PAT MOORE : I think he’s asking the address.
REAGAN MEADOR : 860 Old North Rd. You’re asking is there an actual winery already there
where we’ve been making previous wines right?
MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Your agent has said about your winery I’m asking where is your winery?
REAGAN MEADOR : Winery is 860 Old North Rd.
PAT MOORE : Oh I’m sorry. I’m calling it a winery because that’s what it’s been.
REAGAN MEADOR : Tasting room, winery
MEMBER SCHNEIDER : So you presently have a winery at your location?
PAT MOORE : Technically yes.
REAGAN MEADOR : Yes.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER : So you’re running a winery on your parcel right now?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Out of the tasting room?
REAGAN MEADOR : We’ve done a little bit of processing in there and
PAT MOORE : Well when you get a farm winery license you have to do technically you have to
process on sight and processing is not necessarily a large facility it is processing where some
people do it in a shed you know or in your garage or wherever okay so technically legally the
winery is already in operation. The open for the Board’s for approval purposes we want to get
convert the tasting room to excuse me convert the existing structures to an open tasting room
and the store the new building the proposed building you call a winery only because we don’t
define the term.
?
August 6, 2015 Regular Meeting
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let me ask you a question hold on. If in fact you’re suggesting you
just said into the record that you are really actually using that building that’s there as both
tasting and as a winery where you’re processing.
PAT MOORE : No that building is not the processing.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : There is another building on the site that you’re Mr. Meador just
said that he was using part of that building to process.
REAGAN MEADOR : Other than I mean we’ve never had things or any machinery in there. We
did
PAT MOORE : Crush
REAGAN MEADOR : Yea we did like do some disgorging stuff and some other things in there
winery little winery operations hand stuff but I mean that’s it. It wasn’t you know other than
just cleaning up some
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Because in fact you know if you’re processing on that property you
will need site plan approval from the Planning Board in order to even to be engaged in the
activities that you’re engaged in now. The other thing it’s important
PAT MOORE : That is what we’re going through.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Just understand one second the thing I want to point out and then
back to you Ken tasting rooms just so that people understand at this point are only allowed by
code as an accessory to a winery okay. They’re not allowed free standing on AG property they
need to be an accessory to a winery or they need to be located in a retail zone a commercial
zone like a B zone or an LB zone or hamlet business. There are many of those throughout town.
You know on Main Rd. on Peconic Lane on Love Lane you know there’s quite a few of those.
Just so you’re clear again that free standing tasting room is not permitted on that AG property
unless there’s a winery there okay.
PAT MOORE : The issue of winery that’s part of the problem which is how does one define the
winery? The license that’s required for we’re using interchangeable definitions. You have a farm
winery which consists of your plants the crushing and the production so technically under the
state license you could be a private individual and still have that license. It’s the whole what
the Town’s approval you then have the availability to open it to the public. So that’s the process
he’s going through now.
REAGAN MEADOR : Yea and I mean technically too there’s home wine makers who make wine
in their garage. Is that considered a winery? We’re not talking about
?
August 6, 2015 Regular Meeting
MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Wait are home wine makers permitted to sell their wine?
REAGAN MEADOR : Micro licenses are which is like there’s a space in between a winery and like
a home just for home use and then there’s a micro winery too you can get on top of your home
wine making.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER : So just to be clear you’re farm winery license has your residence
address?
REAGAN MEADOR : Yes. The license is 860 Old North Rd.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER : So you’re making wine there now and what used to be a shed or
something like that.
REAGAN MEADOR : Yea our license is based there. We’ve done we’ve fixed a couple of our
wines but we’ve mostly used to get started we used a couple of leased spots that were gracious
enough to let us use their actual wine making production facility that’s not an option. It turned
out not to really work out that well and that’s why we’re trying to seek this relief.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Was it local that you were local places where you were processing
your grapes and
REAGAN MEADOR : Yea.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And I understand that this year is the first year you’re going to be
able to harvest what you’ve planted on your acreage?
REAGAN MEADOR : Yes., yes ma’am.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay so you’ve not uncommon for to buy grapes from somebody
else.
REAGAN MEADOR : And everything that we’ve purchased outside of a couple of gallons for
when it’s always on the Northfork and that’s all we wanted to work with.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER : That’s all that’s great I mean what you’re doing is great. The issue here
of course is where you want to do it.
REAGAN MEADOR : Sure.
PAT MOORE : Yes we understand that’s why we’re here.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Okay just wanted to clear up this whole winery business in that you are
running a winery now on your property illegally.
?
August 6, 2015 Regular Meeting
PAT MOORE : Well by a state definition the state definition.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER : No it’s not a state definition it’s a fact. He’s producing wine processing
his grapes
PAT MOORE : Right.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER : on his property. Okay?
PAT MOORE : Yea okay.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Okay fine.
PAT MOORE : So let’s go back to the this being a traditional business model which is the home
where you live, where your family lives, where you raise your family and where you have the
product that you’re producing. So that’s precisely what they want to do here and that’s
MEMBER SCHNEIDER : How is that a traditional model?
PAT MOORE : Well if you go back to the original farming families out here they most of the
farms had their house, their homestead along the road. They might sell their product along the
road either through a farm stand or through some other method. Certainly before all the
regulations came into effect but even after the regulations our farm stand code has tried to
catch up with that model but that is a very standard throughout the country you have farms
that the farmers grow up on the farm and the product that they make is right there on the
farm.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER : I would have to agree with that but I think a winery is somewhat
different. You’re selling alcoholic beverage. I don’t think that’s exactly
REAGAN MEADOR : I would disagree respectfully if you go and look at the worldwide view of
what wineries really are this notion of what a tasting room is today what we kind of understand
it what’s generally here is very, very new compared to the rest of the world and how wine
growing has existed for millennia. Generally speaking they’ve always been family owned and
run and everything is on site. If you go to France most of them don’t even have tasting rooms
and it’s not a cavalcade of buses and limos and everything like that. They’re part in parcel of the
agricultural community in there and you not even know that they existed. That’s I would say
the majority of wineries that exists still today this notion of you know the grandiose tasting
room where you have you know lots of people and events and everything it’s a fairly new
endeavor if you will and it typically ends up being a separate part of the business wholly from
the actual winery making the wine and selling it. It’s barely lucrative but it’s not necessarily
required at that scale I think to have a winery. I don’t think that it’s something that is necessary.
??
August 6, 2015 Regular Meeting
And that’s kind of where we’ve I’ve tried to argue this whole time and I feel like I’m making
some strides but it’s not necessary to have all the accoutrement to be a successful winery
business here and I think where we’ve come to a place where the wine growing and everything
all of our knowledge the collective knowledge of the community of the wine making community
and it’s gotten to a place where we’re now getting to the point where the wine stands on its
own and that we don’t have to entertain people in order for them to consume our wine or to
buy our wine and I want to be part of that change and that’s what really that I’m asking for this
by doing this is give me the ability to have this wine making facility to have the control over our
small lot production which is a whole other can of worms and give us the ability to sell our
bottles to people. It’s not we live on the property we’re neighbors of the property it’s the
sensible winery is not the same as what is already existing out here. It’s something that’s fairly
different and luckily we’re in a place and a time here where the community is at a point that it
can support that. We have enough recognition to do that. I just came back from San Francisco
two days ago where I was working with our distributor there and they are tasting our wines
right now in Los Angeles to all the sommeliers there. It’s very much about getting the wine past
our borders and not having it consumed on our property and that’s the nuance of it but that is
really the heart of this just give flexibility to support our family and to have you know so my
wife doesn’t have to commute into the city and keep her job and all those things we’ve been
focused on this and make it just a sustainable business for us.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Mr. Meador I really respect and appreciate what you’re trying to do
and I also know that I can speak for this Board. We’re neighbors, we all live here. We know we
live in an agricultural area and we’re lucky to do so and it’s worth fighting to preserve and there
is no one here who would not support what it is what you want to do. What we need to look at
is whether or not this one acre piece of property can actually support those activities you know
it’s not what you want to do it’s can you do where you want to do it.
REAGAN MEADOR : I understand that.
PAT MOORE : I think it depends on what he’s prepared to do.
MEMBER DANTES : Can I ask you a question? Just cause it follows on what you just said.
PAT MOORE : Go ahead.
MEMBER DANTES : Can you explain how the tasting room fits in your business model and then
why you need it to be part of the
REAGAN MEADOR : Yea so it I look at it as a bridge for us ultimately. The tasting room is right
now and the way that people approach wine on the Northfork it’s generally what I’ve found it’s
generally I’ll believe it when I taste it kind of mode and it’s not something like Napa Valley
??
August 6, 2015 Regular Meeting
where someone is going to pick up a bottle and say it’s found to be good cause it’s from Napa
Valley. We still have a lot of proving that we’re doing and especially for someone like us who
have taken just a different approach in the (inaudible) methods and things like that. We have
had some ability especially early on in our business to almost prove ourselves so that’s been
generally what we’ve been doing with that tasting room. I point to other models out here that
are down the road from us such as Roanoke Vineyards that is closing down their main tasting
room to the public. That is something that we idolize and that’s the direction that we’d like it to
go. I don’t want to have the heavy traffic in and the live music or anything like that and I want
to get to the point where we created enough demand through you know doing some of those
tastings earlier and to the point where the wine we’re selling is selling out just through our
website and that exists. There’s plenty of wineries maybe not here but all over the world that
can sell their production cause it’s small enough. Once they release and it’s sold out and they
close their doors at the winery and call it a day. So I understand you know the concern and
everything and I think you’re about to give into ways that we can alleviate concerns.
PAT MOORE : Right if we talk about the specific structures okay you have the existing shed or
shed the 400 square foot structure pre-existing that is very close to the property line but again
you pointed out that if the parcel is merged there is no rear property line that would be
violated. The only reason I’ve been pushing to keep the parcel separate is for these kids okay
not necessarily for the parents because what happens is they are running their dream okay and
it may be that they become god willing so successful that they take their they go and they live
at another home and they don’t need to process there. They process somewhere else or they
that particular property that one acre gets sold and they move on to a larger home or a larger
facility. If we merge these two properties that opportunity is gone so the kids are going to be
stuck I want to say stuck because they won’t have the option of selling the property separately.
They will have to sell the entire let’s say that they don’t want to grow wine and they want to
keep their homestead and have next generation live there. They will not have that option again
because today we forced them to merge the property. I think that because of the
MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Pat you know what you’re saying is something that may or may not
happen.
PAT MOORE : I understand that but we’re dealing with does the contiguous nature of those
properties satisfy the area variance criteria in the sense that the two properties act as one and
you’ve done covenants in the past where certainly you could put covenants here that say you
can’t do your tasting and you can’t do your processing without the contiguous whether it’s
contiguous or certain acreage that a minimum acreage that you must have. They’d be willing to
say contiguous even though arguably they could buy 200 acres and still support the processing
on that property but if you want insist that the property be contiguous you have the ability
??
August 6, 2015 Regular Meeting
event the Planning Board has the ability to put those kind of conditions. My concern is I come
every other month to you with a request to waive merger because of the circumstances that
people find themselves in and generations find themselves in. It’s almost against it’s against
every principal I know to force people to merge property particularly when you’ve got a sold
development right property here so there is no threat that we’re going to be if we don’t merge
it we’re going to add one more house to the development rights land. That’s not here.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So what you’re saying then is despite the previous letter that we got
from Mr. Meador on the probability of merging you’re now saying for personal flexibility for
this family you would like this to not get merged.
PAT MOORE : That would be my preference. Would he if the Board says I’m sorry Mrs. Moore
but this property you know our job is to reduce the number of variances which I know that’s
your purpose so the only way that we would approve this is by merging of the property well I’ve
done my best to protect the family but ultimately that’s fine. He’s accepting that alternative so I
don’t want railroad the application in any way. I’m just saying the Board has the ability and the
flexibility to recognize contiguous interrelated farming operation that doesn’t need to have the
merging of the property so that’s an option that the Board will have to consider. Let me talk
about the front yard setback because I don’t believe that there was even a need for a front yard
setback. If you read the definition again in the winery if you’re going to be literal in the ten
acres by forcing a merger then I’m going to ask you to be literal in the definition of the 100 feet
because the 100 feet says that you have to be setback 100 feet from a major road. The major
road is not a defined term in our zoning code. However it is a defined term in the subdivision
regulations. That’s where we differentiate between major road and non-major road. I would
submit that the Old North Rd. is not a major road. Major road under the subdivision regulations
is defined as the North Rd. and the Main Rd. and there were some sense that word that added
word didn’t just come out of the blue it came out of the fact that if you’re on a major highway
or major roadway like the Route 25 or the North Rd. there may be a need to setback the
structure so that there’s proper traffic circulation and the rest. In this case we have the barn
which is truly going to be the structure that’s supports the agriculture. That’s where their
equipment has to be stored and where the vats which I’ve described to you are very specific
because of the type of product very unique product that they produce are smaller concrete
containers tanks so that structure has no public access and again you can put a condition that
when that if that structure is granted again I don’t think it needs a variance but fine for purpose
of the winery operation we would accept a covenant in the Planning Board. If this had gone just
to the Planning Board as I believe it should of gone rather than to the Board if they could of
placed a condition that said you’re not going to use this structure for public access. It’s you
know your public access is to that small 400 square foot tasting room not to the equipment and
storage building. So I would ask you to look at the code you really have to read the language
??
August 6, 2015 Regular Meeting
again if you’re going to you know force the ten acre literal if you’re not a ten acre parcel you
can’t have a winery alright then we merge the property and we’re on a twenty three acre parcel
so clearly satisfying that criteria but also look at the language of the hundred feet.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Let me ask you a question with the hundred feet you’re saying the
North Rd. isn’t
PAT MOORE : No the North Rd. is Old North
MEMBER SCHNEIDER : I mean the Old North Rd.
PAT MOORE : Yes Old North Rd. is a it’s called it used to be before the North Rd. was created
used to be the access way through town.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Then where would we look to the code for a front yard setback for a
winery?
PAT MOORE : It would be a standard setback of a principal structure which is 60 feet and it’s
what we’re conforming to.
MEMBER HORNING : Can I ask a question on this?
MEMBER SCHNEIDER : So that’ll be your opinion that Old North Rd. is the code does not pertain
to that?
PAT MOORE : Correct. Please look at that definition and I hope that you will agree.
MEMBER HORNING : Would you have brought that up with the Building Department?
PAT MOORE : I actually in reading and preparing for today we’ve looked and I have to give my
husband a wonderful literal reader of the code he looked at it and said wait major road and we
looked for that definition and found it well yesterday but I did go to the Building Department.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Look this is in section 280-13 A okay permitted uses and it’s in B the
winery structure shall be set back a minimum of 100 feet from a major road.
PAT MOORE : Correct.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright you could logically argue then that wineries are meant to be
located on major roads.
PAT MOORE : No I think you’re going no I
??
August 6, 2015 Regular Meeting
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : If you you’re going to start with semantics as an approach to
interpreting code it works in several ways.
PAT MOORE : But what I’m saying to you is when the Board considers the specific language of
having ten acres not that they have to be that they you can meet that criteria by contiguous
okay you must meet it by actual feet titled okay
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : How many acres actually of the 22 point whatever are planted and
in production right now?
PAT MOORE : Right now nine acres of field. One acre of headlands which is required for your
access and then an additional half acre of the supporting flowers the vegetation that’s used to
encourage natural control so it is in fact meeting there’s a recognition again that you plant you
know as long as you’re planting and you’re active agricultural production the code has never
been read to you have to have at least nine or ten acres of grapes because the grapes can come
from other farms okay so they are meeting their production needs as they accumulate more
money more vines will be planted so it’s a good starting point but it’s certainly not the end.
MEMBER HORNING : A question the road topic again if 48 and 25 were the only major roads in
the Town of Southold wouldn’t the Building Department be aware of that?
PAT MOORE : Well what happened is I went to see Mike this morning and he said well it’s not
been in practice that way but not to say that anybody has really looked at it that way. I mean I
don’t know that he’s ever been presented with that argument before I wouldn’t know. I
certainly had not presented it before I think because most of you know the bigger wineries
have been set back at 100 feet.
MEMBER HORNING : Well maybe they all are on 48 or 25
PAT MOORE : No that’s not true. There are you have Sherwood House that is just been
approved I mean there
MEMBER HORNING : Well they either made a mistake in the Notice of Disapproval or there are
only two major roads 48 and 25 for real.
PAT MOORE : For real there are only two major roads.
MEMBER HORNING : That would be a mistake in again the wording of the Notice of Disapproval
which is a substantial mistake if it is that.
PAT MOORE : Well I think he left it to you guys because I was hoping that this morning I could
come in with you know blazing in with a new Notice of Disapproval but Mike was a little nah
??
August 6, 2015 Regular Meeting
you’re over here already you guys interpret it and in fact if you read the code I think you could
certainly interpret that that ultimately remember that Planning Board has site plan review
approval. The fact that it conforms
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well saying that you just mentioned Sherwood House and they have
not site plan approval.
PAT MOORE : No we do have site well
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You do not have a final site plan approval.
PAT MOORE : Well let me correct you on that let me if I may answer that okay. Sherwood
House went through the process of getting site plan approval prior to the completion which the
only things that were left to be done was shrubbery to complete the site plan. Mr. Dr. Smithen
passed away so certainly not within his power to have closed it out and quite frankly the
process that they had to go through and the aggravation they went through nearly bankrupted
them because and I want to avoid that for these lovely people. I do not want to see the
hammer come down on them to such an extent which quite frankly this Notice of Disapproval
as it was amended brought down the hammer whereas I think that if all of us would of sat
down around the table a lot of these issues may have been resolved before having to come to
this Board.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well the only reason I point that out is because we all know that
there are a lot of anomalies in this town you know and lots of them don’t have approvals and
are operating.
PAT MOORE : Yes.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We however are not able to compare those operations that are not
operating legally with an effort to create a legal situation here. It’s important that you know we
cannot use as a precedent something that was not legally established.
PAT MOORE : Well I actually I agree with you I can’t point to those in town that are not
operating with either site plan or any kind of approval and I wouldn’t even raise them as
examples because I don’t think that that’s beneficial to anybody. The examples I’ve given you
have been properly approved and as I you know the Sherwood House example is has all the
approvals that it needs to then operate. Plant those last row of vegetation and then you can
open up again it was a very minimal tasting room almost the size of this.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay well you know what you talked about let’s go back to this to
what really is before us okay. I’d like to get away from so much concern and testimony about
??
August 6, 2015 Regular Meeting
the couple who owns this property and talk more about the property okay. That is really what
the Zoning Board has to evaluate.
PAT MOORE : Okay.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You talked about Old North Rd. I know it very well. I drive by it
umpteen times a day I live on Soundview Ave. I know that junction you know just past the Ford
dealership where Old North Rd. cuts in to Horton that is a very dangerous intersection. There
are blind spots all over the place. I also you know when you kind of come it’s a fork basically in
the road and there’s stop signs but honestly yesterday I was driving to Town Hall going south on
Horton and I almost got t-boned by some guy in a truck who just skidded through the stop sign
didn’t see me coming. I’m back here and he’s over here and he boom. That is an awkward spot.
Let’s talk about the character of the neighborhood.
PAT MOORE : I would love to.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Look at the North Rd.
PAT MOORE : I would agree. You have 183 acres in agriculture here. What this road represents
is the eastern belt the farm belt. So to say that this road can’t handle the really minor what we
call I mean the visitors to this property which for a year it was under the radar and nobody even
knew you know there was no traffic that was generated. My client has agreed no buses, no
limos that is not his business model and we again through the site plan process the Planning
Board has the authority to make those conditions as part of the approval.
MEMBER HORNING : I have a question. Has it been operating a tasting room for over a year?
PAT MOORE : It has been there. It has been there.
MEMBER HORNING : The tasting room.
PAT MOORE : It has been there.
MEMBER HORNING : Thank you.
MEMBER DATES : Can I ask a follow up question? Have there been any police complaints or any
incidence?
PAT MOORE : None. To our knowledge put it that way. None he tells me. So this so let’s go back
to the character of the neighborhood. With 183 acres of development rights sold property
there are barns on some of these properties, there are barns that are being proposed to
support these properties. The barn again in this instance is to support the agriculture, is
supporting the vines.
??
August 6, 2015 Regular Meeting
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : When you say barn are you referring to the operating as a tasting
room?
PAT MOORE : No, no, no the new building the proposed.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I want you to clear there are more there’s more than one structure
on the property.
PAT MOORE : Alright, both are supporting the vines. The tasting room is 400 square feet. Up till
now it’s been providing storage for the wine and an ability for the customers to taste it. In
order to carry on the business they need their the proposed building the proposed larger
building and I would put Reagan on here to explain why he needs that building specifically for
his operation because I think when he described it to me it was very informative and very
specific to the boutique and the model that he’s trying to run so I’m going to ask Reagan explain
your need for that structure.
REAGAN MEADOR : Okay I’m going to try to not get too detailed the ins and outs of wine
making just cause some of it can get a little bit dull. We’re what some would consider a natural
wine making operation and by that there’s a lot of debate about this but essentially what it
comes down to is an attempt in our production of crushing the grapes and making into wine to
use as few amounts of additives and preservatives and things like that as we possibly can things
like sulfites. You might see on the labels additives. What those are meant to do is fight off bugs
and things that spoil wine so what happens is when we’re using less of those we have to be
very, very, very particular in our spaces. It’s gotta be very clean so that those bugs aren’t
present to spoil the wine. When you look at wine making all over the country generally
speaking a lot of those things that’s why wine making isn’t very prevalent and people do use
certain amounts of sulfites and things like that so their wines are protected. They don’t need to
do quite as much cleaning as and be as meticulous as that. So my thing is I want to have that
control and to have my space so that I don’t get into a situation where I’m doing my kind of
wine making in someone else’s facility for instance and things go off the rails and stuff starts to
spoil and then it becomes well your facility wasn’t clean enough well your winemaking is
dangerous as it is already that’s not our fault so I’m wanting to avoid that. Second, we do
everything in very small lots as we’re making things so that creates a need for a lot of space. We
make wine in these one ton bins and when you’re making 14 tons which is where we were
currently you take up a lot of space with those
MEMBER HORNING : Is that all in this 20 by 20 building now?
REAGAN MEADOR : No. That’s why we were borrowing space from a local winery out here and
they’ve thrown up their hands and said you’re too big and this is just not a situation that we
??
August 6, 2015 Regular Meeting
MEMBER HORNING : What are you going to do this year?
REAGAN MEADOR : I have no idea to be honest. When we started this process last year to try to
get through Planning I was hoping that we’d have this barn up by this harvest. At this point and
time I’m my I have been offered a tent in the back of one of the wineries that has their
processing in there and they said you can use outside put your bins outside. I would rather not
do that but I honestly I don’t know.
MEMBER HORNING : How many people do you entertain in your tasting room as it exists today?
REAGAN MEADOR : At a time?
MEMBER HORNING : Yea.
REAGAN MEADOR : I’d say that we have no more than about 10 or 15 people at a time at the
most.
MEMBER HORNING : During the week or the weekends?
REAGAN MEADOR : The weekends it would generally be a little bit busier than during the week.
During the week it’s usually one on one and I’m the only one that’s in the tasting room pouring
the wines it’s never become more than something that just one person can take care of
themselves and I like doing that because it allows me the ability to sit down with everybody and
kind of explain what we’re doing in more detail than often times is afforded.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You also had at least I saw it on your website a special event there.
REAGAN MEADOR : I had it was a private dinner for some of our better consumers. It wasn’t an
open invitation thing. That was only about twenty people.
MEMBER HORNING : Was is at 20 by 20 existing?
REAGAN MEADOR : Yea it was in the winter time and it was cold outside very cold outside we
were inside.
MEMBER HORNING : How many people would you expect to be in this proposed combination is
it winery and tasting room?
REAGAN MEADOR : The winery facility I don’t want anybody in there and that would be
processing there’s too many risks.
MEMBER HORNING : The tasting room would stay in the same place?
PAT MOORE : Oh yea.
??
August 6, 2015 Regular Meeting
MEMBER HORNING : How many people could fit there in one time in the tasting room?
PAT MOORE : 400 square feet.
MEMBER HORNING : Comfortably.
REAGAN MEADOR : I mean maybe it’s tiny
MEMBER HORNING : I want to mention that because having a bus load of people come is a part
of some wineries business models correct which you’ve stated.
REAGAN MEADOR : Yes.
MEMBER HORNING : And so it’s a matter of your business model only in other words can a bus
just pull up with a bunch of people.
REAGAN MEADOR : No I’ve actually turned away limos that have tried to pull in unbenounced
to us.
MEMBER HORNING : Limos.
REAGAN MEADOR : I’ve said I’m sorry but we don’t allow that.
MEMBER HORNING : What would you do with a bus.
REAGAN MEADOR : Same thing. I would not allow them.
PAT MOORE : Understand buses don’t just stop in.
MEMBER HORNING : How do you get a bus to stop?
PAT MOORE : It’s part of a tour group typically.
REAGAN MEADOR : You advertise for it.
PAT MOORE : And they pre schedule, limos as well.
MEMBER HORNING : There would be no buses unless you encouraged it or permitted it to
happen.
REAGAN MEADOR : Yes and that was largely part of our business plan and being where we are
today is getting off of the Main Rd and allowing and we don’t do there’s no signs on any of the
main roads letting people know that we exist or anything like that. The whole purpose of our
existence to let people that were had a certain level of education of wine or interests in wine
??
August 6, 2015 Regular Meeting
find us rather than it be a one big net trying to pull anybody that we can find off the road
because if you come taste our wines they’re fairly different than what you’ll find.
MEMBER HORNING : What you’re proposing is a new building for the processing and a small
tasting room that already exists.
PAT MOORE : That’s already there exactly you can see it for yourself what it looks like and how
big it is.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We have seen it.
MEMBER HORNING : Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let me ask you something is there a specific name you would apply
to the type of winery building you are proposing?
REAGAN MEADOR : You mean the one that we want to build?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The one you want to build.
REAGAN MEADOR : It would be a barn a processing barn I mean it it’s a pole barn no different
than any of the ones that all the farmers use out here. It doesn’t have any windows on it it’s got
overhead doors.
PAT MOORE : It has to be climate controlled.
REAGAN MEADOR : It has to be climate controlled just for that helps to mitigate our
fermentation temperatures and also not let the wine spoil in the heat like we’ve been having
but other than that it’s a fairly simple structure.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : If you were able to process grapes on your one acre parcel what
hardship would be involved in having a tasting room like a lot of other wineries that have in a B
zone in a satellite location?
REAGAN MEADOR : The cost in the finding the space and maintaining it in terms of I guess we’d
have to rent something and staffing it as well because you’d have to keep those open in order
for them to pay for themselves cause it’s just another cost added cost onto that and
PAT MOORE : And you wouldn’t be able to the people that come in to buy from you won’t be
able to taste the product.
REAGAN MEADOR : Oh well they’re saying having a tasting room somewhere else.
PAT MOORE : Right.
??
August 6, 2015 Regular Meeting
REAGAN MEADOR : You know it’s a great idea. We can’t afford it and that was largely why we
chose to do it this way. Us living on that property and being able to sell from that property just
like any other farmer it’s spreads the costs a lot further and allows us to support ourselves
much you know in a business that’s not always the easiest business to support yourself in it and
so that was the main for us business plan and when we were looking for properties one of the
big components of you know how we can make this work it’s not every day that a young couple
comes out and builds a farm out here you know it’s starting to come and starting to happen but
this is we’re not you know the last of them and so I think this is obviously something that we
really need to tackle and being allowed to have all of those you know supporting things cause
when you really get down to it us living there supporting the business, the business is
supporting us like it’s a support network that makes it possible for us to make that work.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We’ve spent a lot of time on this and I’d like to see if there are
people in the audience who could address impacts especially if they live in the area. We do
have a very long submission from I believe you have a copy Pat you had a chance to see that
from a neighbor Alison Latham and it’s too lengthy to read into the record and it does talk
about some what she perceived she and her husband as serious impacts on Old North Rd. and
to the value of their property and so on.
PAT MOORE : Yea.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : If there are other neighbors present after having heard all of this
who would like to speak the comments from people who live on Old North Rd. are relevant and
salient for our purposes because when we look at character of the neighborhood and impacts
we look at the impacts on the neighbors so anyone who would like to address that either in
favor or in opposition state your name. Please come to the microphone and state your name
and your address.
MEMBER DANTES : We do have letters that have already been submitted.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We have two letters that I believe Pat Moore solicited because they
say the same thing except for the first paragraph.
PAT MOORE : Well let me clarify that. We had phone calls to our office by the neighbors who
couldn’t be here and we gave them a letter of support. So if they sound similar it’s because they
were we had to prepare them. We typed them but we let them we didn’t solicit them and we
didn’t they came to us and said we really want to support and we said thank you very much
we’d love to get a letter and they said could you please type it so my secretary would type it so
I would love customized letters but that’s not the way it got done.
??
August 6, 2015 Regular Meeting
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That’s fine. They’re certainly relevant and we’re not dismissing it in
anyway whatsoever. Just as we take we’ll take all comments. Would you want to come and
would you please speak into the mic turn it so that
BEATRICE DUPONT : My name is Beatrice Dupont I am a neighbor. I live on Soundview Ave. I
bike in front the Meador property practically every day for the past twenty years. I have looked
with pleasure to see this old house being transformed into a nice house. It was a derelict
building. Last summer I was not even aware that there was more traffic on that road and I’m on
it every day and I really encourage this young family to start the business and be successful and
I wish the Board would look at it in a favorable way because I’m there every day and I have seen
no adverse impact whatsoever. I have never met Mr. Meador before this is the first time I even
see them I have no personal interest.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay thank you very much. Anyone else?
CAROL HAMAN : Carol Haman I live right next door. There’s been no adverse effect at all,
there’s no traffic problem. The people park inside and there’s only small number of cars at a
time. There is no noise. I am outside in my back yard all the time right next door a few feet
away. I have never heard any noise at all. There I think an improvement to our road unlike the
illegal junkyard across the street. Nobody seems to care about that but they’re going after
someone that has cleaned up and made an old house that was falling down beautiful and
landscaped it beautifully and they’re working on it all the time. I think they’re certainly an
improvement to our community and definitely to the Old North Rd.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I’d like to ask you a question. What you’ve described and I
appreciate very much your insight is the circumstances as they are now or as they have been
for the last year I would say. How would you feel about a 3,600 square foot additional building
being built on that property?
CAROL HAMAN : Depends where it was built I suppose.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And when you’re facing the Meador’s house let’s say are you to the
right of them or to the left?
CAROL HAMAN : Facing it?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well from the road let’s say
CAROL HAMAN : To the left depending where you stand.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Everyone should understand that (tape recorder stopped)
??
August 6, 2015 Regular Meeting
(tape recorder began again in middle of Connor Harrigan speaking do not have comments from
Dennis Lane on recorder)
CONNOR HARRIGAN : and too they believe that a winery that is engaging in selling toured limos
and busses is not something that they want to buy. So I guess my point is Mr. Meador is not
looking to sell $8 bottles of wines on a supermarket shelf. He’s making quality product that he’s
looking to sell to a customer that wants an elevated experience and you are not going to
receive an elevated experience when you have a tasting room full of people at a bachelorette
party for example. So the worry and or concern that the area in question is going to become a
haven for limos, busses etc. I think is misguided and upon further clarification about how a
tasting room actually operates and the goals therein those concerns can kind of be alleviated
and I think that the Board should also take that into account and that’s all I have to say.
MEMBER DANTES : Can I ask you a quick question?
CONNOR HARRIGAN : Yes sir.
MEMBER DANTES : From your experience in tasting rooms did you ever have to turn away limos
and busses and if so I mean how did you do it, what procedures were in place?
CONNOR HARRIGAN : Well when I worked at Duck Walk we took many busses. We would try to
schedule them as best we could but we operated under the discretion of the owners who
would prefer we accept them. When we decided not to accept a limo we would turn them
away and we have you’d either have someone we had clear view of our property. The entrance
inside of it we know who’s coming when we receive limos which he’s not planning to do let’s
just make that clear we operated with certain companies and we stayed with those certain
companies so Elegant Limousine would let us know we’re taking five between 11 and 2. So and
so would let us know they’re taking 4 so we’re talking 9 limos and all of a sudden there’s a
tenth thrown in now we know. Judging by the property he has a right clear line of sight to the
points of entrance and that allows you to kind of maintain the supremacy on that entrance and
prevent anyone from coming in and judging by the fact that the tasting room is smaller than
this room you can’t really sneak in so when we were at Duck Walk we would have people that
would try to sneak in. The building the tasting room is almost the size of this Town Hall western
wing. So we would encounter that problem every now and then but that’s because they would
flood it with 300 people with three buses, Hampton Jitney’s and it was a big area to control.
MEMBER DANTES : Did you ever have limousines parking in the street and walking in?
CONNER HARRIGAN : They attempt that they absolutely attempt that but again but again
you’re dealing with a very visually difficult situation a very logistically difficult situation and a
??
August 6, 2015 Regular Meeting
large property. He’s not dealing with a large wide open area. You open that door one person
walks in you know it. One car drives in you know it.
MEMBER HORNING : What is your relationship sir to the applicant?
CONNOR HARRIGAN : I don’t really actually know him.
REAGAN MEADOR : We’ve met once I think.
CONNOR HARRIGAN : I’m a big believer in the objective of his winery coming from the other
end. When coming from the Vineyard 48 end let’s just be very frank and seeing this end my
personal opinion is this is a net plus for the region while we look at the other places I think they
are largely a (inaudible) downer for the region.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Look there’s a couple of things we have to start to sum up here
cause we’ve been at this for an hour we have eight hearing today this is our first just to give you
some framework for how the day has to unfold for us. Much has been said about the nature of
the proposed operations being rather different from some of the larger wineries that we’re
more familiar with. The only way in which this Board we really haven’t addressed the
substantiality of the variances. We have not addressed the standards. I imagined you did in
your brief, we’ll look at them. The only way that those say self-chosen limits on the way in
which you propose to operate can be insured into the future again they run with the land we
grant a winery anybody can come in and suddenly limos are fine you know the only way this
can proceed is if there are safeguards put into place about the limitations of this property that
do not have to do specifically with the applicant but with what the property can stand. I want to
protect you as a neighbor madam back there in the future if these very nice people move on
you need to know that whoever takes their place is not going to do something egregious on
that property because the Board has granted them some variances. Very substantial variances
are before this Board. Seventy five percent relief from the code in one case mathematically
alright and again I remind everyone that despite our own personal feelings about supporting
particularly young farmers who want to come out here and keep us an agriculture I have to this
Board has to try very hard to not write code from this bench. The Town Board writes the code.
If the codes need to be updated and changed and I personally believe they do because codes
are living document and as agriculture changes those codes should reflect those changes but
this Board cannot write a decision based upon wish it said this instead of that. All we can do is
go to the Town Board and say we’re the ones in the field that have to implement these codes,
we have to grant relief, we think something is not working and needs your attention and we’ve
done that many times. I think we need to get some comments from Land Preservation
Committee and I know we certainly need to have comments from the Planning Board which has
concurrent jurisdiction with this application. They gave us comments previously and they had
??
August 6, 2015 Regular Meeting
some serious concerns. They have not had a chance to comment on the Notice of Disapproval
the newer one the one that was updated so we’re certainly going to need those comments. If
there is anyone else out there who would finds that they want to contribute something else to
this discussion that will give us a different kind of insight than what’s already been talked about
please come forward now and do so.
CHRIS BAIZ : Good morning members of the Zoning Board of Appeals I’m delighted to be here
this morning. My name is Chris Baiz and I’m a resident of Southold. I’m also a local wine grower
and I’m here representing the agricultural advisory committee to the Town Board of Southold. I
serve as its chair. This is simply one example of many examples in the town of where the code
as it exists that has been pieced together for the last fifty years creates these problems for
agriculture. We have been working as an agricultural advisory committee in great part with the
Town Supervisor members of the Town Board and with the Town Attorney’s office trying to
create and if you will an omnibus package that will begin to resolve all of these problems. I
might say just right of on the specific example that we applaud the idea of using a smaller
footprint of non-agriculturally used land to squeeze all of the operations that you need for that
whether it’s residence or whether it’s processing, whether it’s on farm marketing and in fact I
believe your property is in the agricultural district but not the residential property okay which
should be but under AG and Markets law in fact their tasting room under Ag and Markets law
NYS is simply a farm stand. The town is still trying to catch up to that in code that tasting rooms
are farm stands in fact the state liquor authority does not recognize as a separate entity tasting
rooms on parcels they just view it as wineries in the whole and I had some questions for you.
I’ve only met Mr. Meador once my wife and daughter insisted that we go around and inspect
several other small winery operations back in the spring so we did and his was one of the stops
somebody said his tasting room was the size of this room I think they’re incorrect. His tasting
room feels like it’s about a third of this room.
CHAIRPERSONE WEISMAN : It’s actually about the same size as yours I think.
CHRIS BAIZ : Well we’re under 400 square feet that’s for sure. Anyway the most important thing
is as you said chairperson Weisman the code is a living document and I think that’s what a lot of
people forget about and it needs constant updating revision and change in order to meet the
needs of the community. A third of the town’s land is in agriculture and we’re trying to keep it
that way as opposed to have final build out with the ultimate crop and you all know what the
ultimate crop is and in we don’t need a suburb here because there aren’t jobs to support
suburban residences here let alone somewhere up island. We need to keep the agriculture, we
need to keep the agriculture economically viable it doesn’t do it by simply harvesting rows of
broccoli or potatoes or cauliflower. The value added is needed even yesterday I was speaking
with the supervisor about the legislative agenda over all in the town for agriculture and he said
??
August 6, 2015 Regular Meeting
don’t forget we need to get into the bulk schedule and build that ladder of uses on a single lot
for agricultural purposes and that brings me to my point. You read a definition of agricultural
production was that all that was in that definition?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I don’t know I have to get
CHRIS BAIZ : I’m sure Mr. Kiely has it. Was that the original easement?
A.T.A. KIELY : From the deed yes.
CHRIS BAIZ : Could you either one of you just read that is that the total
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You want me to read it again?
CHRIS BAIZ : Yes please.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Agricultural production shall mean the production for commercial
purposes of crops, livestock, and livestock products but not land or portions thereof used for
processing or retail merchandising of such crops, livestock, or livestock products. Land used in
agricultural production shall also include fences, equipment, storage buildings, livestock barns,
irrigation systems and any other structures used exclusively for agricultural purposes.
CHIRS BAIZ : Purposes not production and herein I mean there is a dichotomy in that definition
and basically if you talk to the AG and Markets attorneys in New York they read the second
sentence in there and it says you can have agricultural processing on DRS land because it says
agricultural purposes not just agricultural production and
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well one of the reasons I want to get comments from Land
Preservation is I want to clarify what our you know in 1992 this property was sold to the Town
to make sure
CHRIS BAIZ : The development rights were.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Development rights I’m sorry to make sure that it stayed in
agriculture alright. The town spends considerable money in doing that for good reason so that
we stay rural so but there are covenants and restrictions that go with sell of development rights
and I want to I don’t want to do this based on here say. I want to have the document in front of
me when we’re looking at exactly what those limits are.
CHRIS BAIZ : That’s right and then what we have on the books today is what we have to live
with now and yet we all recognize the flaws that exist and that is what the agricultural advisory
committee along with the Town Board and the Town Attorney’s office are you know our
problem is this wide we don’t have just one or two issues there are so many contradictions and
??
August 6, 2015 Regular Meeting
we’re trying to make it so that we can keep these agricultural lands economically viable rather
than agricultural lands that get such restrictive covenants in the easements that we literally
(inaudible) agriculture as well and so I’ll leave it at that point for now but I think we need to
keep this on the basis that we are trying to move forward the legislative agenda for the
agricultural advisory committee and the Town Board is one that we’re trying to erase these
hiccups and get parcels like Mr. Meador’s that are adjacent to the agricultural lands that he’s
working to make sure that it can serve those agricultural lands and not be disconnected from it
in the future and therefore begin to sterilize that farmland out of production. We don’t want to
just have fields being mowed once every November or in the future we want them to be put
into active production and have families be able to be supported by the agriculture of that land
which when I say agriculture I mean right through to finish value added products whatever that
is. We’re not just trying to be bunch of wineries here we are also talking about any other kind of
on farm processing and on farm marketing in the future for these lands so that they can sustain
themselves and the families that operate them. Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thank you Chris. Does the Board have any questions at this point.
MEMBER DANTES : I have one. Has the agricultural committee like wrote a letter or would they
be willing to write a letter that they can submit for the file?
CHRIS BAIZ : To this particular instance we
MEMBER DANTES : To this application.
CHRIS BAIZ : To this application okay I’d have to sit down and have the committee read the
application or at least I would read it at first and e-mail everybody a synopsis to see where we
wanted to go. I have no problem writing a letter. I think the I mean there are other examples
here in town of where the homestead parcel or a portion is under sized and in other words
under the conforming lot size square footage on the one hand and on the other hand has more
than one use actively going on that undersized parcel. So it’s not like it doesn’t exist in the town
it does exist and it’s kept at those parcels viable and in active agriculture. I think you know for
those of us in this generation the biggest concern of all the vineyards and wineries is we have
lost to death many of the original founders first generation founders of this industry out here
and right now there is a dearth of buyers and so that is our greatest concern in terms of
longevity. Families are continuing to try to operate them and in think that’s they will go as far as
they can and keep it going but we would be glad to write a letter to this I think it’s important
that we get through the details of is it sixty feet or is it a hundred feet in order to establish an
economic unit of agriculture that keeps those twenty two acres of land going for the future.
??
August 6, 2015 Regular Meeting
MEMBER HORNING : I have a question to the applicant. In regard to the survey we had one
submission saying that you’re actually constructing a 40 by 90 sized building. You applied for a
30 by 70 it looks like I mean it looks like it was proposed at two story and (inaudible) one story
clarify this.
REAGAN MEADOR : I will clarify I’m sorry. It was put 30 by 70 because the building with the
walls is 30 by 70. We have what you call a covered porch not a porch but a covered work area
which is considered a crush pad in the wine business that’s where you’re doing a lot of the
major you know putting the wine into the bins and what not you just do it outside so that you
can spray off and you don’t get bugs so the actual outline if you’re looking over it is 40 by 90
but it’s 20 feet and on the side of it is covered area and then there’s a ten foot in the back
facing the farm that is another covered area and that’s just for stuff that we need to keep
outside.
MEMBER HORNING : Is it enclosed or covered by a roof?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It’s a roof.
REAGAN MEADOR : It’s not enclosed. It’s so that the 30 by 70 is the only enclosed building the
rest of it is just covered area.
CHRIS BAIZ : I knew I wanted to stay here a moment about that. I mean whether it’s 40 by 90 or
30 by 70 let’s put that into perspective. You’re talking about a maximum of 3600 square feet.
The Pindar warehouse winery on the west side of Pindar’s property is 35,000 square feet. The
Van DeWetering family operate 30 acres of greenhouses under fixed greenhouses that’s one
million two hundred thousand square feet so in other words a 40 by 70 or 40 by 90 building it’s
really only like six car or eight car garage. It’s not that big.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thank you we need to move on. Is that the smallest building that is
feasible (inaudible) point of view?
REAGAN MEADOR : Yea as far as storage and everything like that that would keep us in
operation once we have our all of our stuff planted out and allow us to store everything that we
need stored. In this business you quickly learn that space is a priority and we’re trying to keep it
small and I’d be if you wanted to lower the roofline we could maybe look at that (inaudible)
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : How tall is this proposed structure?
REAGAN MEADOR : There’s 16 foot side walls and we’d be willing to come down to
PAT MOORE : I’m sorry that’s conforming.
??
August 6, 2015 Regular Meeting
REAGAN MEADOR : Yea it’s conforming. It’s conforming in the height. I just went up higher just
so I can put you can buy tanks that are slimmer so you can maximize the space and store up
rather than fat tanks that are lower but if it would help we can certainly look at lowering the
side wall.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright anything else from the Board?
PAT MOORE : Just very quickly I’m wrapping up. We’ve already told you that we would accept
the conditions we’ve given it to you in writing if you know certainly the better solution
alternative is the large variances for setback cause they’re only rear yard setbacks okay so we
would recommend that however if you feel that we must combine the properties I would ask
you then to put language in the decision that says if the winery is ever closed is no longer in
operation allow this house to be sold separately from the ag land. That might be just enough to
give the Building Department in the future the recognition that the merger was for the
purposes of the agricultural operation but once the agricultural operation is no longer needed
then allowing this family to sell the house separate from the vines because the vines are now
and in the future a valuable commodity. The house maybe something that they move on and
get something else so that would certainly solve the problem of the merger and we would you
know the merger can occur as part of the you know the conditions that you impose
immediately. That’s right now they own both properties the husband and wife and the wife so
or you know as an entity goes they’re one entity. I would ask that.
MEMBER DANTES : Pat so then if the properties were ever split again would the buildings be
removed is that the idea?
PAT MOORE : Well no they wouldn’t be winery. They could be a storage building for anybody
who buys the one acre. I mean it might be a barn, it might be a garage.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We’ll have to think about that because again you know these are
very substantial variances that we’re looking at so we’ll there’s a lot to think about clearly you
can all appreciate we’ve heard a lot this morning and what I’m going to do is propose that we
adjourn this to the Special meeting on August 20 th which is two weeks from today. I want to
request updated comments from the Planning Board which of course you’ll get copies of so that
and I want to get comments from Land Preservation and take a look at exactly what covenants
and restrictions there are on this particular parcel the agricultural parcel in production and the
possibility that the Agricultural Advisory Committee may be able to write a letter a formal letter
and again from the committee. In addition because it’s still open if any of you in the audience
or anyone who wasn’t able to be here wants to submit anything in writing to the Board you
may do so. This hearing is still open. If you want to sit in at the Special Meeting two weeks from
now we will not be making a decision because we’re still open and we’re waiting to look at
??
August 6, 2015 Regular Meeting
comments and if we don’t have comments by then we’ll have to wait until we get them but in
any case that’s what I’m going to propose at this point so there is a motion on the floor to
adjourn to the Special Meeting on August 20 th. Is there a second?
MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Second.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor?
MEMBER HORNING : Aye.
MEMBER SCHNIEDER : Aye.
MEMBER DANTES : Aye.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye.
(See Minutes for Resolution)
HEARING # 6872 – JAY P. and KAREN A. QUARTARARO
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Jay and Karen
Quartararo. Request for variance from Article III Code Section 280-15 and the Building
Inspector’s June 12, 2015 (renewed) Notice of Disapproval based on the application for building
permit for accessory in-ground swimming pool at 1) location other than the code required rear
yard located at 4284 Wunneweta Rd. adj. to Wunneweta Pond in Cutchogue. Still morning at
least with apologies for the previous application taking so much time we will do our best to
move through this as swiftly as possible. This is for an in-ground pool that is partially in a side
yard where the code requires rear yard. What would you like to tell us Bruce?
BRUCE ANDERSON : Good morning still. Bruce Anderson Suffolk Environmental Consulting for
the applicants Quartararo. I’m going to hand up the same survey you have I just made some
(away from microphone) notes. The applicants the Quartararo’s seek to construct an 18 by 36
foot swimming pool with a surrounding patio measuring 756 square feet. It would also have a
surrounding pool enclosure fence measuring 172 linear feet. It would be equipped with the
appropriate pool equipment and pool drywell. It is a waterfront property. It is also a bulk
headed waterfront property. It contains 73,836 square feet it is in an R40 zone. There’s an
existing 2440 square foot building and with the proposed swimming pool area coverage would
??
August 6, 2015 Regular Meeting
increase 1.9% total percent coverage of 5.2% and there is no overcrowding, there is no over-
building associated with this application. The reason why we’re here is because of the way we
apply the term required yards and so I’ve handed you up a survey that shows a rear lot line
which is the westerly bulkhead line and it’s highlighted and a parallel line is drawn from the
corner of the house to the southerly side lot line and I’ve indicated and I’ve highlighted what is
called a technical side yard and you see that the pool is partially placed within that technical
side yard. Now in another town perhaps a side yard might be the two corners of the dwelling
running perpendicular to the side lot line which would place it out of a required side yard so it’s
a quirk for how we do it and that is in a nutshell what our practical hardship is. It has to do with
the positioning of the house as a skew from what is the rear lot line which is the bulk headed
westerly piece highlighted in the survey in front of you. So that is why we’re requesting relief
today. I might say that if we were to relocate the pool outside of that required rear yard we
would run a (inaudible) bulkhead setback because we would be less than 75 feet from that
bulkhead if we turned it so that it was a skew from the house it would constitute in anyone’s
judgement terrible design and it would run to the benefit of nobody and in fact if you would
advance the pool further west we basically put it in front of the property of Anderson to the
south no relation. So the way we have this set up its tucked up next to the house. It’s out of the
way there should be no neighborhood community conflict whatsoever and so it’s a very
sensible layout in our view and so we submit that there would be no undesirable change of the
character of the neighborhood as the pool falls within a technical side yard yet meets and
exceeds all dimensional requirements respective as drawn from adjacent property lines.
MEMBER HORNING : Bruce can I ask cause you hit right on one of my questions. Reason
number three of the appeal you have a statement here the amount of relief requested is not
substantial because only a part of the proposed pool the north easterly corner is in the
technical side yard but it looks like a far greater portion of it than the northeasterly corner. It
said the majority of the pool is in this technical side yard areas, is that not correct?
BRUCE ANDERSON : It is as shown in the survey in front of you so it’s roughly it’s a substantial
part of the pool is within the technical side yard as
MEMBER HORNING : Thank you.
BRUCE ANDERSON : However I’ll get to that in a second but so we submit there would be no
undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood and that this is a preferable location
for anyone in this neighborhood. We submit to the benefit could not be achieved without
variance because if we were to move the pool out of what’s called this technical side yard
would put it in closer proximity to the bulkhead and literally in the neighbors face which we
don’t want to do because we want to be good neighbors. We believe that the relief is not
??
August 6, 2015 Regular Meeting
substantial as all dimensional setbacks are met even though the pool falls within the technical
side yard. We submit no adverse impact to the physical or environmental conditions of the
neighborhood because the distance to the wetlands are maximized and because the
appropriate drainage by way of drywells and pool equipment are applied in this application. We
also submit to the difficulties is not self-created as the house is a skew from the rear lot line and
that’s what creates the enlarged over enlarged side yard area as depicted in the highlighted
survey that I’ve handed up today and so our conclusion would be that the benefit to the
applicant would outweigh any detriment to the neighborhood or district because the benefit to
the applicant obviously would be the pool there is no detriment to the neighborhood or district
in which the subject property lies. I’ll also (inaudible) we handled a similar application a couple
of years ago three years ago know as D’Haene 8555 Main Rd Bayview Suffolk County tax map
number 1000-78-9-48 ZBA decision 6580 granted August 16 th 2012 and what it did was to
maintain an “as built” swimming pool partially in a side yard. I handled that application and the
circumstances were identical that is that the house to the rear lot line was a skew placing a
portion of a pool in a side yard. The pool otherwise met all dimensional setback requirements
from side and rear lot lines. That concludes my presentation.
MEMBER HORNING : Bruce was that variance within that neighborhood?
BRUCE ANDERSON : No. It’s on Main Bayview which is Hog Neck this is in Nassau Point.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER : I have a couple of questions. You say it’s because the house is a skew
relative to the rear lot line however looking at the front lot line it looks more parallel to it but
neither the case I think what’s really causing the difficulty in my opinion is the uniqueness and
geometry of these right of ways that are cutting through the parcel creating front yards and
side yards with this principal structure. It’s not so much a skewness relative to the rear yard as
it is the locations and uniqueness and geometry of these two right of ways running through
your property would you agree with that or not?
BRUCE ANDERSON : Yeah and also the indented boat slip that or boat basin that you see I mean
if the rear yard was square then I would have another hundred feet to work with.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Oh you mean cause then you wouldn’t have to worry about a bulkhead
setback.
BRUCE ANDERSON : That’s correct.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER : But that’s not the issue here it’s the side yard.
BRUCE ANDERSON : Yes that’s correct.
??
August 6, 2015 Regular Meeting
MEMBER SCHNEIDER : I think it’s more of the right of way issue but that’s all I have to say about
that.
MEMBER HORNING : You’re getting at the feasibility of an alternative location which you have
ruled out the feasibility.
BRUCE ANDERSON : Well I don’t think that there is a better location for this from the
standpoint of either the property owner or the neighbors.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We have of course as you know inspected the site and this is
(inaudible) when lowering an elevation than the Anderson property
BRUCE ANDERSON : That is correct.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It’s also screened by a very heavy natural buffer existing vegetation.
It’s not going to be seen from any point of view other than the owner so I don’t have any
questions particularly. Eric?
MEMBER DANTES : I do not have any questions at this time.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anybody else? Anyone in the audience wishes 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 SCHNEIDER : Second.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor?
MEMBER HORNING : Aye.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Aye.
MEMBER DANTES : Aye.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye.
(See Minutes for Resolution)
??
August 6, 2015 Regular Meeting
HEARING # 6876 –MICHAEL and ERIN WARLAN
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Michael and Erin
Warlan # 6876 a request for Variances from Article III Code Section 280-15 and the Building
Inspector’s June 19, 2015 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for building permit to
construct an accessory garage and in in-ground swimming pool at locations in other than the
code required rear yard located at 1145 Jackson Street (New Suffolk Ave) in New Suffolk.
PAUL PAWLOWSKI : Paul Pawlowski on behalf of Mike and Erin Warlan as the agent. I’d like to
just go through the three particular pieces that we’re asking for. I’ll start with the proposed
garage. I think one of the main reasons we’re here today is some the uniqueness of this
property being between two roads New Suffolk Ave and Jackson St. so we probably will be
asking for some clarification starting this conversation but to start with the proposed garage
and again this is only for clarification if the front yard was considered Jackson St. I don’t even
think we’d need a variance for the proposed garage if that was considered the rear yard so and
where the client would like to put it would be within the rear yard codes of 50 feet and 25 feet
sideline setbacks. Just to point out the reason for that proposed garage is because my client
did remove a non-conforming garage that was very close to the side yard setback so on
receiving the permit to build a new structure we did agree that we would demolish and remove
a non-conforming structure. That was he was actually using for a garage and now he’s
proposing a new garage 50 feet from New Suffolk Ave. and 25 feet from the nearest neighbor
to the I believe that’s to the east. That’s one item. Item two the proposed pergola a little
clarification this is simply a shed trellis not an enclosed structure. I don’t even know if we need
to be here considering that
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It’s not noticed.
PAUL PAWLOWSKI : Okay so it’s attached to the house and it’s not even something and then
the third one is the proposed pool which I think is very important for not only my client but
surrounding neighbors. This is where the clarification comes in. The reason for this location
which is roughly 136 feet from Jackson St. and 91 feet from New Suffolk Ave. and 150 feet away
from the nearest neighbor we put that in that location 1) mainly for safety, the client would not
like it close to New Suffolk Rd. considering the speed in which cars go, 2) not knowing what
front and side setbacks are or not the setbacks but what’s deemed front yard, what’s deemed a
rear yard I once I’m done talking I’ll ask for your professional clarification on that but really this
was put in this position for safety distances from neighbors and a lot of thought into that. It’s in
the best position for if there’s ever any noise from kids playing, pool equipment wouldn’t be
anywhere near a local neighbor. The drainage that was already approved on storm water
??
August 6, 2015 Regular Meeting
control is already near the proposed pergola. So, that’s the reason for the pool in that position.
Architecturally there’s no denying it’s the best spot because they want to enjoy the property
that faces Jackson St. more so than the property that faces New Suffolk Ave. They’ve done a
considerable investment not only for themselves for perimeter plantings so that even the
neighbors whether they like the house or not like the house like the pool not like the pool like
the proposed garage not like it there’s mature you know there’s they’re never going to see it
and over time the hedges will become 6 feet 8 feet 10 feet the trees along New Suffolk will
grow so they did that investment for themselves obviously and also for their neighbors to enjoy
what those roads look like and have looked like in the past so that is their application. I would
love to hear your comments and some clarity on what is the front yard what is the rear yard
and we’ll take it from there.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well according to code you don’t have a rear yard. You have two
front yards and two side yards.
PAUL PAWLOWSKI : Okay.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We might say is you know we’ve all inspected the property it’s huge
I mean what’s proposed here is 4% lot coverage and it seems to me that the plantings there’s
also a berm along New Suffolk Ave. which elevates the height of the plantings a little bit not a
great deal but it appears to me that they’re reasonably placed with regard to the principal
dwelling you know and you’re burden by these two front yards. I guess the Building
Department could have determined one some yard was a rear yard but I don’t see where. I
mean I guess they just finked out and said there is none.
PAUL PAWLOWSKI : Exactly.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I don’t actually have any questions let’s see if the rest of the Board
does. George?
MEMBER HORNING : The applicant intends on keeping Jackson St. as their only access?
PAUL PAWLOWSKI : Absolutely, one hundred percent.
MEMBER HORNING : No road in from New Suffolk?
PAUL PAWLOWSKI : No not at all. We took that away and put the trees up.
MEMBER HORNING : Where was the old garage?
??
August 6, 2015 Regular Meeting
PAUL PAWLOWSKI : It was just in front let’s call it closer to Jackson St. and closer to the
neighbor to heading towards the bay so literally 25 feet towards Jackson St. and 8 foot off the
property line versus 25 foot.
MEMBER HORNING : With access from Jackson St?
PAUL PAWLOWSKI : Actually it had access from both streets.
MEMBER HORNING : It did?
PAUL PAWLOWSKI : Yes.
MEMBER HORNING : Was there a house there?
PAUL PAWLOWSKI : Yes originally there was a house roughly where the proposed pergola was
but the garage that was there was still non-conforming even with the pre-existing house.
MEMBER HORNING : Okay and any alternative design that would include the garage as
attached to the house?
PAUL PAWLOWSKI : We took that into consideration and with the style of the home we figured
that that would not work well for you know roof lines or any of that sort of architect aspect.
MEMBER HORNING : Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Ken anything? Eric?
MEMBER DANTES : I don’t have any questions at this time.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there anyone in the audience who wished to address this
application? Please come forward and state your name for the record and just pull the mic right
down so we can hear you. It’s being recorded so you have to speak into the microphone just
pull that down thank you.
DANIELLE HAUSS : My name is Danielle Hauss. Dear chairman and members I wrote a letter
because I would be unable to speak. I reside immediately east of the Warlan premises adjacent
to the location of the proposed detached garage. I reside here since 1987 and during that time I
have enjoyed the vista and plantings extending west of my residence including the bay windows
on my first floor and the bedroom windows on my second floor. I write to you in opposition to
this application. In a nutshell the applicants are locating a garage out of their view but directly
in my view. I want to point on there is three acre and this is 25 feet huge construction which is
as large as my room. First, I wish to point out there are alternatives that are reasonable and
feasible. The applicants demolished the garage that had stood on this property for many years.
??
August 6, 2015 Regular Meeting
A new garage could be located next to the existing garage on the property behind or south of
my residence. This is a three acre parcel locating a new garage atop my side yard will serve the
visual convenience of the applicants but diminish the view I have enjoyed and the public has
enjoyed of the New Suffolk Ave side of this property. Second, the proposed garage location is
not a desirable change in this immediate neighborhood. Traveling from the bridge by
Kimogenor Point to the easterly end of New Suffolk Ave the entire length of the hamlet there is
not one front yard garage. New Suffolk Ave and the applicant’s property in particular is
historically a place of architecture and building placement consistent with the character of the
hamlet. This proposed garage in a front yard on New Suffolk Ave is altogether out of character.
Third, the applicant’s hardship is undeniably self-created. As mentioned earlier applicants
knocked down a garage just days ago. The only explanation for the proposed location is to
enable the applicants not to have to look at the structure. If this variance is granted I would
have to look at the singularly unattractive rear of back side of the garage. Fourth, the height of
the proposed garage would suggest the relief sought is substantial. If you inspect the property
you will notice the substantial fill that has altered and raised the natural grade adjacent the
house under construction. I have photographs. The drawings of the proposed garage in your
files are not at all clear or informative on the height of the proposed garage. It look like 24 ½
but it’s raised. My house is the same size. I will have to look at the side of the garage. It says 24
plus but if you look at the plan you will see that it’s not said before and he (inaudible). A
questionnaire completed by applicants’ builder in your files states there is no second floor. If so
why is the garage at 23 feet? If the garage like the house is built atop fill already stockpiled at
the site the height will likely exceed 24 feet above natural grade. For the above reasons I
respectfully request that this application for a garage in a front yard be denied. I would like now
to provide five copies of my letter to you so you can understand what I said and a copy to the
applicant’s representative. I have put picture on each which I chose myself so it’s not
automatically
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We’re recording it so everybody has to talk into the microphone.
DANIELLE HAUSS : If you really look the I put there was a former garage but I didn’t mind it. It
was yes it was blocking but I didn’t have it in front of my bay window. I will have no air. I will
see from my up to my roof I will have that structure and nobody has that in New Suffolk
anywhere.
MEMBER DANTES : How many feet is your house setback off the property line?
DANIELLE HAUSS : I have that building will be 25 feet from the hedge okay.
MEMBER DANTES : No how many feet is your house from the hedge?
??
August 6, 2015 Regular Meeting
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So it’s very close in other words your house is very close to the
shared side yard.
DANIELLE HAUSS : The former the photograph I have of the former remember that (inaudible)
house was there on New Suffolk Ave yes okay so that the photograph shows the former house
and there were huge trees now all the trees have been cut and there is new small tree not in
front of my bay window but otherwise yes. I can see a tree that high that they can put
anywhere and I will have no air. Already my view okay I never said anything because I don’t like
to put the house over there but half of my view is gone okay so with this I see a house way tall
okay but with this I will see the back of the garage and all actually a house (inaudible) will see
metal roof they don’t realize I was told at the very end cause I didn’t realize in feet what it
meant you know so I didn’t compare anything really but I know one thing I understood when I
was sure that this will destroy my house and I can’t imagine looking at the back of a garage you
know.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Paul do you want to make some comments?
PAUL PAWLOWSKI : Yea only to help clarify a few things and give some more peace of mind
potentially mainly to the neighbor so and I’ll keep this quick cause I know a couple things. The
old garage that was removed because it was non-conforming because it was much closer to her
house and it was more in her back yard than her side yard or front yard. That’s just
understanding as a neighbor where would you want a garage that’s just an argument I have is
the new position is in a much different area than where you would be living in an everyday
situation having a barbeque, having your kids play in the back yard. Not one tree along her side
has been removed actually only trees will be added. The trees on that side are taller than the
garage will ever be. They’re already taller and they’ll grow taller. Recently we did clean up at
her request the hedges that were overgrown. The previous owner for fifteen years did nothing
to maintain some of the landscaping and the only trees that were removed were the ones that
were either dyeing or had suffocated from ivy unless just simple foundation plants around the
house but the client has added four times the amount of plant material to his property. As far
as an ugly structure the old garage lack of a better word was disgusting. This new one will be
cedar shake. Cedar shake roof not a metal roof on the garage as well and is in keeping with
every house desired on the Northfork. Again the positioning was done cause we thought
naturally that is the back yard not the rear yard considering where the entrance to the driveway
is and we’ve moved it as far away from this particular neighbor as we can without being too
close to the house and there will be no windows or doors on her side so no activity on that side
you know it’ll the garage doors are on the west elevation. We purposely kept that east
elevation so she would not be looking in a garage seeing storage items. So every aspect that
could be taken into consideration for the neighbor we feel have in this area and the most
??
August 6, 2015 Regular Meeting
important thing is the landscape improvements that will be done immediately not in a year. It’ll
be done even before the garage goes up.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : What do you intend to plant along that shared line?
PAUL PAWLOWSKI : Well right now currently right now the properties share twelve foot privet
hedge and the privet hedge was recently pruned just to get there were in severe trouble but
he’s going to add another layer of privet hedge on his side to improve the lower vegetation to
his privet hedge and there’s two or three maple trees, oak trees right there that are taller than
the structure. This is only 22 feet which is what is that 15 feet less than the conforming
structure could be and cedar shake really nice it’ll grade out not even white trim just like a
Nantucket cedar shake house. So I definitely understand no neighbor wants a garage next to
them but in this case we’re doing everything aesthetically pleasing naturally landscaping
pleasing and as within the rear yard setback code.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Just one thing to clarify while the height for an accessory structure is
not the same it’s 22 feet the maximum height.
PAUL PAWLOWSKI : And if we need to reduce that a little bit to make someone happy but the
trees are much taller than this garage. You’re never going to see this garage from in three years
not even from New Suffolk you’ll never see this garage.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : What’s happening in three years are you planting Leyland cypress?
Are you putting
PAUL PAWLOWSKI : Right now we planted one hundred and something green giants along all of
New Suffolk. Right now they’re about six and a half feet. They grow at an average of you know I
would say maybe five years I’m being a little aggressive but they’ll be very tall with strip
irrigation they’ll be maintained so the perimeter
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : What about along the side yard where
PAUL PAWLOWSKI : This garage is?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yea.
PAUL PAWLOWSKI : The east side? There’s already pre-existing privet hedge. We’re adding a
double row of privet hedge and there’s also three or four trees that are north of eighteen feet
existing that are not coming down. There’s no more trees coming down.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : What if instead of privet something like Leyland cypress was planted
so that they get to be
??
August 6, 2015 Regular Meeting
PAUL PAWLOWSKI : We can continue the green giants which are deer resistant on this side. We
can do another we would have no problem putting in there that would do an evergreen so even
over the winter it’s clean and not seen. But as far as
MEMBER HORNING : What is green giants? Sorry to interrupt you.
PAUL PAWLOWSKI : It’s the same as it’s similar to a Leyland cypress just a different needle. It’s
an evergreen a pyramid growing evergreen that can grow tight to another tree, deer resistant
to a degree depends on how hungry they are but I just want to point on aesthetics. It is a cedar
shake building on all sides the roof and everything. I mean I think that’s every Northfork
person’s idea of a garage or a barn or a house or a dwelling so I don’t the one that was there
was texture 111 plywood with an asphalt shingle roof. Nothing against that but the upgrade
here we could of fought for that non-conforming garage cause it was pre-existing but we
decided not to because just to move forward and improve the whole site.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : What would you like to say?
DANIELLE HAUSS : I would like to say the former garage I couldn’t even see it because it was
low like a garage okay so in one of the picture that I show you you see the antique room going
down the garage is there. This is the garage. Now I will see nothing I could see from my room.
The view you have a view I took myself this picture I thought I never need it’s all I have because
plus when they put it down because it was the east side. The former owner collected trees and
he had a beautiful collection of trees that you would take out of state. We’re not speaking of
the new planting which and I’m not going to criticize that because it’s not in my but I have
nothing in front of my view for (inaudible) sit I have no tree and I cannot imagine that you can
put a tree the tree you planted in the front are tiny. I can see through when I walk how long do
you think I wait (away from mic)
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You have to address the Board.
DANIELLE HAUSS : Okay how long do you think I can wait to see a tree which is on the 22 feet
house.
MEMBER HORNING : Ma’am to clarify that you’re talking about your side yard view?
DANIELLE HAUSS : This is
MEMBER HORNING : It’s a side yard view not front yard not rear yard.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes.
DANIELLE HAUSS : New Suffolk Ave.
??
August 6, 2015 Regular Meeting
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Paul can you lower the height of this garage?
PAUL PAWLOWSKI : Absolutely yes.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay and what is the minimum what is the bare minimum that you
can lower this down to?
PAUL PAWLOWSKI : We can go all the way down to keep the proper pitch and everything we
can go down to fifteen, sixteen feet.
DANIELLE HAUSS : Fifteen.
PAUL PAWLOWSKI : Fifteen you accept?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Wait a minute this is not a negotiation. We’re not at the U.N.
DANIELLE HAUSS : You know I don’t have air conditioning because I used to have a breeze and
the wind you know the sun the sunset. I had everything okay I thought my room and (inaudible)
I didn’t know
MICHAEL WARLAN : My name is Michael Warlan I am the homeowner. I’m sorry you had a
question?
MEMBER HORNING : Yea well I’m wondering based on your neighbors objection could you have
the house set back the garage pardon me setback from New Suffolk about 75 feet rather than
50?
MICHAEL WARLAN : That’ll bring it right to the side of the other house and so if you see the
MEMBER HORNING : Another house on another property?
MICHAEL WARLAN : It’ll bring it the property line actually the old garage was non-conforming
MEMBER HORNING : Can you identify on her picture for us cause I’m confused.
DANIELLE HAUSS : This is an old house the new house is
MICHAEL WARLAN : The trees I don’t know what trees we’re talking we took down.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Turn the microphone around so we can hear.
MEMBER HORNING : That’s her house there I guess. There’s New Suffolk we don’t see Jackson
on the
??
August 6, 2015 Regular Meeting
MICHAEL WARLAN : So this is her house okay and this is where we’re putting the garage. So in
essence it’s 25 feet from this property line but this looks more like
MEMBER HORNING : So what’s all this here?
MICHAEL WARLAN : This is the old structure.
MEMBER HORNING : That’s all torn down now.
MICHAEL WARLAN : Correct and the new structure is right here. This is where the new house is
right here. Okay this garage had to be removed.
MEMBER HORNING : So that actually was not the new garage is like right here proposed.
MICHAEL WARLAN : Right here 25 feet off her property line so
MEMBER DANTES : (inaudible) was the old garage?
MICHAEL WARLAN : This was about I’d say about 15 to 20 feet cause I don’t even I mean I still
even today cannot see her house from inside my house.
MEMBER HORNING : My question is could you set it back so that it is like more parallel to the
construction.
MICHAEL WARLAN : No I mean we have
MEMBER HORNING : Why not? Why couldn’t it be right in here?
PAUL PAWLOWSKI : Just technically we have all our approved drywells in from the erosion
control plan. The house is pretty much done. The driveway is pretty much done.
MEMBER HORNING : I’m talking about the garage.
PAUL PAWLOWSKI : No but where you’re trying to pull it forward is all our storm water control.
MEMBER HORNING : I’m trying to pull it back from New Suffolk.
MICHAEL WARLAN : This is the entrance here Jackson
PAUL PAWLOWSKI : The entrance is off
MICHAEL WARLAN : This is where the driveway entrance is. If you pull it here we have all of our
drywell, driveway and all that stuff put in. This is where the old garage was on the property line.
MEMBER HORNING : Understood.
??
August 6, 2015 Regular Meeting
MICHAEL WARLAN : So you’re saying that you want me to put it here now right in the middle.
MEMBER HORNING : I’m asking.
PAUL PAWLOWSKI : No and again I addressed that question to come 25 feet closer to Jackson
St. is where all the parking area is the drywells are for his house the entrance to his house so
MEMBER HORNING : Well that goes to my question why it couldn’t have been attached to the
house?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : He already answered that.
MICHAEL WARLAN : We had previously had it a detached garage that we wanted to keep and
then we were told after we were originally told that we’re allowed to keep it that we weren’t.
PAUL PAWLOWSKI : Yes this was unfortunately when we went
MEMBER HORNING : Why wouldn’t you allowed to keep it?
PAUL PAWLOWSKI : It was not made aware to us until we went to pick up the permit that it was
non-conforming.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay look you’ve already said that you would reduce the height.
PAUL PAWLOWSKI : Yep.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Just a minute you said that you would already reduce the height to
about 15 or 16 feet
PAUL PAWLOWSKI : Yes.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : and that you could put additional evergreen screening along that
property line to make sure that that height is not even visible.
PAUL PAWLOWSKI : Yep.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Now say what you would like to say.
DANIELLE HAUSS : I would like to say that if they have all that land
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You must stay there and speak into the mic.
DANIELLE HAUSS : I’m sorry I’m not used to I’m so sorry. You see if you see the land on the
picture
??
August 6, 2015 Regular Meeting
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We have the survey.
DANIELLE HAUSS : Here nobody would see it if they have all that land in the front I mean they
can put it (inaudible) the former garage but the owner used it to put chickens in it it was you
know like they had the garage attached to their historical house you know it was attached
that’s why I couldn’t see it so we’re speaking of that garage yes but you could I didn’t have it in
front of my house. In that plan you see that its 25 feet from my house from my I mean I live
there I spend my long winter looking
PAUL PAWLOWSKI : As far as technically speaking this garage is much further away than the
previous garage. As far as another location the driveway is there everything’s there you know
we can’t move it to the west side of the property. Then we would have to create another
driveway.
DANIELLE HAUSS : But the former garage was tiny.
PAUL PAWLOWSKI : This is tiny. The square footage wise is smaller.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright are you maintaining that this exact location is the only
feasible one at this point
PAUL PAWLOWSKI : Yes
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : because drywells exists closer to Jackson St.
PAUL PAWLOWSKI : Correct.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : and you can’t build over there.
PAUL PAWLOWSKI : Absolutely drywells all storm water underground piping to those drywells,
the irrigation is in a tremendous amount but we are more than happy to put in more screening
in the ruling. We’re more than happy to reduce the size and aesthetically this will be as nice as
any house of garage every piece of architecture in New Suffolk.
MEMBER HORNING : Could you relocate the garage to the same side of the property as the
proposed pool is?
PAUL PAWLOWSKI : No because the drive you know anyone wants a garage closer to the
entrance of the house. A driveway is there that would be not efficient at an everyday living
situation. We’d have to create another driveway, another entrance.
MEMBER HORNING : I was there I saw a driveway but it’s all under construction you might say
isn’t it?
??
August 6, 2015 Regular Meeting
PAUL PAWLOWSKI : Yea we just need to finish the asphalt. Everything else is in all the approved
runoff for the new driveway is in. All the drywells are in we just need to the base stone is in we
just need to finish but all the hard work is already done.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright you’re proposing a 25 foot side yard which is a fairly
generous side but can you move that over can you increase that side yard at all, in its current
location move it over farther?
PAUL PAWLOWSKI : Yes we can go to 30. We can go to 30 and come up 5 feet from New
Suffolk.
MEMBER HORNING : Fifty five feet?
PAUL PAWLOWSKI : Yes.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay and 35 what are we doing here?
PAUL PAWLOWSKI : Thirty and fifty five.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thirty and fifty five. Okay.
PAUL PAWLOWSKI : Thanks for your time.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there anyone else in the audience who wants to address this
application?
MEMBER HORNING : Are we going to get a new survey or
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We do it as an amended application
MEMBER HORNING : Amended application.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : and then they’ll have to submit if it’s an amended you’ll have to or
alternative relief
PAUL PAWLOWSKI : Absolutely.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : and then you’ll submit the revised 15 feet we’ll do 15 feet is that
PAUL PAWLOWSKI : Absolutely.
MEMBER HORNING : And are you providing screening of these giant new
PAUL PAWLOWSKI : Yes we’ll put them on the new survey as well and what we will be putting
in to start 8 to 10 foot green giants about 25 of them right along that property line.
??
August 6, 2015 Regular Meeting
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Eight to ten feet.
PAUL PAWLOWSKI : Yes.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright.
PAUL PAWLOWSKI : That’ll be done even before the garage even goes up, if it goes up. Thank
you.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay alright that all sounds like a very reasonable compromise.
Maybe what we should do Paul since you’re going to have to redo the survey anyway based on
what we just discussed why don’t we simply give you what do you need two weeks a week?
PAUL PAWLOWSKI : You’ll have it this by Monday.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright so why don’t we going to have any questions on it or do you
just want to close it subject to receipt of an amended survey?
MEMBER HORNING : I’d like to see the survey. Close it based on getting the amended survey
then we don’t have to provide alternative relief we
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Correct, correct it’s just an amended application that’s all. And you
can do that with the plan as well.
PAUL PAWLOWSKI : Absolutely I just don’t need to do any more notices right?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No, no, no.
PAUL PAWLOSWSKI : Great thank you.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No we’re just going get this new proposal.
PAUL PAWLOWSKI : You’ll have it you’ll have the new height, the new layout, plants everything
dictated on there. Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You’re welcome. So we’re going to close this hearing subject to
receipt okay of an amended survey and architectural drawings for the proposed garage showing
a 15 foot height, showing a 30 foot side yard setback from the adjacent property, showing a 55
foot setback from New Suffolk and showing evergreen screening of approximately 8 to 10 foot
high correct? Are we on the same page?
PAUL PAWLOWSKI : One hundred percent.
DANIELLE HAUSS : Is the 15 feet high from the existing grading of the property at the moment?
??
August 6, 2015 Regular Meeting
PAUL PAWLOWSKI : Yes it will be 15 feet from the approved grade which is existing.
DANIELLE HAUSS : It looks like slanted.
PAUL PAWLOWSKI : Yes well the driveway the floor will be level but
DANIELLE HAUSS : If you level it, it will be (inaudible)
PAUL PAWLOWSKI : It’s not going to be in the ground where it collects water. It will be 15 feet
from the approved grade of the driveway.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And things grow by the way give them a year or two they grow fairly
quickly it’s only reasonable. Alright hearing no further questions or comments I’m going to
make a motion to close the hearing subject to receipt of an amended survey describing the
information we just discussed.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Second.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor?
MEMBER HORNING : Aye.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Aye.
MEMBER DANTES : Aye.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye.
(See Minutes for Resolution)
HEARING # 6873 – BRIAN HARRIS
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Brian Harris # 6873
request for variances from Article III Code Section 280-15 and the Building Inspector’s April 3,
2015 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for building permit for accessory garage at
1) location other than the code required rear yard located at 854 Bridle Lane in Cutchogue.
Please state your name.
BRIAN HARRIS : Good afternoon Brian Harris.
??
August 6, 2015 Regular Meeting
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So this is a very large property accessed by a long sort of right of way
or driveway. You have this is technically in a proposed accessory garage in a front yard where
the code requires rear yard and your property is 83,837 square feet in an agricultural zoned
district.
BRIAN HARRIS : That is correct.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Sir how to you intend to use this garage?
BRIAN HARRIS : I’m actually an amateur classic car guy. I have four cars. Two are at my
residence my main residence in Massapequa, two are out here in the garage and it’s simply for
storage.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Now will it be heated?
BRIAN HARRIS : No it will not be heated.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Any plumbing, half bath?
BRINA HARRIS : No plumbing.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Electric I presume.
BRIAN HARRIS : Yes there will be electric yep for lights.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay Eric questions?
MEMBER DANTES : I was there last night and where is the property line. I saw there was a
series of fences?
BRIAN HARRIS : Yea there’s a deer fence that’s behind me that’s actually an existing I think
that’s 24 acres behind me that’s agricultural use only. I think 15 of it is actually vineyard and
then there’s actually a horse corral. Somebody just purchased the property and he’s building
he’s keeping the vineyards. They tried to extend the vineyard out but I think they had a
problem with runoff so it’s just kind of field maybe four acres of field or something and then
he’s got a horse corral he’s got permits for I think ten stalled barn right off of Alvah’s Lane
which is on the other side.
MEMBER DANTES : But then that deer fence is approximately on your property line?
BRIAN HARRIS : Yes it is yes. And then I also own the when I bought the home I believe five
years ago approximately there’s a two acre plot in front of me that has a building permit it’s I
??
August 6, 2015 Regular Meeting
have the right to build a house there you know that’s not my intention. I bought the entire
property so I had a view out into the field in front of me.
MEMBER DANTES : And is two acre plot is that all the mowed lawn?
BRIAN HARRIS : Yes.
MEMBER DANTES : And it looks like if you moved the garage behind your house then you’re on
top of swimming pool.
BRIAN HARRIS : Then I’m against the yea we didn’t think it was going to be to be honest with
you when we went for the permit we got to the last stage and then somebody raised their red
flag and said the pool is actually you know your back yard even though it’s on the side of my
home so I think I’m dealing with the same thing you know some other people it’s on the side of
my home. You know I have no essentially I have no neighbors. The pool is on the side of the
home so therefore the garage would be put you know the pool is the back of the home so
therefore the garage would be put in the front of the home. But realistically as you were there
last night pool’s on the side you know and the garage will be on the other side of the house.
MEMBER DANTES : And then how close do you think would you say the nearest house is to your
house?
BRAIN HARRIS : Probably if you remember as you came in the driveway that one that sits on the
caddy corner which is you know I would say 250 yards you can see it is that about right 250
yards it’s probably 250 yards there’s probably three to four acres of distance in that house and
then we’re surrounded in front at least twenty some acres and behind me is approximately 24
acres.
MEMBER DANTES : And the garage borders the Southold Town recharge basin so it has no
neighbor?
BRAIN HARRIS : No neighbor.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright Ken?
MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Yea I’m looking at you’re the plan view there’s a deck there
BRIAN HARRIS : Yep.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER : How do you get up to the deck?
BRAIN HARRIS : There’s storage on the second floor of the garage just to store stuff so there’ll
be stairs to go up.
??
August 6, 2015 Regular Meeting
MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Where are the stairs on the plan? I don’t see that. I see a roof framing
plan and I see a front elevation but I don’t see
BRIAN HARRIS : I personally know where it’s going to be. It’s going to be on the other side of the
it will be on this side there’ll be a door a side door that goes into the garage and the stairs go
up. I essentially asked them to put the deck in because it’s the most beautiful view. It’ll
overlook the vineyard behind me and actually if he ever develops the horse barn and the corral.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Is that drawing on a different sheet?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We don’t have any plans we just have the survey with this is what
we got. Maybe there’s something missing.
BRAIN HARRIS : I have them right here I’m sorry I apologize.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Okay we just need more detail. Yea could we get one of these sheets?
BRIAN HARRIS : Yea you can have that if you want.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay we’ll submit that to the office for Ken you wanna hold onto
that?
BRIAN HARRIS : You can hold on to the whole thing or do you want just that sheet?
MEMBER SCHNEIDER : No we’ll take the whole thing thank you.
MEMBER HORNING : Sir did you entertain the idea of attaching the garage?
BRIAN HARRIS : Actually I already have an attached garage a two car garage in there so I think it
would be kind of I wouldn’t say an eyesore but not exactly what I planned what the house to
look like. The house is like a free standing farm house.
MEMBER HORNING : You wouldn’t need a variance.
BRIAN HARRIS : No I know. I didn’t expect to need a variance to begin with just the fact that it
was on the other side of the pool being the front you know the back of the house to the garage
being the front of the house.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Yea it looks your property is more like a flagged lot situation with a long
sort of right of way that’s all used by you.
BRIAN HARRIS : Yes nobody else has access to that.
??
August 6, 2015 Regular Meeting
MEMBER SCHNEIDER : So someone driving down Bridle Lane you’re pretty much at the dead
end or the end of Bridle Lane would that be correct?
BRIAN HARRIS : That’s correct.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Someone driving along Bridle Lane would they be able to see what you
propose?
BRIAN HARRIS : No. When you go down Bridle when you go down Bridle when you go from
Island down to Bridle you make a left there’s a couple of houses and then my property starts
with an apron and fence and then you probably go up about 200 yards to the house.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER : So then no one really that’s driving on Bridle would see what you have
done or can’t really even see your house correct?
BRIAN HARRIS : Cannot see my house no. Cannot see my house from almost anybody’s home
besides the one that’s as you go through the driveway there’s one that you can see in front.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Okay, I have no further questions.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay we’ll get the rest of these plans. Any other questions, George?
MEMBER HORNING : No.
BRIAN HARRIS : Quick question I apologize I have green cards
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Oh yes please bring. Is there anyone in the audience who wishes to
address this application? Hearing no further questions or comments I make a motion to close
this hearing reserve decision to later date.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Second.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor?
MEMBER HORNING : Aye.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Aye.
MEMBER DANTES : Aye.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye.
(See Minutes for Resolution)
??
August 6, 2015 Regular Meeting
HEARING # 6874 – PETER and SUSAN HONIG
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application for Peter and Susan Honig #6874. This is a
request for variance from Article XXII Section 280-116B and the Building Inspector’s June 9,
2015 amended June 19, 2015 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for building permit
for additions and alterations to existing single family dwelling at 1) less than the code required
bulkhead setback of 75 feet located at 745 Waters Edge Way (adj. to Hog Neck Bay) in
Southold. Nancy do you have the original affidavit of posting?
NANCY STEELMAN : I don’t with me but I can get it to you I think we faxed it to you but we can
get you the original.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yea she needs to have the original so get it as soon as you can.
NANCY STEELMAN : No problem.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So this is additions and alterations to a single family dwelling with a
bulkhead setback of 71.7 feet where the code requires a minimum of 75.
NANCY STEELMAN : My name is Nancy Steelman from Samuels and Steelman Architects. As you
can see this is a fairly small variance that we’re requesting. We are at 71 feet 7 inches. It’s
encroaching 3 feet 5 inches into that area. This is for a laundry room and mud room. It is behind
an existing the existing structure and we meet all the other setbacks and I think this is quite
minor. Any questions?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well the existing house is 42.11 feet from the bulkhead this is
certainly landward and on the side. It’s kind of filling in between a bay window as I recall. Eric
do you have questions?
MEMBER DANTES : I mean it’s landward of the existing house so no it’s pretty straightforward.
LWRP says it’s consistent.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes that’s right. Do you have a copy or do you want one the LWRP?
NANCY STEELMAN : That’s fine.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It’s consistent. The side yard is already planted with mature
evergreens anyway it’s anything else from the Board Ken or George?
MEMBER HORNING : I don’t have any questions.
??
August 6, 2015 Regular Meeting
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anyone in the audience wishing to address this application?
NANCY STEELMAN : I’d like to just make one point though and I think maybe this is something
that could be taken up with code committee is that you know when you’re adding on to an
existing building where the structure is that close to the water actually constructing something
behind that existing front face that maybe the code committee start to look at this
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Actually Nancy you know I already I told Mike Verity years ago that if
something was being proposed landward an existing waterfront property and it was not
creating any additional non-conformance in other words okay you just extend you’re filling in so
it’s not like you’re even extending the side yard because the side yard is there already based on
the house that the Building Department should have the jurisdiction to simply grant a permit
and that they should not have to come before this Board.
NANCY STEELMAN : I agree.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So perhaps this is an example we can take back to them again and
remind them. I have put it in writing but that was in 2010 I think. I’ll try it again.
NANCY STEELMAN : Well they might need a renewal on that.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay. Anything from the Board? Anything in the audience? Okay I
make a motion to close this hearing reserve decision. Is there a second?
MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Second.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor?
MEMBER HORNING : Aye.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Aye.
MEMBER DANTES : Aye.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye.
(See Minutes for Resolution)
??
August 6, 2015 Regular Meeting
HEARING # 6871 – EMMA VAN ROOYEN
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Emma Van Rooyen, this
is 6781 request for variance from Article XXIII Section 280-124 and the Building Inspector’s June
1, 2015 amended June 15, 2015 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for building
permit to construct additions and alterations to existing single family dwelling at 1) less than
the minimum code required side yard setback of 15 feet and 2) less than the code required
total side yard setback of 35 feet located at 575 Hill Road (adj. to Jockey Creek) in Southold. Do
you have any green cards from the mailing? Would you please bring them up here please. Okay
these are additions and alterations to a single family dwelling one with a single side yard
setback at 10.5 feet where the code requires 15 minimum and a combined side yard setback at
31.5 feet where the code requires 35 foot minimum. This is for a new pool 505 square feet, a
new wood deck with steps 639 square feet and a stone patio of 1,268 square feet lining up the
new deck with the existing side yard which is non-conforming. Is that all correct?
JOHN BERG : That’s correct.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Would you please state your name for the record and then tell us
what you’d like us to know.
JOHN BERG : Yes my name is John Berg from Berg Design Architects.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay and what would you like us to know about this?
JOHN BERG : Quite simply that when we applied to the Building Department I was unaware that
the setbacks were there was a minimum side yard setback of 15 and a combined total of 35 and
somebody in the Building Department told me that the that the lot had been recently up-zoned
and maybe that’s why I didn’t know so the existing house is currently a pre-existing non-
conforming condition it’s over the side yard setback and our proposal aligns the edge of the
pool deck and the pergola with the side of the house and we propose to plant a hedge behind
the pergola and I think we’re asking for about 20 I erroneously thought it was 18 inches of relief
in the side yard. I think it’s more like two feet and we’re just for architectural reasons it makes
more sense to have this alignment and will prove will create enough sort of a generous outdoor
living area for the owner. I believe that’s it.
MEMBER DANTES : You’re just following the existing side yard setback?
JOHN BERG : We’re following the alignment of the side of the existing house.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Which is 10.7 feet.
??
August 6, 2015 Regular Meeting
JOHN BERG : Correct right. We’re slightly so the pergola is a little it’s slightly skewed from the
property lines. We’re asking for a couple of feet of relief.
MEMBER DANTES : What’s the existing setback and combined setbacks to the house. It’s 10
feet 8 inches and 19 feet 5 inches? Are you asking for relief additionally to what’s already
existing? That’s my question.
JOHN BERG : We’re asking for relief to match what’s existing.
MEMBER DANTES : To match what’s existing okay.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So you are maintaining the existing non-conformance.
JOHN BERG : Correct that’s right. We’re basically working within the width of the existing
structure.
MEMBER DANTES : That was my only question.
MEMBER HORNING : The existing is like 10.7 and the proposed is 10.5 it’s just not exactly
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I’m not sure that’s what the Notice of Disapproval says but the
application
MEMBER DANTES : I don’t see the survey saying
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Survey says 10.7
MEMBER HORNING : Survey says the same thing and 10.5
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Oh at the smallest yes, yes, yes way down here.
JOHN BERG : I think the distance from the property line to the southernmost corner of the
proposed deck is slightly larger than the 10.7 from the survey.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well on one end of the house it’s 10.8 then on the other end of the
corner of the house it’s 10.7 and the pool is at 10.5. You’re talking two inches.
JOHN BERG : Yes. The only other comment the piece of property to the west of 575 Hill Ave is
unoccupied there’s no building.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yea I see the adjacent on the westerly side yard is an undeveloped
lot. There’s a non-turf buffer along the edge of the bank. This is from site inspection when we
were out there. Property has a slight slope toward Jockey Creek you’re not going to require any
retaining walls or anything?
??
August 6, 2015 Regular Meeting
JOHN BERG : No we’re not.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You can grade it.
JOHN BERG : Our intervention is above elevation temp.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER : To retain runoff from this new construction and also the proposed
outdoor shower is that going to drain into a drywell of some sorts? Where does that wasted
water go?
JOHN BERG : Well I would submit that an outdoor shower at I think it’s about elevation 13 and
given the slope to Jockey Creek is the answer is we can if you would require us to pipe into a
drywell we can certainly do that. I’m not sure if it’s necessary for the amount of water created
by an outdoor shower at that elevation.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER : I think the 236 don’t we have to collect the water?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yea we do.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Also the patio is that going to be an impervious patio or
JOHN BERG : Half of it is permeable in that it’s wood deck half maybe a little less than half and
the other half is bluestone.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Are those cemented or are they (inaudible)?
JOHN BERG : No they’re on a compacted gravel base.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So that’s pervious.
JOHN BERG : It’s more pervious than being laid on a concrete slab. Yes.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Should we run this by Jaimie Richter for comment?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I think so. I don’t think the setbacks are a problem but we have to be
you know I think we have to be very careful about just making sure that there are whatever is
required to be in place to make sure that we don’t have additional runoff which I’m sure the
applicant doesn’t want anyway into Jockey Creek that you know kind of how you can then make
sure when you add impervious surfaces the deck would not be considered that cause it’s wood
but with regard to the shower and the patio we just want to make sure that whatever is needed
for catching and maintaining the drainage on the site rather than rolling into Jockey Creek is
there and so what we’ll do is ask the town engineer to have a look at this. The Building
??
August 6, 2015 Regular Meeting
Department would probably catch it also but let’s just do it this way and see if there’s anything
that needs to be added.
JOHN BERG : I mean I know that this sort of the next round of approvals will be through the
environmental agencies I’ve figured we’d be dealing with
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You’ll have to go to the Trustees
JOHN BERG : Right.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well you can do it here or there.
JOHN BERG : Great okay.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It’s gonna have to be dealt with. Do you want let Trustees to do it or
you want us to
MEMBER SCHNEIDER Yea sure send them a note or something.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright fine that’s fine so when you’re before the Trustees just talk to
them about what’s necessary in fact what might even save you some time and effort is if you
talk to the Town Engineer. Did you have to fill you probably didn’t have to fill out for this a
Storm Water Management Plan, drainage plan I’m sure you know what there’s a lot of
information on the Town’s website under the Town Engineers department and I bet you if you
go there you’d find all kinds of things that you might be able to think about and propose to the
Trustees if necessary.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER : It looks like he might have if you’re adding more than a thousand
square feet I don’t know you’ll have to talk
JOHN BERG : It’s just over about 1,213 square feet.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Talk to the Town Engineer and then he’ll you know you’ll get going with
that process as well. You might be required to install a few drywells and pick up any runoff
cause everybody is concerned duly noted to runoff going into the creeks and the bays and all
that.
JOHN BERG : Makes sense.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anything from the Board? Anyone in the audience? Hearing no
further questions or comments I make a motion to close the hearing reserve decision to later
date. Is there a second?
??
August 6, 2015 Regular Meeting
MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Second.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor?
MEMBER HORNING : Aye.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Aye.
MEMBER DANTES : Aye.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye.
(See Minutes for Resolution)
HEARING # 6875 – CHRISTOPHER ARIENS
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Christopher Ariens
#6875 this is a request for variances from Article XXIII Section 280-124 and Article XXII Section
280-116B and the Building Inspector’s May 29, 2015 Notice of Disapproval based on an
application for demolition of existing single family dwelling and construction of a new single
family dwelling at 1) less than the minimum code required front yard setback of 35 feet, 2) less
than the code required bulkhead setback of 75 feet located at 455 MacDonald Crossing (corner
MacDonald Road) (adj. to Great Peconic Bay) in Laurel. Hi would you please state your name for
the record and spell it.
CHARLES SOUTHARD : Good afternoon my name is Charles Southard. I’m the registered
architect on the project.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : This is for a demolition of an existing single family dwelling and the
construction of a new one with a front yard setback of 20 feet where the code requires a
minimum of 35 and a bulkhead setback of 33 feet where the code requires 75 feet. There’s a
proposed accessory garage that will the proposal is to remove the accessory garage
CHARLES SOUTHARD : Yes correct.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : and you need to raise this to FEMA compliance. You’re demolishing
a 1,943 square foot house a 430 square foot deck, 372 square foot accessory one story garage
??
August 6, 2015 Regular Meeting
and proposing a 1,552 square foot on the first floor this is a two story dwelling, 943 square feet,
528 square foot attached garage and 14.6% lot coverage. Is that all accurate?
CHARLES SOUTHARD : That’s all accurate.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay. This is a corner lot and you’re proposing a 20 foot front yard
setback off of MacDonald Rd.
CHARLES SOUTHARD : That’s correct.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And 49.16 off of MacDonald crossing. What’s the existing bulkhead
setback of the house the current house?
CHARLES SOUTHARD : The existing the new the proposed structure is about two and a half feet
further landward than the existing house was. That’s measured to the deck not to the structure
itself. There’s about another fifteen feet to the structure.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So you’re proposing to set it back another two feet from the
bulkhead in the new house?
CHARLES SOUTHARD : Than the current house right. The current house was destroyed by
hurricane Sandy. That’s the purpose for the demolition it is not salvageable. As you stated there
are two structures on the property. One’s the house one is a detached garage. The detached
garage is in the front yard approximately 25 feet from MacDonald Crossing, we’re eliminating
that totally. There’s now an attached garage that’s part of the structure so the setback have
greatly been increased on MacDonald crossing. MacDonald Rd. is a non-paved road. It’s an
access to the beach and that’s the second front yard and then we have the other problem with
the bay on the south side.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Looks like you’re proposing a conforming 49.6 foot .16 it looks like
setback from MacDonald Crossing to the corner of the garage?
CHARLES SOUTHARD : That’s correct.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Could you move that whole structure since it’s a brand new
structure closer to MacDonald Crossing? You could have a 35 foot conforming front yard and
get it much farther from the bulkhead.
CHARLES SOUTHARD : We could yes.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay. Let’s see if the Board has any questions. There was one
woman who was here must be a neighbor is that right do you know and couldn’t stay let me
see so we asked her to write down the comments you know just to see whatever what’s on her
??
August 6, 2015 Regular Meeting
mind and I said I’d read them. They’re very brief and you can maybe respond. The name is
Margaret M. Ganen 350 MacDonalds Crossing okay and I guess she spoke with you?
CHARLES SOUTHARD : Yes she did.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So her concern was being 20 feet from the east side of this building
will what is this placement of air condensing unit for air conditioning on the outside the dining
is on the west side her dining it’s on the west side of her home. She’s concerned about noise
pollution. I guess you’re proposing the handler AC handler on where?
CHARLES SOUTHARD : We have a proposed it but we spoke with her and we told her that we
would put it on top of the roof deck on the garage. The garage that is on the north side we
could place it on top there so it would be above her and we’d screen it so there’d be no noise.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So she’s satisfied with that?
CHARLES SOUTHARD : Yes she was.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright let’s see what else the Board has so if you move that to a 35
setback what would the bulkhead front yard of MacDonald’s Crossing takes
CHARLES SOUTHARD : Well we can’t move it all the way 35 foot if I might
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Oh you have septic here yep
CHARLES SOUTHARD : We have well what happened was we were told that the sanitary system
was existing and it was fine. We had it inspected and checked. We found that it was not so
what we’ve done we’ve applied to the Suffolk County Health Department for a new sanitary
system. You don’t have these drawings I have a couple of copies here.
MEMBER HORNING : Is it in the same approximate area as?
CHARLES SOUTHARD : No it’s on the other side it’s further away from the it’s a grading issue.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Oh these are all retaining walls?
CHARLES SOUTHARD : No there’s no retaining walls that’s a grading.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It’s just contours.
CHARLES SOUTHARD : We’ve also had a test hole done so that we could do that sanitary
system. What that’s showing is we’re putting we have to put a raised berm which is typical on
the water.
??
August 6, 2015 Regular Meeting
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And you need Trustees approval also I take it.
CHARLES SOUTHARD : Trustees we’re waiting for Trustees approval. We’ve already filed this.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yeah and they’ll take action as soon as we’re done with our
determination. So how far forward could you move this?
CHARLES SOUTHARD : We could probably move it another between 5 and 10 feet.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Can we have these drawings?
CHARLES SOUTHARD : Yes those drawings are for you I have a copy.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER : This new septic design will change the site plan with the garage,
driveway.
CHARLES SOUTHARD : Right we had to do some relocating to get the sanitary system in there.
We can only move maybe 6 or 7 feet forward towards MacDonald Crossing because of the
berming that’s necessary. We don’t want to put a retaining wall there. No sense having a hard
structure (inaudible) flood zone so
MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Maybe we should think about that a little bit more to you know the
benefits of that. The proposed new dwelling itself foundation do you know what the distance
from the bulkhead of that is.
CHARLES SOUTHARD : It’s a pile foundation.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Oh it’s a pile foundation.
CHARLES SOUTHARD : That’s correct yes.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : How far from grade what flood zone are you in?
CHARLES SOUTHARD : Well we had to we were 11 feet and we raised it one foot based on the
sanitary system. I’m sorry we we’re 10 feet we raised it one foot to 11 foot based on the
sanitary based on ground water and everything we had to raise the house to be above the
sanitary so we had to raise it one foot.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So how far from that’s all
CHARLES SOUTHARD : One foot right it will put us approximately five foot above the existing
grade. We’re about 5 or 5 ½ foot above.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : For FEMA compliance.
??
August 6, 2015 Regular Meeting
CHARLES SOUTHARD : Correct.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Five foot of (inaudible) you’re talking about.
CHARLES SOUTHARD : Five foot from grade to the floor and that’s natural grade not the
elevated for the sanitary.
MEMBER HORNING : So you know if these documents that you’ve submitted the surveys could
you show me on this one are you just otherwise a reference showing the detached garage
what’s right about here?
CHARLES SOUTHARD : That’s correct yes.
MEMBER HORNING : And so you’re proposing now on the newest thing relocating the driveway
a new proposed driveway not that one.
CHARLES SOUTHARD : That’s correct going straight out.
MEMBER HORNING : Right new proposed driveway and the septic being over here someplace.
CHARLES SOUTHARD : That’s correct.
MEMBER HORNING : Why could you not have rebuilt the septic in its original area?
CHARLES SOUTHARD : With the amount of grading that’s necessary to raise it above the flood
above the water level it would of taken as you see the extent of the grading that we have to do
here we would of have trouble getting it on this side and keeping the side yard distance off of
the property (inaudible)
CHARIERSON WEISMAN : Are you proposing to I’m looking here at the section are you
proposing doesn’t look like you’re proposing to enclose the pilings. You’re just going to leave
those open?
CHARLES SOUTHARD : Basically yes they could be closed with lattice or something but basically
they’re open.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So what would the Board like to do? Do you want to ask for an
amended survey showing the what you can do in terms of the minimum setback in other words
I want to maximize the bulkhead setback.
CHARLES SOUTHARD : I understand. We can do that yes.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You know just so that we know where this is going to land and it
makes sense since it’s from scratch anyway to keep it as far from the bulkhead as possible as
??
August 6, 2015 Regular Meeting
long as you’re not encroaching too far into the front yard where you have to put all the you
know sanitary system.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER : A lot of grading going on here.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I’m going to say the same to you as we did to the last one Town
Engineer may need to take a look I don’t know if you need to do a drainage plan per Chapter
236
CHARLES SOUTHARD : Yes we will have to include drainage for the roof.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yea I figured alright as long as that’s going to happen
CHARLES SOUTHARD : Right that will happen.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : then we’re okay because you know we have to make sure that all
storm water runoff is maintained on site with dry wells or grading or whatever.
CHARLES SOUTHARD : Correct, yes.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Gutter and leaders and all that.
CHARLES SOUTHARD : We’ll put it at the maximum from the bulkhead that we can get. I’m
waiting for the approval to come from Suffolk County Health Department then we’ll know if this
exact plan is going to fly whether they want a little modifications to it. Then we’ll be able to
shift the house as much towards MacDonald Crossing as possible.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay so if we close this subject to receipt of that information we
won’t need any more testimony we’ll just simply wait until you get whatever approvals you
need then you can submit your in other words I don’t think are you saying that you don’t want
to submit that amended survey with the setbacks changed until you’re sure what the Health
Department is going to do?
CHARLES SOUTHARD : I can go ahead and do that. I don’t have a problem with that.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay so you can do it prior to
CHARLES SOUTHARD : Yes I can.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright then why don’t we just close this subject to receipt of the
amended survey showing change in the setbacks.
CHARLES SOUTHARD : Okay.
??
August 6, 2015 Regular Meeting
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is that alright everybody?
MEMBER HORNING : Yes.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is that alright Eric? Is there anyone else in the audience who wishes
to address this application?
JAMES M. CAREY : My name is James M. Carey. I live in a home opposite the proposed
construction. We, I and my family have lived there for 55 years. We’re pleased that the current
structure which is in terrible condition is going to be removed. I do however have some
concerns. I have some concerns in that over the years we’ve had some sight lines to Peconic
Bay. The proposed structure seems to me to be quite a bit larger than the existing structure
was. I’m concerned about losing our sight lines. I’m also concerned again relative to the size of
the structure that we’ll lose some of the air circulation we currently enjoy. We’re a little bit
further back from the bay than the proposed structure would be. These are concerns that I’d
like to register with you. Again we’re delighted to welcome our new neighbors. We hope that
these things can all be worked out. Thank you.
MEMBER HORNING : Are you on the other side of MacDonald Rd?
JAMES M. CAREY : Yes I’m at 375 MacDonald Rd.
MEMBER HORNING : So you’re west of the applicant’s property?
JAMES M. CAREY : That would be yes.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay well no I just wanted to mention although we’re very obviously
we all understand what it feels like to feel like you’re losing out on a lovely view the law doesn’t
unless it’s a part of a scenic vista that the Town has designated such we don’t have any control
over view preservation. What we do try to do (inaudible) is ask the agent, the architect, the
applicant to see if something can be tweaked to move it slightly this way or slightly that way if
possible but there are so many variables on various sights and specifically that one given the
two roads even though one is really a paper road we know we’ve inspected the sight
everyone’s been there so we’ve seen your house so I don’t know what they can do given the
septic which is certainly mandated by the Health Department so I don’t know if you want to talk
to each other and see if there’s any adjusting on side yard. They’re already the problem is it’s
two front yard there’s one side yard but there where are we
MEMBER HORNING : We’ve asked for the greatest setback from the bulkhead already.
??
August 6, 2015 Regular Meeting
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well the bulkhead is the most important for everybody’s sake. I
mean you know that’s clearly something that this Board always considers as do the Trustees.
The front yard setback is 20 feet from
CHARLES SOUTHARD : Front yard being the west side of the structure?
MEMBER SCHNEIDER : North side.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : North side. So I mean is your view now because of the height of the
existing house?
JAMES M. CAREY : We can from our second floor balcony see over the top of the existing house.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That’s probably not going to happen because of FEMA. I mean it’s
gonna that’s the thing when a house is demolished and this is a problem that we’ve just been
discussing this morning. When FEMA kicks in you know to elevate above the natural grade
because you’re either building new construction or you’ve demolished more than 50% of the
structure or 50% of the value and are renovating it starts to change the character of the
neighborhood or it can because it’s higher. It’s still conforming to the height code which is 35
feet it’s not going higher than that but we’re grappling with how to deal with that because it’s
so many waterfront properties are having the same problem particularly those that flooded
during Sandy. That’s why I asked earlier what flood zone you were in, what zone you’re in and
how high above grade is going to wind up the natural grade is going to be probably going to be
5 foot higher than what it is now so all I can say is that I don’t know what 5 feet would do to
your maybe you’ll still be able to see I don’t know.
JAMES M. CAREY : I can’t really answer that question.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER : He’s going from a one story structure to a two story structure.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Oh that’s true I’m sorry you’re right about that. So that’s
automatically gonna make a big difference. They have the right to do that. They have the right a
conforming two story structure short of catching something off the corner that way you know
in a side yard a through view that way I don’t know where your balcony is exactly.
JAMES M. CAREY : We’re just catching a little bit off that corner right now and if the square
footage going around the property changes we’re going to lose that as well.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Sounds like it.
MEMBER HORNING : You have waterfront property do you not?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No no he’s not he’s on the other
??
August 6, 2015 Regular Meeting
JAMES M. CAREY : I’m on the other side of MacDonald Crossing.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : He’s on the landward side.
MEMBER HORNING : Oh ok not MacDonald Rd.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yea it’s a little confusing. They had to go and do that MacDonald and
MacDonald. Is there anyone else in the audience who likes to address this application? Well
that’s it then okay hearing no further questions or comments I’ll make a motion to close the
hearing subject to receipt of an amended survey showing the increased bulkhead setback.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Second.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor?
MEMBER HORNING : Aye.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Aye.
MEMBER DANTES : Aye.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye.
(See Minutes for Resolution)
HEARING # 6809 JAMES KNOBLOCH (RE-OPENED BY BOARD RESOLUTION)
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for James Knobloch. This
was re-opened by Board resolution in order to address conditions that were included in the
decision that granted a deck in a side yard. Would you like to come forward and tell us what’s
been done. We did site inspection. The original deadline for the resolution of plantings
screening along the shared property line was not met and so in order to make sure it was clear
on what those conditions were meant to be and to and so that all interested parties could be
heard we decided to re-open. It was the easiest way to go and the least complicated. So tell us
what’s happened along that side yard.
MICHAEL KNOBLOCH : I’m Michael Knobloch one of the owners as well. We had cause in the
original letter that was sent to us it says that it needed to be property shall construct a 6 high
??
August 6, 2015 Regular Meeting
foot high fence and or plant evergreens screening which shall be a minimum of 5 to 6 feet in
height between the as built decks so on and so forth should be done by June 15 th. The inspector
came out on June 10 th and he I have the copy of the inspection certificate that he had given to
me. Inspected it inspected the deck and also looked at the screening there and checked off that
everything looked good. He said the screening looks fine that will grow in six months to create
the visual privacy and it meets the requirement of 5 to 6 feet in height and he signed off on that
and gave me a copy and handed it to me and as far as we knew it was fine until I got a call from
the Town of Southold Attorney and that’s when he said that we didn’t meet the qualifications
and that’s when he said this date was set for today to discuss that so.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And at this point I went out and looked at it it looks like there were 7
Leyland Cypress that were planted.
MICHAEL KNOBLOCH : Correct.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : They’re about 5 foot high give or take. One of them is taller much
taller. It occurred after the fact that if you were to put a six foot high fence there that in fact it
probably wouldn’t create visual privacy because by the time you stand on your elevated deck
you’re going to be looking over a six foot high fence so that the screening by evergreens
particularly Leyland Cypress which will grow to twenty thirty feet high and be very very dense
within a couple of years for sure would be the proper answer so it appears that that’s now in
place.
MICHAEL KNOBLOCH : Cause we actually went longer than what cause we went from one
corner of the deck to the other and made sure that there was plenty of coverage from both
sides and not and he actually had one full tall one there and the rest looked really skimpy so we
took one tall one and took the rest that looked as full as possible from Ed Dart down the block
and we put the taller one where we would think would be the most benefit the most right off
the bat.
MEMBER DANTES : Do you have any irrigation planted to
MICHAEL KNOBLOCH : Yea we actually I don’t know if you guys saw pictures we actually have a
planter bed we dressed it up we put a lot of mulch around it and we also put the irrigation
hoses around there with a timer on the hose there to make sure that it had proper water
throughout the time. It goes off every night for two hours. So if you look at the pictures we ran
hosing around each bush individually with spikes and everything and used miracle gro. Miracle
gro works wonders.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Now the condition did not specify the actual length okay of the
screening and but it said of adequate length along the westerly property line to create visual
??
August 6, 2015 Regular Meeting
privacy from the adjacent neighbors bedroom window and the subject open deck and how does
the Board feel? Did you all go out and have a look at it have you seen it? Ken?
MEMBER SCHNEIDER : No I have not. I had seen it originally.
MEMBER DANTES : I have not.
MICHAEL KNOBLOCH : I think I might have photos if you guys want.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well I have to say I did go and inspect it and certainly there is
enough lineal feet to create what is described as visual privacy in time as they grow in which is
what the intent was I mean you can’t it’s a very expensive proposition to plant twenty foot high
trees and that’s burdensome so it seems to me that the length is sufficient to create privacy
from the neighbors bedroom window and the open deck. We’re not discussing planting all the
way to the end of the rear yard. We’re not talking about enclosing anything other than a screen
that would create some visual privacy.
MEMBER HORNING : We probably should of gave a linear footage.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I think so. I think probably we were trying to be a bit flexible and I
think the lesson learned here is to be specific even more specific than what we were.
MEMBER HORNING : Yea. Adequate is suggested.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And that’s one of the reason why we re-opened it because we have
to take some responsibility for perhaps not being quite clear enough.
MICHAEL KNOBLOCH : Just to make a comment we didn’t go farther because we spoke to our
neighbor and she didn’t want it to go past the window there to block her view so that’s why we
didn’t go further towards the street and to go back further there’s a big tree there a big tree
and then there’s a huge bush after that so it would mean taking more privacy bushes down to
continue more trees so that’s why we stopped from the tree to basically the front there.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright well as you know we’ve received a letter of concern from the
neighbor you know who said that the screening as planted A) wasn’t done in time and B) wasn’t
sufficient to make any kind of you know privacy. That’s how this whole thing got started and
out of respect for that concern and trying to uphold the conditions we imposed that’s why we
re-opened it. So we probably would of instructed you to do what you’ve already done.
MICHAEL KNOBLOCH : Yea we did it on like I said I had the inspection certificate signed by Gary
Fink or
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Fish.
??
August 6, 2015 Regular Meeting
MICHAEL KNOBLOCH : Fish on
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : When was that?
MICHAEL KNOBLOCH : I have it here I’ll show it to you.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well that was for the deck and was that also
MICHAEL KNOBLOCH : He also this was the day he came out and saw that the evergreen
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yea ok and this was on June 10 th?
MICHAEL KNOBLOCH : Yea and if you ask him he’ll tell you that the screening was already
planted and everything was already set.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : the one that I just saw?
MICHAEL KNOBLOCH : Yea so if you question him he checked off on his sheet he had another
sheet there and said that privacy screening was more than adequate and that in six months it
would be twelve feet or
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yea okay. Anyone in the audience who wants to address this
application?
KATHLEEN DWYER : Yea I’m Kathleen Dwyer. I’m the neighbor. I’m very disappointed to hear
the response from the Board at this time. I do agree that the requirements were not met. No
one’s come to my house to ask about the privacy nor come into my bedroom which would be
welcomed to do to listen to the noise or see what I can see from there. The requirement was
that there be visual privacy by a certain date. There is not visual privacy. It wasn’t that there
would be visual privacy in two months, three months, six months or two years it was visual
privacy. I don’t think that’s been met. I offered flexibility at the first meeting about talking
about other things other than removing the deck so I offered to be accommodating and the
response that I got was we’ll put in shorter shrubs because we did have a meeting outside. They
said we will not put in a fence and we will put in shorter shrubs. We talked about the fact that
the fence of six feet wouldn’t be adequate. I’d be very happy to have an eight foot fence but
that still wasn’t
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It’s not permitted by code.
KATHLEEN DWYER : Well what you told me last time was that you would be able to put things in
that other wouldn’t be allowed to so
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Not an eight foot fence.
??
August 6, 2015 Regular Meeting
KATHLEEN DWYER : Okay well then we could put an eight foot fence and some shrubbery in but
the point is that what you guys required is not meeting what we talked about
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You can’t
KATHLEEN DWYER : Let me finish please. On June 10 th the inspector said it was okay and meets
requirements I don’t know how he can say that because it didn’t meet the requirements. It was
not five feet tall and it didn’t create visual privacy. I still see that deck from numerous rooms in
my house. The Leyland Cypress six foot high fence would create privacy you can certainly go
taller you know there’s nothing to stop you from that. Now my additional concern at this point
is that those Leyland Cypresses can grow up to a hundred feet tall which will cause additional
problems one of them being that they’re easily ripped out during storms so when you have the
hazard of trees falling on houses and it would have to be cut down to maintain a reasonable
size. So certainly the requirement regarding height nor the distance was not met. It says that in
time you just quoted as saying in time it would be met but that wasn’t what the letter said
okay. I’ve been dealing with this for over a year now trying to get something done when they
put in a deck that they didn’t have a permit for and then went and put in shrubs that didn’t
meet the requirement. I’ve tried to be flexible. I’ve tried to be accommodating and the only
thing I’m getting is tough luck okay. They put in the deck without a permit. They put in shrubs
that didn’t meet the requirement so
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Who’s requirement?
KATHLEEN DWYER : The requirement that you set of five to six feet by a certain date an they’re
not five to six feet.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No it wasn’t five to six feet by a certain date it was approximate five
foot high plantings
KATHLEEN DWYER : It said five to six feet.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : done by a certain date and because they did not meet that date and
we received your letter the only way we could respond to your letter was by re-opening this
hearing otherwise the hearing was closed. The decision was rendered and we could not even
read your letter without re-opening this hearing.
KATHLEEN DWYER : Well I appreciate your re-opening the hearing.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We are re-opened in order to entertain your comments and
concerns. No one asks for evergreen screening and expects it to create instant visual privacy.
??
August 6, 2015 Regular Meeting
KATHLEEN DWYER : I expected that okay. I expected that when a deck was put in that didn’t
meet code what the Town would say is take the deck down or if you have someone who comes
in willing to be accommodating and says look put up a fence that you would say okay you guys
don’t have to take down the deck but in order to give your neighbor who’s been
accommodating some peace of mind put in the deck. I would now like play the video of what I
hear from my bedroom. This is when I’m in my bedroom with the trees they planted there
okay. When I’m sleeping away I listen to every single phone call, I listen to everything that goes
on there. This is
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I’m sorry I’m very sorry about the noise intrusion but this Board has
no jurisdiction over that whatsoever. The only thing that we can do which is standard of which
we always do when there’s an issue along shared property lines a visual privacy we require
plantings that over time will create a dense
KATHLEEN DWYER : That’s not what the letter said and that wasn’t my expectation.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Are you talking about a letter or this decision?
KATHLEEN DWYER : I’m talking about the decision that you put in writing that you sent to me
and the Knoblochs.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : This says five to six foot in height between the open deck and the
westerly property line. We now have five foot high Leyland Cypress
KATHLEEN DWYER : When does it say it would be done by?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I told you the date was June 15. They missed the date that’s why we
reopened the hearing so that they could proceed to
KATHLEEN DWYER : I still don’t have visual privacy though and we’re in July.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Look this Board has the discretion to make a determination as to
what is and isn’t sufficient for its own conditions that’s all I can tell you.
MEMBER HORNING : Ma’am what time of the day was that?
KATHLEEN DWYER : That was midday. I have other tapes of night time you know I mean the
deck was built which is maybe a separate hearing. The deck was built to accommodate renters.
They put two grills out there so that they can have other people out there. I listen to the
renters out there smoking, cursing all those things maybe you should
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : They could of done it with an at grade patio and you would have had
the same problem.
??
August 6, 2015 Regular Meeting
KATHLEEN DWYER : They could of absolutely and you know what I remember they put the deck
in because they didn’t want to stop and step down
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Hey you’re talking to them and we’re not getting you on the mic.
KATHLEEN DWYER : They didn’t want to put a patio in because they had two stairs. I didn’t
mind a patio. I would have been very happy to have the patio.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I know you wouldn’t of been happy with the renters and the noise.
KATHLEEN DWYER : As I said that’s a separate issue that we’ll have to talk about on the
transient rentals.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Then why are you bringing it in here. That’s the point is that the
Town is addressing that.
KATHLEEN DWYER : Well because that’s something that they run over each other okay.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The town is addressing that.
A.T.A. KIELY : Ma’am can you go to that mic please thank you.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Not just for your benefit although I empathize. I have one next to me
an Air BNB rental right next to my house. I know how problematic short term rentals can be and
I know that a lot of people are purchasing properties as investment properties alright but they
are separate from this particular issue and they’re important to this town and the Town Board
is moving forward to try and deal with it alright. This Board felt that it was safer to walk straight
out of the door than down a couple of steps and that it did not appear to have any additional
impact other than visual because it was raised and even at the ground if nothing had been
planted you still would have had all that visual permeability. So it would have been two feet
down here instead of two feet here.
KATHLEEN DWYER : Yes that’s because they ripped out all the shrubs that had been there
before. There was visual privacy then they went and ripped out all the shrubs.
MEMBER DANTES : Ma’am you’re allowed to do that.
KATHLEEN DWYER : And then of course they’re allowed to do it. I mean I know you can’t
regulate bad neighbors I mean sometimes that term is lost on people good neighbors versus
bad but what I am saying is that they what we’ve got here is a situation where I haven’t violated
any of the town permits. I have someone who’s violated the Town’s permit or regulation
whatever the correct term is and then disregarded what you guys put in writing and I’m
supposed to continue to accommodate?
??
August 6, 2015 Regular Meeting
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No you don’t have to accommodate. What they have to do is adhere
to what this decision said
KATHLEEN DWYER : And they haven’t.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : and the conditions they have now.
KATHLEEN DWYER : Well would someone please come back to my property with me and we can
walk it together because I don’t have visual privacy.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I was there.
KATHLEEN DWYER : Well I need someone else cause
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You’re going to have it when the shrubs grow in.
KATHLEEN DWYER : I don’t know about that.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You’re going to have to be patient.
KATHLEEN DWYER : You know what I have been patient over a year over a year I’ve been
patient. That doesn’t seem reasonable to me to have to continue to be patient. They could of
fixed the issue by you saying look the deck was built without a permit and then we would have
had an opportunity to talk about it as neighbors would but they didn’t okay. My request for
conversations with them were disregarded so it had to become your issue and
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You made lengthy comments which this Board carefully considered
at the prior hearing before we rendered a decision.
KATHLEEN DWYER : I don’t see where anything of my comments were considered at all.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All of your comments and concerns were listened to and the Board
did what it felt was an appropriate balancing test.
KATHLEEN DWYER : What, where was the balance? I still don’t have privacy. I mean I need to
see a fifty fifty. I don’t have privacy. You’ve even acknowledged that even if they put in
something six feet tall I still wouldn’t have privacy. You said it yourself.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I know I said it because after the fact we realize and that’s why we
came back because we wanted to make sure that conditions were clear and frankly I’m glad
they didn’t put in a six foot fence because you wouldn’t of had privacy. We did not stand on the
deck and maybe we should of to see how high you know to see how you see into your window
and how high a six foot fence would be relative to the height of the deck but it’s common
??
August 6, 2015 Regular Meeting
understanding now when I went back that a six foot high fence would not suffice unless you
were a four foot tall person okay standing on that deck. So the only answer is to simply put in
evergreens that will grow and will be you know sustain some privacy. That’s the only way to do
it otherwise
KATHLEEN DWYER : Why didn’t the Knobloch’s put in tall shrubs to begin with?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Look we said five to six.
KATHLEEN DWYER : And they were three to four.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And they didn’t and so now they’re there.
KATHLEEN DWYER : Right.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I was there I measured them.
KATHLEEN DWYER : And I still have no visual privacy.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Because they have to grow ma’am.
KATHLEEN DWYER : But that’s you didn’t say put in something that will grow in three years time
to create privacy.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The Board never does. The Board
KATHLEEN DWYER : You said privacy by June 22 nd.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No I did not I said that the border was to be installed by then not the
privacy.
KATHLEEN DWYER : No I think it says visual privacy.
A.T.A. KIELY : As determined by the Board. The Board makes the final decision alright and they
made their decision alright so it’s over.
KATHLEEN DWYER : I would like a copy of the transcripts please and I’m exceptionally
disappointed that the Board had an opportunity to fix an issue when we were first here I said
about my willingness to be flexible and you were quite happy that we my neighbors and I could
work it out ourselves. They never called me back. They put in shrubs that were too short and
you guys response to that was to pat them on the back and let me who’s suffered as a result of
it gets screwed. It’s not appropriate okay. That letter was very clear maybe it was poorly
worded but it was very clear in what it said. It had to have visual privacy and I don’t have that.
So I would like a copy of these transcripts as well as the transcripts from the first meeting.
??
August 6, 2015 Regular Meeting
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You can get them on laser fiche. Our office can help you find out
how you can obtain them.
KATHLEEN DWYER : Thank you. I did request some documents from your office. I was told I had
to go through FOIA. I did and I never received them so I’d like to make a note of that too. I
haven’t gotten
CHARIPERSON WEISMAN : What did you request?
KATHLEEN DWYER : I requested copies of some of the maps. I wrote it to Vicki. I never got it.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You have to come in and sign a FOIL request.
KATHLEEN DWYER : No one told me that. They said just do it through FOIA and I did.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : FOIL that’s freedom of information.
KATHLEEN DWYER : Yea it’s FOIA freedom of information act FOIA. I work with it all the time.
Well I’m very disappointed. I will request in writing a copy of all the transcripts. I’m just I can’t
believe
CHAIRPERSON WEIMSAN : It’s your right to do that.
KATHLEEN DWYER : I can’t believe that the Town could have had the opportunity to fix
something and chose not to and Knoblochs I’m sorry that we’re going to have what will be a
very unhappy relationship because I’m suffering as a result.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You’re not supposed to be speaking to anyone other than the Board.
KATHLEEN DWYER : Ok Board please tell the Knobloch’s that I am very disappointed that I will
have an unhappy relationship.
A.T.A. KIELY : Alright have a good day.
JIM KNOBLOCH : We did speak to her prior to even being told about the bushes so we offered
to do that. I just wanted to let you know we did meet with her we talked to her and we tried to
offer this before it became an issue.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well one thing that would be probably be very useful if there’s any
way you can control this is you’re renters need to be quiet. They’re coming out here to party.
That deck is sitting right smack on that property line.
MICHAEL KNOBLOCH : Just so you understand the renters that we allow in there the
grandparents who usually bring out their grandkids and if you look at the video tapes we don’t
??
August 6, 2015 Regular Meeting
have any police reports of loud parties being called on us. It’s midday people having fun, it’s
kids
JIM KNOBLOCH : Actually that video she showed me is my son’s thirtieth birthday that we were
there with my relatives.
MEMBER HORNING : She said it was midday.
JIM KNOBLOCH : It was me cooking and I mean so
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright I’m going to make a motion to close the hearing.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Second. All in favor?
MEMBER HORNING : Aye.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Aye.
MEMBER DANTES : Aye.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye.
(See Minutes for Resolution)
??
August 6, 2015 Regular Meeting
CERTIFICATION
I Elizabeth Sakarellos, certify that the foregoing transcript of tape recorded
Public Hearings was prepared using required electronic transcription equipment
and is a true and accurate record of Hearings.
Signature
Elizabeth Sakarellos
DATE: August 17, 2015
z4s