HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-12/03/2015 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
December 3, 2015
9:26 A.M.
Board Members Present:
LESLIE KANES WEISMAN -Chairperson/Member
ERIC DANTES— Member
GERARD GOEHRINGER— Member
GEORGE HORNING — Member (left at 2:10 P.M.)
KENNETH SCH N EI DER— Member
VICKI TOTH — Board Assistant
STEPHEN KI ELY—Assistant Town Attorney
December 3, 2015 Regular Meeting
INDEX OF HEARINGS
Hearing Page
Anthony and Lisa Sannino # 6882 3 —5 & 24
Heather and Richard Petrowski # 6896 5 -8
Peter Cocolaras# 6897 9 - 24
Ben and Diane Benediktsson # 6900 25 - 35
Alexander Kofinas, As Trustee# 6893 35 -46
Gioia Turitto and Nabil El Sherif# 6899 46—52
Bruce Rothstein # 6901 52 - 54
Linton Duell # 6895 54 - 63
Linton Duel # 6894 63
Old North Road Barn, LLC (Claudia Purita) # 6903 63— 71
Old North Road Barn, LLC (Claudia Purita) # 6902 71 - 80
Frank J. and Elizabeth G. Kelly# 6898 80 - 91
Southold Farm and Cellar, Inc. (Meador) # 6861 91 - 114
December 3, 2015 Regular Meeting
HEARING #6882—ANTHONY and LISA SANNINO
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The following hearing Anthony and Lisa Sannino. This was adjourned
from September 3rd and let's see we've all reviewed well at the Special Meeting we requested a
survey showing the acreage that's planted in vines on the what we'll call the residential lot
which is let's see if there's a lot number on it but we all know which one we're talking about
right. In reviewing this this is an architect's plot plan which we can accept but there are a
couple of things that are missing. We asked for the acreage the calculation of acreage planted.
What we got was essentially the listing of the structures that are on the residential lot which
speaks the lot coverage right and we did not get the area that is planted. Moreover the there's
a dotted line running all the way around the perimeter of the property on the survey and that
dotted line is essentially the calculation of vineyard should not be just that because that's part
of the agricultural operation. It's a road and it's actually part of what I would consider viable
acreage that can be applied toward ten acre requirement. Are you all in agreement with that
are you following what I'm saying here?
MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Yes.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes. There is a residential building envelope that is the there's a
dotted line around it okay so that area needs to be carved out the rest including the AG
structure all of that should be incorporated into the acreage with square footage or both on
that lot. Now we're discussing doing something pretty unusual which is since the other lot that
the Sannino's own is to be planted and the site for the winery the wine processing building and
by the way it's bugging the heck out of me the fact that so often people are referring whether
the lawyers or applicants or the Planning Department to a wine production building including
the Building Department and there ain't no such thing. It's a wine processing building, it could
be seen as part of an AG operation of course but it's a wine processing building not wine
production building but nevertheless that lot we can easily calculate the acreage and that but
we are allowing the application of vineyard area from one lot to go toward the acreage
requirement of ten acres on another lot plus the requirement to purchase additional 1.7 I think
it was is that right 1.7 acres. I have to look it up in my notes but oh ok 1.17 okay based on the
calculations we did which the applicant is exploring with the church next door. So the problem
is if all of these lots remain single and separate even though they are in the same name if that
residential lot was sold off then all of the vineyard all the planted area would go with it as a
3
December 3, 2015 Regular Meeting
separate lot and then that would create a situation where the winery use is deficient so the
only clean way to really go ahead and do this is to cobble together the acreage needed and to
merge the lots because that way it's more than meets the bulk schedule the development
rights are intact, you can have the two uses the winery and the house. You have enough
acreage in perpetuity and then go forth to site plan as long as that additional acreage can be
purchased and it's adjacent and it can all be merged. To me that's what I think we're looking
for. Are you in agreement?
MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Yes.
MEMBER DANTES : Well we need the survey to confirm the acreage.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Either a survey or if they absolutely insist that they want to use the
architects plot plan if that's a licensed professional we need to have the calculations on it. I
need to know what the acreage is on the adjacent lot that they already own okay and that's not
on this plot plan cause this was drawn by the architect for residential purposes so we really
need to see at the very minimum what the acreage is of property that's already owned by the
applicant. So I don't have
MEMBER DANTES : I'm just saying then we'll write a decision which will state how much
acreage they need to purchase as a condition for approval?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yea and mergers. We can then overturn the Notice of Disapproval
that way and because the applicant will no longer need a variance he'll be conforming.
SOMEONE FROM THE AUDIENCE : Inaudible
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No because we're not really in a public hearing it wasn't noticed as a
public hearing. It was noticed for possible resolution.
MEMBER DANTES : I think she just wants to explain it to her client first
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Oh that's fine. I'll be quiet in other words talk to them by all means. I
thought you wanted to testify. Just so that everybody is on the same page and understand
what's going on here I'm going to ask our counsel who can do this to just go outside and talk
just take this survey this plot plan and go and explain visually what we're talking about so that
it's really clear because if that's the case I'm prepared to make a motion to close the hearing
subject to receipt of the information we need. The point being we need to know exactly there's
always been a question about what do I need to buy okay exactly what do I have to buy to
make this work. The way to know that is what part of this residential lot is an AG production
okay, how many acres in square feet you have on the other lot that you're proposing to put
December 3, 2015 Regular Meeting
those two together, you see what's left and it's going to probably be 1.1 something acre which
we've all looked at the numbers but we need to have an official document that we can stamp
and so that we can put in our decision exactly what's what to clarify once and for all exactly
what is needed alright so I'm going to have I'm going to make a motion to close this hearing
subject to receipt
SOMEONE FROM THE AUDIENCE : (possibly Pat Moore) Inaudible.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : If you prefer to do that I have no objection. We'll just go on to the
next hearing while you're talking and then we will either close or we will adjourn to the Special
Meeting depending on what we need I mean wouldn't you like to get rid of something Pat?
PAT MOORE : Only the right way not the wrong way.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So let's do this. I'm going to we're just going to pause on this for a
little bit depending on how long it takes we might be able to just go on to the next hearing. I'm
just going to make a motion to adjourn this decision for fifteen minutes twenty minutes or
something until after the next hearing.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Second.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor?
MEMBER HORNING : Aye.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Aye.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Aye.
MEMBER DANTES : Aye.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye.
(See Minutes for Resolution)
HEARING #6896— HEATHER and RICHARD PETROWSKI
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Heather and Richard
Petrowski that's a request for variances from Article XXII Section 280-116B and Article XXIII
5
December 3, 2015 Regular Meeting
Section 280-124 and the Building Inspector's October 26, 2015 Notice of Disapproval based on
an application for building permit for demolition of existing building and construction of a new
single family dwelling at 1) less than the code required bulkhead setback of 75 feet, 2) less than
the code required front yard setback of 35 feet, located at 295 East Legion Ave. (adj. to James
Creek) in Mattituck. Do you have a copy of the LWRP?
NANCY DWYER : No.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let me give this to you. For the record the LWRP indicates that it is
consistent with the LWRP you should have a copy.
NANCY DWYER : I do have the property owner Richard Petrowski here as well. We are
proposing a new single family residence and because of the way the bulkhead returns and runs
along the side yard we are encroaching on that bulkhead setback. We try to push the house
back as far as we can but we are trying to work with two setbacks here. We have the front yard
setback to work with as well as the side bulkhead on the 75 foot.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well better to get farther away from the creek.
NANCY DWYER : Yea that's exactly why we were proposing it this way. We're trying to keep
consistent with the surrounding properties. Directly to the left we have eighteen foot as our
front yard setback to the right we have sixteen foot so we're proposing twenty feet our average
is twenty three feet on the block on that side of the road.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Are you aware Nancy that the code does allow you to take an
average setback along the street?
NANCY DWYER : Yes.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : May place your proposed twenty feet 20.6 feet.
NANCY DWYER : The average is twenty three feet so we would still need it. We would still need
it at twenty feet.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So you've calculated that?
NANCY DWYER : Yes.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let me make a note. It's twenty three foot average. So variance is for
an additional three two and a half actually.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Can you tell us how the average was calculated? Which houses you
used?
00
December 3, 2015 Regular Meeting
NANCY DWYER : We used the houses the two houses running to the west to Bay Ave. and then
the three properties running to the right towards the east.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Oh the ones across the street?
NANCY DWYER : No on the same side of the road.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Same side of the road.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :They're not all shown on the survey.
NANCY DWYER : They're not all shown on this actual survey which is why I didn't actually
approach it that way as the average setback because there (inaudible) to get it from the
surveyor in time for the hearing.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let's see we've all inspected the site and
MEMBER SCHNEIDER : I think it's important to note that the two adjacent properties with
dwellings have lesser front yard setbacks than what's proposed.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yea good point. There are a lot of houses along that street on both
sides some of them smaller a number of them two story it's quite mixed obviously that area
began as a pretty much a seasonal cottage area.
NANCY DWYER : Which has now become pretty much full time residences.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You're going to have to get Trustees approval obviously.
NANCY DWYER : Yes. They advised me to come before you first.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That's how we've been handling it. Okay good the septic is in the
front. Anybody have any questions? Eric?
MEMBER DANTES : No.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Ken?
MEMBER SCHNEIDER : No.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Gerry?
MEMBER GOEHRINER : No.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : George?
December 3, 2015 Regular Meeting
MEMBER HORNING : I want to verify proposed lot coverage 4.3%?
NANCY DWYER : I'm sorry.
MEMBER HORNING : Your proposed lot coverage. I think I read 4.3 % is that
NANCY DWYER : No the lot coverage is 11.8%.
MEMBER HORNING : 11.8
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's up there on the top
NANCY DWYER : It's on the top of the survey.
MEMBER HORNING : I don't know where I got the other figure. What was there previously I
mean that little garage thing there was there actually a house down in there also?
SOMEONE IN THE AUDIENCE : (inaudible)
MEMBER HORNING :Just that?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That must have been pre-existing non-conforming you're kind of not
allowed to have an accessory structure on something that doesn't have a principal use but
that's back in the day stuff was built whatever way it was built.
MEMBER DANTES : The total lot coverage or lot coverage of developable area?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let's look. It says total lot coverage 11.82% is total lot coverage not
the buildable area. Anything else George or anyone else? Anyone in the audience wishing to
address this application? Okay hearing no further questions or comments I'll make a motion to
close this hearing reserve decision to a later date.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Second.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor?
MEMBER HORNING : Aye.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Aye.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Aye.
MEMBER DANTES : Aye.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye.
December 3, 2015 Regular Meeting
(See Minutes for Resolution)
HEARING #6897— PETER COCOLARAS
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Peter Cocolaras and that
is application #6897. This is a request for variances from Article III Section 280-15 and 280-15D
and the building inspector's Notice of Disapproval dated September 29, 2015 amended October
28, 2015 based on an application for a building permit to construct an accessory garage at 1)
location other than the code required rear yard, 2) dormers at more than the maximum code
allowable 40% of the roof width located at 1095 Hyatt Rd. in Southold. Is someone here to
represent this?
PETER COCOLARAS : I'm Peter Cocolaras.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well we know how to spell your name cause it's written down here
already. So we have two variances this is in a front yard the code requires a rear yard and that's
technically because you have two kind of roads one a right of way and second the dormers on
both sides exceed more than the code permitted maximum of 40% of the roof width. Now the
dormers are 16 feet or 57% on one side and 24 feet or 86% on the other side. This creates a
fully habitable second story which the code was designed to avoid in an accessory structure. So
tell us why you need these dormers and why they can't be conforming to the code.
PETER COCOLARAS : The ranch was built in 1940 and there's no basement whatsoever. I have a
one year old and another one on the way in May so I have a growing family and I need this
space for storage cause I have no basement whatsoever.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : But why do you need the dormers? Why do you need a non-
conforming dormer width?
PETER COCOLARAS : So I could have normal height in most the maximum advantage I can on
the second floor.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well you know you can do a lot of storage of boxes and things under
a height that you don't have head clearance for I mean you have head clearance for part of the
structure you don't have to have it for all of the structure in order to use it for storage. Let me
ask you another question have you looked at the possibility I know you already have an
December 3, 2015 Regular Meeting
attached garage on your house have you looked at the possibility of attaching this to the
house?
PETER COCOLARAS : Well you mean like a breezeway of some sort?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : If it's a conditioned breezeway then it's considered a part of the
house as opposed to just a lattice or something.
PETER COCOLARAS : What are you suggesting?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No we have to explore all the options in other words it could be
conforming if it was attached to the house so I'm asking you why you don't want to attach it?
PETER COCOLARAS : So my intention is this. I have no front entrance to my home. When you
drive up it's the attached garage that you're looking at and you enter the house through the
garage. You also enter the house through the kitchen on the side so my intention is to have the
accessory garage and then convert the existing attached garage to a front entrance with a foyer
cause again I have no front entrance to my home.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay that's the kind of information I'm looking for. Let me see what
are you planning any heat?
PETER COCOLARAS : No.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Any half bathroom or plumbing in there?
PETER COCOLARAS : No.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You have a very large exterior staircase and entrance with a landing
to a second floor what's the actual height of that structure? Let's take a look 22 feet? That's
conforming for that lot size. So I presume do we have interior we have an interior drawing
there's no interior stair is that correct to the second floor?
PETER COCOLARAS : I had it removed so that I could increase my storage on the inside of the
garage.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright well let's see who's got questions Ken?
MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Yea I have a question so it looks like you're going to be doing some
extensive renovations here also to the existing house and the garage that you walk into why
can't you add a second story to that garage area that you have now and put dormers there and
have your storage in that? Wouldn't that be more accessible to your living conditions within the
house than having to store things in an accessory structure?
December 3, 2015 Regular Meeting
PETER COCOLARAS : Well then I have to build a second floor on top of the dormer. I'm turning
the garage into a great room and you have to step up if you were to go into the garage there's a
little staircase going up into the kitchen so from a depth sense I have to raise everything so I'm
having a porch where you're walking up and then you walk level so the whole floor is coming up
is what I'm saying as a result the A frame is not high enough to be able to have useable space
up high cause everything is coming up. The floor is coming up to be leveled with the floor the
property slopes so when you walk through the garage now into the kitchen you have to go up
steps so I have to level all this off and I will make that height on the way up to the porch in the
front that I will build.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Well my question is why can't you improve the roof structure on that
existing garage?
PETER COCOLARAS : I think the cost behind that you know it doesn't to me it doesn't make
sense because the A frame it's low A frame you know to build dormers I have to put a second
floor and there isn't enough space for a second floor to take advantage of dormers.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Well you're willing to build a new garage to I mean there's a cost
associated with that.
PETER COCOLARAS : Yea but that's a prefab you know it's coming over you won't believe how
inexpensive that is so you know redoing the roof and then putting a floor to take advantage of
dormers really going to something that's not as cost effective than just putting together a
prefab garage with dormers. Again like I said the problem is you have to walk up and the floor
will be coming up to be level with the kitchen and by doing that the A frame now you've lost
about this much space and the A frame isn't high enough to be able to put a second floor with
dormers for you know to walk up and have access.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Gerry.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER : I think you have to meet the Board a little way because I think the
dormer is just too great. It has that's just my opinion I think maybe you should try a different
roof line or something like that.
MEMBER HORNING : Question on that too. Can we get a percentage of what the proposed
dormer
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I have it I just stated it earlier. 57 % on one side and instead of the
code permitted maximum of 40 and on the other it's 86%. So it's literally running you know
parallel to the ridge it's basically whole roof and there's just no justification for that kind of
variance.
.'0000.
December 3, 2015 Regular Meeting
MEMBER SCHNEIDER : I don't see a problem you know I see a difficulty in not being able to
place this accessory structure in a rear yard because basically I think there's what twenty feet to
you know of a rear yard because of the topography and all so I don't have a problem with the
front yard so called front yard location.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I don't either.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER : But the dormers height I'm not I don't see the necessity of the variance.
I don't have any further questions.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anybody else? Anyone in the audience wishing to address this
application? Please come to the podium and state your name.
CAROL CONTI : Good morning my name is Carol Conti and our home is just to the west of Mr.
Cocolaras and I received this certified letter and I just have a few questions. He has more than
an acre of property behind his house now that is (inaudible). The driveway it is more convenient
in as far as I see to build this structure whatever the code requirements are for building it on
that part of the property where he wouldn't need to he wouldn't need to fill in that front area
of the property with this structure. The other thing is the site plan that I received or the survey
shows the garage doors of this structure in the front portion of the property to be facing north
but it doesn't show egress from the doors of that garage to the road. Why would you want to
incur all of that additional expense and upsetting the lay of the property by putting it there
when it's so much easier just to stick it next to the driveway on the other side of the house
especially if it's a prefab?
PETER COCOLARAS :That's not correct. The doors are facing south.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Toward the road.
PETER COCOLARAS :Toward the driveway that's existing.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yea toward the driveway.
CAROL CONTI : But it doesn't show it being next to the driveway it shows it
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Excuse me you can't speak to each other.
CAROL CONTI : Oh I'm sorry.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Would you like to come forward and I'm going to show you the
survey that we've got and maybe that will clear it up. So here's can you see? Here's the
driveway and here's their house and they're proposing to put the garage here with doors facing
that way. Oh sure they're going to pull up the driveway and pull into the, I imagine they'll put
1111r.
December 3, 2015 Regular Meeting
some gravel. You have to go back to the mic now so cause we record this so you have to speak
into the mic.
PETER COCOLARAS : May I address her?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You sure can.
PETER COCOLARAS : So the topography of my property actually slopes down and I understand
my neighbors concern that possibly she's had experience with the prior owner of the property
who cleared trees and she had runoff on her property and we talked about this. I initially was
going run a driveway off her road and come up but I also said to her at the time if I were to do
something like that I would bring in engineers to make sure that I would take care and that I
would not compromise her quality of life whatsoever. Well since that conversation from last
year it didn't go very well. I elected not to do that so I'm not doing that. I'm staying with my
existing driveway. The garage is where it is because based on my earlier point the topography
goes like this I'd have to walk it defeats the purpose I'd have to walk down from the acreage
which is off of the house to come down to the house. That doesn't make sense. Logically I want
the garage next to the house. I want to park the car and walk into my home you understand? I
don't I can have two acres I can put why would I do that I want to come to my home park the
garage and walk my steps.
MEMBER HORNING : Sir did you explore the idea of attaching it to your house?
PETER COCOLARAS : It doesn't work. I don't know where I would attach it to. You see there isn't
because there's a slope here if you're facing the garage that's attached right now there is a
slope to the left topography comes down. I can't do to the left and to the right I now would
have to create a driveway extending it out and the property slants down so now I'm running
into runoff problems, drainage problems.
MEMBER HORNING : I just mentioned that because if you attached it to the house you wouldn't
need any variance.
PETER COCOLARAS : I'm very well aware of that.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I did explore that earlier believe that Mr. Cocolaras said he wanted
to convert the entrance which is now the attached garage into a house entrance which makes
sense.
PETER COCOLARAS : A front door you know cause I have no front door. I'm sure everyone here
has a front door.
December 3, 2015 Regular Meeting
MEMBER DANTES : The other thing we should say Leslie this is for the neighbors informational
purposes as part of chapter 236 when the applicant submits his building plans to the Building
Department they're going to have the Town Engineer look at it and look at the drainage of the
land and he's supposed to verify the town it's supposed to make approve Mr. Cocolara's
drainage plan that it won't be a problem.
CAROL CONTI : Yea cause it's a dirt road and we've had problems consistently because people
cutting down trees along there.
MEMBER DANTES : I'm just saying there is a procedure that's further down the line that should
deal with the runoff.
PETER COCOLARAS : As a point of information no trees are being cut down for this project. It's
cleared property.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We've all inspected this site and we see that it's in a very flat area
and a logically place area relative to the existing driveway and house and that it doesn't look
that there would be any adverse environmental impacts at all and we will have in our decision
the obligation to meet the to conform to chapter 236 of the town's drainage code which is
standard which means all runoff has to be contained on site on the property.
PETER COCOLARAS : My last point esthetically my neighbor wouldn't even be able to see this
garage because I have if you see the border of the property we have high trees and (inaudible)
so from the road she couldn't even see. Maybe she'd see probably the roof line really.
CAROL CONTI : The other thing was the stairs on the outside leading to the second floor now
it's going to be strictly a garage and storage it's not going to at some later date heating is going
to be brought in and it's going to be kind of an accessory apartment over that garage?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well that's one of the reasons why the code was written to avoid
situations like that to allow people reasonable storage if they have you know a roof line that
can accommodate it. The reason the dormers were reduced in size is to avoid having legally
habitable head clearance so that it didn't become an apartment illegal apartment which is why I
asked the questions about the dormers and why I ask whether there was any plans for heating
or air conditioning of any kind or plumbing. People are permitted as of right to have a half bath
in an accessory structure but it's not being proposed here.
CAROL CONTI : And another option would be on all of that cleared property that Mr. Cocolaras
does that for storage just to put a shed like so many people do to store whatever they need to
store.
December 3, 2015 Regular Meeting
PETER COCOLARAS : A question would you be able to propose a dormer ration that would be
acceptable by the Board so I can you know I have to redo my plan.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : As far as I'm concerned there's no reason why it just can't be
conforming to the code it's a maximum of 40% on each side. I don't see the justification for
variance you still get your full storage you still get your garage it's just a matter of you know the
location I have no issue with.
PETER COCOLARAS : Unless I change the roof line from an A frame to gambrel let's say.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You could. There's nothing in the code that tells you what sort of
roof configuration but you could get more clear area with a gambrel roof but if you're going to
do that I suggest you think about doing it soon because we stamp these plans and we will you
know I can't make a decision now I mean the Board has to discuss it but I think you can see in
which direction it's going in. If you change after if you choose to change the roof line and the
you'll have to submit a plan that conforms to what we basically put in our decision.
PETER COCOLARAS : So I don't have to resubmit new plans the new dormer regulation I just say
okay
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You submit it to the Building Department and if they match what the
decision says you're good to go. If not they will come to me and see if the change you're
proposing is considered to be de minimus meaning so insignificant that it doesn't change the
non-conformity.
PETER COCOLARAS : What would you qualify as de minimus?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I can't tell you that.
PETER COCOLARAS :That's a fair question.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I can't tell you that in advance.
PETER COCOLARAS : Someone once told me you put your fingers up to the line and you you
could come back to your toenails you know so I'm just wondering what would diminimus be
considered.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You know what when somebody puts in a swimming pool and it
winds up at a slightly different angle because the surveyor didn't put it in exactly the way it was
that's a de minimus. It's not changing the side yard setback, it's not changing the lot coverage,
it's not you know if the basically the non-conformity that was granted the relief from that
00 5
December 3, 2015 Regular Meeting
remains the same and there are no other potential adverse impacts on your neighbors or
anything else then it's a de minimus change.
PETER COCOLARAS : I see. How much time would I have to have the drawings be done?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : If you wish to well let's see if you wish to submit an amended
application then what we could do is adjourn this either to the Special Meeting in two weeks if
you can get it that fast otherwise we can adjourn this to the next hearing in January you can
submit it we can accept that then as an amended application.
PETER COCOLARAS : I just want to determine what the additional cost would be if I were to go
from an A frame to a gambrel and I could have those drawings done probably you know maybe
a week to two weeks and that would be for an amendment I would imagine. If I just reduce the
dormers to your specs then
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Then that variance goes away and you have one variance which is
the location.
PETER COCOLARAS : Right.
MEMBER DANTES : I think the gambrel would put the variance away as well right?
MEMBER SCHNEIDER : No it's the location.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No there's two variances.
MEMBER DANTES : Puts the dormer variance away.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yeah.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER : So the gambrels are permitted.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yeah as long as it doesn't exceed the height of the you know
maximum allowable height for an accessory structure.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER : I did a calculation here your length is twenty eight feet correct?
PETER COCOCLARAS : Correct.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER : and so 40% of twenty eight feet is 11.2 feet, that's an odd number but if
you wanted to go to twelve feet we can give that would be a de minimus variance would it not
like .8 feet.
December 3, 2015 Regular Meeting
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yea but I mean I think the bottom line is I don't see the reason for a
variance on these dormers I mean 40% is generous and you get a lot of natural light in and it
reduces the likelihood of it being occupied for any purpose other than storage. That's why the
code was written that way. If you came in here with a request for a variance of 1% then I'd say
yea so what you know what I mean but these are big variances.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Well that's what I'm talking about if he went to twelve foot dormers that
would be like maybe not even a one percent variance.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Up to the applicant we can write alternative relief. We can just
simply get it done that way and then you gotta go get plans that show what we alternative
relief would be that we denied the variances for the dormers and that we will grant you this
percentage of a variance in other words the dormer
PETER COCOLARAS : I have to apply for that specifically?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No you don't have to apply for it the Board can offer it.
PETER COCOLARAS : What I'm saying is (inaudible) number and twelve feet would be probably a
conformable number
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I don't want spend the time negotiating on the design that's not
relevant right now we have other hearings. We can go a couple of ways. We can adjourn this to
the Special Meeting to give you time to think it through and take a look okay and see what you
want to propose. You can either make you know just submit a plan with just the location and
conforming dormers or no dormers or however you wanna do it.
PETER COCOLARAS : I'll adjourn for two weeks.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : What?
PETER COCOLARAS : I'll adjourn to the Special Meeting.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright you know let's let you think this through Nancy knows what
we're talking about and she can help you figure out.
PETER COCOLARAS : Which way I'm going to go so doing an adjournment would be fine.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We have someone else who would like to testify.
TERRY LESTER : My name is Terry Lester. I own the property directly opposite and a couple of
years ago he asked if he could use he would like to build a driveway directly facing mine and I
was not really too happy with that idea because of the runoff and I said no I would rather you
December 3, 2015 Regular Meeting
not do it and then I think it was sometime last year he had a landscaper there who was already
beginning to work on the part that is my property and I had not given permission
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Hold on you can't talk to each other just let her finish then you can
make your comment.
TERRY LESTER : He told my neighbor that I had given him permission to do that which I hadn't
and I have noticed that the garage he's building is facing my driveway so I have a feeling that he
is ultimately going to possibly put a driveway which is directly leading into my driveway and as
we have spoken runway has been a big problem. I don't know if drainage would help it but I've
had it running down my driveway and it has been an ongoing problem and if there's a driveway
going there it's really I think add to it and I don't know if engineers can really do anything about
that if they would cesspools to do it I have no idea what would be done but in that happens I
hope your engineers would see if something could be done to curb that problem and that's all I
have to say.
PETER COCOLARAS : May I address that? So two years ago I went to my neighbors the Lester's
to introduce myself and I spoke to Mr. Lester and he said sure no problem but then I received a
call a few days later from Mrs. Lester who was concerned about the runoff and I said Mrs.
Lester I'm not going to do anything with this driveway unless you I had you and Mr. Lester's
blessing on whatever I do cause I don't want to disrupt your lifestyle whatsoever and that was
when I was initially thinking about doing a driveway. As I said earlier and I guess Mrs. Lester
didn't hear me I am not going forward with those plans so I don't know why she's afraid I'm
going to build a driveway there I'm not doing it. I said I'm not I told her I'm not doing it and two
years ago I said that if I did do anything I would make sure you saw everything with engineers
reports and that there would be no effect on her home but I'm not doing that anyway. As far as
what happened last year I had a landscaper come in and put up deer fencing. That had nothing
to do with beginning a project of opening up a driveway. I put deer fencing around my property
so I don't I'm not quite sure what Mrs. Lester is referring to. But I will say that when I spoke to
her neighbor I was not lying when I said I received their blessing because I did receive the
blessing of Mr. Lester and then Mrs. Lester called me and I assured her we were okay with that
phone call when we hung up that if I were to do anything I would make sure that I had your
blessing so it seemed like it was a positive call. It didn't end in a negative vein so I think this is all
a moot point as far as
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright well sometimes people misunderstand surveys and things like
that and whatever but I should point out that driveways are a different story. Driveways are
really by code driveways are really not there's no unless a curb cut is required in which in this
case it is not the case you can put them wherever you want on your property. On site drainage
December 3, 2015 Regular Meeting
is something that the Town Engineer does check so depending on where it goes cause a lot of
us have problems with runoff you know we have we live in a place that goes like this.
PETER COCOLARAS : To appease my neighbors I elected not to put a driveway where I initially
wanted it.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay well that's good.
PETER COCOLARAS : Well apparently it's not good enough for them.
MEMBER HORNING : Can I ask a quick question. Do you have any legal access to that right of
way that is involved with your neighbors?The right of way shown on the survey.
PETER COCOLARAS : Hyatt Rd?
MEMBER HORNING : No.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It says dirt road.
PETER COCOLARAS : Which
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Why don't you come forward and George show him what you got.
MEMBER HORNING :The way the Lesters access their property I presume
PETER COCOLARAS :This is where Lesters are folks.
MEMBER HORNING : Right it's right of way or their driveway or something there right? You
don't have any access
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No it's Hyatt Rd.
MEMBER HORNING : Do you have legal access to that road?
PETER COCOLARAS : Sure.
MEMBER HORNING : So when you talked about putting in a driveway you could legally go up
this Hyatt Rd then and turn into your driveway.
PETER COCOLARAS : Right but I'm not doing that.
MEMBER HORNING : I understand I'm just clarifying.
PETER COCOLARAS : Right I have legal right to that road.
December 3, 2015 Regular Meeting
MEMBER HORNING : You know the one thing here doesn't even show the extension of Hyatt
Rd. the information that we have.
MEMBER DANTES : Can I just tell him one thing? Just so you're clear when we have the Special
Meeting it's not like this we don't take testimony, we don't talk to outside people really just so
we maybe we see documents before and then we deliberate amongst ourselves so it won't be
obviously anyone who wants to attend can attend but
PETER COCOLARAS : Should I be present?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You don't need to be.
MEMBER DANTES : But it won't be a public hearing like this.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We don't take recorded this is fact finding that's what a public
hearing does. We listen to people, we take all of this information in and then two weeks from
today in the evening we deliberate the Board discusses each of the applications but we do so in
a legally publically noticed meeting so that any interested party if they wish to can sit in and
listen.
PETER COCOLARAS : It's unfortunate I've done my best to appease my neighbors so I can be a
welcomed neighbor to the community and go against what I originally wanted to do and they
come here to tell me I can't even have a garage that's next to my home.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well this is not you know this happens sometimes but it's really not
relevant to what's before us.
PETER COCOLARAS :That's alright the gauntlet has been dropped.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well I'm going to just make a motion to adjourn this application to
the Special Meeting
MEMBER GOEHRINGER : The gentleman has a question.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Oh sorry. Go to the podium.
MEMBER DANTES : I still second the motion.
WILLARD LESTER : My name is Willard Lester and I'm directly across from his property. I have a
lot of concerns about what's going to happen with that structure. If he builds that structure he's
going to start removing some trees and I have a problem with the runoff. The previous owner
had taken a lot of trees off that causing a lot of excess water running down to our property and
December 3, 2015 Regular Meeting
to our bluff and it blew out our bluff and took away about seven feet of our bluff and just
plowed it right into the sound.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That's a shame but I will tell you this much we have inspected the
property and where the garage is proposed to be located there are no trees at all and minimal
excavation is going to be required. This is going to be a structure on slab okay there is no
basement. Nothing is being excavated it's just on a slab and it's already on a completely flat
piece of the property that has no trees so there will be no further environmental changes plus
they will be required to have gutters and leaders that lead into a drywell so that there will be
no roof runoff that will go anywhere other than being retained on the property.
WILLARD LESTER : What about the garage doors? Are they facing the opposite direction?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :They're facing the street.
PETER COCOLARAS : No they're not they're facing my driveway.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Oh they're facing your driveway yea yea of course.
WILLARD LESTER : My concern is that after structure is built the terrain is such that it slopes
down to Hyatt Rd. and I had problems with the runoff there. Is there any objection planting
trees in that area to absorb some of that moisture that
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : On his property?
WILLARD LESTER : On my property.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : On your property. No you can plant all the trees you want it's your
property.
WILLARD LESTER : It joins the right of way and I'm afraid that if he does he said I've given my
blessing about a driveway we never discussed anything like that. I just introduced myself
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay alright please
MEMBER DANTES : You can't plant trees in the right of way but your land you can garden. I
mean you
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : If it's a right of way no. If it's a town owned shoulder no but if it's
your property absolutely. Do whatever you'd like.
December 3, 2015 Regular Meeting
WILLARD LESTER : I'm concerned about him changing the driveway that he has access to a right
of way on Hyatt Rd. and removing that and moving it over to a new driveway opposite my
property.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : He stated that the driveway he is going to use is the driveway he
currently has and that is what's going to lead to this proposed garage.
WILLARD LESTER : Okay.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So that's all clear. Any other issues regarding drainage will have to
dealt with through the town engineer not through the Zoning Board.
WILLARD LESTER : We have drainage problem from his property right now.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Listen I have a drainage problem with my neighbors all over my
property so you know we understand that but there's this is not what the Zoning Board
handles.
WILLARD LESTER : Okay I'm just worried about changing an additional structure might have to
the drainage.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's not going to have any impact other than what's already there.
Anything else from anybody? Please come forward.
MRS. MALLADY : Good morning my name is (inaudible) Mallady. My property is at the bottom
of the hill I live at the bottom of the hill. My concerns were regarding the size of the dormer. It's
certainly to me sounds like dormer means bedrooms and bedrooms mean bathroom. I
understand now that the committee the Zoning committee has realized that's an oversized
suspicious building also the fact that there was a staircase leading up to the dormer. We did
have a problem with Katherine Stickley who also built a garage across the street from Mr.
Cocolaras and put in a bathroom and a kitchen so that the thoughts did occur to us that this
was a possible future use of the property. I know there has been much said about drainage I am
the one who gets all the water from March until June we have a bog of approximately 50 by
150 that fills. Now no one has mentioned that the wetlands border Mr. Cocolaras' property.
When we have heavy downpours or melting snow there is a rush of water. My cesspools were
adjacent to that. They did not hold up many years ago I had to put in four new pools. The fourth
pool hit sand. I was asked to put another one in I could not afford it. I'm widowed, I'm elderly
and I live alone. The problem with the water is a great concern. It is a serious problem. This is
not just a little stream of water running. This is a massive flow that makes its way to the sound.
If you walk the beach in the spring you will see the water coming from the bluffs. It happens
December 3, 2015 Regular Meeting
every year and of course the amount of water depends on the amount of rainfall. I pray every
spring that it will be minimal.
MEMBER DANTES : Excuse me. Do you know the address of this converted garage?
MRS. MALLADY : Excuse me.
MEMBER DANTES : You said there is a converted garage that was being redone. Do you have an
address for that?
MRS. MALLADY : Yes Kevin Stickley's property it just sold this summer but she had a sign up
with a number and an address on this garage. None of us knew that it was we thought it was a
garage it was off the beaten path.
MEMBER DANTES : Do you know the address?
MRS. MALLADY :The Stickley property no. The garage had a number it's still there.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You mean it's a separate lot?
MRS. MALLADY : No it was a huge property I believe it was 2 1/2 acres. It sold over the summer
so I'm not aware of what's going on down there.
A.T.A. KIELY : You said it was 1015?
PETER COCOLARAS : or 1020 something I'm not sure. I just want to point out the wetlands are
not on my property by the garage. The wetlands
MEMBER DANTES : Yes we're aware of where they are.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yea we know we know. Look we're taking the time to listen to
neighbor's concerns cause that's what a public hearing should do. This is where the public is
invited in to voice their interests, their support or their problems. However I do want to point
out that drainage is something that has to be handled differently than what this board can do. I
think it would be very wise for you as neighbors to go to Jamie Richter or Michael Collins. They
are both the Town Engineers.
MRS. MALLADY : I have already spoken with Michael.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I have a huge drainage problem on Soundview. I know it well. I have
friends who live on Hyatt. I know the area and I know what problems you are having. We have
to do the best we can to deal with all of the runoff on these roads dirt roads or otherwise and
it's an ongoing challenge for all of us it's a big problem but the engineers are the ones that
December 3, 2015 Regular Meeting
really have to deal with that. All we can do is say yes if we grant you this structure in this non-
conforming cause he has a right to build a garage it's just you know this is a logical place to put
it as opposed some conforming location where he wouldn't even be before this board.
MEMBER DANTES : I thought that was the problem it's very limited what his conforming
location is.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well it is it is that's why he's before us because it's the only
reasonable place to put it relative to how it needs to function with entering your house and so
on. The dormers are a whole other issue. That we can address and we already have and we will
continue to and the applicant has heard us and he's going to do something to address it. I really
would like unless there's something new that needs to be said I would like to adjourn this to the
Special Meeting give the applicant an opportunity and his agent to see what you want to come
up with with regard to conforming dormers or change in roofline or whatever okay you'll let us
know. Is there a second? I'm sorry Eric already seconded it earlier. All in favor?
MEMBER HORNING : Aye.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Aye.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Aye.
MEMBER DANTES : Aye.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye.
(See Minutes for Resolution)
HEARING #6882—ANTHONY and LISA SANNINO
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I would like to make a motion to I'm going back to Sannino's
application and we're going to make a motion to close this hearing subject to receipt of a
survey and or plot plan showing the calculations of the acreage we discussed previously so that
we can determine what is necessary to add to it via a purchase of some sort and deal with
potential merger. I don't know whether that's actually that's not going to be on the survey.
MEMBER DANTES : Second.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor?
December 3, 2015 Regular Meeting
MEMBER HORNING : Aye.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Aye.
MEMBER DANTES : Aye.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye.
(See Minutes for Resolution)
HEARING #6900— BEN and DIANE BENEDIKTSSON
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Ben and Diane
Benediktsson #6900 and this is a request for variance from Article III Code Section 280-15C and
the building inspector's April 6, 2015 renewed October 1, 2015 Notice of Disapproval based on
an application for building permit to construct an accessory garage at 1) square footage of more
than the maximum code allowed of 750 square feet located at 1655 Evergreen Drive in
Cutchogue. So let's see you're looking at a proposal for 40 by 30 foot which is 1200 square foot
accessory garage where the code permits a maximum of 750 square foot in the R80 zone and
this is proposed for storage for business.
PAT MOORE : Well it's both his residence yea
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : His residence in the back I think we've all seen it. So how many
vehicles are going in this?
PAT MOORE : Well that's part of our discussion. The reason that it's 40 by 30 is and I had given
you photographs but it's showing up very high in the photographs so I'll just refer to it and give
it to you again. He's a small electrician Ice Electric that he this is his home. His family lives here
and the family and usually the spouse that says I want the yard cleaned up please and so part of
the plan here is that this garage will enable Mr. Benediktsson to put his trailer and the little
back hoe and equipment that goes right now is stored outside to go inside the building so the
40 if you look at the survey the garage door is on its side on the side on the let's see north west
side of the garage. That would enable him to put one vehicle straight in and then the other bay
allow him to put his trailer with a piece of equipment on top of the trailer and I have here it's
already in your file but I'll just refer to it so you can see I'll come close so it can be heard on we
have a photograph in your file of his trailer that has a small piece of equipment that's I guess
5
December 3, 2015 Regular Meeting
the rotary digger that allows for the trenching of electrical you know electrical lines and then he
has a very small back hoe so and that's up at the top of one of the pictures so you can see the
small equipment I'll bring it over here. That's the trailer that has the trench digger and this is
the small back hoe so those pieces of equipment would fit into the excuse me for the record I
know Liz then can't hear us she says when you walk away I can't hear you that gives room for
the trailer on the one bay and the work vehicle van in the other bay with a very small area of his
work bench just where his tools are you know cleaned up all his tools just a normal work bench
behind. That's the reason of the larger size. It is one story and it is being located or proposed 35
feet from the westerly property line and as far back as 15 feet from the rear property line that
is abutting the Bidwell winery so it's open AG land. All behind his house and behind his pool so
it is keeping all the equipment you know kind of cleaned up and away from the residence and
the pool area so that's the reason the design
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : How many vehicles how many of these vans?
PAT MOORE : Oh he only has we sent you a picture with a letter he has one van and a very
small like those mini it's like a mini truck what do we call it two vans but one is a very small mini
truck.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I've seen them. I saw them on the property.
PAT MOORE : And we sent a picture of them.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :There's two of them.
PAT MOORE :That's it he only has two plus his family has vehicles of course.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well they go in the attached garage I presume. They have a
residential garage.
PAT MOORE : Well yea yes exactly.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :There was no well we have one floor plan that's it.
PAT MOORE : Yea because it's an open garage.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No heat?
PAT MOORE : Is there heat?
SOMEONE FROM AUDIENCE : No.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay just asking.
December 3, 2015 Regular Meeting
PAT MOORE : Electrical.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well of course. Let's look at this. It says shed will be moved in a
conforming rear yard. Where is that?
PAT MOORE : There's a shed right now behind the pool fence. It's at 8 1/2 feet from the property
line and I believe it has to be 10.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So it's 10 foot setback. Talk to me about this home office is a
permitted use in a home.
PAT MOORE : Yes.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Any plans for expansion? Are there materials that are going to be
stored there electrical supplies, cable, wiring
PAT MOORE : No more than what is inside a van typically. It's what he keeps on sight right now
so it's not an expansion it's a cleanup and protection of the equipment inside the building
rather than leaving it all outside.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay let's see if the Board has any questions. George we'll start with
you.
MEMBER HORNING : Well we asked the previous applicant if he could attach the garage to the
house explain why that's not an option or is it an option?
PAT MOORE : No not really. It would change the character of the residential neighborhood to
add such a garage attached remember it's for the trailer it has to be deep enough for the trailer
so it really wouldn't fit properly. The house isn't designed for such an attachment.
MEMBER HORNING : Did you do any research on possible variances granted within the
neighborhood for oversized garages?
PAT MOORE : No I didn't go into that type of research I mean I could are there any other big
garages in the neighborhood? (Asking her client) Yea I'm not aware of other. I mean you would
have the farm buildings on Bidwell that's probably the closest size barns.
MEMBER HORNING : I know the Board in the past has denied some oversized garages.
PAT MOORE : Well it's case by case.
MEMBER HORNING : Yea so that's I'm wondering if there's any information on variances
granted.
1.
December 3, 2015 Regular Meeting
PAT MOORE : I can provide that to you I would if you need to see it I will double check.
MEMBER HORNING : It would sort of make a difference on the character of the neighborhood if
there were already existing oversized garages or not.
PAT MOORE : Well most of I did a google and it's for the most part it's a residential
neighborhood so I would say from the google search you got a lot of pools and you've got large
homes but not detached garages. It's really unique in the sense to this applicant in that he has
his home office there and he's trying to keep the area looking residential by putting the his
ancillary equipment inside so to the extent it's going to be an asset an improvement and
support the residential character of the neighborhood. I believe that a garage even though it's
oversized would be a better option than leaving equipment outside so
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : What's the absolute minimum size that would functionally allow the
storage of the existing equipment?
PAT MOORE : Well the length or because it's going east to west the length of 40 feet is crucial
because to be able to put the trailer you can't shorten that length. The depth it just squeezes
the vehicles a little more together leaves less clearance around it. I did ask is there anything
smaller he could shrink make it a 40 by 25 that would still make it practical for the equipment
storage it just means that you're putting vehicles closer together. It's more difficult you know to
get in and out of your van it's like putting you know putting two putting a car and bicycles and
everything else in a one and a half car garage you know it's the amount of clearance you have
around the vehicle so the preferred distance or depth in this case 30 feet gives the clearance
for the van and the trailer so we would really prefer to keep that size if at all possible but
anything between 25 and 30 is doable it's just that 5 feet of clearance which is probably more
like 3 1/2 feet and 3 1/2 feet on either side.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So this size is strictly related to the storage of the applicant's
business equipment.
PAT MOORE : Yes.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :There is no personal storage going in there?There's no
PAT MOORE : You know it doesn't mean that he can't store Christmas ornaments and things
clean out allows some movement of your personal stuff to other spaces.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well we're not going to restrict what goes in it but the point is if that
size is proposed in order to accommodate both a business use for storage for his
PAT MOORE : Well it's clearly to put his equipment.
December 3, 2015 Regular Meeting
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : and personal then I would say get rid of the personal. You have a
house you have a garage you know we have to grant if granted at all the absolute minimum
variance that we can justify so I'm exploring with you what the minimum is.
MEMBER DANTES : Can I ask a question Leslie. I have two questions that go I'm reading the
covenants and restrictions on the property number 6 and number 13. On number 6 says no
boats, boat trailers, travel trailers, mobile homes, trailers, trucks, equipment materials,
commercial vehicles, unlicensed or derelict vehicles or any other similar property shall be
parked or stored in any part of the premises unless parked or stored inside a garage and then
number 13 says lots in the subdivision shall be residential lots and each lot shall contain only
one single family residence together with lawful accessory structures. No trade or business shall
be conducted on the lot. How do you address those two issues?
PAT MOORE : Well he's been here since the beginning (speaking to her client-did you build this
house?) Yea he built the house here and he's been operating from this property I think that that
would tend to be if you were had a sign out and made it a commercial operation. This is a home
office so I believe that covenant 1. It has not has never been enforced and (talking to her client-
how many years have you been on this property?) 15 so enforcement of a covenant if it's a
private covenant so enforcement of it would have had to occurred by now contractual
covenants you have to enforce within ten years I think statute of limitations might limit it to ten
years at best so that's been the case. It actually supports our position of keeping his equipment
in a building so this that covenant he's actually violating the covenants by having the
equipment in the back yard. Putting it all in this building is more compliant with the covenants
so that actually is supporting our application. Again it's a private covenant and its enforceable
only by the homeowners and everybody has lived very peaceably here in this neighborhood.
The house obviously looks very residential right from you know from the front yard. You can't
tell what's going on behind from the street.
MEMBER DANTES : So then your goal is to not have any commercial vehicles parked outside?
PAT MOORE : Well our goal is to store everything inside yes. I mean his work vehicle is his
combination. I don't think anybody would say anything but certainly the trailers and the back
hoe and so on that really has to be inside so protecting his work truck is important and
MEMBER DANTES : And then clients, deliveries don't come to the property?
PAT MOORE : Never. Contractors you don't have ever anybody coming to your house. You live
off you know you work from your cell phone.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : George anymore?
December 3, 2015 Regular Meeting
MEMBER HORNING : NO.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Gerry?
MEMBER GOEHRINGER : This is a very difficult situation. We've had these before and I really
don't know what to suggest. I can understand the need for it. The code is very explicit but I
really don't know what to suggest.
PAT MOORE : Well it's interesting we adopted the Town Board adopted many years ago the a
permitted use of having home occupancy home offices for small contractors with that it was
intended to keep all your equipment inside, keep it residential and then later on we put in the
restriction on the size of garages so that restriction undermines our purposes behind having
you know a viable home office. It doesn't make sense for small contractor anybody who of this
size of any whether it's a plumber, electrician anything nobody who has construction going on
onsite obviously creating anything to go and rent commercial property. That is one of the
reasons why the code was changed to allow home office back in the 80's. I remember that
there you'd remember this cause you and I have been around that long but it came right at the
time when Jim Gray's the commercial center there by the dump was being built and there was a
big outpour because the code changed just as that building was coming on line as storage and
office space for industrial uses like contractors but the Town Board recognized that's very nice
but only the big guys can afford to rent that kind of space. The small guys mom and pop shops
you know he's a mom and pop you know your wife helps you with the bookkeeping and he's
pretty much the only guy
MEMBER GOEHRINGER : That's where the sympathy is but unfortunately I have a bunch of out
buildings myself housing all the stuff that I have and it's just very difficult
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well let's just ask a question cause there are circumstances since the
code changed where we have granted variances not in this neighborhood but we have done so.
It might be useful to kind of look and see what the particular circumstances were when those
variances were granted that's one. We have also said to people before who wanted to store a
large number of vehicles. There was an application previously they had plenty of room and a
swimming pool, a house the whole thing and they happened to have had a huge number of
antique cars and they wanted to store their collection safely at home under proper
circumstances and we said what's your lot coverage. You can easily put in two conforming
structures and still not and require no variances. Is it desirable not particularly but the bottom
line is and it's more money but they were able to achieve their goal of storing this you know
series of vehicles by creating two conforming garage structures without violating lot coverage.
They didn't need a variance. So I'll ask the question just for the record is it possible to create
December 3, 2015 Regular Meeting
two garages back there that would be conforming in size and accomplish the goals with some
equipment in one and some equipment in another one? I have to ask it.
PAT MOORE : It really doesn't make sense. Again this is also primarily a residence and you start
putting in more garages you're going to have to just cost factor alone you're going to be putting
a garage remember practically I'm not sure that it can be done because the garage doors have
to face the west side the side because that's where the driveway is and the pool is right in the
center so you'd have to come in along that side which means that you'd have the first garage
no closer than 15 feet from the rear line then you'd put a second garage that there is no room
before you hit the well and the fence for the pool so you're right in the residential home. So
you're putting two garages you'd have to put the garages side by side one behind the other and
you're just pushing the garages into the yard the pool the back yard of you know where the
pool equipment is
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well how about a smaller garage and then a carport? It's just a roof
a roof over the vans or whatever.
PAT MOORE : Well a carport will still be lot coverage.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : A roof with two poles.
PAT MOORE : It's just design because I think the building department might still consider it
overall over 750 square feet I don't know.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : They don't even have to be attached. If they're not attached then
there's I'm just trying to explore for your benefit.
PAT MOORE : Yes thank you it does create difficulty because you know the garage is now we
got terrible snow in the winter time you're vehicle has to be able to get out for calls of electrical
problems that generally occur in the midwinter so you're leaving your truck exposed it doesn't
really make sense for a viable business that has to leave at all times day and night to service
customers so it's a good idea but I don't think it's practical given the electrician or a plumber
somebody who goes out at all hours to deal with emergency calls and with our winters of snow
so it's interesting design but
MEMBER DANTES : Pat also in the covenant and restriction number three it goes to the
attached garages not facing Evergreen Drive they have to face the other direction.
PAT MOORE :They have to face what?
MEMBER DANTES : It says each dwelling should have an attached double garage the entrance
to which a lot faced Evergreen Drive.
';
December 3, 2015 Regular Meeting
PAT MOORE : Right so that's also consistent again thank you so much for providing all this extra
rational. We have to keep the garage doors on this towards the side so we can't design it in
such a way that it faces even though it's in the back yard facing the evergreen it's still facing the
side so one is the driveway and two is the facing of the garage. It also leads to somebody asked
I don't know if Mr. Horning asked or one of you asked me about extending the garage. You
can't extend the garage and leave access for the turning radius of a vehicle or a trailer if the
garage is attached and expanded onto the house. So there's a lot of reasons so far that doesn't
make sense to it makes sense to put it where it is and with the size that it needs to be to keep
his equipment both in conforming with covenants which are not your problem but it certainly is
a justification
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : How many employees does
PAT MOORE : Well he had one but he just quit so he has none.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The maximum would be one additional? Okay and if that employee
is using one of the vans they come to the home I presume then to get one of the vans cause
that's where they're located? Leave their personal car there and
PAT MOORE : It depends doesn't it? It depends on the individual but most times they are they
take it home with them so one of the vans that you saw would be the employee will be able to
take it home so he can have direct access from home to a job site on an emergency call as
needed.
MEMBER HORNING : I wanted to point out too that more than likely the two vans shown in the
picture would fit in a code conforming size garage and I happen to notice a lot of contractors
they don't store their trailers in garages or their back hoes or diggers or anything like that.
They're left out in the open so what would be the compelling reason then to have to store a
trailer with a digger machine on it in an oversized garage?
PAT MOORE : Well it's again more conforming to the residential character of the neighborhood
the private covenants that the community would prefer. Pardon me?
MEMBER HORNING : Well an oversized garage is not more conforming to the character of the
neighborhood.
PAT MOORE : Well but it depends on where it is and if it's visible. To the extent that the garage
is all the way in the back behind the front yard is wooded, the surrounding homes are wooded.
You can't see it so it's really tucked in.
December 3, 2015 Regular Meeting
MEMBER HORNING : But if there were two garages of conforming size and equipment in one
and vans in another that would be conforming according to town code.
PAT MOORE : It's each garage the simplest conforming garage is a probably a $50,000 price tag
last time I checked on building a garage even the simplest garage. You start putting two of them
that's $100,000 for small contractor that's a big chunk of change so that's why we're here for a
variance because sure you know you can build you know you can build three or four up to the
lot size.
MEMBER HORNING : I did ask the question as to what was the compelling reason to be able to
store a trailer with equipment on it in a garage?
PAT MOORE :The compelling reason?
MEMBER HORNING : Yea.
PAT MOORE : Is one the equipment lasts longer if it's protected from the elements. The trailer I
mean with snow and the weather you know once it starts to snow that equipment is pretty
much you know buried and realistically might use that back hoe for snow removal in the winter
so it's nice if you can get it out in fact if you've got it stored in the garage you can just pull it out
and start clearing the snow with a back hoe so it all makes sense. He wouldn't be here spending
the money on getting a variance if it didn't ultimately make more sense and again it cleans up
the property. It puts everything inside and it is primarily their home so it's you know your
weighing the benefit.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay I do think we've heard everything. You want to see about
getting in some decisions prior decisions where variance relief for an oversized garage was
granted by the Board?
PAT MOORE : I will see if I can
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :There was nothing in that neighborhood.
PAT MOORE : No I don't think there's anything in that neighborhood. The difficulty is trying to
research with through the Board's application process you kind of need to know where they are
before you can find
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :They're all on laser fiche but I don't you know
PAT MOORE : No but when you're searching it
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : you got to search by location.
December 3, 2015 Regular Meeting
PAT MOORE : You have to search by garage maybe oversized garage size of garage I'll look.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Accessory buildings.
PAT MOORE : Yea accessory buildings. I mean I'll look. I'll see what I can do.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Also if you can think of any other way that you can deal with this so
that we can so we could possibly grant something that maybe a different style, a different type
but falls within the confines of the code something like that.
PAT MOORE : We'll look at it. I think I've put on the record that 40 depth is really needed here
for the equipment and a small his small work bench so but we'll look at yea we will.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I'm going to close it subject to receipt. Do you want me to
PAT MOORE : Why don't we recess it if that's alright because I don't know I have to find the
accessory the variances but also you want me to come in with alternatives. I don't want to
come in without a discussion because I don't really know what we can come up with at this
point so
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well I can adjourn it to the special.
PAT MOORE : Well no I wanted an ability to discuss. If I come to you with a 40 by 25 it's a
thousand square feet rather than 1200.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well you've already said that
PAT MOORE :That's potentially what could be done if that's sufficient.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well we'd have to talk to each other about it which we're not going
to do here but I mean that would be we can do that as alternative relief.
PAT MOORE : Why don't we do it as alternative because that was something that was still
workable.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Does the Board want to close this?
MEMBER GOEHRINGER : I think we just hold it hold it open till the Special and I know that Pat
can't converse anything or we can't take testimony but at the same time
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well if there's anything else you want to submit between now and
then you can do it. We can close it to the Special Meeting in two weeks and then deliberate.
PAT MOORE : What's that date it's December
December 3, 2015 Regular Meeting
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : December 17th. So we're going to adjourn to Special Meeting. Alright
so I'm going to make a motion oh is there anyone in the audience who wished to address this
application? Hearing no further questions or comments I'm going to make a motion to adjourn
this hearing to the Special Meeting on December 17th. Is there a second?
MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Second.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor?
MEMBER HORNING : Aye.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Aye.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Aye.
MEMBER DANTES : Aye.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye.
(See Minutes for Resolution)
HEARING #6893—ALEXANDER KOFINAS, AS TRUSTEE
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Alexander Kofinas as
Trustee #6893. This is a request for variance from Article XXIII Section 280-122 and the Building
Inspector's October 15, 2015 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for building permit
to construct alterations to an existing nonconforming accessory garage at proposed alteration
creates new non-conformances located at 805 West Rd. (adj. to Peconic Bay) in Cutchogue.
MIKE KIMACK : Good morning. Now that you're warmed up the existing garage had existed
prior to zoning. It has a Pre CO attached to it. I'm before you because the request is not to
change the perimeter of the garage but to flush out the back side of the garage or the roof line
itself. If you could the drawing really just shows you the coloration of the back side but if you
looked at the actual plans that were submitted in here on the on A-4 you'll see that the old roof
line was indented in the back south side so the request is to extend that out to a full A-line roof
all the way from front to back.
December 3, 2015 Regular Meeting
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : If you wanted to rebuild this in place and in kind would you need a
variance?
MIKE KIMACK : I don't believe so. I mean to build it in kind you mean if we took the whole thing
down?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well the application says new windows, floor structures, slab, bilco
doors, stairs, new doors now you're before us because this is a non-conforming structure with a
PreCo so expanding a non-conformity to squaring off the back is what I believe the issue is.
MIKE KI MACK : I believe that's what we're here for exactly.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : However we all looked at it I don't know I mean I could not get
inside it was locked up but I looked through and there is a ladder kind of going up the top is
there a basemen?
MIKE KIMACK : It's going to be filled in basically. It has a wooden floor in it now and part of the
proposal which I don't think we would need a permit for is to fill it compact it and pour a slab.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So you need a bilco door why?
MIKE KIMACK : Well there's a bilco door now it's just a replacement bilco door.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It has access to a crawl space then instead
MIKE KIMACK : To a crawl space well yeah I'm sorry you're right about that. The bilco door
would not be necessary.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So I'm trying to figure out what exactly they will be doing.
MIKE KIMACK : When I put this together I didn't realize that they had in fact decided to fill in
the basement. Originally it was supposed to be just a redo of the original the wooden floor but
it's changing the siding, changing the roof shingles, changing the windows.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well the roof needs to be replaced.
MIKE KIMACK : Yea and the front doors rather than two garage doors it's a singular door across
the front.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well that's why I'm asking about rebuilding in place and in kind
because basically all the parts are going. What's staying?
MIKE KIMACK : Well basically the same structure the footprint is staying. The outline of the roof
is staying. It's being extended out the back. It's not being increased in height in any ways. The
December 3, 2015 Regular Meeting
perimeter the foundation is still the same foundation. The perimeter walls are still the same
perimeter walls, there's no interior walls.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Right.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Can I ask a question and I do apologize to both the chairperson and to
Mike, you're extending it because simply the cars don't fit it in is that what the problem is?
MIKE KIMACK : I think no sir we're not extending the perimeter stays the same.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Footprint is the same.
MIKE KIMACK : What they're doing is the back side of the roof is simply being squared off with
the back side of the building that's all. Right now it basically it's kind of an odd it's kind of an
odd cut in on the back side of the roof. It comes in about four feet and comes up. So since we
had to go basically and redo the owner just wanted it squared off.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER : I see.
MIKE KIMACK : That basically I believe is what pushed me into the non-conformance aspect
which was the squaring off of the back.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER : They can rebuild this in place and in kind?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I believe I think the Building Department would allow them to
rebuild it in place and in kind as long as there was no increase in the degree of non-
conformance because they have a Pre Co but any enlargement would trigger variance relief
because you're increasing the non-conformity. I just want to know if this is a demo or not.
MIKE KIMACK : No it's not.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You're saying the perimeter walls will remain.
MIKE KI MACK : I know where you were going. It's not a demo.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I know you know where I'm going and I don't want to see your lovely
face in here again.
MIKE KIMACK : The definition of demo that I get from the Building Department from Mike
Verity and he says the way he does it whether you have a first one story or a two story house if
you take down 75% of the first floor the interior walls and exterior walls then he considers it a
demo and if we were doing that then we would be discussing the non-conforming of this garage
and I don't believe I'd be able to put it back in the same location if I was in a demo situation.
December 3, 2015 Regular Meeting
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No it would if it was a demo it would extinguish the Pre Co.
MIKE KIMACK : We are not taking down the exterior walls, we're not changing the roof line.
We're changing the siding, we're changing the windows, we're putting new roof on, a new
garage door, filling up the basement putting a slab. I think the back door and a back set of
stairs. Everything is all it needs basically replacement but I do not believe that we come close to
the percentage of demolition of exterior of course there's no interior walls in this one. We're
not taking down 75% of the building.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there see there's no interior drawings which makes me crazy so
MIKE KI MACK : It's open it's one big open space.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there a second floor loft storage loft?
MIKE KIMACK : No.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay cause there is now.
MIKE KIMACK : I'm not quite sure on that particular one let me see.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Cause there's a ladder in there going up some place.
MIKE KIMACK : If you look at A5 basically there is no ladder.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Sorry we do have a floor plan. Is there a section?
MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Sections? No oh that's the only section we have showing
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :That's a footing.
MEMBER HORNING : Sir did you tell us what the purpose of filling in this section of roof actually
achieves?
MIKE KIMACK : I think it just makes it from more architecturally pleasing from a structure point
of view it's easier to once you got the A line to it's easy to do basically then you it's easy to put
the shingles on and maintain it it's just no one is going to see it because
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I don't have a problem with that frankly it's so de minimus in my
mind it's just a slightly changed roofline but there's no heat in this?
MIKE KI MACK : No heat.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No plumbing?
3
December 3, 2015 Regular Meeting
MIKE KIMACK : No plumbing.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Would you address for us the other similar structures in the
neighborhood.
MIKE KIMACK : I can basically do I mean this thing had been Pre C of O'd basically and I as a
result of that since it was there I wasn't going to put it in the demo mode I hadn't done the
research on existing. I don't believe that I'm going although in that particular area I may find a
front yard I may find a front yard garages.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You're going to find several.
MIKE KIMACK :That are non-conforming in that particular area?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That was where I was going. I mean it's very characteristic almost
because the property so dramatically slopes down to the water almost every one of those
houses has an accessory garage right up on the road.
MIKE KIMACK : What I will do if it pleases the Board is I'll deliver to you before your Special
Meeting the research on accessory garages in front yard.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER : That would be great.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Just because it addresses character of the neighborhood but in fact
there is a legal basis for allowing a renovation on this structure you have a Pre CO.
MIKE KIMACK : There was in many respects it met the conformance without coming to the
Zoning Board with the exception of extending the non-conformance because we extended we
squared off the back.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well and it's not on the road side either so it will hardly even be
visible.
MIKE KIMACK : I mean it's almost you go past it you're right there's others there I will do my
research on it.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there anyone else in the audience who wants to address this
application?
MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Michael could you give us a cross section of the garage?
MIKE KIMACK : Sure.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER : So we could see the height of these I guess second floor or
December 3, 2015 Regular Meeting
MIKE KIMACK : Well the whole thing is eighteen feet that doesn't change Ken.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Yea well what's the difference between the ceiling, decking and the
height of the (inaudible) type of thing and I guess you're going to have a pull down staircase is
that it?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No their not having a stair he says they're not going to have a
second floor.
MIKE KIMACK : No there's nothing downstairs. It's all being filled in.
MEMBER SCNEIDER : But you want to get up there somehow you're just going to have a little
scuttle hole or something?
MIKE KIMACK : If you look at A-5 basically right now if you look at A-5 there's no staircase going
up there.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Yea I know.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : There isn't one now there is a ladder that goes now what's the
dotted line is that for overhead
MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Oh so it's just going to be open.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Just open.
MIKE KI MACK : It's just going to be open.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Oh okay okay okay.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's open. They're going to get rid of that there's a small loft area
with a ladder in at the moment just going to be an open for storage.
MIKE KIMACK : And if you look at that one he did have the bilco on it that's what threw me I
didn't think it through there.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER : And do to this it's just really a preference of the owner to take away the
shed roof and
MIKE KIMACK : The owner had been before you before obviously with the original one and you
could see the extent of the work he has done on the property it's quite something a nice job.
December 3, 2015 Regular Meeting
MEMBER GOEHRINGER : I'm not speaking for the owner but the point in question is you really
can't put anything of weight in these garages because the timber is not only half shot it's and
there's no ability to sustain that and
MIKE KIMACK : No and one of the reasons is having a wooden floor that's supported with
something underneath it this one had obviously rotted over the years and quite frankly it's
difficult to put any weight on that at all the decision to fill it in and cap it with a concrete floor is
practical at best.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER : And the only reason why they didn't do that in the beginning is
because they never had transit mix everything was built on site and this was they probably said
this is the line of least resistance we're not doing it.
MIKE KIMACK : And they probably used underneath they might of used underneath for you
know for vegetable storage I mean it could of easily been you know a root cellar type situation.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay anything else from anybody?
MEMBER DANTES : Yes. I have a question about the last variance that we granted on this
property 6774 I'm looking at the conditions and one is that there's to be a landscaped buffer is
that conditioned in that?
MIKE KIMACK : Yes. He the owner called me on that specifically. There was originally there was
if you looked at the water with the house to your back there was a landscaped buffer originally
on the left side but not on the right side and both you and the Trustees required a ten foot it
wasn't specified but it normally works to be a ten foot non turf buffer. They had planted on the
left side and because he had the retaining walls he was he said to me if I've done the
blueberries and the bayberries and my retaining walls is that part of the ten and I said no. The
requirement is ten feet from the top of the bluff whether you plant down the hill or not. So I
matter of fact I stopped and saw him about a week or two ago and said to the landscape guy
you have to give me a ten foot buffer with 1A type plants on both sides leaving a four or five
foot opening to get to the staircase in the middle.
MEMBER DANTES : And then are the pool mechanicals in a sound deadening enclosure?
MIKE KIMACK : I believe yes that was part of the original design.
MEMBER DANTES : And then number four - the as built storage shed when will that be
removed?
' .
December 3, 2015 Regular Meeting
MIKE KIMACK : Look I gave it my best shot for you guys you know but you said go away Mike. I
informed the doctor that had to be removed basically that there was no way that he can keep
the upper deck, the storage shed or the lower deck basically.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And are they still there cause obviously I didn't bother to go all the
way down.
MEMBER DANTES : I did.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Did you are they there?
MEMBER DANTES : I did see a storage shed there.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I guess it's still there.
MIKE KIMACK : Was the upper roof there Eric the upper deck?
MEMBER DANTES : I think so.
MIKE KIMACK : I'll check with the doctor basically.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It would be better for him to remove it than for us to have to go to
code enforcement to roll over those conditions
MIKE KI MACK : It's been a sensitive point from the beginning.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I know. First he said fine and then he really didn't want to do it.
MIKE KIMACK : Yea no I know that.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : However you know you should probably come before this Board
with clear hands.
MIKE KIMACK : That's the last basically the non-turf buffer will meet the code basically the code
requirement cause I specifically went down there with the landscaper and laid it out for him
that I can attest to but as far as taking down the rest of it he knows he has to because I told him
the results I gave him the letter that you gave me as I requested the last time so he is aware of
it.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Maybe we should send the Building Department out there and check it
out.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I don't know do you know if he has C.O. on his house and pool and
everything?
December 3, 2015 Regular Meeting
MIKE KI MACK : I don't know. I'm you know once
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Cause he's not going to get a C.O. unless he removes that stuff.
MIKE KIMACK : Understood you're absolutely right there. So that's probably your trigger. I think
he wants to get into the house as soon as possible. I think it's near completion. It's been
extensively done I mean it's a nice job.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Oh my god it's beautiful.
MIKE KIMACK : It really is. I mean the whole thing fencing and everything else like that so you're
right I think the leverage that you have on him is he's not going to get the C.O. until he actually
complies and meets with the requirements within both your permit and also the Trustees
permit.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yea the building inspector will do that. Okay anybody else anything
MIKE KIMACK : I'll get you the research. Look once I give them the permit I'm generally but at
the same time my responsibility is to follow up if I can if they ask me my help.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well you know the an option that the Board has is to adjourn this
application until the conditions have been met on the previous variances.
MIKE KIMACK : I understand that.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : There's no reason why they can't cause that (inaudible) give him the
incentive
MIKE KIMACK : But I think to be fair the Board has other alternative methods with which to
persuade the compliance and that is the C.O. can't be issued until everything is
MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Well why don't we make that decision at the Special whether we're
going to adjourn it or not? Can we do that? Give us a couple of weeks
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I think what the most sensible thing for us to do here is to simply
adjourn this until such time as the conditions have been met on the previous relief because to
grant additional relief when in fact the relief previously granted has not even been complied
with is just not a good precedent.
MIKE KIMACK : I'm obviously not pleased with that but I can understand.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Of course and I can understand why.
December 3, 2015 Regular Meeting
MEMBER SCHNEIDER : This is no reflection on your representation your client and he has to
understand that totally.
MIKE KIMACK : Look once I do the permits basically my control or my leverage or my influence
over what can or cannot be done pretty much ceases.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Right but our leverage doesn't and so I think the best thing to do is
to convey that to the applicant what happened is we're going to adjourn this without a date
until such time those conditions have been met cause then we don't need to have another
hearing I mean we know everything we need to know about the garage.
MIKE KIMACK : What I will do is I will also do the research and submit in kind types of garages in
the area for the record you'll have that. That's easy enough to do.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Great.
MIKE KIMACK : As you indicated it's probably plentiful.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well and I think that you can convey to Dr. Kofinas that the Board
really understands what he's proposing to do and that he has perfectly substantial grounds for
doing so with the garage.
MIKE KIMACK : Standing by itself the garage is not necessarily I don't believe the issue in and of
itself but it's connected to the rest of the project which is an issue.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We have to look at the whole property and previous relief granted
you know and if the terms have not yet been met and there is no reason why there should be
any delay in the removal of those structures. I think I'm just gonna is the Board alright with
that?
MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Yep.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Yep I am.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So I'm going to make a motion to adjourn this hearing until such
time as conditions in variance# Eric what was that prior? You have that in front of you?
MEMBER DANTES : 6774
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay till the conditions stated in decision #6774 have been met and
documentation is submitted verifying same.
MEMBER DANTES : It was filed on September 8, 2014.
NYb
December 3, 2015 Regular Meeting
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes everybody? Is there a second?
MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Second.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor?
MEMBER HORNING : Aye.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Aye.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Aye.
MEMBER DANTES : Aye.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. As soon that's done
MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Do you have a copy of those conditions?
MIKE KIMACK : Yes I've got the whole
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anyway what we should do is either he or Mark or you know
Schwartz is Mark doing the drawings?
MIKE KIMACK : Mark is the architect.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : They need to submit to our office that it's been completed and then
we will send out you know Gary or we'll go out actually one of us to confirm that the conditions
have been met. I'll put it in writing so we have a paper trail and then we will proceed to
deliberate or we'll close I'll put it on to close because there's no additional testimony.
MIKE KIMACK : I can provide you any additional information you want.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No so the next available agenda after we receive that I'll put it on to
close and we'll deliberate. Anything else from anybody? Hearing no further is there anyone else
in the audience who wishes to address this application? I'm going to make a motion to adjourn
this hearing without a date until such time as conditions in the prior relief granted have been
met and we have been informed thereof and that's confirmed that at that time we will close
and deliberate the application currently before us. Is there a second?
MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Second.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor?
MEMBER HORNING : Aye.
5
December 3, 2015 Regular Meeting
MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Aye.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Aye.
MEMBER DANTES : Aye.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye.
(See Minutes for Resolution)
HEARING #6899—GIOIA TURITTO and NABIL EL SHERIF
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for this is Turitto and El
Sherif #6899. This is a request for variances from Article III Section 280-15 and the Building
Inspector's October 21, 2015 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for building permit
for accessory gazebo and "as built" accessory shed at 1) accessory gazebo proposed in location
other than the code required rear yard and 2) "as built" accessory shed located in other than
the code required rear yard located at 1800 Park Way and 40 Beachwood (adj. to Goose Creek)
in Southold. Are these lots merged Mike? Oh sorry you have to state your name for the record.
MIKE KIMACK : Michael Kimack for the applicant. I believe they've been merged by matter of
law. I mean in essence it wasn't the intention to merge originally it was always carried as two
separate lots. A little history on this is the original owner had the house which was adjacent to
it they own the house and they own this vacant piece of property. They had that under two
names and then they had the lot under one name and that was sufficient to not meet the
merger requirements. That was not the case when it was transferred. It was transferred in both
names the only difference being one was tenants by the entirety and the other tenants in
common and it was position of the town that that wasn't sufficient to avoid the merger. So it's
your position and the Town's position that it's one lot.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER : That it's what?
MIKE KIMACK :That it's one lot.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Accessory structures are not permitted on lots without principal
uses.
December 3, 2015 Regular Meeting
MEMBER GOEHRINGER : I remember we had this one some time ago.
MEMBER DANTES : We unmerged this at one point they must of merged it again.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER : We unmerged it so they could buy it.
MIKE KIMACK : And then it was merged. I'm sorry it was unmerged and then they bought it and
the way they bought it apparently wasn't sufficient in a sense almost self-merged it to be fair.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Okay so we're assuming it's merged is that correct?
MIKE KIMACK : Yep.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I would yes because otherwise the Notice of Disapproval would not
be written the way it was.
MIKE KIMACK : The position is is that it's merged. My clients have accepted the fact that it's
merged. They're treating it as one lot.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Now do you have a copy of the LWRP?
MIKE KIMACK : I do and I take let me take exception to this.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay talk to us about it.
MIKE KIMACK : You know I mean inconsistency they use the policy one foster pattern
development you guys know what the language is an minimize adverse effects of development
okay we went from unmerged lot to a merged lot, the unmerged lot had originally had a design
of a house on it and a septic (inaudible) that's not going to happen. We now have a merged lot
which primarily is going to be pretty much all landscaped all replanted and landscaped. How
bad basically does it minimize development I cannot give you an answer I'm sorry I disagree
strongly with the position.
MEMBER DANTES : Also Mike I think the original plan that we had had a building envelope on it.
MIKE KIMACK : It did it had a building designed on it with septic the whole bit on it basically. It
was the intent I think to capitalize on the investment being made on that property.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Well I think the problem that lies is the fact that you have a
foundation for a gazebo and the gazebo has a steep roof and the roof runoff is going to end up
in the wetlands.
MIKE KIMACK : Let me address that primarily. Let me go back a little bit in history of this one.
This started about a year ago I think this time last year. The owners basically wanted to do this
December 3, 2015 Regular Meeting
landscaped project next door and put the gazebo in and put a little pool a little pond and they
hired a landscaper who was not from the area who advised them you can do it without permits
so they went in and cleared the property. They started construction and then the town showed
up and I got four violations one for commencing construction without a permit, one for clearing
without a permit, one for commencing without a ZBA, and one commencing with a Trustees.
Then the DEC showed up and they got an Article 25. That has all been adjudicated. The town
we've worked with the town to adjudicate the four violations paid the fine. I went to DEC and
this ties back to some of the comments that Mark Terry made I had the hearing with DEC last
fall on their Article 25 violation and gave them the landscape plan. They made
recommendations to put in those trees and part of the requirement of adjudication when they
reduced the fine from ten thousand to two thousand was that we submit the check within a
certain period of time and that also we submit that planting plan and that planting plan will be
stamped and become our permit. Now that had been I've submitted that three months ago but
that's not unusual for DEC not (inaudible) in that particular time so I have the planting plan
submitted to DEC which is in conformance with what they would like to see. Let's get back to
the Trustees. I had a pre-application hearing with the Trustees some months ago to get a feel as
to exactly what their feelings were. What they said was that since we cleared right up to the
phragmite they looked at this as being a fairly sensitive area and they decided that they wanted
a replanting plan within that fifty feet of the wetlands not a landscape plan but a replanting
plan and that was the selection of those plants is both going to the Trustees I've already gone
off to DEC and when you look at it the gazebo the original gazebo was within that fifty feet. It
was right within two feet of phragmite line. That has to be completely taken down. The pond
that was constructed there is being filled in and done away with. There's no other pond that's
going to be put back. We had to move the gazebo away from that fifty foot but at the same
time in order not to have another variance requirement move it fifty feet from the road. So we
ended up with and you look at the drawing those two dash lines over there an area that both
requirement of the setback in the fifty feet from the phragmite line from the Trustees and also
not creating another variance fifty feet back from the front road as an accessory. It puts it in the
side yard. We do meet the side yard setback. That was not a real problem but you've got that
little band in there that we centered it on there. There's no pond, there's no pool (inaudible)
like that. That front fifty foot planting is a replanting the rest is the landscape. That's the
background to it basically. The gazebo is fourteen foot diameter. I gave a picture in there of
what it would look like right out of the catalog. If you go on the site you see that big white thing
sitting there that's the gazebo.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Where is this Washington?
MIKE KIMACK : They would like obviously you know they're putting in an awful lot of money on
this site in terms of landscaping etc. like that. It should be quite nice when it's all done.
December 3, 2015 Regular Meeting
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So this current landscape plan meets both the Trustees and the
DEC's buffers?
MIKE KIMACK : Yes. There's nothing. The only thing is if you look if you look at the landscape
plan down on that one side there's an existing retaining wall that was there but that wasn't an
issue for DEC nor for the Trustees and that's going to remain. That was part of the original
construction but it's almost on the other piece of property which is now one piece of property
but it wasn't on that one. It's that squiggly line in here. (away from the microphone) Originally
the gazebo was here (inaudible)
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :This shed in the side yard the as built what's the issue with that?
MIKE KIMACK : Yea that has been there forever. We basically put it in because I would like to be
able to get permission to leave it in its place. It's a small shed. It's not very large but it is a side
yard as a result a side yard shed.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Somewhere I read it was going to be removed.
MIKE KI MACK : No not this one.
MEMBER DANTES : In the prior in the waiver of merger we were going to have them move it off
the lot line cause it's was over the lot line.
MIKE KIMACK :That's a moot point.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So it's not a setback issue at all now.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Excuse me what's in the storage building?Any utility?
MIKE KIMACK : No. It's just gardening equipment there's nothing there's no power to it or
anything like that.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER : We would need to know the size of it.
MIKE KIMACK : I thought didn't I put that down there?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's pretty small.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Yea I know but.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well let's find out.
MEMBER DANTES : Was there a setback variance if it is moved to the front yard or the rear yard
a setback problem?
December 3, 2015 Regular Meeting
MIKE KIMACK : Well it would be fifty feet from the front basically it had to be fifty feet from the
front anyway.
MEMBER DANTES : That's where the house is anyway right?
MIKE KIMACK : And that's where the house is for the most part basically so
MEMBER DANTES : And if move it to the rear yard then we're encroaching on the wetlands.
MIKE KIMACK :Then we're encroaching in the wetlands in that area.
MEMBER DANTES : So anyway you go you're gonna it's going
MIKE KIMACK : It's kind of like it's in that zone basically and that's why I gave you all of the
drawings that I did because I felt it was imperative to make sure you can at least understand.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER : I don't even know where it is I mean I don't have any there's no
figures, distances or anything to depict it.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Here's the two lots on the survey. The house is over here and this
line doesn't exist anymore basically
MEMBER GOEHRINGER : But it doesn't tell me where it is from the road. It doesn't tell me
where it is from the house.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No it doesn't.
MIKE KIMACK : You have this one?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yea. It's the same one but one of them has this little arrows on for
photographs.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Do you have a problem with me asking for the distances on this on the
shed?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's not a setback issue just a side yard.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER : But I need to depict where it is. I don't know where it is in reference to
the house. I don't know where it is in reference to anything.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well what we could simply do is ask that there should be there is a
survey with the house.
MIKE KIMACK :There is a survey showing the house that's why I did that
December 3, 2015 Regular Meeting
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's a separate one.
MIIKE KIMACK :There's a separate survey.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Yea and the what do you call it is not mentioned in there. No there's
no shed shown there absolutely not.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Here.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER : It is not shown.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :This is the old survey and it doesn't show the shed.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER : It does not show the shed.
MEMBER DANTES : Well what are the setbacks for the house?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : For the house conforming front yard setback.
MEMBER DANTES : So if the shed is in the front yard it would be (inaudible)
MIKE KIMACK : Well it's forward it's further back seaward from the front of the house that I
know.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Would you please give me some distances on this Mike so I know
where we are.
MIKE KIMACK : I can okay in relation to the house basically.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yea just locate it on here.
MIKE KIMACK : I will do that. I'll also give you the measurements on the shed but as you
indicated it's rather small.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Well it was determined that the shed is in the side yard correct?
CHAIRPERSONE WEISMAN : Yea.
MIKE KIMACK : Yes.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER : So somehow had to make that determination somehow so I guess they
put both these surveys together.
MIKE KIMACK : My difficulty is that I never had one complete survey. The old one with the
house
5
:.'�.,
December 3, 2015 Regular Meeting
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You got one lot and the other lot
MIKE KIMACK : And then the other lot basically in order to move forward. What I did then was I
connected it in order to show that the gazebo was in fact a side yard that's why I showed the
house basically but I'll give you dimensions.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER : We need dimensions and where it is.
MIKE KIMACK : Sure.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there anyone in the audience wishing to address this application?
Anything else from the Board anything anybody? Okay hearing no further questions or
comments I'm going to make a motion to close the hearing subject to receipt of the location of
the shed and dimensions relative to the existing dwelling. Is there a second?
MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Second.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor?
MEMBER HORNING : Aye.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Aye.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Aye.
MEMBER DANTES : Aye.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye.
(See Minutes for Resolution)
HEARING #6901— BRUCE ROTHSTEIN
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Bruce Rothstein #6901.
This is a request for variance from Article XXIII Section 280-124 and the Building Inspector's
October 21, 2015 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for building permit to construct
a second story addition to existing single family dwelling at 1) less than the minimum code
required side yard setback of 15 feet located at 7390 Great Peconic Bay Boulevard (adj. to Great
Peconic Bay) in Laurel. State your name.
5
December 3, 2015 Regular Meeting
ROBERT BROWN : Robert Brown architect.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay so this looks like it's a second story addition to a house that is
partially two story already.
ROBERT BROWN : It is in fact a two story house with an attached two story garage. The part of
the structure that attaches the house to the garage is one story and very simply it's just a
matter of filling in.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Right and this is a side yard setback of 11 feet where the code
requires 15 because that's the existing setback.
ROBERT BROWN : It is a pre-existing non-conforming situation yes.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And that's going to be maintained?
ROBERT BROWN : Yes.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Ken any questions?
MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Yes. So the new work that's proposed does the second story above the I
guess you call that a heated connected breezeway or something.
ROBERT BROWN : It is in fact a den.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER : A den okay but it connects to second story structure and it's heated.
ROBERT BROWN : It connects the two structures yes.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER : And that's at eleven that new work is going to be at eleven feet okay I
see.
ROBERT BROWN :The entire structure including that one story section is all at eleven feet.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Gotcha okay very good. No other questions just pretty much a fill in on
the second floor.
ROBERT BROWN : Yes exactly.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Gerry.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER : No I have no questions. I was there and it's I can see why you want to
fill it in.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay George anything?
53
December 3, 2015 Regular Meeting
MEMBER HORNING : Nothing.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And Eric?
MEMBER DANTES : I do not have any questions.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : At last we cut a break here I'll tell you. Is there anyone in the
audience who wishes to address this application? Hearing no further comments or questions I
make a motion to close this hearing reserve decision to later date.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Second.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor?
MEMBER HORNING : Aye.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Aye.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Aye.
MEMBER DANTES : Aye.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye.
(See Minutes for Resolution)
HEARING #6895 LINTON DUELL
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Linton Duell # 6895. This
is an applicant requesting a Special Exception under Article III Section 280-13B(13). The
applicant is the owner requesting authorization to establish an accessory apartment in an
accessory structure located at 450 Private Road #14 (adj. to Orient Harbor) in Orient New York.
State your name for the record please.
LINTON DUELL : Hi. Linton Duell from Orient.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : How do you do. Okay there are certain standards in the code for the
establishment of an accessory structure an accessory apartment in an accessory structure
based upon a series of circumstances being met. One of which it is basically only permitted in
5
December 3, 2015 Regular Meeting
an existing accessory building that has a C.O. prior to a specific date. That date is I'm looking
here there it is underlined January 1, 2008. When the code was created to permit this the
creation of an accessory apartment legally the purpose was to create more affordable housing
units out of existing stock not to build new structures. As you probably know there are a
number of people who have apartments above garages some of them attached some of them
not attached and the intent here was to legalize those and then to allow for the conversion for
two purposes only not for market rate but rentals but to rent either to a person who was
eligible on the affordable housing registry or was a family member so that if you had an aging
parent or something kids want to move into the big house you know other people moving in
the other has to be full time year round occupancy and so on. Unlike variance relief you know
where we have a bunch of wiggle room you know where we can look at the standards and say
that we can justify based on those town laws and statutes the granting of relief we don't have
the ability to rewrite the code and to therefore say that it's okay to build a new structure which
is what you're proposing to do. I understand your existing structure is in pretty bad shape.
We've all been to the property we've seen it. You're proposing to demolish it. Had you been
able to save that and you had a C.O. on it it would have qualified or it would qualify for the
establishment of an apartment but it all has to meet the standards in the code and so if there's
anything you'd like us to know you know about your proposal please take this opportunity to
inform us.
LINTON DUELL : Yeah thank you. I'm under the impression that you can grant exceptions to
some of the meat of the section 280-13B but that's not what I want to do is I would like to have
a garage that's closer to my house. I would like to have a living space above it so a) either my
adult children can stay there or like you just said as we all age and I'm at the age of 65 right
now that we may have a change in how we use the property as far as our relations but as you
probably saw when you were at the property the existing garage which was built I'm not exactly
sure when is as far away from the house as you can get. It's probably two feet or three feet
below where the cars are presently parked and it floods on a continuous regular basis every
time there is a) a heavy rain or any type of storm. In my lifetime I've owned the house for a long
time. We had it remodeled in '92. I have swamed through the house itself twice during
hurricanes on the first floor. The garage the water was up almost five feet at one time and in
the past I've anchored a boat at the outhouse at Poquatuck Park behind the Webb house so I
could get to the house in a storm if I had to and everybody laughed at me during hurricane
Sandy until they saw that I was rowing to my house cause we had vacated the house. Be as it
may the garage is not really usable on a year round basis for cars so that's one thing. Two the
condition of it and the location doesn't really lend itself to rebuilding and putting any type of
structure or living space above it should I want to. It's right on the property line on two sides
not to mention you have Lilco LIPA whatever it is power lines going right over it. So what I want
December 3, 2015 Regular Meeting
to do is put the garage where I showed you and I would like to have a living space above it
because it's economical to do it that way. As a fireman from Orient for thirty five years I don't
want an attached garage to my house if I can at all avoid that. A couple of house fires I've been
to always started in the garage and moved in to the house. The last one was in Majors Pond
area four years ago so I'm kind of adverse to that. So what I'm asking for you is to give me an
exception to this so I can do what I want to do.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay well let me explain unlike variance relief where we really can
create you know a scenario that allows you to do something that the code doesn't permit
Special Exception permits have to meet a different set of standards and you know and you got a
copy I know you do that's right in the application and number D13, B13 A-K #Z #J rather says
the existing accessory building which is converted to permit this accessory apartment has been
in existence and has a valid certificate of occupancy issued prior to January 1, 2008 and is
attached hereto now that we cannot alter. We could alter let's say you did have an existing
structure and if you were going to propose to convert part of it for an apartment if it didn't
meet the size requirements a dimensional thing. Let's say it was the it's the minimum of 450
square feet and a maximum of 750 let's say yours was 755 okay that we could grant you within
the purview of the Special Exception permit a small variance for the dimensional difference but
other than that that's what you have to meet all of these conditions so this application simply
cannot qualify for an accessory apartment. That leaves the next application which I haven't
opened yet but let me try and clarify for you what some of your choices are. You can you just
mentioned you didn't want to attach the garage but one way to do it would be to attach a
garage and build living space above it it's perfectly legal you probably don't even need a
variance. That you could do and you can have a separate entrance. You can expand you can do
an accessory apartment in an existing dwelling as long as that apartment is no greater than 40%
of the size of the dwelling as it exists so you can expand even your foundation by up to 25% and
build an apartment but it would have to be part of your dwelling. That's a different thing than
an accessory apartment in an accessory structure. You can build your garage as an accessory
garage but you cannot have dwellings you know habitable space in it. That's why the other
application called out two dwellings. Only one dwelling is permitted on one piece of property.
So to build a garage with an apartment above it that's brand new means you're creating a
second dwelling on the property which is why the Building Department told you you couldn't
do it so you can build your garage you can attach it and build a garage with living space above
or you can expand your existing house to put an apartment on it and build your garage but you
can't build a brand new structure with living space above it.
LINTON DUELL : Even though the property is over a half an acre?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yea it has nothing to do with the acreage.
5
December 3, 2015 Regular Meeting
LINTON DUELL : And this pertains this affects everybody in the town right?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Of course.
LINTO DUELL : So what about retroactive enforcement of the laws cause as I understand within
at least 200 yards of where I am there are at least three houses or building accessory buildings
that have those apartments above it and nobody seems to care whether it's a boat house that
all of a sudden turns into a living residence.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That's a matter for code enforcement then. Seriously I mean if the
intent in part of this accessory structure accessory apartment in an accessory structure code
was to get people to come in and legalize them. But if people are renting them at market rate
let's say you know they're just renting them out to whomever then that is really a violation of
town code and best be handled by code enforcement.
MEMBER DANTES : Well the other question is the age I mean if they've been doing it I mean
since 1957
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : If it's before zoning and they have a PreCo cause some people do
before zoning was even in effect which was 1957 some people were doing that. It wasn't that
uncommon to have like a little cottage or something on your property or above your garage. If
they have a certificate of occupancy from the Building Department prior to zoning they can
continue that use so you'd have to look into it and see whether they're legal.
MEMBER DANTES : Do you have I'm looking through your packet I looked through it a couple of
times do you have a PreCo for the garage that is in existence on your property?
LINTON DUELL : I don't believe there's ever a C.O. for the house or for the garage.
MEMBER DANTES : I just wonder if you might want to start going to the Building Department
and ask for a PreCo for the existing building and then I mean you could probably move the
building. There's probably some way you can adjust the existing structure that maybe meet the
code.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well I think if he moves it it's extinguished. If he has a PreCo and he
moves it it extinguishes the PreCo. So that's not going to work.
MEMBER DANTES : He could get the PreCo and then build the building.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : But he's already explained why he doesn't want to do that. I mean
it's a flood zone over there.
December 3, 2015 Regular Meeting
MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Eric what I was going to investigate was a possibility of building a new
garage where you want to build it and creating a heated space between the house and the
garage so you don't have to go out to the garage in the winter. Physically outside you can go to
the house okay therefore it connects the house to the garage and then ask for a since you must
have a C.O. on the house and if it was prior to that date you could put an apartment in the
house probably.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well he can't put an apartment above it unless it's considered a part
of the house and if it's attached
MEMBER GOEHRINGER : I didn't say the garage I said the house in the house.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Look we spelled out what the law allows.
LINTON DUELL : You made it perfectly clear.
CHAIRPSON WEISMAN : What the law you know will permit and we'll be happy to work with
you but we have to do so within the framework of what our jurisdiction permits us to do.
MEMBER DANTES : If you move a non-conforming structure to a conforming location it
extinguishes the C.O. or the PreCo?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : If you move it to a conforming location
MEMBER DANTES : Cause that's what he'd be doing more or less.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yep. Have you seen the structure? He's absolutely right it is not it
would wind up a demo if he tried to pick that thing up and move it you'd have a pile of sticks
wouldn't you.
LINTON DUELL : I would agree with you on that one.
CHIARPERSON WEISMAN : He's absolutely right that structure is for storage that's it. You'd have
to probably meet FEMA compliance to put it back there actually. You know it's so low. I mean I
do I know Orient very well.
MEMBER DANTES : But that would actually go to be the garage underneath and the residence
on top cause FEMA would require you to have the underground (inaudible)
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Don't go there. I don't know I mean do you want to address this
application? Questions.
58
December 3, 2015 Regular Meeting
MEMBER HORNING : Leslie who's domain is it now and accessory apartment in the principal
dwelling?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :That's the Building Department.
MEMBER HORNING : Only.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Unless they need a variance. In other words we can't we could
probably change if they wanted to make it say 42% of the overall size that could produce a
Notice of Disapproval and we could then act on variance relief because that's a dimensional
question. It's a square footage question.
MEMBER HORNING : We used to grant Special Exception.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It was in our purview but when the accessory code in accessory
apartments was put in place the creation of an accessory apartment in an existing dwelling
became an as of right if you meet all of the code requirements. So it goes to the Building
Department now not to us. They don't need a Special Exception permit.
MEMBER HORNING : So could you make an addition to a principal dwelling if the principal
dwelling was built before a certain date could you actually make a new extension and addition
and qualify for an apartment?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yea as long you can even do it some people like to take a piece of
their house and they tried to put a small apartment in it. May put a new door on or something
like that. That's fine. The law also allows you now to expand your existing house foundation by
up to 25% to create a new addition that would be an apartment and you can have anybody in it
by the way that you want.
LINTON DUELL : To have a garage under it?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I don't think so. Well you know the bottom line is
LINTON DUELL : When you're that close to the water though I think you start running into other
problems when you try to expand the foundation. The house that you saw when you went
down there is actually a remodeled of a house that was built in 1820. We use the same
footprint in order to do that and like the gentleman over here was saying about how many
parts of the house did you save so it's still qualified as a remodeling well you know we played
the game and did the thing but I'm not so sure that in that location even though the DEC signed
off on redoing the house I'm not so sure that they would as readily say okay you can increase
the size of footprint of the main building so you can put in an additional room. I don't know.
5
December 3, 2015 Regular Meeting
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well I know it would certainly have to be landward.
LINTON DUELL : Obviously it's not going to be we're only 37 feet from the water.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I don't know either but the bottom line is those are the facts and I
can if you like we have not opened up the other hearing you know the other application. I did
explain the problems inherent with it.
LINTON DUELL : I paid five hundred bucks I want to hear it.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well I'm going to suggest something else. I can either do that. You
can tell us anything you want to know and we can open up the hearing or I can suggest that you
withdraw the application if you feel that it is you know a situation that isn't going to go
anywhere where you want it to go.
LINTO DUELL : Well the topic is moot already.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And I will request a return of your money minus a minor processing
fee. It was advertised if someone was here and wanted to address it and if you want to address
it I will open it and we'll proceed but I'm going to give you the option based on what you've
heard you know if you want to withdraw that application
LINTON DUELL : Before I make that decision I just want to make sure I understand what my
options are again or you said that I could attach which I don't really want to do. I can just build
another garage on the property. Basically those are the two things I can and this gentleman up
here from Cutchogue mentioned that I could also build a garage and you know heating and all
and so forth but no living space.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER : No no I said that
LINTON DUELL : Can you repeat yourself sir.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Well first of all I said if you wanted to create a heated space to the
garage it would be an addition
LINTON DUELL : That's it. That would be the quarter from the house to the garage.
MEMBER HORNING :That would be an attached garage.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : But it has to be a certain size.
LINTON DUELL : That would become an attached garage.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yea.
December 3, 2015 Regular Meeting
LINTON DUELL : Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And you can add if it's attached to your dwelling you can add
additional living space. You would have to if you wanted to have another kitchen in that living
space thought you would then have to say I want an accessory apartment there. It's the kitchen
that makes the difference. You can have as many bedrooms and bathrooms as you want you
know or sitting rooms but if you put in a kitchen then it becomes another apartment and it is
legal but you have to meet the code requirements to do that.
MEMBER HORNING : And Leslie you I think you said that an accessory apartment in a principal
dwelling you can rent it to anybody. You don't have to be on the affordable list?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That's correct it doesn't have to be a family member and it doesn't
have to be someone on the affordable housing registry.
LINTON DUELL : That's the attached?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :The attached.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER : We've seen that happen before Mr. Duell okay so you know I mean
and you know everybody says you know what are you talking about well you gotta have you
know a heated space in between so that's basically it. It doesn't have to be anything
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well, conditioned not just heated.
BOARD SECRETARY : Legally conditioned space.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Yea.
MEMBER DANTES : Or I think you can build an accessory garage and you can have like a loft
area what the a half bath. You can't have a kitchen you can't live in it.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : But you can't have yea some people you know use a garage for a
hobby or something like that and the law allows for a half bath in an accessory structure that's
it though. You can't live in it. You can go play with your power tools if you want or paint you
know.
MEMBER DANTES : Can have an outdoor shower.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Oh come on either you know either he wants an apartment or he
doesn't. Your shower is probably already (inaudible) you know so anyway those are the options
and we're just trying to be cooperate and spell out what the law will allow what we can do.
December 3, 2015 Regular Meeting
LINTON DUELL : I don't feel this is adverse meeting it's just I was hoping I could get something
where along the lines of what I wanted but at the same time you have been most helpful. So
with that in mind if you want to close out the next meeting so you can go to lunch and we'll
forget about that part I think otherwise we're just spinning our wheels on this.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay so what I'd like you to do so that we can do that is to indicate
that you wish before the hearing is opened to withdraw the application and then just put that
in a little memo or e-mail it and request we refund your application fee.
LINTON DUELL : If I should decide my wife should decide that we wanted an attached garage
along the lines that you described do we have to come back for that?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Not necessarily go to the Building Department and if you build it in a
way that conforms to the code you just build it. They'll tell you fine we'll give you a building
permit.
LINTON DUELL : Very good thank you.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : My pleasure. Okay anything else from anybody? We're closing this
hearing on the Special Exception Permit okay I asked him to do it in writing. Mr. Duell you're
going to submit in writing this request but I'm gonna so I'm not even going to open it okay
cause no one is here I mean I would open it if there was someone here to testify but there isn't
cause I just asked this gentleman if he had anything he wanted to say about it and he didn't. So,
LINTON DUELL : Speaking from the audience cannot hear what he is saying.
A.T.A. KIELY : It's better to withdraw it cause if you withdraw it you get your money back and
then it's without prejudice cause you withdrew it you never asked for it because if you close it
you lose your money.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You come back with another plan that's all. So that's why I don't
want to open it.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Just to make note that the time is 12:10 and it said hearing that it's not
going to open was scheduled for 11:20. So no one is here to address that.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes right. Well that's now been recorded. So what I'm gonna do first
of all is make a motion to close the hearing reserve decision to later date on Linton Duell # 6895
which is the Special Exception and is there a second?
MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Second.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor?
December 3, 2015 Regular Meeting
MEMER HORNING : Aye.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Aye.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Aye.
MEMBER DANTES : Aye.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye.
(See Minutes for Resolution)
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Because we heard this Mr. Duell because we heard this application
we will write a decision and it's going to be basically that you don't qualify meet the conditions.
Now with regard to the hearing application # 6894 we have a verbal request which will be
followed up in writing from the applicant to withdraw that application. Based on that I'm going
to simply make by Board Resolution a resolution to accept the applicant's request to withdraw
this application. Is there a second?
MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Second.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor?
MEMBER HORNING : Aye.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Aye.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Aye.
MEMBER DANTES : Aye.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye.
(See Minutes for Resolution)
HEARING #6903—OLD NORTH ROAD BARN, LLC (CLAUDIA PURITA)
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Old North Road Barn,
LLC Claudia Purita # 6903. This is a request under Article XXVI Section 280-146D requesting an
December 3, 2015 Regular Meeting
interpretation of Town Code Article III Section 280-13A(4) "Major Road" appealing the building
inspector's amended October 13, 2015 Notice of Disapproval for additions and alterations to
and the conversion of an existing storage building to include a wine production building at less
than 100 feet from the road located at 5195 Old North Rd in Southold. Is someone here to
represent the application?
GAIL WICKHAM : Good afternoon my name is Gail Wickham. Wickham, Bressler and Geasa
Main Rd. in Mattituck representing the applicant. I have with me Claudia Purita who is One
Woman. She is the One Woman who runs the whole show. I don't know when she sleeps but
she is just this is an aptly named winery. Much as I like being here I'm really not sure why I
should be but Mr. Verity disagrees and has determined that Old North Rd. should be designated
as a major road for purposes of the applicable statute on winery setbacks so that's the first
hearing that we're going to discuss today. I had some materials in my application where I
reference certain terminology in an effort to distinguish Old North Rd from what I would
consider a major road mainly Route County Rd. 48 and state route 25. I just handed you a sheet
which goes a little bit further into some additional definitions. As you know there is no
definition in the code of major road it's just referenced in the winery setbacks statute and
currently under 280-4 a definition of a street doesn't refer to major road but I do know that it
has a progression of streets and the first and obviously the most prominent type is in existing
town, county, state or highway or street. Going into the subdivision code 240-3 definitions
again we don't have a major road defined but the primary type of passage way is defined as
arterial street which is a main street or a highway carrying a high proportion of the traffic
within the town including and they specifically refer to Rt. 25 and Rt. 48 so I think there is a
parallel between a major road and an arterial street in the subdivision sense but when you're
looking at subdivisions you're only looking at a small piece of acreage compared to the whole
town so you do have to take that into consideration when you're talking about a major road in
a town you are talking about what really gets people from one place to the other. So I would
say that while you might be able to analogize compare a major road to an arterial street in a
subdivision I think a major road is even a bigger category then arterial street and again looking
into the prior subdivision code A106-13 they do talk about a major street. Again it's just within
the confines of a limited size subdivision as opposed to the whole town but they talk about how
it does constitute a main arterial highway or other equivalent to determine those streets
comprising the basic structure of the street plan and the other two types of streets that are
referred to in both of those subdivision codes are really just connecting one neighborhood or
one area to another which I think is more what Old North Rd. does. It's doesn't necessarily
constitute a major road. It is a town highway of I think it used to be a county highway but it is
now as I understand it a town highway and it doesn't have any commercial zoning on it. I
believe from my count has about 23 homes on it and they are scattered. There is no one central
December 3, 2015 Regular Meeting
neighborhood even along that street. It is a few houses and then a break of farms or open
space and then a few more homes here and there so I just to me I'm really surprised that it
would be even considered a major road. If you agree then we do not need to have a variance
from the subdivision and that would obviate the need for the next hearing. If you have any
questions I'd be happy to answer them and I'm not going to repeat what's already in my
original application so
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well let's see if we're going to try and pull the minutes from the
hearing of the original discussion about the intent or purpose of this definition when the Town
Board explored that and created the code that said 100 foot setback from a major road. Do you
have any opinion as to why this was done? Why 100 foot setback was established and as
importantly I guess from your point of view why would if it's still a winery and it's in a
residential zone why would a lesser setback be appropriate than from a major road?
GAIL WICKHAM : Okay well as to the first question why did they say they want 100 feet from a
major road I remember back when they were doing big wineries like Raphael there was a big
discussion about the 100 foot setback and some of the other major wineries that were on a
prominent roadways that might be coming in I think they wanted adequate room in the front I
would assume for parking, turning, getting people in and out so there would be a reason to set
those back as well as from a visual perspective. Maybe even more importantly from a visual
perspective because then you don't have a big edifice right up close on a main road. As far the
second question you asked me was why
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Wineries are permitted uses in AG zones.
GAIL WICKHAM :They are absolutely.
CHIARPERSON WEISMAN : So why when the conversation was taking place did they not just say
from a road I mean why you know what in other words what is the difference you think that a
setback should be on any road as opposed to a major road?
GAIL WICKHAM : I'm only speculating but when you have a winery on a main road let's say main
road or Route 48 you're going to get more traffic because of the visibility and perhaps they
were contemplating there would be bigger operations and wanted to have it setback further.
There aren't too many big wineries that I can think of that are back off those two roads and
they're more in keeping the neighborhood type of facilities.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I mean cause I'm trying to think it through and of course we can't
completely theorize about what was in the Town Board's head at the time when this was
written up the way it was but you know if you're in the middle of let's say an AG residential
zone on a main road so perhaps the assumption would be traffic impacts, parking and so on and
10,
�uw,
December 3, 2015 Regular Meeting
so forth on a smaller road if there are other residential properties around it in some respects a
significant setback is also there to protect the residential nature of that property. I don't know
I'm just asking if you have a point of view about it.
GAIL WICKHAM : I don't think the setback protects the residential nature of the property
because if you set a property back further in a residential neighborhood you might be closer to
the houses behind you and what you can do to protect the residential nature of a property
from a winery is I think is screening and where you're going to put your parking and all those
things that the Planning Board addresses in the site plan approval and that's why I think it had
to be addressed more towards the concept of a lot of cars coming out. Maybe seeing those
places and pulling over where as if you're driving to someplace way up out of the way you're
not going to just see it and pull over. You're going to know where you're going and know you're
going there so they may of just wanted to have a better ambiance on the highway of having it
setback further.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well because the other part of the code the bulk schedule basically
looks at the zone district and determines a front yard setback from a street or a road and in an
AC zone front yard setback for a principal use is 60 feet. I also had the same information that
you just submitted these are from the subdivision regulations of the Town of Southold cause
again if you go to the dictionary it isn't there. We usually do that but there's nothing there. So
in trying to come up with something staff turned up the same information I think that you did
and they do actually this was from 1967 amended November 7th 1968, amended March 31,
1970 and it's the stuff that you basically submitted that says street major, street minor, street
secondary.
GAIL WICKHAM : Yea and that went through at least till '87. I think I again getting back to
Raphael I seem to recall the discussion was if you had a great big edifice as a winery you might
want to be further back and that's where they were expecting them I guess on the major
highways.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let's see if the Board has any questions.
MEMBER DANTES : I have one. So basically just to make it concise the point is that the 100 foot
setback is for the visual effect from the road and that in a smaller residential area the visual for
the winery could be dealt with in the Planning process and (inaudible)
GAIL WICKHAM : Not in the fact that you do have you would have more room for parking in the
front if you wanted. You'd have more room for buffering in the front on a 100 foot setback.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Ken any questions or comments?
December 3, 2015 Regular Meeting
MEMBER SCHNEIDER : I guess just a comment I mean you know the term major I think would
apply to 48 and 25. I don't know any of
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well it certainly is made reference to in one of these and then again
with subdivision that's when it was updated in subdivision became arterial street and that's
where 25 and 48 are specifically referenced as state roads and county roads. They're not calling
it a major street they call it an arterial street.
GAIL WICKHAM : But it's the highest category.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's the highest category yea.
GAIL WICKHAM : But you know rather than speculate about why I think if you just look at the
plain language of the statute major road and what does it mean and that's what we're asking
you to do. I think it means Rt. 48 and Rt. 25.
MEMBER HORNING : I your opinion Ms. Wickham then is there only one county highway in the
Town of Southold? County highway?
GAIL WICKHAM : I believe so. I'm not sure what the status of Sound Ave. is from the end of 48
to the western line of the town. I believe that's a town road but it used to be a county road.
MEMBER HORNING : So you don't know?
GAIL WICKHAM :That's obviously an arterial type of corridor.
MEMBER HORNING : How about a state highway? We know 25 is a state highway. Is there any
other highway in the town that are state highways?
GAIL WICKHAM : Not that I'm aware of.
MEMBER HORNING : So it's possible that 48 is the only county highway and 25 is the only town
highway. That's a distinct possibility?
GAIL WICKHAM : I believe that is true.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : State road.
MEMBER HORNING : Yea right. Well I'm going by the state, county or state highway on this
thing. Are there any other are there any town highways?
GAIL WICKHAM : Where?
MEMBER HORNING : In the town of Southold.
December 3, 2015 Regular Meeting
GAIL WICKHAM : The town highways are everywhere. I would say everywhere that you do not
have a county or a state highway that is private is a town highway if it's been dedicated. I'm not
sure what your question
MEMBER HORNING : Well if I'm reading I'm just trying to get this technical thing here of a
street. Everything else in the town possibly maintain by the town is you're saying a highway but
a highway equals street? Is that the thing highway equals street in that case?
GAIL WICKHAM : That's not what I'm saying. I'm just trying to look at provisions of the code
that address what a major road might be. There are none so I'm looking at analogous situations
where you have subdivision definitions and as far as they go are streets and types of streets.
MEMBER HORNING : I'm just trying to figure out the difference between a (inaudible) and
highway.
GAIL WICKHAM : So I'm not saying a street is a highway is a road.
MEMBER HORNING : Yea right like an example of a town highway versus you know
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We don't have any I don't think but let me I'm going to get back to
this why don't you ask
MEMBER DANTES : Yes I'd just like to go to I think it's number C on the 280-13 use regulations
A. permitted uses and you go down one, two, three, four C and it says winery structures shall
be set back a minimum of one hundred feet from a major road. Could that be read to mean
that only 25 and 48 are the major roads and therefore the winery should be on the two major
roads only?
GAIL WICKHAM : No.
MEMBER DANTES : Why?
GAIL WICKHAM : Because wineries were contemplated to be in the residential zones the AC
zones. I don't think there was any intention that it be limited that way and certainly historically
the town has not envisioned that way cause they've allowed many many wineries on many
different town roads.
MEMBER DANTES : So you're saying because a winery is a permitted use on an AC zone and
there AC zones that aren't on those two roads therefore the code is not to be interpreted that
wineries are only to be placed on 25 and 48?
GAIL WICKHAM : Yea. I think that C applies to the setback not to whether you can exist there or
not.
December 3, 2015 Regular Meeting
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : To clarify what George's question was a little bit better I'll read into
the record the distinction among these three levels of streets traffic ways. The kind of thing you
were talking about would probably be well street major alright was a street or highway of great
continuity which serves or is intended to serve as a major traffic artery within the town, county
or both and is designated on the town plan as a main arterial highway, major thoroughfare,
parkway or other equivalent term to be identified to identify those streets comprising basic
structure of the street plan. So they are primarily very long connecting places that move you at
considerable distances and greater speed. The next level is secondary street. A street or a road
of considerable continuity which serves or is intended to serve as the principal or collector
traffic way between large and separated areas or districts and which is the main means of
access to the major street or primary road system. That for example would be Horton Lane,
Youngs Rd. things that take you through between 48 and 25. And then the final level is the
essentially a minor street which is a street supplementary to a major street and of limited
continuity which serves or is intended to serve the local needs of a neighborhood or a section
thereof. So that's circulating within a given particular area. Those are all that we have on record
basically. Then they come from subdivision regulations cause the dictionary doesn't help us
here.
MEMBER HORNING : Are you saying secondary comes before minor?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yea.
MEMBER HORNING : Okay so this is
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Secondary its first major then secondary then minor and in
contemporary code it's called arterial and then collector and then local.
MEMBER HORNING : You agree with that Gail cause on your paper it's
GAIL WICKHAM : That's the way I took it right out of the code. I guess they did it alphabetically
not size.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Not in terms of scale.
GAIL WICKHAM : Yes.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Gerry anything?
MEMBER GOEHRINGER : My situation is a little different Gail. I went to the older gentleman in
town and asked him those opinions and we discussed it in the great town of Southold hamlet of
Southold and they said that Youngs Avenue was the primary road to get to Sound Avenue or
there abouts and they said when you got to Old North Rd. you had the ability to either take
December 3, 2015 Regular Meeting
Soundview Ave. out or you can go on Old North Rd. and then those particular two situations the
minute CR48 was absolutely finished no one took Old North Rd. to anything except the people
that lived down there in their houses or homes in that area and that was basically their
determination. So it was kind of interesting.
GAIL WICKHAM : So CR48 served as almost a connector to get interesting. I don't have too
many of the old guys anymore.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER : What was there before it was a two lane highway
GAIL WICKHAM : Middle Rd.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Yea and it was you had to go the securest way if you wanted to get out
that way and you ended up with certain other roads so people really never took it until if they
opted to take the Main Rd but once it became useful cause it was a two lane road it was never
added to between say this is the opinion that these gentlemen had from Elijah's Lane to
someplace in later Cutchogue they said it was just not there it was not a good road to take so
they never used it but once that opened up just remember that road was established the right
of way was brought up sometime in the 60's and then they started the construction of it and
the organization that was actually building it was Defano and he went bankrupt so that held it
another two years. It was really never started restarted again until about I think they said '72
and then it was done and so everybody takes it now as opposed to taking the Main Rd. unless
they have business on the Main Rd.
GAIL WICKHAM : I'd just like to answer that question again about the setback from a major road
including wineries on someone else the import of that sentence is setback. It doesn't say
wineries shall be located on a major road and setback 100 feet. It just says that's how much
they have to be setback from that type of road. I think if the town intended to preclude
wineries from being on other roads they would of said that. That's not what that says to me.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let's just see if there's anyone else in the audience who wants to
address this application for code interpretation. Okay tell you what we are in the process of
doing some research on gathering together the as much as we can of the transcripts from the
original hearing to look at legislative intent just so that we have that as a part of our decision
cause that is a part of the interpretation what was the law intended to do. So I'm going to poll
the Board and see if we can't give ourselves a little bit of time before we render this decision
cause it's an important one it will establish a considerable precedent and we want to make sure
we get it right and that we research it thoroughly so if the Board's okay with this I'd like to
suggest that we adjourn this to January which is the next Public Hearing because we may have
questions or you may have responses or questions that you'd like to address. We'll make this
December 3, 2015 Regular Meeting
record fully available to all interested parties and then we can just conclude because at that
point I think we will have had all the information that we could possibly get.
GAIL WICKHAM : When is that meeting in January?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : January 7th are you going to be here it's okay? Does that make
sense? Okay so hearing no further questions or comments I'm going to make a motion to
adjourn this hearing to January 7th you want to do it first cause I don't think it's going to be
lengthy there's just a limited amount of information you can gather I just want to make sure
that everyone has an opportunity to chime in on whatever we manage to dig up. Alright so I
made a motion is there a second?
MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Second.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor?
MEMBER HORNING : Aye.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Aye.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Aye.
MEMBER DANTES : Aye.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. Nine thirty Gail.
(See Minutes for Resolution)
HEARING #6902—OLD NORTH ROAD BARN, LLC (CLAUDIA PURITA)
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Now the next I wanted to ask you about this the next application
before the Board is for also Old North Road Barn, LLC (Claudia Purita) # 6902. This is a request
for variance under Article III Code Section 280-13A(4) and the building inspector's August 10,
2015, amended October 19, 2015 Notice of Disapproval for a building permit for additions and
alterations to and conversion of an existing storage building to include a wine production
building at less than the code required minimum setback of 100 feet from a major road located
at 5195 Old North Road in Southold. So this is effectively an area variance for a setback. It of
course the two application are interconnected because if in fact the Board determines that 100
December 3, 2015 Regular Meeting
foot setback from something other than a major road and Old North Rd is not a major road that
variance will then have to conform to the principal setback in the zone district which will be 60
feet. So one thing I do want to put on the record is that I'm continuously annoyed to see
Notices of Disapproval and correspondence for to a winery building as a wine production
building. Production is defined in the code as the growing of crops. It is a wine processing
building. The transformation of a raw material into another product okay so it's a processing
building so let's just get that straight into the record. Now I've just opened this up and I think it
may be beneficial to go ahead and argue into the record what exactly is being proposed on this
subject property. Is that okay with you Gail? Is that how you want to proceed? Okay bearing in
mind that it may turn out at some point that this variance is not necessary but I think it would
be appropriate for you to argue this now and address the Board. So we have a preexisting
agricultural building located 59.8 feet according to the this is not a survey it's a site plan from
an architect but close enough it's legit. So let's call it 60 feet it's so de minimus from a major
road meaning the code is currently as it's understood but the Building Department requiring
100 foot setback. You are do you want to come up to the mic? I guess just please enter you as
the agent into the record.
GAIL WICKHAM : Abigail Wickham Main Rd. Mattituck New York for the applicant and again
Claudia Purita is here with me who is the owner of the facility.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Now you are proposing to merge the two farm parcels correct?
GAIL WICKHAM : Yes.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : How many acres will that be?
GAIL WICKHAM : It will be approximately twenty. Unfortunately I don't have my large map.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Want to use mine?
GAIL WICKHAM :Total site area here we go 22.48 I believe.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is the area that the existing
MEMBER SCHNEIDER : I just want to interrupt for a second. I'm looking on the site data. Total
site are after merger is 26.45
GAIL WICKHAM : Oh I'm sorry yea that was changed.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Is that correct?
GAIL WICKHAM : Yes the map you have is correct.
December 3, 2015 Regular Meeting
MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Let's see looks like last revision date on it
GAIL WICKHAM : I can barely read it it's 26.05 065 You'll have to read it off your map I can't see
it.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Hold on this is tax map #5
GAIL WICKHAM : Just to clarify it will constitute the subject property on which the agricultural
storage building is located the two and the three parcels to which development rights have
been sold tax lot 4.13, 4.14 and the little piece up at the top 4.11 oh no I'm sorry 4.12 and then
4.11 is the property on which development rights have not been sold located on Old North Rd.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Wait so the point being that the proposed the conversion of the
existing AG building which is sitting 59.8 from Old North Rd. is sitting on a piece of property
where the development rights are intact.
GAIL WICKHAM : Yes.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :The conversion of an existing barn into a tasting room is on lot 4.11.
GAIL WICKHAM : Correct.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :That also has the development rights intact.
GAIL WICKHAM : Correct. Yea 2.7 acres.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright and then there's another a piece off of Soundview Ave. that
has the development rights intact also. There's a building envelope there it's .22 acres. That's
tax map 4.12.
GAIL WICKHAM : Well the development rights are limited there. It has to be an AG building.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : But all of these are being merged.
GAIL WICKHAM :They're all being merged.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So you meet the bulk schedule for the winery with tasting room.
There is no residential property involved here is that correct there is no house?
GAIL WICKHAM : There's no house on this property well I yes on the storage building there are
actually two existing residential units right now one of which will be removed and one will be
relocated within that area. It's for the help that work on the farm. It's essentially a trailer.
December 3, 2015 Regular Meeting
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That's basically a trailer that you have a permit for for seasonal
worker's housing it's going to be some will be demolished and trailer is going to be located over
there for workers for which you have a permit.
GAIL WICKHAM : Yea but what I do want to add into the record is that there has always been a
residential dwelling on the parcel on which the storage building has is located and when I say
always been I mean pre zoning code of 1957 and we had presented that information to the
Building Department. We're still working on getting them to issue a PreCo.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Of course we inspected the site and we've seen the property and
we're aware of the existing dwelling but it looks as though that has been removed from this
particular survey that we've got and we just have the trailer.
GAIL WICKHAM : It will be removed yea I think it's still there.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I don't have any other questions at the moment. What would you
like to tell us about this proposed variance?
GAIL WICKHAM : Okay well if the variance is required depending on the decision on your prior
hearing I'd like to first of all add or incorporate any of the testimony and record of that hearing
into this hearing. I would like to say that as to the setback I believe you mentioned earlier 59.8
feet is essentially 60 feet it's a de minimus distance differential. I'd like to say that the building
has been in existence in that location since well prior to zoning. I know it goes back to at least
into the early 40's. It was a potato storage barn. It was a potato processing barn. When the
Sawicki's went out of farming it was used for storage of other not necessarily agricultural things
but just as a storage building and now we are proposing it as a wine processing and by that I
can clarify that includes bringing the grapes in from the field, pressing, crushing, fermenting in
tanks, bottling, barreling, and case storage as well. There's a laboratory to analyze the wine and
that is what will occur in that building. The application I think speaks to itself because it is an
existing building that has been there for many, many years prior to zoning. It is part of a or will
be upon application upon approval of the variance it will be merged with a parcel which will
give it the size that is required under the code and it is an integral part of a 26 acre farm which
is producing wine and crops.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright so the merger affectively grants the ten acres in agricultural
operation where the winery is proposed. Ken question?This Ken asked a question. There is this
is not owned by the applicant. This dwelling has been there like forever. It's the Sawicki
residence but
GAIL WICKHAM : I can't see where you're pointing.
December 3, 2015 Regular Meeting
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I'm just pointing to the part of the it's not their property. It's not
your client's property. It's just the portion below the building its existing building that's gonna
become the wine tasting.
GAIL WICKHAM : Yea there are two residences south of that L-shaped portion where the red
barn is. One is Albina Sawicki who owned the entire farm and sold it to the Puritas. She lives
there. Her son Walter owns the adjoining property I think it's rented now. Those are not part of
this property.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER : So my question is after this merger there's only going to be one use the
winery use. There's no other use proposed on this? In other words residential use and winery
use or just winery use?
GAIL WICKHAM : We do not have any current plans for a residential there is no residential use
on there so farming and winery including the production processing and tasting.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER : That's all under winery right?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And once merger has been effectuated we have a total of 26.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER : 056
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : 26.056 acres.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER : There was some developer rights restrictions on the development rights
intact little piece up in the north end there. That was just for could only be a farm building.
GAIL WICKHAM : That could only be used for agricultural structures but that's where they said
that you could build
MEMBER SCHNEIDER : A barn.
GAIL WICKHAM : Yea.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER : To keep the equipment.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You have some hoop houses there now don't you?
MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Aren't you usually permitted that anyway in the AG districts? It's
something that's associated with
GAIL WICKHAM : Yea. They had a specific I can submit to you and I should put this in the record
for you I can send you after the hearing that section of the development rights easement that
defines exactly what can be in that envelope.
75
December 3, 2015 Regular Meeting
MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Yea I think we should have that.
GAIL WICKHAM : Okay I'll give that to you. I don't think I have that today.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER : And then along with that little piece of area and the other two with the
developments are intact I come up with a total of 3.656 acres of development rights intact. I
don't know if you have that down.
GAIL WICKHAM : I would use the figures on Nancy Steelman's map. That is what we are
MEMBER SCHNEIDER : That's what I computed I just added up all the development rights intact.
I think that's the number we should look at.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : He's just adding the together these numbers up here.
MEMBER DANTES : And I think that equals 156,584.4 square feet.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER : It's about 159 something but we should have that number in the record.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay well it is now. Anything from anybody else from the Board?
MEMBER DANTES : My only questions with the merger if we end up going the route of the code
interpretation will the applicant still be merging the property?
GAIL WICKHAM : I think that would be up to the Building Department. Let me think.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I think they have to because you have to establish
GAIL WICKHAM : I think that Building Department would require it.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : you have to establish the ten acres.
GAIL WICKHAM : Yea I think the Building Department would require that for the ten acres
absolutely.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So the merger is going through.
GAIL WICKHAM : I just don't think you can make a condition on an interpretation.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You can't. You're absolutely right. We learned that with Edson. You
cannot. Alright well how is there anyone else in the audience who likes to address this
application?
PAT MOORE : We're here well I'm here also independently I'm sorry Patricia Moore. I'm here
on later applications and I was here on earlier applications winery applications. We are certainly
December 3, 2015 Regular Meeting
in support of One Woman winery. I respect what she's done tremendously. I actually was
involved in this development rights sale property. The one thing I do want to clarify because I'm
not sure that I think that your question about whether or not there is a residential use here the
answer was no but in fact the answer should be yes. I think originally she said yes that there are
two dwellings now but it's going one is being removed the other one is staying so there is one
dwelling with this converted building so on the parcel that is before you today there is
preexisting well established mobile home dwelling but that has been there for before zoning for
sure and they're in the process of getting a PreCo whether they get one or not I don't know but
which should be clear that there is residential use on this property that when it is merged to the
balance of the reserve area is in fact two uses the residential use and the winery just as has
been the practice throughout all of the zoning applications and winery applications that I've
ever heard or been involved in other than most recently and we'll talk about that our hearing. I
did want to clarify that because there was I don't know if that was clear when the question was
made so and that's all otherwise we support it.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Actually I'd like to clarify that further as well. It was my
understanding they were being demolished and that there is a trailer which is a seasonal sort of
temporary structure for which they have a permit you know a trailer permit which I think you
can distinguish from you know a regular dwelling. Let them address it cause I want to clarify as
well.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Yea cause if it's two uses then we have to
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well then they have to meet the bulk schedule and they do.
MEMBER DANTES : They have 159,000 square feet so
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yea I know but Pat's right we need to clarify it because they will have
to meet the bulk schedule if there are two uses on there and with the merger they should but
nevertheless let's find out if that what the intent there is. It does say demolition and then it
looks like there's a little skinny thing there that I understood was to be a kind of a trailer with a
permit but let's find out if that's right or wrong.
GAIL WICKHAM : There are two dwelling units on the property now to the west of the barn. The
prior the one closest to Old North Rd. the southern one is going to be removed. The northern
one which is a trailer is going to be relocated. I don't think it's going to be demolished and
replaced. I think it's going to be relocated cause it's fairly new.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is that occupied year round?
GAIL WICKHAM : Yes I believe yes by someone who works on the farm.
December 3, 2015 Regular Meeting
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : On the farm so it's workers housing.
GAIL WICKHAM : Yes and it has a I'm sorry it has a permit from the Town Board which is
renewed every six months. Now that's not to say that someday down the road and you can get
that for farm housing or for security purposes from the Town Board and I don't want to
preclude their ability to have a dwelling on the property sometime down the road as long as
they meet the density requirements or whatever they need to do on what will be a 3.436 acre
parcel but for this application and that's what my answer earlier was addressed to there is no
dwelling proposed on the property other than what's shown on the map as the one on the west
of the barn.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Do you know and I don't know if the code distinguishes between
farm workers housing as a part of an AG operation and a full time year round dwelling?
GAIL WICKHAM : For density purposes?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Or even for bulk schedule.
GAIL WICKHAM : Well yea there is a difference because if you have a dwelling you need to be
able to get a certificate of occupancy whereas if you have a trailer you don't need to do that
and you can have a trailer permit which is not necessarily fixed to the ground and doesn't
necessarily have the same criteria as a dwelling unit which would have a certificate of
occupancy. Beyond that I can't clarify that's a generalization. That's a Mr. Verity question.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay thank you. Gerry or George anything?
MEMBER GOEHRINER : No.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Eric anything else you need to look at?
MEMBER DANTES : No. if they were to build a residence that would be a second use.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes if they were to build a residence there then they would need
you'd have to come in and
GAIL WICKHAM : We'd have to come in and ask permission and see where we stood.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Right and it would have to be built on land that was intact that had
not sold the development rights.
GAIL WICKHAM : Correct.
December 3, 2015 Regular Meeting
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So the Building Department would have to determine if you had
enough acreage to meet the bulk schedule for a second principal use.
GAIL WICKHAM : Well I my feeling is that that is not that when you have agricultural and
housing that is not necessarily two separate uses but that's not part of our discussion today.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Well it's close.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : She submitted written testimony on such. Is there anyone else in the
audience who wants to address this application? Anything from the Board?
MEMBER GOEHRINGER : No.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright let's see how do you want to do this? Do you want to close
it? Do you want to leave it open? What do you want to do Gail?
GAIL WICKHAM : I don't object to closing it subject to my submitting to you the part of the
development rights easement that shows what you can do on the I'll give you the whole
development rights easement maybe that'll be the best thing for you to have in the file.
MEMBER DANTES : Which one are we going to tackle first because if we close this one we only
have 60 days to make a decision.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We have 62 days yes.
MEMBER DANTES : And then but we're still working on
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We're still working on the interpretation and I think we should
probably do them concurrently I really do.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Yea I agree with you.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : They're so interrelated you know to write a determination that may
be altered by a decision about what constitutes a major road sort of seems like putting a cart
before the horse.
GAIL WICKHAM : I'll leave that up to the Board.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I just think procedurally it's logical to do it that way rather than rush
into this.
GAIL WICKHAM : Fine.
December 3, 2015 Regular Meeting
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright you want then to adjourn this to January? Okay I'm going to
make a motion to adjourn this hearing to January 7th at 9:40. Is there a second?
MEMBER SCHNIEDER : Second.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor?
MEMBER HORNING : Aye.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Aye.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Aye.
MEMBER DANTES : Aye.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye.
(See Minutes for Resolution)
HEARING #6898— FRANK J. and ELIZABETH G. KELLY
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Frank J. and Elizabeth G.
Kelly # 6898. This is a request under Article XXVI Section 280-146D requesting a Reversal of the
building inspector's Notice of Disapproval dated August 31, 2015 requiring site plan approval
under Article XIII Section 280-51A(2) located at 1900 Great Peconic Bay Boulevard (adj. to
Brushes Creek) in Laurel. Before just state your name for the record.
DAN ROSS : Dan Ross on behalf of Mr. and Mrs. Kelly with respect to the premises.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let me give you these are comments from the Planning Board and
the LWRP letter just for your record or do you have them already?
DAN ROSS : I would also like to hand up at this time an affidavit by Walter Koch which we just
obtained today.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : This is the Building Department has indicated that this marina which
has been in existence since 1951 I believe thereabouts which would be prior to zoning requires
site plan approval and you're suggesting it does not require site plan approval and want us to
December 3, 2015 Regular Meeting
overturn the Notice of Disapproval. Dan do you does the applicant have a PreCo for this
preexisting marina?
DAN ROSS : No.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Can you obtain one? Since there's ample evidence in the record that
in fact it did exist and is prior to zoning.
DAN ROSS : I agree and were we to apply for one I would assume that Mr. Verity would do the
same thing he did on the building the application of building permit which was submitted at his
request and actually I think possibly an application for PreCo has been submitted and I don't
know how he's going to rule on that but if he ruled this time you need site plan approval I
would expect the same type of ruling from him. Consequently this issue is going to have to be
met one way or the other.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well I think if there's a PreCo then no site plan approval is required
end of story. That's it it's over if you have a PreCo it's done. So if you've applied for one are you
just waiting to get it?
DAN ROSS : Basically we've been around the block on this in a number of different forms. We
met the Planning Board and the Building Inspector requested an application for a building
permit. Ultimately the application was submitted and in response to it Mr. Verity said you need
site plan approval. He didn't say I'll issue a PreCo. If you want
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : How many are here in the audience to address this application? I
don't think we're going to do that.
MEMBER DANTES : I was asking to just adjourn that until Mr. Verity makes a decision then we
can have a hearing and we'll know what we're talking about.
DAN ROSS : Mr. Verity has made his decision and his decision was we need site plan approval.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Has he denied a PreCo?
DAN ROSS : No he didn't.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So that's in process cause you've applied.
DAN ROSS : It's been applied. (talking to his client away from mic)
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Wait you can't do that. If you're going to speak you have to be in
front of the Board.
December 3, 2015 Regular Meeting
DAN ROSS : You're right I'm sorry. He's ruled that we need site plan approval. Our position is if
you have a preexisting use you don't need site plan approval. He had or presumably he has the
evidence in his files. We have discussed it so why he ruled site plan approval is that's what he
felt and I think this decision is going to have to be met. If in fact as you indicate and the Town
Attorney in the Supreme Court the Town's Attorney I should say in the Supreme Court indicated
the same sediment that this the historic use of this property was as a marina. Permits have
issued, affidavits are available including a letter from the building inspector in the 60's. If that's
true site plan approval is not required but that was Mr. Verity's ruling so
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Did you submit this information the same information you
submitted to us about the preexisting use did you submit that to the Building Department?
DAN ROSS : Well they've been served with these papers. When they were filed the same day
they were filed the building inspector was served and so in that sense he Mr. Verity has it. I
think Mr. Verity wants a decision from this Board also to tell the truth.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I'll ask again I think he answered it you did file an did you or did you
not file an application for a PreCo?
FRANK KELLY : Yes I have
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : State your name please.
FRANK KELLY : Frank Kelly 12 Bayview Ave East Islip New York. Yes I did. I said Mike I'm looking
for a PreCo he says well this is great but you still need a building permit. I said wait a second
I've got information this is you know a letter and he says that doesn't mean nothing you still
need a permit and with all the information in his hand he says you still need a permit. I told him
I said I don't know what he's looking at or what he's thinking but he was really relying on your
decision today what you see and I would really like to have this case closed too because it's
been like a circus with all these people.
MEMBER DANTES : Sir did you pay a fee for a PreCo?
FRANK KELLY : Yes I did it was a hundred bucks and I gave it to him and I said Mike
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Has he denied it in writing or approved it or not yet?
FRANK KELLY : Not yet because he's always this is what he wants to try to do have more lawyers
and time where he's going to basically you know they made threats to me basically with the
neighbors around here that they were going to run me ruin me and take away the land so I said
to Mike I said listen I just want to get this thing straightened out. I gave you the
documentations for a PreCo it should be as simple as just simply filling out a piece of paper you
December 3, 2015 Regular Meeting
submit it and then I also had the evidence which is very important. I had the evidence of the
letter and he said alright you still need a permit. You still need to get a permit I said no I don't.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :There's a difference between a permit and site plan.
FRANK KELLY : Right well he says you I said to Mike and this is almost like an argument I'm not
building anything why would I need even though you're not let's just say you're not you still
need a building permit. I said think about that think about it I'm not putting a building, I'm not
building anything but I still need a building permit I was like this is the most ridiculous thing I've
ever seen. And it's like a circus around here.
DAN ROSS : I was at a meeting with the head of the Planning Department with the chief planner
with Mr. Verity and myself and Mr. Verity requested I file an application for building permit. I
said Mike we don't want to build anything I'm not going to do that. Over the course of the next
two or three weeks Mr. Kelly and Mr. Verity had discussions Mr. Kelly came and said I want to
do this Mike wants you to do this. He filed out an application for building permit, I notarized it
he brought it down he gave it to Mike. Mike disapproved it said you need site plan approval and
we're here.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The only this is all very clear now. The only thing that isn't clear is
whether or not this hundred dollar fee that went toward an application for PreCo is in process
or was denied. If it was denied then indeed we need to rule on site plan approval. If it is
approved because there's evidence in the record that it predated zoning and has not been
discontinued in terms of its use therefore having a PreCo extinguished then its moot. You don't
need site plan. So you see what I'm saying Dan?
DAN ROSS : I do and I spoke with Mr. Duffy with respect to the application for the PreCo and I
said we have an application before the ZBA on a critical issue and I don't think he realized that
at the time but I don't see how if the building inspector feels site plan approval is necessary
how an application for a PreCo is going to change his mind.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It'll change ours because it clearly if you have a PreCo on something
you don't require site plan. It's clear in the code and this goes away.
DAN ROSS : I don't want to have to and I said to Mr. Duffy I don't want to go have to go through
and Mr. Kelly doesn't want to go through a second application to the ZBA which is denial on
that will require.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : What we can do although there are people here and I think in
fairness since this was advertised we should take testimony but at the very least what I think is
appropriate is to adjourn until such time as a PreCo is either approved or denied and then you
December 3, 2015 Regular Meeting
don't have to worry about a second you know application or anything else. It doesn't cost you
anymore money. We'll just leave it open until that's ruled in or out.
DAN ROSS : Would you give me a moment?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I will. Alright where are we he's back.
DAN ROSS : Okay we consent to an adjournment to the Board's next meeting. Would that be
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :January is fine.
DAN ROSS : And then we'll know Mr. Verity's response to hopefully to the application for the
PreCo.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes. Now oaky I understand there are a number of people here who
want to address this application. Bear in mind that if in fact the ruling and that's why we're
adjourning if in fact the ruling from the Building Department is that a PreCo is warranted then
no site plan approval is required and anything between the applicant and the neighbors is a
matter of civil relationships. This is not something that would be before the Zoning Board.
That's for the neighbors to work out. If any of you have any comments today that you would
like to make that specifically address the issue of site plan or PreCo I'll hear it but we don't want
to take a great deal of time when in fact we're going to adjourn to find out exactly what's going
to happen until January so I'd like to limit the comments to things that are very specific to the
application that's before us alright and that means you need to be looking at issues that would
have an impact by virtue of a site plan or a PreCo. If any of you have knowledge about this
marina having existed in the past you can address that.
DAN ROSS : And we're talking about a marina use.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : A marina use that's all cause that's all that's before us. So if there's
someone in the audience who would like to make some comments at this hearing bearing in
mind that there will be another one in January please step forward to either mic and state your
name.
JEROME MORNSEY : Good afternoon Jerry Mornsey my wife Linda. We are the neighbors of the
Kelly property. We live at 1780 Peconic Bay Boulevard. In regards to what you were just saying
about the specific about the site plan for my definition of what's exactly going on is the
definition of Marine I which is what Mr. Kelly is trying to establish. His definition of Marine I is
that he can do whatever he wants to do on his property. It's a commercial Marine I property.
He already put a six foot fence around this .17 acre of land to seclude himself into his own little
cocoon if you will. We are all here and we will be here again in January to express to the Board
December 3, 2015 Regular Meeting
that allowing him to have Marine I status is going to allow him to do whatever he has been
doing for the past year and a half. Bill Doherty is aware of this. The Town of Southold is aware
of this, all the violations that have been taking place all under the heading of Marine I status.
The marina has been owned by old Mr. Murray back in the 50's. He had this little parcel of land
to allow his friends, family and local acquaintances to put their little skiffs if you will in his little
marina. That was all this marina was designed to be. It's .17 of an acre. In the past year and a
half this Mr. Kelly has owned this it's been abused in many ways from tents to RV's to loud
parties all this is documented with the Town of Southold so all of this is not in disagreement
with anyone so this is why we are here in response to the site plan. We're in fear that this site
plan allows him car Blanche to do whatever he wishes on a Marina I status that the abuse will
be something that this town will never forget. Now we all live in a neighborhood we all drive
down Peconic Bay Boulevard. We all go over the little bridge over Brushes Creek and to see that
eye sore right there that abuses the environment, the community the town of Southold itself I
just think it will set such a poor precedent for anybody in the future to come to this community
which is beautiful which we love mine and my wife's future retirement home. Thirty one years
from the fire department I'm retiring in about a month to come out here and spend the rest of
my life. To allow this to take place the site plan you're setting a precedent for anybody who
wishes to come out to this beautiful area of Southold tear down some woods get a marine
commercial status and bring in his RV and some tents and call it a summer home. That's not
what this town of Southold is about. That's not why I bought into Laurel and into the town of
Southold. This is a beautiful community obviously with the wineries, the waterfront property to
start setting a precedent like this is a very very dangerous thing in my mind and I'm sure my
neighbors would join me. There's quite a few of us here and we'll be here in January we'll be
here until this issue gets resolved.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let me ask the audience how many of you feel that is it Mornsey
speaks for you? Did he accurately describe what your concerns and issues are? Just for the
record everybody raise their hand. I'm not going to count the hands I'll just say that there are a
number of people in the audience who concur. So we don't need to take more of the same kind
of comments since you all agree with them we now we'll enter that into the record. I do want
to clarify just one thing.
A.T.A. KIELY : I just want to interject it's been confirmed that an application for a PreCo has
been submitted and is currently under review so by the next meeting
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Actively
A.T.A. KIELY : yea and there will be a decision by the next meeting.
uu w
December 3, 2015 Regular Meeting
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Did you all hear that? Counsel has just checked with the Building
Department who confirms that an application for a PreCo is currently under review and a
determination will be made prior to for our January meeting. Just so all of you are aware this
Board does not review site plan okay if we were to determine that a site plan was required then
it would have to go to the Planning Board where there would be due diligence and public
hearings and all of that kind of thing and they would have to make the decision as to what
would be an appropriate use on that property and the limits and so on. That's what a site plan
does. It looks at parking an egress and ingress and lighting and intensity of use and so on and so
forth. What's before us is the Building Department said you do need to go to site plan and the
code says the law says if in fact this had a PreCo site plan isn't going to be required. However
that has nothing to do with your legal rights to become concerned and involved if you believe
that a property is not being used in accordance with the correct uses permitted by zoning that's
a matter for code enforcement litigation and so on. I know you're all aware of those things. I
just wanted to make sure you all understood exactly what our jurisdiction is, what Mr. Ross is
asking us to do and why we've delayed it because what's the point in going through a whole rig
amoral about site plan when in fact it may not be necessary but your options for concern about
how the property is being used are really not narrower limited by that decision. If it whether it
is or it isn't site approved cause there is no specific site plan before us so you need not fear
what a site plan would do until you know what the site plan is. There is none before us. I just
wanted the record to reflect that.
JEROME MORNSEY : May I say something else?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You may.
JEROME MORNSEY : I believe all my neighbors are in agreeance after the Supreme Court ruling
in Riverhead Mr. Kelly stores his boats on the lot that's his wish. It's like I said it's a very very
small parcel of land. He has his two boats on there. The judge I think Judge Tarrantino even
allowed him to store a little storage trailer if you will. We just I don't think any of our neighbors
we have I don't think we have a problem allowing it to be used the way it has been used for a
hundred years the way you know Mr. Murray planned it to be carved out the land to be that
way and to allow it to be abused and to be manipulated into his own pleasure it's just totally
wrong to all the local neighbors never mind the value of everybody's homes having a trailer
park or so I'm just we're just I'm hoping my neighbors are with me and we'll be back here in
January to voice our opinion once again. Thank you for listening.
MEMBER DANTES : Just so you're clear if he does end up getting the PreCo from the Building
Department I mean have to ask Mr. Ross but he might withdraw the application and not have
to come here.
December 3, 2015 Regular Meeting
JEROME MORNSEY : If he gets approval.
A.T.A. KIELY : If he gets a PreCo he no longer needs to be in front of this Board.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : His question to us is the Building Department said he needed site
plan approval. He's asking us to reverse that decision which we can do we have the legal
jurisdiction to do that. We don't need to do that if in fact a PreCo was issued because then the
whole idea of site plan is no longer required.
JEROME MORNSEY : I think it's the definition about site plan that we're all very concerned
about.
MEMBER DANTES : The other thing is (inaudible) for our purposes he's not applying for
anything other than what's been going on for the last hundred years as you said. That's what
his application
JEROME MORNSEY : Yea but that's why he had violations against him because he was abusing
it.
MEMBER DANTES : I understand that but it's not why we're here today.
JEROME MORNSEY : Okay fine. Well I said what I had to say so I'll see you in January. Thank
you. Hopefully.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That's fine. What we would probably do is close it in January that's
all we're going to adjourn but we would just close it without testimony if the PreCo is
established. Are you clear what I'm saying here? We have adjourned to January you're going to
get your chance to speak. What we would do procedurally if a PreCo is issued we would then
we would close the hearing in January without further testimony. Please go ahead state your
name.
MARYLOU PALMER : My name is Marylou Palmer and I live at 85 (inaudible) Drive. I am also an
adjacent neighbor and I just not going to repeat what Mr. Mornsey has said but again we have
no objection to a marina I mean that's fine. The objection is we have no overnights, no large
RV's, no campers only small boats and to reduce the amount of boats that go in there because
actually fourteen boats is too much as far as the car traffic. So that is I guess our basic issue we
have no objection to the Marina I but we do have objections to what's going on and I've just
evidenced by a few pictures which I'd like to share with you. And again as I say our neighbors
have no objection to it being a marina because that's what it was but with the fence around it
and all the other activities happening in there we object to that and I guess that's it.
December 3, 2015 Regular Meeting
DAN ROSS : As far as with respect to Mr. Mornsey's comment there is no disagreement there is
disagreement. We disagree with the views as stated. With respect to the fence Mr. Kelly could
not get insurance for the premises without the fence. The question of course is, well how did
Mr. Murray get and the answer is Mr. Murray lived there so according to the insurance people
he was an onsite owner. Mr. Kelly was not they said if you want insurance you gotta put up a
fence. That's why the fence went up. There is some suggestion and I think the Board
understands this property is zoned Marina I. The present zoning we're not suggesting this is a
preexisting non-conforming use. The use is conforming to the zoning. We're saying that it's
preexisting. Second there's been no violations found with respect to Mr. Kelly use of the
property not one okay. They've been alleged haven't been found and I don't think there'll ever
will be.
A.T.A. KIELY : I just want to clarify he's accurate Supreme Court action was commenced a TRO
was granted, a preliminary injunction was granted but the merits have not been flushed out
yet. There hasn't been an ultimate determination on the action hereof.
DAN ROSS : Your office brought four charges in this court in the justice court.
A.T.A. KIELY : No no I'm talking about Supreme Court.
DAN ROSS : Yea they don't issue violations. That's a criminal charge. There's been four charges
lodged against Mr. Kelly. There's a non-guilty plea and they haven't been resolved and this
proceeding actually staged that proceeding.
A.T.A. KIELY : But there's a preliminary injunction against having more than one RV over there
and tents. I just want to make that clear.
DAN ROSS : Well the injunction also says he can't use it as a marina.
A.T.A. KIELY : No it doesn't say that.
DAN ROSS : Yes it does.
A.T.A. KIELY : I didn't see that.
DAN ROSS : Read it again.
A.T.A. KIELY : It just says he can't have a tent city and you can't have an RV city.
DAN ROSS : It says he can't have a marina but we're going to leave that when we get to it. This
is where the decision should be made in the first instance. This Board should make a decision
on this issue and then I'll take it to the Supreme Court. Thank you. One more point the
application is for fourteen slips. It should be eleven consider the application amended.
December 3, 2015 Regular Meeting
MR. HOCKBRUCKNER : Good afternoon madam chairwoman and Board. George Hockbruckner I
live at 350 McDonald Rd. and I'm right across from the marina. I arise to refute to some of the
statements that have been made. The fact of the matter is when we moved in eighteen years
ago and many people in the community are there several generations. Mr. Murray ran a
marina. We were all very happy with the marina because it was used strictly to bring in boats.
People would come park for a few hours take out their boats and would have a delightful day
going out Brushed Creek and enjoying the beauty of Peconic Bay. Since Mr. Kelly bought the
property we understand the fence fine that makes sense that he should have it if insurance is
required but what happened for the past two summers is that the property was not used
strictly as a marina. At one point and time there were six RV's parked on the property. There
were tents, there were fires. In essence they bought a .17 acre piece of property that they
turned into their own personal summer camp for themselves and others. The Town of Southold
talked to Mr. Doherty issued summonses saying you can't do this you can't do that. The fact of
the matter is we do not have trailer parks in Southold Town and Mr. Kelly made that property
into a trailer park and the town substantiated that with the many criticisms and basically the
issuance of the various complaints that the town themselves developed. The community tried
to live with Mr. Kelly but he has made it virtually impossible with what he has been doing so
make no mistake about it our goal and nobody has ever threatened him. We have tried to be
good neighbors, he's pushed his luck to the limit and in fact that's why the community
organized got signatures from the twenty two households brought the issue to the Town Board
and that's why they took the State Supreme Court action to get that the TRO to stop Mr. Kelly
from doing what he was doing because the town could not do it. They had to go to a higher
level to stop Mr. Kelly and his abuse of our community. So yes we're upset and our goal is use it
as a marina. It's been that way from Mr. Murray's time in the 50's we have no problem with
that. We've all lived with it but when you make it into a trailer park, when you are out in the
road cursing at your neighbors that is not being a good neighbor. The point is we intend to fight
this. If there's a technicality where the Zoning Board passes the issue back onto the Planning
Department we understand you have to live by your rules and your law here at the town level.
But make no mistake about it we intend to fight this through the Planning Commission because
all we want is that property to be used the way it was intended not the way Mr. Kelly believes
he can do anything he want with that property. Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright let me clarify for your comments and I believe that's the gist
of what people in the audience are feeling so I'm since we're going to adjourn this to January
and find out what the Building Department's ruling is there are two things I'd like the audience
to know. Number one the record will remain open so anything you wish to communicate to us
either those present or those not present have the option of submitting anything in writing that
they wish to. Secondly the kinds of comments that you've made are the kinds of comments that
December 3, 2015 Regular Meeting
the if site plan is required would be considered by the Planning Board in their moving forward
as to how to figure out the number of slips, the number of parking spaces and so on. That's
what the Planning Board basically does. If in fact site plan is not required because there is a
PreCo in no way have any of you either Mr. Kelly and his counsel or anyone in the audience any
of the neighbors exhausted your legal remedies about how the property is being used. That
takes place in a different court not this one and this is a quasi-judicial court okay this is not even
you know full judicial review. So I just wanted to let people understand how the process works
and that you will have a continued voice in this as it unfolds. So we're going to see what
happens now you know in the Building Department and you'll know in January or before. You
can always call our office and we'll bring you up to date on any new status you can call Building
Department cause I'm not sure how long it's going to take them but they have promised us that
a decision will be made by January so one way or the other we're going to know what we have
to do as a Zoning Board.
MEMBER DANTES : Leslie also if they have documentation or evidence of the number of boat
slips or pictures historical pictures of the property they might be able to submit them to the
Building Department for their files?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yea or you can submit them to us and the Building Department or
you can submit them to the Building Department so that they can make a fully informed
decision about the PreCo and so on. I mean this is what the whole public process is about any
concerned party has the right to make sure that their voice is heard either through the public
hearing process or through written testimony written correspondence. Anything else from the
Board or anybody else? Hearing no further comments or questions I'm going to make a motion
to adjourn this hearing to January the 7th at we better make it like ten o'clock what do you
think? So we're going to adjourn this to January 7 at ten a.m.
MEMBER DANTES : Second.
CHAIRPERSONE WEISMAN : All in favor?
MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Aye.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Aye.
MEMBER DANTES : Aye.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye.
(See Minutes for Resolution)
December 3, 2015 Regular Meeting
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : By the way I just want the audience to know Member Horning who
lives on Fishers Island had to leave early before the conclusion of the hearing today because he
lives on Fishers Island and he has to catch the ferry from Orient to New London and then he has
to go from New London to Fishers Island and their schedule is what he has to abide by or he'd
be stuck here overnight so he apologizes.
HEARING #6861—SOUTHOLD FARM +CELLAR, INC. (MEADOR)
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Southold Farm and
Cellar Inc. (Meador) # 6861 and this had been adjourned so I don't really need to read the well
it's a new Notice of Disapproval I better just read it for the record. It's a request for variances
under Article III Code Section 280-13A(4), 14 and the Building Inspector's April 9, 2015 last
amended October 27, 2015 Notice of Disapproval for a building permit for conversion of an
existing building to include a tasting room and the construction of a new winery building at 1)
less than the code minimum required setback of 100 feet from a major road, 2) less than the
code required development intact square footage of 80,000 square feet per use located at 860
Old North Rd in Southold.
PAT MOORE : Good afternoon Patricia Moore on behalf of Southold Farm and Cellar. I have Mr.
Meador here and we're continuing with the process of trying to run a small winery on premises
where my client lives on the property. Has a 400 square foot tasting room tasting shed and is
proposing a processing storage building at 60 feet from the front property line. To begin with
we have to start just by describing this particular property with the fact that there is a farm
house that was built on this property in the early 1900's. It was issued a PreCo from 2005 that
the PreCo recommended demolition and my client his family restored the old farm house and
this old farm house from the age of it would of predated many of the homes in this community
and would have been part of the larger farmstead farm acreage that surrounds Old North Rd.
This property the Planning Board had raised the issue that in 1992 the Dickerson family at the
time who had the 40 acres split the property sold development rights but even as far as 1997
the this particular property was one of two splits. This property was split into an 18 acre and a
22 acre development rights sold parcel to enable it to be used both as a vineyard and possibly
as a horse farm because that was an application that had been made in the 90's at the time.
Again the my client has the 22 acres and it is all part of the homestead the operation the
farming operation that is being conducted on this property. Our first and last time I was here I
wasn't able to put it on the record that this property and its uses have now been subject to four
conflicting Notices of Disapproval. Each disapproval is evidence of conflicting interpretations of
December 3, 2015 Regular Meeting
the Town Code and each Disapproval ignores thirty years of the town's practices both those of
the Building Department and the Planning Department. These varied and conflicting
disapprovals are clear evidence and proof that the town code is unclear, is deficient and fails to
give owners, perspective owners and even government officials a clear determination of what
can be done with properties. The Notice of Disapproval and the demands being made presently
with the most recent Notice of Disapproval affects the agricultural operations and violates NYS
AGs and Markets law. This last Notice of Disapproval turns public policy years of support in
agriculture and past precedent on its head. The twenty three acres of development rights land
is within the AG district. It's protected under AGs and Markets law and the deed does not
sterilize the property from support of agriculture. That was the first part of an argument made
by the neighbor in her previous appeal which was withdrawn but the arguments are still have
been incorporated into this appeal. It merely limits the development rights merely limits the
use on developments restricted property to production a term which is defined and there's no
language which prohibits the use of the residential land in support of processing and marketing.
The covenants and restrictions on land cannot be given different or stricter meaning than the
specific language contained in the deed restriction. In fact past applications included both the
restricted and unrestricted land in its entirety. That continues even now with a hearing you had
earlier today the Old North Farm LLC the Purita property. At that hearing you were told that
there is a residential use. That residential use is a pre-existing mobile home being re-located in
fact there were two not there's one. That mobile home is going to be permanently affixed to
the property most likely connected to the existing sanitary system because it's not it's been it
has not had its own contained system. It is all part of the farm operation and as always when
the description of the property has been submitted to this Board it has described the property
in its entirety both the development rights and the non-development rights restricted land.
When you asked well what's the acreage in the application and in the discussion it was 26
acres. That was after the merging. We attempted to do the same thing. My client initially made
an application that tried to preserve the farm the homestead separate. We were advised by the
agricultural committee and certainly with all the opposition we thought alright fine we'll hurt
the kids in the future but we will combine the properties. We merged the properties not
subject to your approval we actually merged the properties, provided proof of that merger. So
now the parcel is a 24, or 23 1/2 acre parcel. It is an entire piece of property both the restricted
land and the unrestricted land. The activities on this on our clients my clients property is
considered a farm operation. That term is defined. It is defined among that it's defined as
among other things activities that contribute to the production, preparation and marketing of
crops, livestock and livestock products. The entire property and all the structures that are
occurring on this property are all part of the farming operation. As with Purita you have farm
we tried to distinguish farm housing, farm labor well the most basic of farm labor is the
dwelling. That's what we have here. We have the original house built in the late 1800's part of
December 3, 2015 Regular Meeting
this farm it is the winery operators, the farm operator's home. It is where he operates his entire
business from cell phone or his home computer and what is occurring on the property is all
supported it's part and parcel of the development rights land and the non-development rights
land. It is a farming operation and the application of bulk schedule has never been applied this
way and is outrages that on the smallest of all the farmers in town the smallest of all the
wineries that you're imposing a restriction intended specifically to try to impede this business.
I'm going to give you another example and that other example is from 2014 not so long ago
Eight Hands Farm. Eight Hands Farm has two acre reserve of a twenty seven acre parcel. On
that property the Notice of Disapproval merely made the Eight Hands Farm get a site plan. On
that property on the reserve area there's a dwelling with a footprint of 1500 square feet, a
cheese excuse me a 4,264 square foot farm stand so it was it is quite a large farm stand, a barn
for the sheep which is clearly permitted even on development rights land and most recently in
2014 and having I believe it's under construction by now a cheese processing with a kitchen all
of that on the two acres. So we have two uses bulk schedule applying the bulk schedule, we
have a farm that has a dwelling and the cheese processing. You are the town I won't say you
the Town allowed that is allowing that and continues to allow applications with complete
disregard of whether or not the bulk schedule applies because it doesn't. We've got thirty years
where the bulk schedule has not applied to a farming operation. Why today? Why choose
Southold Farm and Cellar with a four hundred square foot tasting room. It's outrages. This is
the most unfair, unjust and quite frankly and I've advised the wine the wine counsel and the
wine community. It is an equal protection issue as well because when Eight Hands because it
make cheese can be treated straight through site plan no problem, no Notices of Disapproval
with issues that are presented to you like we are today and you treat a winery even the
smallest winery the way we have been today. There's an equal protection problem there. It
smells of violations under AGs and Markets and it is just outrages. As far as precedent the
beginning of the precedent was a Shinn vineyard. Shinn was twenty one acres of which twenty
acres was development rights sold land and Shinn and we support all of these because to point
them out is not to say that they're in violation or that there's anything wrong with it. To point it
out is to point out the injustice and what is going on here with a hearing that has been
postponed with a new Notice of Disapproval every month with notices to the neighbors which
quite frankly the notices that were started on this only had notices around the surrounding one
acre one and a half acre when we merged the property we actually noticed the entire group of
properties because now the application was the entire twenty three acres so we corrected that.
We noticed and some people have gotten notices where they said why did I get a notice? Well
because you are now within the perimeter of this application. It's not just the one acre that we
are trying to build a new processing building and again the processing building is a small
structure in comparison to all these other examples. We've got twenty one hundred of interior
space with a covered porch for crushing pad. All of that is so minor in nature to put this
December 3, 2015 Regular Meeting
applicant and you should see the five pounds of paper that this application has generated. You
have it in your file I have double that because I've done all the research. I've done the research
of the first issue that came up which is a 60 foot structure from a major road. The argument
that Purita that the application that you heard earlier today we raised that in our first the first
time we came to this Board and said major road we're not a major road Old North Rd. is not a
major road. We conform to setbacks, we conform to principal setbacks. We would conform to a
cheese operation only because we're a winery. So we look forward to your interpretation I
think Gail did a very good job of giving you the analysis of the language that is throughout the
code and what does a major road mean versus not a major road and I would add that the
wineries began with special permits and most of the wineries that you were seeing with a
special permit were on the major roads so the Board through the special permit process
tending to incorporate the 100 foot as a policy, case by case but certainly looking at it at a one
applicant by another applicant looking at the speed of the traffic, the appropriateness of its
location so many of the setbacks were 100 feet. But it does point out that that's why on Route
25 and Route 48 a major road that's a major road. She addressed that issue but we addressed it
first and months ago when we first came to you.
MEMBER DANTES : Pat do you have any copies or maybe small photo copies of the site plans of
some of these other organizations you're talking about?
PAT MOORE : Oh sure. I actually have it here. I didn't want to distract you while you were
listening but I have here actually my points in a somewhat of a power point for you cause I
didn't want it to be verbose and again duplicating what you already had but I do have Eight
Hands which unfortunately with printing very small site plan but it is clearly on a 400 by 200
being 80,000 square feet, two acres of reserved area.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Eight Hands actually was before us. It was for setback variance I
think for a preexisting structure.
PAT MOORE : Even more so you got to see it and there was never an issue of the bulk schedule
and here we are I mean we're just months away from when that was decided.
MEMBER DANTES : Before my time I guess.
PAT MOORE : Is there any doubt that this has all the uses that I've mentioned. No okay. I want
to say that you've gotten in writing and in my previous last meeting which turned out to not be
a meeting but in writing I provided it anyway. My client is respectful of the community. Is
respectful of his limitations and has from day one volunteered to put limitations on this
particular winery. He lives onsite. There should be and just intuitively and again this is all should
be done through the legislative process but intuitively when a farmer lives on the farm whether
December 3, 2015 Regular Meeting
it's a winery, cheese processing or flowers it doesn't matter. The individual lives on the
property. He or she is not going to allow entertainment to be the model of their business. In
that instance for here we've given you and responded to the Planning Board's comments and
said we're willing to accept reasonable comments, reasonable conditions. We agree we don't
want limousines, we don't want buses. We have individual one on one tastings in the four
hundred square foot seasonal because it has no heat seasonal tasting area. There is no retailing
in the processing building. The process building gives the flexibility that it puts the vats uses the
vats in the winter when the vats are when the fermentation process is over he can put his
equipment inside the building so the space is appropriate for this size winery. It is clearly a
small winery. It is every comment you've ever heard is that this is a small winery I called it a
boutique winery. I was criticized by calling it a boutique winery but quite frankly it is. It's a
different model and you have more and more small farmers small wineries that are changing
the model that has been allowed and what's happening is that this bulk schedule let's talk
about the purposes of bulk schedule. Application of the bulk schedule and the larger reserve
areas is promoting the largest wineries. It's promoting precisely what the community wants
does not want to see. So we're what you do with one just trying to address or create new rules
changing the way that the town has interpreted it is now again turning it on its head and is
promoting the largest wineries. The sale of development rights program was always intended
to support agriculture and what you're saying is from this time forward anybody who's
considering selling development rights leave behind ten, twenty acres because you never know
what kind of farming operation what kind of agro tourism operation you want to allow there.
Instead of saying no we want to encourage as much farming as possible as much open space as
possible reduce the amount of reserve area because if you're going to put whether it's a farm
stand or a winery or any other somewhat of a retail use you're limited by the lot coverage of
that small reserved area. That's how it's historically been applied. In our case Southold Farm
and Cellar is using 11% of their reserve area. Even when we've merged the properties we're
keeping it at 11% of the reserve area even though when it's combined it would be .01 of the
entire property. We haven't changed our lot coverage calculation and if anything that part of it
makes sense because you're developing the area of the property that has no restrictions. To
that extent I would agree with you because we've talked about lot coverage. How does one
calculate lot coverage with wetlands with other restrictions including development rights
restrictions. That's where the code speaks in terms of the extent the size of the operation not
the bulk schedule and we need a use for residence and we need a use for the winery and the
processing and you know you got a farm stand oh it's another use and each use is two acres.
That is a crazy interpretation and you've already acknowledge it's somewhat of a crazy
interpretation in the Sannino application. It makes no sense. What does make sense and how
we have been applying the code is through lot coverage. We're complying with lot coverage.
The applications that are before you I presume comply with lot coverage. I don't know because
5
December 3, 2015 Regular Meeting
many of these applications Purita I didn't calculate it I assume that they have adequate lot
coverage. Eight Hands Farm, I have no idea, they have two acres and they have ten thousand or
more fifteen thousand square feet of lot coverage. I don't know because every week every
month every year we change the interpretation so enough. Enough with interpretations let this
poor family build and do their farming operation don't pay it all to me to be here and to
produce a file that is five feet thick or you to have to put up with this one meeting after
meeting okay enough. It is not time for new interpretation bulk schedule application. This is not
the time. That if it's them time our legislative body the Town Board has to decide and let me tell
you the Town Board is going to have a real hard time because the wine counsel the different
farming operations that we promote are going to be at the table and their going to say well
wait a second what about the little guy and one law one regulation doesn't apply to all and
that's been part of the problem. It's not time to change the interpretation today for this
application. Thank you.
MEMBER DANTES : Can I just ask you a quick question Pat? Do you know of any other
application similar to this one you have copies of can you submit those?
PAT MOORE : Oh it's Shinn that was the start.
MEMBER DANTES : No I understand what you're saying but just cause I mean I haven't been
here that long and just for the file.
PAT MOORE : Every single submission I've given you has provided an example.
MEMBER DANTES : This is the actual site plan. I'm just saying that would be
PAT MOORE : I can go back to the examples I've given you. I've pulled site plans for all of them.
MEMBER DANTES : Yea but they're not in our file.
PAT MOORE : I think they are. I mean I've given you I don't blame you I've given you so much
paper that I actually had to review my entire file before this hearing.
MEMBER DANTES : I've read them but I don't think you actually have the surveys on most of
them. That's what I'm asking for.
PAT MOORE : You know I just don't even remember anymore but I'm happy to go back. I'll look
at the different examples I've provided and I very quickly I can provide you site plan. Not a
problem. That's very easy. I may even have it in my file just rather than give you more paper
you know I may of just given you the example the number crunching rather than the site plan.
December 3, 2015 Regular Meeting
MEMBER DANTES : Yea you have the bullet points and everything else but a stronger
representation.
PAT MOORE : That's not a problem. Let me give you (away from microphone) jumped around I
didn't want to you know those are my talking points
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We've taken a lot of information and I'd like to see if there's anyone
else in the audience who wants to address the application. So come to the mic please and state
your name please.
ERIC CLEMINGS : My name is Eric Clemings and I'm here just to speak on support of Reagan. I
work in the wine business in the city. I'm his distributor in the city and certainly I'm not going to
get in to try to discuss things with zoning. I just want to speak in behalf the quality of the wines
and what he's doing and how it really is an exceptional property. It's very much not the norm
for out here. So within the New York community and in general the rest of the country wine
wise Long Island has been a region that while it's produced a lot of wine has sometimes lagged
behind in terms of quality and reputation and if you were to go into a lot of the best restaurants
in NYC which you know you're only talking 90 miles away you'd find next to no wines from long
island maybe one or two like Shinn there's a handful but by and large you go to a lot and great
retail stores there's almost no presence. What Long Island has longtime suffered from are a lot
of bigger wineries that produce okay quality wines that cater to exactly the people that come in
limousines and party buses in places like that when I distribute wines and I'm actually out here
speaking in support of him and this is something that takes money out of my pocket when he
was forced to shut down his tasting room this summer I got more of his wine to sell. I make
more money off that. In spite of that what he's doing is such fantastic work that I would rather
make less money and see him open and see his family be able to farm because this area and I
love seeing wines that are local get the attention that they deserve and seeing what he's doing
has really reinvigorated a lot of people's interest and passion in this region in NYC. You have
restaurants like Eleven Madison Park, Dannielle, Gramercy Tavern and you know some of the
best restaurants not just in the county but in the world they're featuring all of his wines on their
lists and that's just a testament to he's doing something a little bit different from everybody
else out here and the fact that he's one of the newest wineries and he's already in a lot of these
great places. He has distribution in California his wines are being served in some of the best
restaurants in San Francisco, in Texas in Colorado that's something that maybe with one other
winery you can't say that I've seen happen anywhere else and again that's a testament to the
quality of his wines and what he's doing and with better quality wines what he's doing come
better visitors. People that go to Eleven Madison Park or Danielle restaurant that have one of
his bottles and say that next time when we're out there we want to come and visit him these
aren't people that are showing up in party buses. These are fairly affluent well behaved people
December 3, 2015 Regular Meeting
by and large and they're coming to the area maybe to go see him. It's not like they're going
getting drunk and driving around. This is very much an exception to the rule in terms of how
most wineries out here operate and again his family on the property he doesn't want
limousines and party buses there with small children walking around but you know
encouraging, and fostering wineries like this will really help the overall reputation of the region
as a fine wine region that can kind of escape the kind of lag that's been stuck in and really
accelerate that and you know he's sort of the first one of what will hopefully be many very
small wineries that are really focused on the absolute highest quality and if he's forced to not
be able to make wines or have to shut down the operation that would just it would send a
really bad signal to anyone in the state of New York that wants to make wines that this area
isn't an area that they should be going and trying to pursue that you know you have the finger
lakes and you have long island. Finger lakes the cost of land is about one tenth of what it is out
here so he's already you know fighting an uphill battle in terms of trying to make a living
farming out here. It's an admirable pursuit and he's certainly not going to get rich off of doing
that but you know to send a signal to people that this is an area where they can come and
foster growth and small wineries in the future I think sends a really good sign and again you
know all I can do is speak on the quality of his wines and what a good person he is and you
know tell you that this is not the exception you know this is not the normal winery in terms of
how well the wines have been received in the city and he's reinvigorated lots of buyers interest
not just in New York City but the entire country and I think that's a pretty special thing. Thank
you guys for your time.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We have heard many laudable comments about the quality of Mr.
Meador's wine and what his intentions are and the one thing I have said again and again
despite my own personal feelings cause it's the kind of wine I'd sure would like to drink the
bottom line is variances run with the land and that's why the law doesn't allow us to
personalize the person but we rather have to look at the land and its impact on the community
and what reasonable property rights are there. I mean he's asking to do something that the law
does not specifically at this point rightly or wrongly permit and it has nothing to do with the
quality of his wine or his business model because once you know a particular winery is in place
down the road it can get sold one never knows and a totally different business model can come
in because there's now his agent has suggested that they're willing to accept covenants and
restrictions on the use of the property. If handled a certain way they will also run with the land
and they will restrict in perpetuity certain impacts or uses. That is a way that this can be
handled but I just want the audience to understand that when Zoning Board makes a decision it
has to do so on the merits of the variance relief being asked for and not based upon the
individual who's doing the asking. Otherwise we'd be in the position to say what a great guy
give it to him that obviously great guy give it to him we can't. Not a great guy don't give it to
December 3, 2015 Regular Meeting
him we have very very specific legal statutes and I think counsel has addressed them very well
and those are the kinds of things we really have to consider which does not in any way reduce
the comments that you made which were very heartfelt and I think very useful to the Board but
it's important that the record reflect that this is not a personal decision about the nature of the
applicant. It's the nature of the application.
PAT MOORE : And I thank you. I absolutely and variances run with the land assuming that
variances are required and that's where it's frustrating because when we merged the
properties that was to eliminate one of the variances. The only remaining variance would have
been the setback of the new structure at 60 feet and you have a pending application for an
interpretation on that which was very thorough and I think pretty clear that Old North Rd. is not
a major road as that term would have been intended or even somewhat defined through our
code. So the simplest solution here is to find that we need no variances that the bulk schedule
is that the you're overturning the Building Inspector's determination which quite frankly he was
directed to change the Notice of Disapproval right before this last October one was merely the
60 foot from a front from the property line the front yard setback of the proposed building.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That was the one prior to that included the bulk schedule issue and
after the merger we eliminated the rear yard setback
PAT MOORE : Right.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Right and eliminated the ten acres of agricultural operation.
PAT MOORE : Exactly.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It left the bulkhead oops that's another application please tell me
you don't need bulkhead it left the front yard setback
PAT MOORE : And that was It.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And it left the bulk schedule issue which they failed to put in and
correct it. Whether we like it or not what's before us now are the two issues the front yard
setback and the bulk schedule issue and that's what the Board is currently going to have to
grapple with.
PAT MOORE : Alright well
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And you've given us food for thought
PAT MOORE : I think I've given you plenty to say that it's that the bulk schedule from day one
when I've presented it was inaccurate and the front yard setback we think that you're going to
December 3, 2015 Regular Meeting
hopefully come to an interpretation that finds that a 60 foot as long as you meet principal
structure setbacks you're conforming. Again even if you have to get to the point of reviewing
this property for variances from the bulk schedule and from the setback we have given you
specifics on this property that we do not have that we're prepared to live by restrictions and
those conditions can be filed as covenants you know that the Planning Board would make us
file those covenants anyway. They would be covenants and those run with the land so as far as
running with the land the person who attempts to take over what he's been doing
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :That's what I just said.
PAT MOORE : Right would have to live by whatever conditions this Board grants so there is a
way of getting past all this it's just a very frustrating you know overnight interpretation and
again contrary to the past practice.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anyone else in the audience?
NIDERA VLAUN : Good afternoon Nadera Vlaun. I'm here to support Southold Farm and Cellars.
I am their label designer. I know this is more about variances but I am a local business and they
came to me from inception and instead of turning to their connections they had in New York
City or somewhere far beyond they reached out to me. I'm a local designer. I live in Greenport
and they're one of my smallest wineries that I work with. I work with MacCall wines,
Kontokosta. I've worked with One Woman, Paumonock and they are just the sweetest most
charming tasting room I've ever been in. I recently went up to the Finger Lakes to consult with
two other wineries up there and they're looking to Reagan's model as a business and how to
run and change the way wineries and vineyards are going forward instead of the traditional big
wine making places. A lot of new wine makers are doing much smaller wine making processes.
So to consider that he might be shut down or might not be able to run his business is not only
affecting him but affecting me as far as one of my clients and it just trickles down. If you want a
thriving community this is a great representation of somebody doing something good in the
community. So I just wanted to this is my first time here to support him. I also was if it matters
at all he gets really amazing press and has done some really good things in the wine community
and people are looking at him as a model. Recently the Wall Street Journal I was just featured in
the Wall Street Journal and my work for Reagan was also featured in there. He's doing good in
the community this is what we want to see as a community living in an agricultural
environment.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thank you again personal testimony and so on but not relevant to
the variances that are before us.
NIDERA VLAUN : Well if you've been to his property which I have
'J!., s s
December 3, 2015 Regular Meeting
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We have.
NIDERA VLAUN : to many times my presentations to him are not in a big office setting. They're
at his dining room table with his family and his two children you know he's looking out for his
own benefit too he has a family you know any
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I understand actually I have a question. There's an entrance that if
this variance for some or variances are not granted that's the end of his business. He's not
going to be able to do wines. He's been doing wine that clearly has gotten rave reviews. He's
been producing it you've been growing on the property and elsewhere and you've been making
the wine. Now I do have something in writing as to what the situation is with regard to the
future to suggest however that there's a connection between an ability to continue to produce
wine and having to do it on that property or not at all is something that I'd like him to address
in the record.
REAGAN MEADOR : So my name is Reagan Meador. I'm the part owner of Southold Farm and
Cellar at 860 Old North Rd. I think this has probably been one the things that you a lot of people
have asked well why does he need to do all of this here. Specifically with the wine making as we
grow we just made our way to about 1500 cases which in the scheme of things is minuscule I
mean tiny even for the North Fork standards and I was unable to find anywhere to do that
other than a at least start the process in a tent behind Lenz Winery. The issue is is that my
process and the way that I make the wines and in order for me to do you know it's like being a
chef you have your way of doing it. It's your practice is how you're going to get to the end
product that you want to it requires me to do a whole lot of separate little bitty lots and that
causes an issue with space and so the initial place that we used said when we first started said
fine cause you're only five hundred cases. Well the next year we grew to a thousand cases and
we just grow that much space and it makes it very difficult it's like two chefs sharing a kitchen.
Right now all of our wine is at Lenz or all of the wine is at (inaudible) stored away and it is
packed to the gills cause it takes up space and we're slowly finding ourselves running out of it
and not having any other options. Everyone says well you have Premium Wine Group. Premium
Wine Group is set up for larger clients and they tell you that. If you go and look at their
scheduled pricing it is there's extra fees the smaller the lots get because think about it the
amount of things that you have to do for one bin of wine that's roughly sixty cases is the same
amount that you have to do for one big vat of wine that's three thousand cases let's say. So if
you're splitting everything up into little sixty case lots you're having to do much more work and
they don't want they're taking up much more and you're causing that much more work and
they don't want to see that. On top of that there's other things I want to do as we grow. One of
them is using other types of fermentation vessels that aren't regularly used here one of them
being concrete tanks. Very much used in the old world in France and Italy and everything like
'. flu.'.
December 3, 2015 Regular Meeting
that very rare extremely heavy tens of thousands of pounds. I can't just pick one up and put it
into somebody else's winery so I can put it you know make the wine there. So all these things
start to and I'm actually really that's the thing that I'm most nervous about right now is that this
process keeps taking us down this path to where next harvest I don't know what I'm gonna do
because you know you cause a strain even with my current situation it's stressful and I'm in the
way and I'm asking for a lot of favors and I just want to get out of people's way. I want to be
able to be self-sufficient on my own property and have everything taken care of under my own
purview. It's a space issue and there's no code that allows me to have a winery in a warehouse
you know I need ten acres to do that and with a warehouse you know where as you know in
Nappa Valley you can be (inaudible) or and just be in a warehouse somewhere and there's your
winery. You can't do that here. And so I don't have really any other options at this point. If I'm
forced to use Premium Wine Group then essentially then I'm really kind of done with what I'm
doing here because if I can't make the wine that I set out to make it's what's the point. I'm not
in this just for the lifestyle you know of sitting back and pointing at my vines and swirling a
glass. This also goes into why we want to stay small and have a small tasting room. I don't want
we don't need crowds cause it's all about that one on one and keeping it very personalized
because what we're doing is more than just the wine. I'm not selling space I'm selling the wine
itself and so if I can't focus on the product at the end if I don't have the control over the
product then it's a moot point for us you know we have to figure something else out and that's
really what it comes down to. This isn't an attempt to skirt by anything or you know fool
anybody. It really is going to be a processing facility and we really are going to stay small and if
we get more and more popular then that just means we sell out because there's a limit to what
we can make how much we can grow and how much we can make in our facility. If you look at
any other site plans that are going in right now from the MacCall Winery to any of the other
ones we're minute I mean compared to the MacCall Winery we're I think a third of the size and
they're making ten thousand cases so we're maxing out at three thousand cases if you do
square footage to square footage. So there isn't a point where we just like you know slough off
and go hey this didn't work out time to sell it. The reason why we're making it a barn is so if
worse case scenario I just forget how to make wine and have to sell this whole thing that it can
be sold and used as a farm. It can be anything. That barn is a barn and someone can make
cheese if they'd like to or what not if we get a bout of bad disease and the vines all die it could
be a farm. So I'm not afraid of restrictions I just want to be able to do what I'm here to do and
that's been the most frustrating part getting to the point and I feel like it just we just keep going
down the path and so I'd just like it to finally I don't know how much more we can say.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : There probably isn't much more but I wanted you to have an
opportunity
REAGAN MEADOR : No I appreciate that.
December 3, 2015 Regular Meeting
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : to explain what the significance was because again you raised the
questions that I wanted you to enter into the hearing which is why you cannot continue to do
what you've been doing which is to make quality wines out here someplace other than on your
property. I needed to have you address that and frankly when the time comes to appear before
the Town Board you can take a part of this transcript and submit it to them because it's time
that the whole winery code was looked at with an eye toward todays practices and the future.
REAGAN MEADOR : And I think I mean that's always been the hope that the good thing out of
any of this that we're going through right now is that it opens everyone's eyes to the need that
there's certain things that we want to promote out here and certain things that we might not
and in order to promote that you have to let small operations like us exist and that's to what
Pat was saying not forcing us into this you know four acres or two acres that you can't live on
and that you have to buy a house down the road and then you have to have another ten acres
attached to it I mean once you start adding it up if we were going to apply the bulk schedule as
it is I need four acres I would have to have all the big accoutrement just to pay for all that I
would have to have the events. I would have to have it. The way that we're set up I don't
because I've spread the cost through it's all one operation, the house supports the farm,
supports the winery supports the everything and that's the only way that we're able to
function.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Thank you. Come to the mic and state your name.
LYNNE NORMANDIA : Lynne Normandia I live on Leeton Drive and I just became a full time
resident after thirty years as a summer resident so I'm delighted to be here.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Welcome to the neighborhood.
LYNNE NORMANDIA : Thank you. I'm also here just to tell you I love the point about Old North
Rd. being a major thoroughfare. I take my bike all around town all the way up to the bad
wineries I've tried them all. There's never a car on Old North Rd. I'm surprised it still has a farm
there that tries to sell wine cause there's no cars passing by. You ride your bicycle it's like
nothing it's an empty road. It's not a major thoroughfare and that's I think a point that's so well
taken you need to consider that in the variance of we need so much farther back from this big
road no there's no big road right thank you.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Thank you. Yes.
MELISSA HENRY : Hi. My name is Melissa Henry. I my husband and I actually met the Meadors a
couple of weeks ago. We're not unlike them in the sense that we're small scale specialty
organic vegetable growers and we just moved out here with a vision not unlike theirs and I just
wanted to speak a little bit to what Reagan mentioned about the unattainable nature of you
'!., s
December 3, 2015 Regular Meeting
know having to move different parts of one's operation around. In the short term it might seem
like a you know feasible thing but the harder it's hard enough to grow these things by
themselves to be impeded by these kinds of restrictions when obviously there seems to be and
I'm not very familiar with the long term history of this particular issue that they're having but it
seems as though there's some sort of solution possible that would you know not only respect
what they're looking to do here but also you know if in the circumstance that they decide not to
stay that it might be you know possible to have that carried forward to another owner. But it's
just you know disheartening to us you know here we are you know we have young children and
we're in a similar situation looking to come out here of all the places despite the high cost of
land to be part of a community and it's you know it makes us think is this really the kind of
community that supports what we're looking to do and so that's it. So I thought it was
important enough to come down here today and like I said I don't really this isn't a personal
testament to who they are as a family but it's sort of what they represent and it's you know
huge importance to other members of the community the agricultural community. Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Thanks for your comments.
CHRISTY FRANK : I'll be brief cause I can barely speak. My name is Christy Frank and I own a
wine shop called Frankly Wines down in Manhattan and I just want to build a bit on the point
that you asked the questions about the importance of the wines being produced in the on the
farm itself. My wine shop is about 400 square feet no 320 square feet so if their tasting room is
a shack my wine store is a broom closet we don't have more than 300 wines in the shop at any
given time so the selection when I'm buying a wine what's as important as what's in the bottle
is who's making it and what they're doing to get it there and the sorts of wines that we look at
the sorts of wine that we buy the dream is wines that are produced on the premises completely
farmed to glass that's what we look at so it is the buyers the people that are excited about
these wines we are looking and considering how they're made and the dream is to get them
made on property so it is something that not just as important to the community but it's
important to the people that are buying that are excited about the wines how they're made
what's going on and where they're coming from and that's about all I can.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Thank you. Anything from anyone we haven't heard already?
ALLISON LATHAM : Good afternoon Alison Latham 1755 Old North Rd. with just a few
comments. We're not questioning Mr. Meador's abilities to make wine. I understand he makes
amazing wine. We're not questioning his character but as Chairman Weisman said the variances
run with the land so our concern is what happens down the road. I believe that the major
problem with this application is the size of the property clearly. They purchased a one acre
parcel that was non-conforming that has a house existing on it and now want to build a forty by
.�., ,3
December 3, 2015 Regular Meeting
ninety wine processing facility on it and that really is the problem. It's not that I by no means
want them to be out of business nothing could be farther from the truth. I just don't believe
that unfortunately that they picked the right location for the business. I don't believe it's a
suitable location for the business. A couple of things from Ms. Moore's comments I don't really
believe that this interpretation of the bulk schedule violates AG and Markets law. She sited that
a farm operation you know includes the production, preparation and marketing of crops and I
understand that but that doesn't include processing. The AG and Markets also has a definition
of a processor and a processor is any person engaged within the state in processing,
fermenting, crushing or in any way preserving or changing the form of an agricultural product
so we're talking about processing. I feel that you know if you apply if you don't apply the bulk
schedule in this instance then that would mean that a farmer who is growing potatoes could
build a large building a forty by ninety building to make potato chips or a tomato farmer could
build a large building on you know on a site where there's already a house and make tomato
sauce. I don't think that it's proper to intensify the use of a property in that matter. The
development rights sold property is an issue in this case because the proposed use is a winery
and the development rights sold deed does not permit processing on that property. If Mr.
Meador were not a wine maker if you were a regular farmer then he would be able to build an
agricultural production building on the development rights sold property so I understand you
know his issue is really what he wants to do with the property and it's unfortunate but it is the
way it is. As for Purita the One Woman Winery that you hear testimony on earlier today I
understand there are certain similarities but that property the reserved area of that property
it's my understanding is approximately three times the size of Southold Farm and Cellar's
property. In addition the proposed winery building is a preexisting building. As far as Shinn I
actually have a letter in a submission that I made today where in 2009 the former Southold
Town Attorney did take the position that the bulk schedule applies obviously Shinn existed so I
don't exactly know what happened beyond that but it has been asserted before and the town is
not bound by any mistakes that it has made in the past. As to Eight Hands Farm it's two uses on
two acres. This is proposed two uses on one acre. There's a difference. I do believe as far as
whether or not Old North Rd. is a major road or not I can't really answer that I guess but I
would say that what makes sense to me is that probably a one hundred foot setback allows for
room for parking. If they don't have you know if a winery doesn't have a one hundred foot
setback then I mean depending on the nature of the property they may not have any room for
parking and then that would lead to on street parking. We have a farm right next door to us and
that's the Sepenoski farm and they just recently sold the development rights I believe I want to
say it's fifty some odd acres and they had a reserved area and they reserved eight acres so
clearly I don't know what their future plans are. I don't know if they'll subdivide those eight
acres and sell them off as lots for houses or if I could maybe have a winery right next door to
me but they did do that because they understood it appears that you need to reserve enough
December 3, 2015 Regular Meeting
area for whatever your future purposes may be when you sell your development rights. My
concern as to any imposition of conditions or covenants and restrictions is who is going to
enforce them. Conditions I guess would be enforced by the building I'm sorry the code enforcer
but covenants and restrictions I believe can only really be addressed by an action in the
Supreme Court as far as making sure that someone actually adheres to them so that's a concern
that I have with that. As to the five factors getting back to that I'm sorry I believe that the relief
sought is substantial. They require two variances one of the variances represents a 40%
reduction that's in the front yard setback and the bulk schedule requires a 75% setback I'm
sorry a reduction. I do believe that it would have an adverse effect on the character of the
neighborhood and a detriment to nearby properties because I do believe that it will decrease
the value of the residential properties around it. There are no other buildings as large as this or
as close to the road as this in the neighborhood. There are other very very old farm buildings in
the neighborhood as you've seen from the applicant's prior submission. All of those buildings
are from the 40's and 50's. They are extremely old agricultural buildings. None of the there are
no businesses that attract visitors on Old North Rd. unless you want to include One Woman
which is on the complete opposite end and is very close to Route 48. Limos and buses I
understand completely that Mr. Meador does not want them but as I've said before they still
will come down the road. I was behind one that came down the road this past spring and it took
the limo a three to a five point turn to be able to get into their property. To Mr. Meador's credit
I saw him walk out and he told them that they had to go I assume because they left so I
understand that he turned them away and that's wonderful and I really appreciate that as a
neighbor but the limo still came down the road. Unfortunately the relief that they're seeking is
entirely self-created. They knew of the limitations of the property when they purchased. They
took a gamble and they purchased it anyway. It's not the nature of the property that is causing
this hardship it is the nature of applicant's proposed use. I think that's all I have to say. Thank
you very much for your time.
MEMBER DANTES : Can I just ask a quick question? If the application was approved with
conditions which conditions would you like to see based on the property for the public or for
the communities good?
ALLISON LATHAM : I don't really know because I don't understand exactly how they would be
enforced you know in that right now for instance they're open on the weekends and how just
say you say that there could only be a certain number of people there at a time or something
what happens when there are more than that number on a weekend you know like a few
weeks ago I drove by and there were eight cars in their parking lot. They're proposing eight
parking spaces I believe on their site plan. Well that was November that wasn't in the busy
summer seasons so what would happen then you know in the busy summer season? Where
would the any other cars that showed up go? I understand that the Board wants to try to find
December 3, 2015 Regular Meeting
some sort of a way to give to grant the variances and make this all work but I don't really
understand exactly how you're going to impose conditions and enforce them and make sure
that the applicant adheres to them. I'm not really sure what the conditions would be that I
would suggest. I've just been very concerned as to how they would be enforced. Thank you.
MEMBER DANTES : The other question was for Pat or Mr. Meador. From the earlier
conversation about the site plans I dug up the packet and I have one in here for MacCall and
you also listed Bedell Cellars, Shinn and Sherwood House kind of the same package you just
gave us for Eight Hands Farm and then MacCall Gail Wickham brought a letter distinguishing
MacCall earlier.
PAT MOORE : Yea I mean I can respond to all of those very quickly I mean I can
MEMBER DANTES : Honestly for my purposes my thinking I just like to see
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : He just wants the visual.
PAT MOORE : Oh fine I can give you the visual not a problem.
MEMBER DANTES : if you also have the Southold Planning Form that you gave me for Eight
Hands Farm.
PAT MOORE : I'm sorry the what?
MEMBER DANTES : In this packet you just
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :The application to the Planning Board.
MEMBER DANTES : The application to the Planning Board if you have those as well.
PAT MOORE : It was attached to that. Oh you want the application and the site plan.
MEMBER DANTES : Or if you have any other farms that have a processing center, a residence
and that's fit into a smaller acreage.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well one of the issues is that farming and ag production is defined in
the code in a general way and wineries have been addressed in yet a different way some similar
but some differences. It's you know to me it's farming but they are addressed differently in the
code and particularly when development rights are sold because again it's processing right as
opposed to production so we just have to we have to grapple with it and it's an arduous thing
for a Board to make decisions that have significant precedent when the better way to do it
instead of writing de facto code by setting precedent would be to change the code through the
December 3, 2015 Regular Meeting
legislative process which is the Town Board. That is not our jurisdiction. We can only grant relief
from the code that exists.
PAT MOORE : Right.
MEMBER DANTES : And also Catapano might be similar to Eight Hands I'm not sure.
PAT MOORE : Catapano was on four acres.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : On 48?
PAT MOORE : Yea. I have to look. That was the Zoning Board application as I recall cause it was
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I don't think so.
MEMBER DANTES : I don't know the development right sold versus development rights intact.
PAT MOORE : I'd have to look. I think the size of the property was fixed it wasn't development
rights so I'll double check Catapano. I didn't think it was the same but
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : As though we didn't have enough paper.
PAT MOORE : I just want to two issues. One is the enforcement issue because I was expecting
the Town Attorney to answer that but since he stayed quiet I'll speak up. There are two means
of enforcement of covenants. There is the criminal enforcement which is you don't abide by the
restrictions you get a criminal charge and you appear in justice court and you they don't have
injunctive power but they have the power to issue tickets every time for every day that they see
a violation. So after a while it starts becoming an economic detriment to operate the way
you've been operating and you choose to operate properly.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Who has to bring that to the attention of the courts?
PAT MOORE : Well that's always the town that's what we have code enforcement for. It can be
done now there's a process.
A.T.A. KIELY : Yes it'll be complaint driven. There's an online complaint form twenty four hours
seven days a week you can send them a complaint. I get it emailed and I dispatch a part time
code enforcement officer that works nights and weekends and we've used it successfully thus
far. It's a new system. You can read it in the Suffolk Times. I think he did a good article with a
recent success story and it's something we can take very serious and you know immediately
address concerns that come up if they violate the conditions of the variance. Also we can go to
Supreme Court get a TRO and shut him down if they're operating outside the bounds of the
covenant and restrictions or even you know
December 3, 2015 Regular Meeting
PAT MOORE : Site plan.
A.T.A. KIELY : conditions and codes. Then site plan and we can go even as far as revoking a C.O.
if they're violating a site plan. So there's many different mechanisms there's administrative,
there's criminal, there's civil and you know code enforcement has changed. It has grown and
will get better. I understand in the past there were some issues with it but it's different now so
you can rest assured if there's conditions they will be enforced and there will also you know in
addition to it being complaint driven it will be proactive. We'll do some drive-byes ourselves
and make sure that parking is fine, that it isn't an issue with traffic and things like that so
PAT MOORE : And with respect with the precedent again the precedent is this application is a
new precedent. The prior applications of all the other applications that I know of that have
similar situations beginning since the most probably the most visible one from the early 2000's
is the Shinn application. That was the first one that he quite frankly I think was ready to go to
AG's and Markets because they had got so frustrated and it got worked out so whether or not
the town attorney may have given an opinion that there were multiple uses exceeding the bulk
schedule AG's and Markets as they have on this occasion in the Sannino application which I
included in this application AG's and Markets Mr. Summers has given an opinion that the uses
of a farm are not to be considered the residential are not to be considered separate distinct
uses. They are all farming operation so if you do come to the conclusion or deny this application
you're going directly contrary to which you've already been told AG's and Markets interprets
that a farming operation just like Hands just like Shinn does not look at the uses in a as if you
had separate tenants in a building. It is one overlapping umbrella of a farming operation and
one supports the other. None of them can operate independently and I think that's where
Reagan just explained to you that for him to run a successful winery operation or to produce
appropriate wine and quality wine he needs to be able to control his own processing and he did
it better than any of us could of described the unique and the customized growing that is
occurring with a production of his wine and you know he's the new farmer. He's the new
winery that's coming down the pike and again you don't need to create new precedent with
this one. I think you just have to follow what the what the how the code has been interpreted
all throughout as a farming operation.
A.T.A. KIELY : I just want to address with all due respect to Mr. Summers I do like him and I
appreciate what he has to say but it is an opinion and his opinion it was particular to Sannino
not Southold Farm and Cellar and you know it's persuasive authority but ultimately if they feel
that we're being unreasonably restrictive they would have to bring (inaudible) go to court and a
judge would have the final say as to whether or not we were.
December 3, 2015 Regular Meeting
PAT MOORE : So be it but I'm a taxpayer and if the state is telling you how it should be
interpreted as a taxpayer not as somebody who is being paid by a client but as a taxpayer I'm
saying don't we have to follow the law?
A.T.A. KIELY : Again it's an opinion particular to Sannino not to Southold Farm and Cellar.
PAT MOORE : I disagree. The way it was written was generic it was not to Sannino
A.T.A. KIELY : It's the first sentence but
PAT MOORE : It doesn't matter.
A.T.A. KIELY : Needless to say I just want to clarify the record that an opinion was rendered but
it's not controlling I just want to make sure the Board knew that you know it had to go through
the process but ultimately be (cut off by Pat Moore)
PAT MOORE : Oh sure well AG's and Markets you know you have to apply to AG's and Markets
or get a denial that renders your farm you know when a code interferes with a farming
operation or an interpretation interferes with a farming operation that gives you the you have
recourse with the state. We don't want to go there. This poor guy has already been through
enough so whatever it takes for you guys to come to a decision I hope it'll be a fair one and
again we're prepared he's prepared to live by the restrictions of what one would expect as a
home office.
REAGAN MEADOR : The only thing that I wanted to expound on was one assertion that we
knew what we were getting into. I think that's just with how many times this Notice of
Disapproval has changed and the fact that there was an interpretation necessary like I had no
there was no way that we knew any of what we were getting into before we found ourselves in
the I mean it's been a huge amount of education that we've had to go through and I still don't
quite know that I totally understand it all so this whole especially with the variance that we're
facing today I didn't even know that that was it's something we knew about until that
interpretation was made and so I think it's unfair to say that we knew what we were getting
into when we purchased it and you know just as far as the other things limos it's kind of funny
that that's the only limo that we actually ever had and I had to turn away.
MEMBER DANTES : Can I just ask you the same question I asked Ms. Latham?
REAGAN MEADOR : Yes.
MEMBER DANTES : What conditions would ensure that
i...'.
December 3, 2015 Regular Meeting
REAGAN MEADOR : I think there's three. I think that you know the special events thing I mean
we I don't have I don't want to have weddings other than my daughters maybe one day but
that's our own personal thing. So take that away I have neighbors that I respect and want to be
sure that that never happens here so as far as buses and limos go I think that's another one we
can take out. We've already the folks who run Leib Cellars already distributes a letter with all
the different wineries who accepts buses and limos and who doesn't and we're on there with
maybe two or three others that says we do not accept busses or limos and so that's getting
distributed to all these limousine companies and bus companies
MEMBER DANTES : I'm sorry how do they define limos cause I know some people take limos
and some people take cabs so
REAGAN MEADOR : I don't know that I mean that's a fair point I would say the stretch limos
that take up all the space and have to take a big turn I mean if a car is parked there a car is
parked there I think if the driver is sitting in there and it's a three person you know group or
whatever I don't know that that would necessarily be called a limo but that's
MEMBER DANTES : I'm just saying if it ends up being a code enforcement thing later on
REAGAN MEADOR : Fair enough I guess I'm speaking more strictly to big limousines and things
that have larger groups I don't want to have large groups in it hinders my ability to run our
business if I have larger we already restrict the size of our groups to about under six people and
that's just to keep large groups out of there cause I can't sell our product the way that we
intend on selling it if I have groups larger than that. So yea so that's being distributed so that
eventually we're going to get to the point where the limos aren't going to want to come by
even if they have been which they really haven't cause I'm going to turn them away and they're
going to look bad and they're going to have issues with their clients so that's the third one and
the other one that definitely willing to explore is capping our occupancy to what we can park
and that's fine with us because I mean I have a sign so we have an open sign that we put on the
bottom of our sign and we have one that I made up it's called it says by appointment only.
We're not in a place to do that yet as a region. I hope to god that one day we are cause that
means that we're being very successful but if I ever get to the point where say if you guys let's
say you have eight cars there for you can put in thirty two people that's your maximum
occupancy. If I have a point where I'm so successful that people are still (inaudible) I can go to
appointment only to manage that, I can go to satellite things cause I'm successful at that point I
can probably afford it cause I'm going to make money off of that. I'm just not there right now. I
tried to do it when we opened and people's heads just aren't there yet. That's not the way
people come out here yet. I think it will change and I hope that we're part of that change but I
think limiting our capacity what we can park is a way of mitigating and it's still allows somebody
.'00. 00. 00
December 3, 2015 Regular Meeting
let's say if I forget how to make wine and we have to sell it it still allows somebody to come in
and say you know what I'm going to start a farm stand and I'm gonna make cheese and this
processing facility and live here you can still sell it cause that's kind of the same thing that we're
ultimately trying to do. I'm not trying to sell my product is not our place. Our product is the
wine and so I'm not afraid of being limited in how many people I can jam into it's not my
business model that's another way of doing this. It's the same way I mean it's you see
restaurants you guys treat restaurants differently. There's some that are driven by traffic and
making money on low margin and there's other ones that only have a certain number of seats
and it's a totally different animal.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : What's your occupancy now of your four hundred square foot
tasting room?
REAGAN MEADOR : I would have to go and look at it I don't look at it.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : There is a legal occupancy based on square footage fire code has
them.
REAGAN MEADOR : It's written down and I can't imagine it being more than what we can park
anyways. I mean the parking calculations that we have on our current
PAT MOORE : I think the Building Department could clarify this but I think it's twenty square
feet per person so you have four hundred square feet that
REAGAN MEADOR : That's twenty people.
PAT MOORE : I mean that's if you had people standing like sardines you know row to row. I
don't see that as even feasible.
REAGAN MEADOR : I mean and that's what I'm saying there's the outside portion but that's not
part of what we're trying to do so you know that's why the parking is where it is and we have
enough spaces for that to run that kind of business and we I think it's perfectly within sense
that if it gets restricted to that for here on we'll take the hit to prove the be the proof cause I
think down the road you'll find if we are successful and there's other people who find that they
can do what we're doing that they'll follow suit and you
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Vicki once also said something about no public access to the
REAGAN MEADOR : To the winery oh yea yea that too true sorry I forgot about that. I don't
need that headache either.
MEMBER DANTES : What about live music or D.J.'s?
00 00 1111
December 3, 2015 Regular Meeting
REAGAN MEADOR : You can take D.J.'s out and live music too. I mean I have a little radio.
PAT MOORE : What I, I gave it to you in writing last time and the concern we had cause we
talked about all of the different restrictions the only thing you raised at that point was if I'm
crushing and I have a radio playing is somebody gonna call the code enforcement that I've got
entertainment, live music whatever.
REAGAN MEADOR : Oh yea. If I have the radio playing I'm making wine that's the only question
that I had I mean obviously if I'm blasting it that loud then I'm obviously violating other codes
so that's a whole other issue and I'm not going to do that.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Actually One Woman has a sign right on their gates no buses or
limos and no group any group larger than six individuals must call for an appointment.
REAGAN MEADOR : It's becoming more and more all these wineries are starting to realize that
the old model that has been put in use while seemed good cause the idea that you put more
people through the door you're going to make more money they found that it's actually
opposite of that. They found that they that's why Peconic Bay is out of business really I mean
they were I think a perfect example of a winery that was just packing them in and they were
losing money hand over fist because you're overhead in everything that they have to do to
manage all of that is untenable. Our margins are already pretty thin when it comes to wine and
to add more onto that and that's why we always went at this way is if we ran it ourselves then
we keep our overhead low we can make a living in just be a farming family out here and that
was always the intent.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Still the curiosity other than yourself your wife and children who else
is involved with you or anyone in making wine?
REAGAN MEADOR : My father in law is he helps me in the vineyard.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So there's one person that besides you.
PAT MOORE : His family.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So there's two people. No I'm just asking what the scope of your
operation is.
REAGAN MEADOR : The scope is mainly me and my father in law who helps me out where he
can and as far as winery stuff I don't think I'll ever need any serious employee help. It's we're
not talking about making thousands and thousands of gallons of wine and so you know once my
wife still works a second job. She's in the city that's why she can't be here today so I'm hoping
that she becomes our next employee and we were hoping that that would of happened sooner
00i.'00i.
December 3, 2015 Regular Meeting
and you know all of this has played into that a little bit but so there'll be two of us eventually
and that will be about it until I mean until we decide we need to grow and if we need to make it
a bigger place we'll go and buy more land and we'll go and do something else you know
somewhere else but I understand the concern and I understand I've always understood where
they were coming from. I wish we could have had the conversation but it's not our intent to flip
something or get something passed and then you know make some money on it and run or
anything like that so yea those are the limitations we'd be we can easily operate in I think.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anything else from anybody? Anything else from anyone in the
audience?
PAT MOORE : As far as the limitations we'll see it in the paperwork that I gave last meeting that
you didn't have there is I've submitted a packet I have another copy but it's in your file so
maybe Vicki can help you find it.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay what does the Board want to do? Do you want to close this
hearing?
MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Yeah.
MEMBER DANTES : I want to receive those couple of documents.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Subject to receipt. Alright hearing no further questions or comments
I'm going to make a motion to close this hearing reserve decision to later date subject to receipt
of additional information from Ms. Moore at the request of member Dantes. Is there a second?
MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Second.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor?
MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Aye.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Aye.
MEMBER DANTES : Aye.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye.
(See Minutes for Resolution)
00.N
December 3, 2015 Regular Meeting
December 3, 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 : A (I getkvc.f.&_
•
Elizabeth Sakarellos
DATE : �13 I /5