HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-06/02/2016 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
June 2, 2016
9:20 A.M.
Board Members Present:
LESLIE KANES WEISMAN - Chairperson/Member (Absent)
ERIC DANTES – Member
GERARD GOEHRINGER – Member
GEORGE HORNING – Member
KENNETH SCHNEIDER – Member
KIM FUENTES – Board Assistant
ELIZABETH SAKARELLOS – Clerk/Typist
WILLIAM DUFFY – Town Attorney
?
June 2, 2016 Regular Meeting
INDEX OF HEARINGS
Hearing Page
Susan J. and Eugene H. Moisa # 6956 3 – 7
Andrew Canning # 6960 8 - 24
Victor Ferrulli # 6952 25 - 29
Edward M. Bonanno # 6958 29 - 34
Nicholas Brice # 6955 35 - 37
Raymond Raimondi # 6957 37 - 43
Shipway, LLC # 6959 43 - 45
Heather and Peter Campbell # 6961 45 - 58
?
June 2, 2016 Regular Meeting
HEARING # 6956 – SUSAN J. and EUGENE H. MOISA
MEMBER SCHNEIDER : The first application before us is for Susan J. and Eugene H. Moisa
application 6956. It is a request for variances from Article XXIII Section 280-124 and Article III
Section 280-15 and the Building Inspector’s March 22, 2016 Notice of Disapproval based on an
application for building permit to construct an accessory in-ground swimming pool and for “as
built” deck addition to existing single family dwelling at 1) more than the code permitted
maximum lot coverage of 20% and 2) “as built” deck places existing accessory garage in location
other than the code required rear yard located at 650 Orchard St. in Orient, NY SCTM#1000-25-
4-8. Is there anyone here to represent this application?
PAT MOORE : Yes good morning Patricia Moore on behalf of Mr. and Mrs. Moisa. They’re both
here and if there are any issues that I may turn to them to answer. This application is relatively
straight forward with respect to the type of issues that you often encounter. The owners had
Mr. Chitik who is going to build the pool for them they got all the plans in place the surveys and
so on submitted it to the Building Department and the Building Department correctly asked for
a new survey that just verified the lot coverage because it was very close. When the survey was
obtained it was the client’s discovered that the lot coverage was 1.8% over the 20% lot
coverage and an application for a variance was needed. This property is relatively small 17,220
square feet but it was created back in 1943 with the original farm house and an original barn
which is the garage shown on your survey. The owner had an above ground pool which had its
permits everything was in place and due to Mrs. Moisa’s changing medical condition which I’ll
have her put on the record the above ground pool became very difficult for her to use so they
removed the pool in anticipation of building the in-ground pool and so the above ground pool is
gone because the building permit application for the above ground pool excuse me is gone
because of the application so now there is no pool. The other variance here is a technical
variance where the a deck the deck that is between above ground deck which is connects to the
house is situated in a side yard or pardon me the garage is in the side yard because of the
placement of the attached deck so any you can’t have accessory structures in the side yard and
because of the configuration of this property back in the 40’s if not earlier when farm houses
and barns were built they were typically placed as close to the house as possible to for weather
conditions and so on so this is an existing condition but the Building Department felt that it
needed a variance to place to essentially legalize the existing condition of the barn again in a
side yard so it’s a technical variance. With respect to the pool it’s an average sized pool 16 X 32
in-ground. We went through a lot of different contortions and because the barn is as large as it
?
June 2, 2016 Regular Meeting
is we really couldn’t do any modifications to the existing barn so the only place that we could
tinker with was in trying to meet the lot coverage requirements was the existing deck but the
amount of deck that would have had to of been cut back even the small amount left almost no
practical size deck for the family to use so even though it’s a very small variance of 1.8 because
of the size of the property 1.8 does result in the significant impact on the use of the property as
far as trying to meet the code requirements. What I’m going to do is have Mrs. Moisa go on the
record because she spoke to many of her neighbors and will place on the record notes that
support that she obtained so I’ll have Mrs. Moisa come to the podium.
MRS. MOISA : Good morning. I have letters
MEMBER SCHNIEDER : Would you please state your name.
MRS. MOISA : I’m sorry Susan Moisa. I have letters here from four of my neighbors saying that
they would not object and I would also like to state that I have M.S. and the doctor has
suggested that I have the water therapy so I would appreciate an approval as soon as possible.
PAT MOORE : Would you also explain why the above ground pool was taken down.
MRS. MOISA : I couldn’t get up and down the steps anymore so we had to take that down and
will have a walk in that I can use for the therapy.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER : So the wood deck would be more maybe one step down or a few steps
down to the pool location?
MRS. MOISA : Yes two steps it is and it has rails on both sides.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Any members have questions, George?
MEMBER HORNING : Sure just two building permits listed on the property card one of them is
for the pool the above ground pool that was issued in 2008 so in regard to the deck was that
deck there in 2008 and then you put the pool in in 2008?
MRS. MOISA : No the pool was put in first and then the deck.
MEMBER HORNING : Right and were you aware that you needed a building permit to put the
deck in?
MRS. MOISA : I was not aware that one was not obtained.
PAT MOORE : You had a contractor do it.
MRS. MOISA : A contractor did it yes.
?
June 2, 2016 Regular Meeting
MEMBER HORNING : Question on Pat Moore was saying that the lot was created in 1943, the
house was there and the garage or barn was there also
MRS. MOISA : Yes.
MEMBER HORNING : Can you give us an approximate date as to when those buildings were put
there?
MRS. MOISA : Before 1900 probably. There was my family residence it was the Young family.
MEMBER HORNING : Okay thank you.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Jerry any questions?
MEMBER GOEHRINGER : No questions at this time.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Eric any questions?
MEMBER DANTES : Yes, how big of a pool could you put there and still be under the 20% lot
coverage?
PAT MOORE : Let me see if we work that number backwards. Well the overage is 307 square
feet so where the pool that is if you can divide it by 16 I don’t know if I can do that math do you
have a let’s see so we see 307 being the lot coverage that it’s over and divide it by the width of
the pool being 16 keeping it at the same width means that we have to cut the pool back by
19.18 feet so it really makes for a very impractical pool. We did the same with the decking tried
to give her as much pool as possible again for the purposes of her therapy is walking back and
forth so the 32 feet it was felt was a more logical size. Also I would point out that when the
surveyor did the calculations when he’s dealing with lot coverage he includes steps and things
like that which typically when you’re building something steps don’t necessarily count because
it’s getting you in and out so unfortunately when we’re dealing with lot coverage issues every
little bit of wood counts so we’re much closer in our compliance if you see the wood deck it has
the steps going down so you have three sets of steps.
MEMBER DANTES : Are you talking about landings?
PAT MOORE : Well here are steps not landings. Usually when you’re doing when you’re going
for a building permit you’re giving the dimensions of the structure the steps down like if you’re
at a house you got to have egress off of the structure so steps don’t usually count in the like if
you’re doing a count into the side yard.
MEMBER DANTES : Why are you counting it here then?
?
June 2, 2016 Regular Meeting
PAT MOORE : Because for lot coverage the Building Department does look at every bit of
structure for example a shed or you know platforms things like that so I think that generally we
end up hurting ourselves every time that an application for lot coverage because if you really if
you look at the standard step you’ve got two steps that are 3 X what would you say 6 so you
have 18 square feet twice and a third one which is a little narrower so we’re really much closer
and when we’re dealing with such close lot coverage 307 square feet you know we’re looking at
you know square foot by square foot. Again the 1.8 is a minimal variance request so we’re
hoping that you’ll approve it given the circumstances of the property.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER : I don’t see any records of a permit for the deck the wood deck.
MEMBER HORNING : She didn’t have one Ken I asked that question.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Oh I’m sorry.
PAT MOORE : Yea they obviously did get it says here accessory above ground swimming pool in
the rear yard with a fence and at the time it was connected to the deck so it was reviewed but I
don’t know for sure I mean in the description it would have been cleaned up just by including it
as part of that permit. So you can see permit number dated January 2009 permit 33471.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Is there anyone in the audience who would like to comment on this
application? Hearing no further questions or comments I’ll make a motion
MEMBER GOEHRINGER : I just would it be worth Pat to give us the correct figure of the overage
as you just elaborated just so we know exactly what the exact figure is I mean it’s ironically as I
was just mentioning to George this is a farm house. They all have big porches on it. This has a
nice little wrap around it’s nice wrap around porch I mean it’s typical of that type of vintage and
so these are all situations that you know that add some lot coverage to the situation.
PAT MOORE : Exactly. It’s not a lot of living space.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER : But you know is that alright with you Ken to get the exact figure of the
lot coverage?
MEMBER SHCNEIDER : Sure.
PAT MOORE : Sure do you want it’s really the steps that we’re talking about.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Yes or any other thing that you if there’s a landing you know that we
get thirty square feet or whatever
MEMBER SCHNEIDER : So you’re saying you believe there’s things that were included in that
that shouldn’t have been?
?
June 2, 2016 Regular Meeting
MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Yea.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Okay.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Yea well just you know and if it brings it down close to 1 then we’re
good.
PAT MOORE : Yea sure no problem.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Anybody else? Hearing no further questions or comments I make a
motion to close the hearing and reserve decision to a later date.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Second.
PAT MOORE : If the Board feels you know that they can approve the application pending and I’ll
get them the information from the surveyor right away it is something that they’re hoping they
can get put up as soon as possible and Chitik is ready to start the project immediately cause he
was ready before and he’s kindly will fit it in to his schedule.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER : You know we have the Special Meeting in two weeks.
PAT MOORE : Oh wonderful thank you.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER : So second was Gerry?
MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Yes.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER : All in favor?
MEMBER HORNING : Aye.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Aye.
MEMBER DANTES : Aye.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Aye.
(See Minutes for Resolution)
?
June 2, 2016 Regular Meeting
HEARING # 6960 – ANDREW CANNING
MEMBER SCHNEIDER : The next application is for Andrew Canning #6960 which is a request for
variance from Article XXII Section 280-105C(3) and the Building Inspector’s April 4, 2016 Notice
of Disapproval based on an application for building permit for “as built” deer fence at 1)
location other than the code permitted side or rear yards located at 3625 Pine Neck Road
Southold New York SCTM# 1000-70-6-22. Is someone here to represent the application?
PAT MOORE : Patricia Moore on behalf of Mr. Canning and also Mr. Brothers they’re both here
today. I’m going to hand out some pictures I’m sure many of you have been there so (inaudible)
MEMBER DANTES : Have you seen the comments from the Town Engineer?
PAT MOORE : No. Okay thank you. What I gave you is just really a recap many of you have gone
have already been there so you know the conditions of the property. I’m giving you also with
the photographs a survey that I highlighted the location of the deer fence and the photographs
where they’re coming from just to give you a point of reference. What you can see with this
application is that deer fence are permitted in a rear yard so so far so good and my client went
to the Building Department everything looked good and they proceeded and then the Building
Department called afterwards and said oops we missed the fact that it’s a right of way so
because it because of the right of way its considered any structure in their rear yard is
considered a front yard for purposes of zoning so they obviously had to come here for this
variance and I know I’ve had several variances here before the Board when it comes to
properties that are unfortunately surrounded by roads in the most unlikely places. This the right
of way as you can see is the access point for some of the waterfront homes the Breeze family
and Berkowitz and Reiger now used to be Judge Bruer’s house. It’s a very well established
community and as you can see by the vegetation the photographs this property has vegetation
that is at least twenty years old by way of its maturity and growth. This house is one of the
earlier ones that was placed in this subdivision and it’s the Jockey Creek we call it the red
houses because for those of us that have been around we know that this was while it’s not a
covenant it’s a accepted architectural feature that this community has maintained with the red
houses. So you can see that as you come in to the drive on the left hand side is the beginning of
the deer fence and you can see where it is technically located but it is completely hidden from
view by the mature vegetation and the applicants were very careful and very conscientious of
hiding the deer fence within the mature vegetation rather than removing as many people do
mature vegetation and replanting everything. Here it was an effort to maintain the character of
this property which has been well established. So you can see you can’t you have evergreens
you can’t see the deer fence. As you go down the right of way the deer fence is actually set
?
June 2, 2016 Regular Meeting
away from the corner. I see that the Highway Superintendent gave a suggestion of maintaining
a clear and for emergency vehicles on the corner. We’ve got at least let’s see the right of way
itself is twenty feet and the deer fence is set back well you can see that the road actually
encroaches on the property beyond the right of way cause you can see where photograph
three was taken that the existing driveway asphalt cuts that corner. The deer fence is even
beyond that so measurement wise it looks to be an extra it’s got to be at least ten feet in that
corner so given twenty, thirty you’ve got thirty feet of clearance between you know the right of
way area so it seems that we are in compliance with that recommendation.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Well what are you talking about from Pine Neck
PAT MOORE : No well Pine Neck there is no deer fence.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Yea I know but you’re talking about the corner I’m trying to figure out
which corner.
PAT MOORE : Number three photograph the northeast corner it looks to me as you can see I
highlighted the deer fence location on that survey to make it easier so if you pull out you have
the one with the color
MEMBER SHCNEIDER : Photo three.
PAT MOORE : Yea photo three at the end of photo three is the survey that has the color so it
would help you identify cause there’s a lot of activity on the survey. You can see that the right
of way itself ten feet of it is on the Lincoln or formerly on the Lincoln property and ten feet is on
the Canning property so you’ve got the twenty feet and then the right of way excuse me the
deer fence is starts a little narrower at number one where photograph one is taken but as you
get to where photograph three is taken on the corner you have if you compare the width of
that area it looks to be another ten feet easily of setback so that means that that roadway has a
clearance of at least thirty feet so when a vehicle is there it’s making a turn if I’m understanding
what the recommendation of the Highway Superintendent is.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Well is not actually a recommendation it’s part of the code that requires
an isosceles triangle of thirty feet from the corners on corner lots.
PAT MOORE : Well you’ve got vegetation there I don’t know how you’d make it. Quite frankly
the photograph three shows you you’ve got a pine tree that’s approximately it’s got to be at
least forty years old and you’ve got rhododendron which is also many years old so that’s a
condition that has been there. My concern is that we’re not talking about a I think it would be
relevant if you were dealing with Pine Neck Rd which is a public road whereas if you’re dealing
with a private street behind homes I think that you’d get a lot of objection from neighbors that
?
June 2, 2016 Regular Meeting
you’re creating such a large clearance area. It’s changing the whole character of that private
road.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER : The strict letter of the code would require that those trees to be
removed if we were looking at the strict letter of the code.
PAT MOORE : Well if you looked at it strictly I’m not honestly I don’t know if I don’t have the
code in front of me as far as whether this common driveway right of way would be considered a
street with respect to the application of the code on a corner lot. I don’t believe that it meets
the intention of the corner lot regulations on streets.
MEMBER HORNING : Ken wouldn’t that be code enforcement though I mean he’s not cited for
that?
MEMBER SCHNEIDER : No he’s not.
PAT MOORE : Right exactly.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER : But we did get a letter from the Town Engineer I’m just trying to address
that maybe in a little more detail but
PAT MOORE : Yea I’m not you know having just gotten it I think my first step would be looking
to see if it’s even applicable on a common driveway like this. I think generally the Zoning Board
has treated right of ways differently than road ends public roads by way of setbacks if you have
a house that doesn’t have access to a right of way you use a side yard setback so it’s a different
application depending on the type of road system that you’re dealing with this is really a
secondary road.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER : The Canning’s have full use of this right of way
PAT MOORE : Yes so I can’t apply the side yard issue because yes they have access and their
garage is actually in the back so
MEMBER HORNING : Pat who else has access to that particular right of way?
PAT MOORE : It would be the waterfront property owners that are shown on this survey. It
actually this right of way narrows down to one more I believe to the dead end beyond
Berkowitz am I correct there’s one other additional owner two more owners okay two other
homeowners that are down at the end to the left or west of the house or the property that’s
shown as Berkowitz you see the survey says Berkowitz.
MEMBER HORNING : Right.
??
June 2, 2016 Regular Meeting
ANDREW CANNING : Good morning I’m Andrew Canning. Yea the so there’s two further
properties one runs to the dead end and that is the people sitting here and then there is
another gentleman next door to us is on Pine Neck Road but all the seven houses access
through the right of way all the way down you know the Lincoln’s the Reiger’s and so on and so
forth because we all have our garages in the back or the waterfront properties have the garages
obviously right on their property and they can pull right on to.
MEMBER HORNING : And the right of way leading to the shoreline there in between Breeze and
Reiger
ANDREW CANNING : Yea that’s a right of way but all the properties but it does belong to the
Lincolns it’s their property.
MEMBER HORNING : Who has access to that?
ANDREW CANNING : All seven homes and two further properties across the street as well that’s
my understanding.
PAT MOORE : Is that a pedestrian it’s a walking path.
ANDREW CANNING : It’s actually a it’s a grassy yard I mean basically it was sold as part of the
Lincoln’s yard. Gives them access down to the water but it’s not wide enough for them to really
do anything so if they want to put a couple of seats on there or if people just want to go and
look at the water that’s how they access.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER : The question I have is going toward we’ll say the north west once we
pass your property I went to only one house and that’s where I pulled in and turned around
that dead ends at that house to the left.
ANDREW CANNING : There’s two houses past those. One of them is on the left so when you
turn left and proceed behind our house passed the garage there’s a house there, there’s a set
of garages there and then there’s one right at the very end which has basically at the end the
road there’s a gateway and that’s for the house.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER : But the problem exists that once you’re down at that location
ANDREW CANNING : The dead end?
MEMBER GOEHRINGER : The dead end yea you have no other choice but to turn around and go
back out of the right of way. It does not return to Pine Neck Rd. at all.
ANDREW CANNING : No.
??
June 2, 2016 Regular Meeting
MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Okay thank you.
PAT MOORE : As far as the placement of this deer fence it is outside of the right of way so it is
not impeding the traffic in any way. We have again the mature vegetation that is more of a
traffic hindrance than the deer fence which is what we’re you know the application before the
Board. Again if you’re going looking at the photographs, photograph four shows where the
blacktop ends and then there is you can see the deer fence barely behind that which is just a
natural post looking like a tree and just the mesh the deer mesh so it is a very low impact visual
deer fence and then finally photograph five is just a continuation of that and again evergreens
have been used to hide the fence. I think it’s obvious why people are coming to this Board to
get deer fences is one just the nuisance of the deer in both destroying the vegetation but also
the tick borne diseases and other diseases that they are carrying and affecting both animals,
pets as well as humans so we’re just you know that is something that we’re dealing with out
here and until the deer population is curbed and people are going to try and protect their
property so this is all that’s going on here.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Yea I understand that and it’s a problem shared by everybody you know
in this town. In the past I believe this Board has permitted deer fencing up to the required front
yard setback in some locations. What is the do you know what the front yard setback is on this
parcel the required front yard setback is it 40 or 35?
PAT MOORE : Well it’s either 40 or what’s the size of this property 32 so it’s over 30 I would say
most likely the 40 feet which we comply. The house is actually at 60.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER : It’s fifty feet?
MEMBER DANTES : Yes.
PAT MOORE : Oh 50 in this code?
MEMBER DANTES : R40 it’s fifty feet.
PAT MOORE : But it’s based on also the nonconforming section so in a nonconforming section I
think is the 40 feet cause the lot is less than an acre under the supplemental nonconforming am
I correct anybody checking?
MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Yea they’re checking.
PAT MOORE : Oh okay it looked like you were studying something.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER : You see the difficulty here is to approve a condition like this what’s to
say that somebody a neighbor couldn’t do the same thing and the next neighbor and the next
??
June 2, 2016 Regular Meeting
neighbor and then before we know it we have a town encaged in itself and this is what we’re
trying to avoid and that’s the purpose of the code and unfortunately this property is not unique
enough to permit this.
PAT MOORE : Well but honestly I think that’s why it’s on a case by case basis like this because
on this property you have fifty year old vegetation so the deer fence is actually behind that
vegetation. The deer don’t seem to decimate such mature vegetation because the more the
younger softer more edible vegetation so anything you plant new gets decimated first and then
the large the mature vegetation you have here is what remains and can act as a barrier. So in
this instance I can understand when we’re dealing with let’s say it’s a new subdivision that has
no mature vegetation and what you’re describing occurring where every lot wants to encage
itself maybe you know again that’ll be a case by case basis but I can understand that argument.
When you’re dealing with a situation like this where you have the difference between having
the deer fence visually and not having the deer fence is absolutely there is no difference here
because of the fact that the vegetation is close to what twenty five thirty feet high so it is so
well screened that again it’s I want to say it’s a technical variance because of the fact that it’s a
corner lot and if we were dealing with construction of a pool or construction of a any structures
in the rear yard we probably are going to have similar issues here because you know their
entire yard their rear yard other than a small portion as you said forty feet back from the right
of way is going to be subject to the Board’s review and that’s just the way these old
subdivisions at the time that the subdivision was created the front yard setbacks did not apply
and so people that had rear yards like this were not impacted by front yard setbacks. It was
later on that the code was changed to make any activity on a corner well here you have beyond
a corner lot you have an entire lot that is surrounded by access roads so I would say that in this
situation I believe that you can grant this variance very simply because of the fact that one it’s
I’m not we’re not asking for the deer fence blocking the right of way in any way. We’re not it’s
not visual so then as far as changing the character of the area with respect to the standards of a
variance we’re not affecting that in any way so we seem to meet the criteria of the variance
while not obviously the technical requirement of the front yard setback that’s we wouldn’t be
here if we didn’t think there was some legitimacy to the application.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER : It also appears that a lot of the vegetation which is on the road side of
the fence has survived the deer.
PAT MOORE : Yea I think forty years of that’s what I was saying that the mature vegetation I just
know from my experience my own neighborhood and probably you know from your own
personal experience the larger the vegetation the deer tend to eat the bottom okay and by now
it’s starting to regenerate so if they have a choice let’s say we didn’t have the deer fence any
plant life that is and they’re avid plant gardeners any plant life inside this yard would be
??
June 2, 2016 Regular Meeting
enjoyed thoroughly by the deer because they’ll come in eat all of the nice saplings and the nice
plants and bulbs that have been planted before they get to the large you know forty year old
screening.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Sure understood. What was the setback?
MEMBER DANTES : Forty.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Forty feet. How do the members feel about this any comments?
MEMBER HORNING : About what the fence itself?
MEBMER SCHNEIDER : The fence itself or maybe having it be set back.
MEMBER HORNING : Well I see it as a hardship for the applicant because of the three sides
being
MEMBER SCHNEIDER : The three front yards.
MEMBER HORNING : I also see it as a hardship for the whole town itself and you know I kind of
concur that you fence in one and then your pushing the deer to the next door neighbor. We
haven’t really approved very much in terms of front yard deer fences.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER : No we have not we I think in the past we’ve permitted fencing up to the
front yard setback for principal dwelling the principal dwelling was setback say for instance
eighty feet. In one case we had up on I think was Mill Rd. or something Jerry comments?
MEMBER GOEHRINGER : The only concern that I have is that is something was to happen to the
foliage in some way other than deer that the lack of this visual situation of this deer fence is
one of the greatest problems that I think we have in dealing with the variance aspect of it so I
think a condition would have to be put on if the Board was so inclined to say that if God forbid
something happened to these mature plants you know and please I’m not saying that I would
never want this to happen
PAT MOORE : No I think that’s actually a very good suggestion.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER : that they would the fence would have to come out until
PAT MOORE : or screened immediately.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER : The screening of the fence would have to come out until such time.
PAT MOORE : That has been their way of living but yes I would agree as far as let’s say
tomorrow they were to sell the house and somebody wasn’t as careful of screening the deer
??
June 2, 2016 Regular Meeting
fence I would absolutely agree you know personally and as well as legally that maintain the
screen so that it’s not offensive as you just said you know it’s not offensive to neighbors. I think
generally deer fencing has in residential areas has been a mesh that is very obtrusive you know
it’s not very visible and the posts that were used here are natural posts. They look like tree
saplings so they’ve done it themselves their own taste was to make it look as natural as possible
but yea I don’t see any issue with a condition like that because that’s what you’ve been doing
you know throughout this the time they’ve owned the property they have planted to screen the
property as much as possible.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER : They’ve also made different colors of it and it appears that this one is
so non visible that you really don’t notice it.
PAT MOORE : Right it’s not the typical farm deer fencing which maybe a little more visible with
the posts that are either CCA or some kind of you know standard wood post. Residentially I
think people that are putting it up they don’t want to see it either. I think it’s a necessity more
than a desire. Nobody really wants to put a fence if they don’t have to it’s just unfortunately
that’s a situation we have out here.
MEMBER HORNING : When was the fence built?
PAT MOORE : Just recently.
MEMBER HORNING : And there was no idea that a building permit was required or not
PAT MOORE : No no what happened they did go to the Building no they went to the Building
Department and the Building Department did not realize that the right of way went creating
front yard issues so they didn’t the Building Department didn’t catch it they apologized they
called
MEMBER HORNING : Till after it was built.
PAT MOORE : Right it was already put up and at that point it was ugh okay we’ll we have to go
for a variance so yea this was really done in such a way that they thought everything was fine
and the Building Department quite frankly they thought it was fine originally as well so they
were all very I mean they were apologetic. That was not a problem but it needed this
application.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Just so that you’re aware in reference to my statement I am
comparing this as being almost non visible to a trip down the great road of Main Bayview past
Jacobs Lane where they actually stick out in your face okay and that’s my comparison.
PAT MOORE : Yea well any of us going down Main Rd. in farming area they’re in your face.
??
June 2, 2016 Regular Meeting
MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Eric any questions?
MEMBER DANTES : Yes it looks like on the survey if you look at the bottom right corner on the
survey part of the deer fence we call it an architectural front yard on Pine Neck Rd. some of the
deer fencing does stick out to the front yard portion that is on Pine Neck Rd.
PAT MOORE : Yea what happened is that there’s a tree there right there’s that so they went
around the tree rather than remove the vegetation so
MEMBER DANTES : Why not go behind it?
PAT MOORE : You want to tell us front versus back I don’t know.
MEMBER DANTES : Just it would just look cleaner on paper that’s all.
PAT MOORE : Oh on paper yea.
ANDREW CANNING : Again you know when we went to the town the town told us this and at
the time when they originally thought this is okay and it wasn’t seen as three front yards I think
they actually said look you tried to do everything else we’ll let this piece go so that was our
understanding and that’s how it ended up the way it did.
MEMBER HORNING : What survey did they see sir it’s the ones we have here?
PAT MOORE : Yea this one well maybe a little bit different but the same the deer fence was
where it is.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER : So you submitted a survey for the deer fence showing this and it was
presumed well that would be the front yard yea
PAT MOORE : Right.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Can you get us a copy of that?
PAT MOORE : Yea we have it.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Good.
MEMBER DANTES : Would you be able willing to attach a covenant to the deed that the
evergreens screening be maintained if we (inaudible)
ANDREW CANNING : It’s our intention to stay there I mean obviously we can’t predict what’s
going to happen in the future but you know it’s our intention to retire here and yes so we’d
certainly A. we would want to do it and B. yes we put a covenant on the deed.
??
June 2, 2016 Regular Meeting
MEMBER SCHNEIDER : In the meantime is there anyone in the audience who would like to
address this application? You can go to this mic over here if you’d like. There’s a podium over
there. Please state your name and address please.
MR. JUNGBLUT : I’m (inaudible) Jungblut. I’m 3295 Pine Neck Rd. I own the house where you
have that turn around. There’s several issues. First of all I know some letters were written. I
hope you’ve all seen them especially from Pasquelina Berkowitz. She had revised her original
letter and sent a new one yesterday or the day before with some pictures. I have the one of the
older surveys and on this survey you will see the right of way was split around those two center
trees. Part of the right of way which was paved
MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Would you please speak into the microphone please.
MR. JUNGBLUT : I have an older survey which shows the original right of way and there’s two
large trees. The road was split at that time and went around. Half of the property was on the
right of way, half of it at that time on Baines now the Canning property. What they did was dug
up that second of the right of the way planted additional trees and installed a fence. This has
led to a lot of issues with the residents. First of all they’ve been having a lot of construction
being done. There’s constantly cars blocking the right of way. We had asked them several times
to put have the construction workers park out on Pine Neck and not block the right of way or
use other people’s driveway. Sometimes they do sometimes they don’t and this past week
there’s been a lot of that going on. Also on the present survey on the new one it shows the way
I read it that the fence is on part of the right of way. There’s one section that says .4 feet north
so it does not go within the right of way within their property away from the right of way. I can
show you these original ones if you want and secondly which is most recent although it’s not
part of this hearing they installed a parking spot on the front edge of their property right by
Pine Neck Rd. going down the right of way and there’s a parking spot. I sent photographs of
what this looks like. It is very difficult to see somebody parked in there and they have to back
out onto Pine Neck exited. There’s bushes at the corner of the right of way and Pine Neck which
completely blocks that area so pedestrians walking down the street can’t see it until the last
minute and plus I know at a recent Board meeting there was objections to people backing into
the roadway from parking spots so that’s our concerns and it’s several of the other neighbors
have said the same concern. We sent photographs which you should have showing the
entrance and exist so I think all of this should be considered. Yes the deer fence it’s hidden but
that’s all new shrubbery planted. There’s not forty year vegetation in that area.
MEMBER DANTES : What Board meeting are you referring to?
??
June 2, 2016 Regular Meeting
MR. JUNGBLUT : You had a Board meeting a few weeks ago for Fleischman for a B&B and they
had a parking spot that you had to back on to the road and it was concern about that it was a
different application.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Sir can you spell your last name please.
MR. JUNGBLUT : (Spells name)
MEMBER GOEHRINGER : May I just make a statement? I’ve been a fire man for forty eight years
in Mattituck. I don’t think a right of way should be blocked at any time. It should be open and
fee at all times. When I went down to look the other day and ended up in the Berkowitz
property to turn around fortunately I had my small car. If I had my huge pick up I would not
have been able to access that way to the Berkowitz property to turn around. I think that quite
honestly it’s a code enforcement issue to block a right of way. That right of way should be open
all the time for any type of emergency vehicle and I think you have you know a very good
complaint regarding that. I don’t think it’s normally the situation or part of this hearing okay
and but at the same token I think the right of way should remain open at all times.
MR. JUNGBLUT : That’s correct. One of the reasons that we also to consider if an emergency
vehicle or an ambulance or anything had to get down it’s very difficult there’s parking or people
blocking it at least if it’s vegetation they can probably drive somewhat over it but it gets kind of
tight and a fire truck would have much difficulty.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER : In either case there’s a magic amount of numbers and the numbers
are about ten minutes and to find the contractors to remove those trucks and to move them
into an alternate location could take fifteen or twenty minutes and that really causes a havoc to
both fire and emergency vehicles and to the persons they are trying to get to so as I said I think
it’s a code enforcement issue to be honest with you.
MEMBER HORNING : Sir can I ask you a question about that right of way leading to Berkowitz
was it are you saying that it was wider in the past than it is now?
MR. JUNGBLUT : I’ll bring up the
MEMBER HORNING : Yes please submit those surveys.
MR. JUNGBLUT : The right of way was twenty feet
PAT MOORE : May I see also.
MEMBER HORNING : Is it still a twenty foot right of way?
??
June 2, 2016 Regular Meeting
MR. JUNGBLUT : It’s a twenty foot right of way but you can see here this was a paved section
they dug that all up and they moved the fence beyond that section.
MEMBER HORNING : Is it still a twenty foot right of way?
MR. JUNGBLUT : It’s a twenty foot right of way on the paper.
MEMBER HORNING : Well I mean in reality.
MR. JUNGBLUT : In reality they have a lot of planting and they have part of the fence there and
so forth.
MEMBER HORNING : In the right of way.
MR. JUNGBLUT : According to their deed according to their print it shows the deer fence right
of way .4 feet.
MEMBER DANTES : Can you point which lot you live on?
MR. JUNGBLUT : This one here and the right of way comes down to our property.
MEMBER HORNING : And you use that right of way?
MR. JUNGBLUT : It’s the only way we get in and out of the house. Recently we had to have an
ambulance come and they have to go
MEMBER HORNING : You can’t get in from Pine Neck?
MR. JUNGBLUT : You can walk no there’s no driveway.
MEMBER HORNING : There’s no driveway?
MR. JUNGBLUT : There’s no driveway and if there’s a fire in the back in Berkowitz’s house or
something like that it’s going to be difficult for the fire trucks.
MEMBER HORNING : Do you folks have a homeowner’s association or anything like that?
MR. JUNGBLUT : No. It’s always been probably years and years ago they may have had
something but any covenants and all that are no longer on file. It’s just been a shared
responsibility for the right of way. Share the snow removal we share the maintenance of it
agreement to keep the houses the same color and so forth.
MEMBER HORNING : Can you submit those documents to us so we can make copies and then if
you return to the podium.
??
June 2, 2016 Regular Meeting
MR. JUNGBLUT : Well this one you probably have and the old one I got that from ZBA.
MEMBER HORNING : An infringement on a right of way is not a part of this consideration right
now.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER : No it’s not.
PAT MOORE : Well yea here let me clarify or correct some, what I think is a misunderstanding if
in fact the deer fence is .4 beyond the right of way that has to be corrected no doubt okay .4
what would that be in inches.
MEMBER SHCNEIDER : About five inches.
PAT MOORE : About five inches okay that obviously can be corrected. I think that the issue
really is that the original when the original road where the two trees are up on the north
actually encroached beyond the right of way that’s a title problem and you shouldn’t keep that
as an issue as it that would eventually lead to some kind of prescriptive right so that being
corrected is really for the persons ownership very important. I think that all of this would be
resolved very simply by the two trees that are across from the Breeze what’s shown as Breeze
property is that your property?
MR. JUNGBLUT : No ours is
PAT MOORE : Oh you’re the next okay got it. We actually discussed whether or not we should
you know my client should remove those trees or not and we there was a concern because and
we actually in the office have litigation with respect to right of ways and changing a right of way
and making it larger can lead to litigation because when it comes to a right of way it’s not it’s
the use of it is minimal so you can’t take a right of way and clear cut a neighbor down the block
says I don’t like trees, I don’t like this pastoral back yard look I want a clear cut and create my
twenty feet thirty feet whatever the right of way width is. There’s actually we have litigation
because we had an owner that cleared and then another one that didn’t like that so you could
end up with litigation over it so ideally you try to come to a fair and reasonable kind of
accommodation as long as the neighborhood is all in favor of it. My clients were prepared to
remove those two trees which are historically the trees and you can see in the oldest survey
from 2000 that was when the Baines owned the property that the right of way was the primary
portion of the right of way was encroaching on Becker was actually shorter than the right of
way on Becker and the trees created like a middle green space and then the right of way was
encroaching. That was has been corrected with respect to the encroachment but so the green
space now prevents it shrinks the size of that right of way that is now all within it’s actually in
better a better situation because the right of way is all within the right of way area. It looks like
back in 2000 it was encroaching on both sides and its since been corrected I don’t know by who
??
June 2, 2016 Regular Meeting
on their side but possibly by their by the neighbor the Breeze property because right now the
surveyor is showing the asphalt is within the right of way area which is the proper place to put a
driveway. My clients are amenable to removing those two trees and creating a larger access
point there because otherwise it’s accessible everywhere the width of the right of way as you
can see down as you get closer at the end of Berkowitz it gets narrowed down to barely a
driveway width that’s outside the scope of my client’s property and that’s actually the way that
those neighbors liked it so to complain about this property having vegetation in a right of way
that’s not completely cleared seems contrary to the way that the property owners on the end
have kept it but in order to maintain peace and certainly as a part of the covenant that we are
agreeing to keep the deer fence screened we would also agree to have those two trees
removed because they were prepare to do that all along and we just held off on not knowing
are we going to create more adversarial situation with the neighbors by removing trees or by
not removing trees and that’s always a concern particularly when you’re coming before this
Board we don’t want to adversarial situation and they’ve done everything possible to talk to
everybody beforehand trying to discuss it and you said is there an association no there’s no
homeowners association but the way they’ve tried to act here is cooperatively and talk to the
neighbors so it’s a shame that people didn’t talk before they got here rather than send letters
and retract letters and so on I always think it’s better if the neighbors talk. If the neighbors
want to have those two trees removed again my client was prepared to do it before today but
we held off not knowing what kind of adversarial situation that might create. If the Board
recommends it we would do it.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER : I don’t believe we have jurisdiction in having a condition for those tree
removals or anything in a right of way. That’s all between the neighbors okay our subject here is
the deer fence and its location.
PAT MOORE : Right.
MEMBER SHCNEIDER : Now previously you said that you submitted a building permit for the
deer fence and it was approved and then later on the Building Department found out that oops
it’s in two front yards or three front yards rather so that original permit showed a drawing or
showed a map similar to what we’re looking at today correct showing that indeed a portion of it
is in the front yard off of Pine Neck Rd. You stated that it was put there because there’s a tree
there it had to go around the tree okay so you have you can give us a copy of that survey
showing that?
PAT MOORE : Talking to clients.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER : If you can produce that then that helps your argument for its placement
because the Building Department originally approved that then if that’s not the case then you’ll
??
June 2, 2016 Regular Meeting
have to at least relocate that piece of fence to a I guess a side yard location off of Pine Neck an
architectural side yard no let me rephrase that one more time off of Pine Neck it cannot be in a
front yard. It cannot be in Pine Neck’s front yard.
MEMBER HORNING : It would have to be sixty feet in as the front yard is
MEMER SCHNEIDER : The house.
MEMBER HORNING : The corner of the house.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Yes corner of the house correct. Right now it’s beyond that okay and
then we had the location on the north there that five inches over the property line that would
have to be corrected. Anything else from member any questions?
MEMBER GOEHRINGER : No not at this time.
MEMBER SHCNEIDER : Anyone in the audience have any more comments?
MR. JUNGBLUT : I just want to make one comment. Originally when we had that bypass going
around half of that was on the right of way part of it was on Mountain’s and Baine’s property at
that time and now Canning’s property. That was used as also to allow if there was somebody in
the road to go around and have a way of bypassing. It was also used for parking for Mr. Baine
used it and Mountains would always use that as parking spots so that they didn’t have to have
everybody on the street or put in additional parking areas when they had a party or an event
going on and that’s all gone now.
MEMBER SHCNEIDER : Thank you I mean you understand this is not the forum to discuss what’s
in your right of way. That’s all between the neighbors who have access to that right of way
that’s what I have to say about that.
MR. JUNGBLUT : What about the parking spot in the front?
MEMBER SCHNEIDER : This application does not address the parking space in the front. That’s a
part of code enforcement or the building inspector if there’s something of issue there then he
would be written up.
PAT MOORE : I don’t believe it’s a violation of any code. It’s just a gravel parking space again to
provide for guests so.
MR. JUNGBLUT : Well hopefully there’s no accident that occurs because of it. I sent you pictures
and it’s very difficult to see a car parked in there.
PAT MOORE : Yea it actually does not go out into Pine Neck it goes into the right of way.
??
June 2, 2016 Regular Meeting
MR. JUNGBLUT : At the very corner of the right of way.
MEMBER DANTES : No I agree with you. I parked there and it’s hard to back out but the code
requires two parking spaces and they have those behind their garage so for (inaudible)
MR. JUNGBLUT : You mean it has to go? They have the two in the back.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER : They can have more if they want. They have to have at least two.
MR. JUNGBLUT : At least two okay.
MRS. JUNGBLUT : My name is Charlotte Jungblut and we did have an emergency vehicle that
needed to access our home over the winter and it was unable to come to the back so they had
to go to the front of the house. We have sliding glass doors in our bedroom because we live in
an old carriage house and they’re very narrow bends they weren’t able to get the gurney not a
gurney but they weren’t able to get to take that through so that they my husband had to walk
out because they weren’t able to get to us okay and that was when we moved into our home
the Mountains were the owners at that time and they told us that for that reason they had that
extra road was for emergency passage. The trees that are in the middle of the road have grown
quite nicely over time and when we first moved in the trunks were maybe this big now they are
this big so that has made it very difficult to pass on the right of way if there are extra vehicles
parked outside of those parking spaces so many times we are stuck in our property running
around trying to find who is the owner of the truck so it has become a real serious concern for
us.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Making my statement about blocking right of ways before in this
particular case they have plenty of road frontage out on Pine Neck they should just take the
stuff out of the truck and move the stuff out okay. Please be assured if you go to any attorney’s
office and you read NY Town Law 280A it will give you the specific instructions on rights of way
and what the state requires in reference to rights of way which filters down to the towns okay
so it’s NY Town Law 280A.
MRS JUNGBLUT : And we also have not had any of the communications that have been going
between the neighbors because the email address for us was incorrect. This was only brought
to our attention two days ago so that we have not had knowledge of the changes that the
Cannings and brothers had planned. We were never informed.
ANDREW CANNING : If I may just state something obviously we’re here to talk about the deer
fence. I really don’t want to hold up the committee’s time but just one thing I want to say you
know number one we do try and be reasonable neighbors and try to communicate. Yes we had
the wrong email address through no fault of our own we did actually send emails we didn’t get
??
June 2, 2016 Regular Meeting
any bounce backs but more importantly yes those trees in the right of way have grown we’re
obviously concerned about emergency vehicles getting through but regardless of whether the
regardless of where the right is the trees actually sit on the right of way so the right of way that
is a portion or two the physical clearance is blocked by the trees. Has nothing to do with the
fence so I just want to make that clear.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER : That’s understood.
ANDREW CANNING : It’s the trees that’s in the way and just finally you know cause we’re trying
to be good neighbors we’ve spoken we haven’t had a lot of work done we’ve had some
contractors come in and we’ve had periods of nothing going on. When contractors come and
we’ve told them that they should make sure the roads are kept clear. We told them constantly
but unfortunately we’re not there (inaudible) and we have again told the contractors who we
currently have doing a little bit of work in the house to make sure that they keep the road clear.
Thank you.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Okay thank you. Okay so back to that permit for the fence can you get us
a copy of that?
PAT MOORE : Yea I’ll look and see which survey was used yea.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER : So then I make a motion to adjourn to the Special Meeting on June 16 th
subject to the receipt of the fence permit.
MEMBER HORNING : I’ll second that.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER : All in favor?
MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Aye.
MEMBER HORNING : Aye,.
MEMBER DANTES : Aye.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Aye.
(See Minutes for Resolution)
??
June 2, 2016 Regular Meeting
HEARING # 6952 – VICTOR FERRULLI
MEMBER SCHNEIDER : The next application for Victor Ferrulli # 6952 requests for variances
from Article XXIII Section 280-124 and Article III Section 280-15 and the Building Inspector’s
February 3, 2016 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for building permit to legalize
and make changes to “as built” additions and alterations to existing single family dwelling and
accessory shed at 1) less than the code required single side yard setback of 15 feet, 2) less than
the code required total side yard setbacks of 35 feet, 3) “as built” accessory shed located in
other than the code required rear yard, located at 1540 Smith Drive South (adj. to Goose Creek)
Southold NY SCTM#1000-76-3-5. Is someone here to represent this application?
BOARD ASSISTANT : Do you have any green cards?
MR. TRPICOVSKY : No I didn’t get any back.
MEMBER DANTES : Don’t we need to have them to hold a hearing?
BOARD SECRETARY : We have two of the three.
MR. TRPICOVSKY : I Know the neighbors were notified. We put our affidavit in that they were. I
have gotten calls that they have why the green cards haven’t come back I don’t know.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Please say your name please.
MR. TRPICOVSKY : My name is Richard Trpicovsky I’m the expediter for the homeowner. My
address is 173 North Main St. Sayville New York 11782. To begin with I do have a letter a short
letter that I’d like to read and enter into the records from the neighbor to the north who was
the most adversely impacted by this application. It states to whom it may concern I Gregg Tyrer
have no problem with my neighbors garage Victor Ferrulli or shed. I see no problem I strongly
recommend that no changes be made to the structure as it exists. So if I may turn that in.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Yes please.
MR. TRPICOVSKY : The homeowner first to address the garage/car port enclosed what was
originally a car port that dated back to about 1950 so the homeowner tells me and basically he
slowly made changes to try and protect his vehicle there is a survey that was produced also
back to 1961 that shows the pad being there and he states that it was there as a carport back to
1950. The house the garage was originally attached to the house by a breezeway and the
reason for enclosing the carport was to create more protective space for his car for when he
was away from the home both from the elements and from other things that might be
??
June 2, 2016 Regular Meeting
damaging to the car. The slab originally again we feel with a carport on it dates back to about
1950. It originally shows that the old survey shows it on his property. A new survey shows it
about 1.9 feet onto the neighbor’s property to the north however the size of it is the same 12
feet wide the length apparently is the same so why the differences in that we’re not really sure.
MEMBER DANTES : Sir sorry have you applied for a PreCO if (inaudible) the carport is and the
setback is from 1950?
MR. TRPICOVSKY : We did not no we were through he was originally he had applications for
enclosing a breezeway on this and that was when it was picked up that we had an issue with
what the enclosure was it was never a permit put in for the enclosure to enclose it as a garage.
MEMBER DANTES : Right but the original structure do you have have you ever applied for a
PreCO for that?
MR. TRPICOVSKY : Mr. Ferrulli was there ever an application for the carport that you’re aware
of that dates in 1950? And there has been many inspections along the property from what we
understand it was enclosed what about twenty to twenty five years ago?
MR. FERRULLI : (FROM THE SEAT) Twenty three years ago.
MR. TRPICOVSKY : And it never was brought up until recently even though there were other
additions made so we’re not sure how that came about to be honest. In any case what Mr.
Ferrulli was suggesting so that he could still maintain it and not have an encroachment on the
neighbor’s property was to cut back the size of it leaving approximately a one foot setback
which would still be adequate in size to maintain storage of a small car or you know other lawn
items etc. for his home. As far as the shed goes the shed is 10 foot 8 and it mirrors the
neighbors shed if you look they’re actually back to back identical sizes. It’s been there for many
years. It cannot be seen from the road in the way that it is located to the rear of the home at
that location but not rearward of the part of the house on the northerly side as the house is
actually kind of on a forty five degree angle because of the shape of the property. It is the most
practical location as it’s further from the high water line and is hidden from view. It is backed up
by an identical sized shed on the neighbor’s property and because of its age it would not be
possible to move it without possibly destroying it and I would like Mr. Ferrulli would like to also
mention the reasoning as to why it was built where it was and also any questions that you may
have regarding the carport which is now a garage.
MR. FERRULLI : Good morning.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Please state your name.
??
June 2, 2016 Regular Meeting
MR. FERRULLI : I am Victor Ferrulli. I live at 1540 Smith Drive South Southold 11971 and I’ve
resided there for twenty five years. I purchased the house in 1992 and I moved out here with
my wife in ’93 full time. At that time I was going to build a shed and I was told by my neighbor if
I built a shed by the way she was ninety years old and she used to sit stand at her kitchen
window and watch her husband come in from fishing trip and that was a joy and she had lost
her husband and I told the old gal that I would not block her view from the water so she could
see remembrance of her husband rowing back to the property line. So that’s why I put the shed
where it is and she would thank me every day and she could see the water. So that’s part of it.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Speaking to the sheds which she came first yours or hers?
MR. FERRULLI : Mine was first and then she put a new owner put a shed up.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Right next to it.
MR. FERRULLI : Is there any questions about the shed?
MEMBER GOEHRINGER : May I ask a question? Is there any encroachment onto the neighbor’s
property with that shed?
MR. FERRULLI : No.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Okay the other question that I have is when you closed on the
property in ’92 was the cement you indicated a cement pad your
MR. FERRULLI : With regard to the cement pad I had I saw the cement pad there obviously and I
built a carport.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER : I understand but the question I have is when you took title to this
property was there an exception to the title that there was an encroachment over the property
line?
MR. FERRULLI : No there was no such thing at that time.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER : So you didn’t know that the actual pad
MR. FERRULLI : No because I’ll answer that very simply because I paid cash for the house. I
owned another house and I took a second mortgage out on a house and I paid for the house
and in cash basically. Is there any other question regarding to the carport?
MEMBER SCHNEIDER : George any questions?
MEMBER HORNING : No other than the applicant is willing to cut the corner off?
??
June 2, 2016 Regular Meeting
MR. FERRULLI : Yes. The way the structure is on the plot if you can understand I encroach the
corner of the building so I can cut it across and take about two or three feet off the building or
maybe more but no more than three feet and there would solve the problem.
MR. TRPICOVSKY : Which if I may add to that we had engineered plans drawn up which were
provided to the Building Department which shows what the cutback leaving approximately a
one foot setback from the neighbor’s property.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Yea we have plans. Eric you have a question?
MEMBER DANTES : Yes. So I have a C.O. dated November 6, 1969 what was actually there on
the property at the time of the C.O?
MR. TRPICOVSKY : Mr. Ferrulli from 1969 there is a C.O. for the house and there was a detached
garage with a breezeway to a detached garage is that correct?
MR. FERRULLI : Yes but I didn’t own the house in ’69.
MEMBER DANTES : So there wasn’t a carport there in ’69?
MR. FERRULLI : There was a slab.
MEMBER DANTES : But no roof.
MR. FERRULLI : As far as I know.
MR. TRPICOVSKY : Again the 1961 survey does show a slab there whether there was a roof over
it or not I can’t say that I’m certain Mr. Ferrulli said there was a carport there prior to it being
enclosed.
MEMBER HORNING : I have a question. Would the applicant consider the possibility of instead
of repairing the shed when time came that it needed repairs to either move the shed then or to
a conforming location and not leave it where it is and rebuild it where it is? Would you
entertain the idea of moving it when you had to repair it?
MR. TRPICOVSKY : Mr. Ferrulli they’re asking should the shed need to be repaired or replaced at
some point would you be willing to remove it or put it in a conforming location at that point
leaving it where it is now?
MR. FERRULLI : Sure.
MEMBER HORNING : And we can write that as a condition to our decision?
MR. TRPICOVSKY : Yes.
??
June 2, 2016 Regular Meeting
MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Anybody in the audience like to address this application?
MEMBER DANTES : I have a question. If you remove the carport what would be the side yard
setback be do you know?
MR. TRPICOVSKY : It would appear to be with the carport removed at the closest point about
seven feet but the house itself going back forward you still have about a three foot setback
there which was the garage which has been C.O.’d so the house was built with a very minimum
setback originally.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Understood. There is a LWRP letter saying the application is inconsistent
basically the inconsistency revolves around the structure was built without the benefit of a
Board review you’re having your Board review right now so that takes care of that
inconsistency just for the record. Any other questions from the members the audience? Hearing
no further questions or comments I make a motion to close the hearing and reserve decision to
a later date.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Second.
MEMBER HORNING : Aye.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Aye.
MEMBER DANTES : Aye.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Aye.
(See Minutes for Resolution)
HEARING # 6958 – EDWARD M. BONANNO
MEMBER SCHNEIDER : The next application is # 6958 for Edward M. Bonanno a request for
variance from Article XXIII Section 280-124 and the building inspector’s April 5, 2016 Notice of
Disapproval based on an application for building permit to construct an accessory in-ground
swimming pool at 1) more than the code maximum allowable lot coverage of 20% at 715 Legion
Ave Mattituck NY SCTM#1000-142-2-4. Is there someone here to represent this application?
??
June 2, 2016 Regular Meeting
BILL BIRKMIER : Bill Birkmier North Fork Pools for the applicant. It’s a vinyl in-ground pool. It’s
located off the garage. The neighbor directly next to the Bonanno’s is in favor of putting that in.
We sent out the letters to everyone and I’m here to represent them at this point.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Okay let’s see Eric do you have any questions?
MEMBER DANTES : How many square feet over the permitted lot coverage are you that you’re
proposing?
BILL BIRKMIER : Well at 18%, 18.7% it’s 1,785 square feet. The pool at 18 by 36 would be 2,433
square feet and that would be 25.4% very small lot.
MEMBER DANTES : (inaudible) a pool would you be able to fit and fulfill (inaudible) lot
coverage?
BILL BIRKMIER : A non-diving size pool 16 by 32 is the NYS smallest legal sized diving pool. If I
went smaller than that it wouldn’t be legal. It could be a non-diving pool
MEMBER DANTES : What does that mean?
BILL BIRKMIER : It means that we could still put a pool in and it could be like a splash pool or
something like that but it wouldn’t be a legal sized diving pool that you can dive into the pool
and that’s what the Bonannos are looking for. So I could go down to a 16 by 32 and still be
legal.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER : What did you say the lot coverage was at the 16 by 32?
BILL BIRKMIER : That lot coverage would probably drop to about 23%. I don’t have that exact
number in front of me. At the 18 by 36 that puts it at 25.4% lot coverage on the building now is
lot coverage on the property now is 18.7 so we’d take off about a 140 square feet so I think that
would drop us into about 23%.
MEMBER HORNING : Why was the Notice of Disapproval revised or amended from a lot
coverage of 22.7 to
BILL BIRKMIER : The original survey was incorrect. We picked it up when we did the new survey
and the original survey was incorrect.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Can I ask another question Mr. Chairman?
MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Absolutley.
??
June 2, 2016 Regular Meeting
MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Why don’t you give us a you know an option on those questions that I
was just asking the people on the Board are asking so that we can pick and choose what we
think the best possible one for the town would be in other words 16x32, 18x36 or you know a
splash pool.
BILL BIRKMIER : He wouldn’t build a pool he only wants a legal size diving pool.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER : He wouldn’t build okay. So then we have to concentrate basically on
the 16x32. I’m not speaking for the Board I’m speaking for myself and
BILL BIRKMIER : It’s a mathematical figure I just don’t have here I only did the 18x36.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Yea and give us that figure. Is that okay for me to do that sir?
MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Yes sir.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER : So why don’t you do that.
MEMBER DANTES : Well I can do the math 16x32 is 512 square feet the pool now is 648 square
feet so then lot coverage would be
MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Whatever he comes up with we need you to verify not that we’re
questioning that. I don’t mean today you can send
BILL BIRKMIER : You want it on a survey?
MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Yea.
MEMBER DANTES : It’s about 5.3 square feet.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Less?
MEMBER DANTES : No total instead of 6.8 so it would save him about 1 1/2%.
BILL BIRKMIER : Coming at 24.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER : What?
BILL BIRKMIER : We’ll be coming in at 23.9%.
MEMBER GEOHRINGER : Okay which is exactly what you said approximate okay. I guess the
question is how does everybody feel about that?
MEMBER SCHNEIDER : It’s still a lot. It’s a small lot.
??
June 2, 2016 Regular Meeting
MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Yea well let me ask they’re all small lots there but let me ask you a
question what’s around the pool? Is there a decking around it?
BILL BIRKMIER : It’s a patio with a four feet around it.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER : It’s a ground level patio in stone?
BILL BIRKMIER : Yes.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Okay or cement or whatever okay.
BILL BIRKMIER : Pavers.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER : What’s the lot coverage like in the neighborhood?
MEMBER GOEHRINGER : It’s all over everything is over you know the houses are built relatively
close to the road.
MEMBER DANTES : There are variances in this neighborhood before haven’t we? I know at
least one somewhere I don’t know if it’s Legion or Riley (inaudible) lot coverage.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Well let me just explain to you I’m being asked that question okay we
have people living on that block that cannot access their rear yard okay they do not they can’t
access their rear yard. The house is built line to line okay and those are at least one or two
houses across the street from this one okay one of which is a person that you know we know
very well and are friendly with and so that may not be the case as much in this particular
location on that side of the street however they’re tight they’re very tight the whole block is
tight.
BILL BIRKMIER : The location of the pool in this particular setting is right next to the garage. It’s
an area that is not it’s grass at the moment. It does conform to a typical back yard other than
on Legion Ave. of having a pool in that type of setting. We’re not missing by much it’s just that
it’s such a small piece of property. That’s why I’m in front of you.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Yea.
BILL BIRKMIER : Going to a 16x32 puts us just under 4% over coverage.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Well can you do some research in the neighborhood and see if there’s
similar lot coverages from what you proposed?
BILL BIRKMIER : Yes but not entailing a swimming pool. I’d have to look through. I did check
with the swimming pools but I don’t know of any applications from anyone down that road.
??
June 2, 2016 Regular Meeting
There’s an above ground pool but that doesn’t conform to what I’m looking at doing but I don’t
know of anybody asking for one on that road either.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Well not only a pool but overall lot coverage.
BILL BIRKMIER : Which is all over. I don’t have the numbers to give you for each lot but I could
do that research if that’s what you needed but they’re over lot coverage.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Well that would help your argument if there’s other parcels in the
neighborhood that has similar lot coverage to what you propose that would help your
argument for the excessive lot coverage.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER : The house on the corner of Pacific has actually two houses on it I think
owned by the same owner so that’s excessive lot coverage in itself.
BILL BIRKMIER : I honestly thought looking at this coming in front of the Board and I apologize
for sounding like this but I thought it was a no brainer as far as the size of the lots and what is
already there in the neighborhood. I can give you that in writing of what those percentages are
by doing my homework on that but I honestly thought you’d look at this and think well we’re
over code he wants a pool and that’s the smallest legal diving pool I can put on this property
but yet it does fit well.
MEMBER DANTES : Yea well just to dot out i’s and cross our t’s we just need to have the
paperwork of what else is in the neighborhood.
BILL BIRKMIER : Understood. To be honest with you I’m a pool builder I’ve done a few of these
applications I’m learning each time and I don’t mind doing a little extra leg work for Mr.
Bonanno. This is within two weeks I presume I can get that to you and
MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Sure we can make it subject to closing the hearing at the next Special
subject to the information that you supply.
BILL BIRKMIER : Sure.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER : It’s not only about a pool it’s about the lot coverage. If you were here to
try to build another accessory structure in the back yard
BILL BIRKMIER : I would of called Pat Moore I really would of that’s the truth. When I’m looking
at a pool like this I’m thinking to myself this is something I can handle. I have many requests to
build pools for other people that I let Pat handle or somebody else an expediter or whatever
that may be. Looking at this I thought that this is pretty straight forward but I can get those
numbers for you as quick as I can.
??
June 2, 2016 Regular Meeting
MEMBER DANTES : Not just pools it could be for garages or
BILL BIRKMIER : That’s my point I’d give it to Pat. I wouldn’t do it.
MEMBER DANTES : No I’m saying if you come across people that have are over lot coverage for
decks, for garages for other things.
BILL BIRKMIER : Right that’s what I’m going to look up understood.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER : I thought I was clear on that total lot coverage.
BILL BIRKMIER : No no I understood but I had said there is nobody else on Legion with a
swimming pool that
MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Google Earth. Just remember that you have one plus factor it’s in the
rear yard.
BILL BIRKMIER : Yea it’s about time right? Well let’s see on the next one.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Gee thanks.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Any questions?
MEMBER HORNING : No no questions.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Eric?
MEMBER DANTES : I do not have further questions.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Anybody in the audience have any comments on this application? I make
a motion to close what adjourn to the Special Meeting on June 16 th subject to the information
supplied by the applicant.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Second.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER : All in favor?
MEMBER HORNING : Aye.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Aye.
MEMBER DANTES: Aye.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Aye.
(See Minutes for Resolution)
??
June 2, 2016 Regular Meeting
HEARING # 6955 – NICHOLAS BRICE
MEMBER SCHNEIDER : The next application is for Nicholas Brice application #6955 request for
Variance from Article III Section 280-15 and the building inspector’s March 25, 2016 Notice of
Disapproval based on an application for a building permit to construct/replace existing
accessory in-ground swimming pool at 1) proposed in location other than the code required
rear yard located at 5700 Nassau Point Rd. (Wunneweta Rd.) Cutchogue NY SCTM#1000-111-
12-2.1.
BILL BIRKMIER : Bill Birkmier North Fork Pool Care. There was a pool constructed in I believe ’93
and it had a permit. It did not have the variance. We were going to replace this pool because of
deteriorating walls with a concrete wall vinyl pool. I removed the old pool and the customer
came to me and said he’d like to replace it with gunite. At that point I felt I needed to consult
the Building Department for a permit because its gunite and it’s not a like for what was already
there. At that point I was informed that it’s two front yards and they never the Building
Department didn’t pick up on it back in ’93 or it didn’t request it or whatever it was they
offered they issued the building permit so I’m in front of you now to put the exact same pool
size in with a auto cover gunite pool equipment is the same everything is the same as is.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Okay Gerry.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Yes the question is what is the decking on this one?
BILL BIRKMIER : It’s a patio as well.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Yea same thing stone?
BILL BIRKMIER : Yes.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER : The only thing that we require and we have in the past and I’m not
speaking necessarily for the Board but I am in reality is that when you have two front yards we
kind of request that we have some plantings on the Wunneweta side evergreen plantings
outside the fence so that when people are coming by they’re not looking at a pool and so that
would be the only requirement that I would consider. I don’t think there’s any issue about that I
mean this is a huge deep piece of property it just happens to front a Nassau Point Rd. and on
Wunneweta Rd. okay both of which are relatively heavily traveled in the summer and year
round.
??
June 2, 2016 Regular Meeting
BILL BIRKMIER : Well for Wunneweta it’s up on an incline and you can’t see his back yard. By all
means I’m sure he would put plantings in to meet that but you can’t see it from Wunneweat
which is a positive. It’s got a buffer of about thirty or forty feet of wooded area plus it’s about a
ten foot elevation.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Right but we just request some plantings.
BILL BIRKMIER : I’m sure he’d be willing to do that he’s going to want that for himself. Ian
Zuhoski is doing the ground work there and he already has drawings showing that.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER : I don’t see any other issues. I mean it’s a hardship being on two front
yards and that’s basically the situation.
MEMBER HORNING : Does the applicant have any access to Wunneweta Rd? Does he use it?
MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Sure he has access but I don’t know if he uses it.
BILL BIRKMIER : No I don’t believe so. I mean he has access to it off the property but as I said it’s
on a ten foot incline and there is no driveway at the present time.
MEMBER HORNING : Right he has no plans to create a driveway on that
BILL BIRKMIER : No not that I know of and from all the drawings I’ve seen no it’s never been a
request or a thought.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Eric?
MEMBER DANTES : Do you just give us a copy of that drawing that shows the plantings for the
file.
BILL BIRKMIER : I thought that actually went in to you guys it might have been the Building
Department.
MEMBER DANTES : Is it this is this it?
BILL BIRKMIER : Yes.
MEMBER DANTES : Okay.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Is that good for you?
MEMBER DANTES : Yea it’s fine for me.
BILL BIRKMIER : Well it shows you the back drop off of Wunneweta.
??
June 2, 2016 Regular Meeting
MEMBER DANTES : It looks like the prior pool did have a C.O.?
BILL BIRKMIER : Yes it did.
MEMBER DANTES : In 1992 the property does have a variance for the tennis court.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Anyone in the audience have any questions about the application?
Everybody done?
MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Yes.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Hearing no further questions and comments I make a motion to close
the hearing and reserve decision to a later date.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Second.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER : All in favor?
MEMBER HORNING : Aye.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Aye.
MEMBER DANTES : Aye.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Aye.
(See Minutes for Resolution)
HEARING # 6957 – RAYMOND RAIMONDI
MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Gerry you’re going to do this one. I am recusing myself from Raimondi
application. I’m one of the neighbors so Gerry is going to conduct this hearing.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER : I’ll do the grilling. The Legal Notice reads as follows. It’s appeal #6952
request for variance from Article XXIII Section 280-124 and Article III Section 280-15 and the
building inspector’s February 3, 2016 Notice of Disapproval for an application for building
permit to legalize and make changes to “as built” additions and alterations existing single family
dwelling and accessory shed less than the code required single side yard setback of 15 feet 2)
less than the code required single yard setback of 35 feet 3) “as built” accessory shed located in
??
June 2, 2016 Regular Meeting
an area other than the code required rear yard located at 1540 wait a minute I’m reading the
wrong one. I do apologize that’s what I get for doing it quickly. This is #6957 request for
variance from Article III Section 280-15 almost the same and the building inspector’s February
23, 2016 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for building permit to demolish existing
dwelling and construct a new single family dwelling at 1) proposed construction places existing
accessory garage in location other than the code required rear yard, 2) “as built” accessory shed
at less than the code required side yard setback of 20 feet located at 1150 Mason Drive (adj. to
Haywaters Cove) in Cutchogue NY Mr. Weber would you kindly state your name for the record.
FRED WEBER : My name is Fred Weber I’m the architect for the Raimondi’s. I live at 41 East
Maple Rd. in Greenlawn NY.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER : How are you again? What would you like to tell us?
FRED WEBER : First off the property is 1.4 acres it’s a fully bulkheaded waterfront with an
existing boat basin. There’s an existing one story single family dwelling and an existing detached
garage and an existing shed adjacent to a boat basin. We are proposing to build a new house on
the property for the enjoyment of a family with four young children. The original plans were to
renovate and add to the existing dwelling but with flood zone requirements and the condition
of the structure and foundation the decision was made to demolish and build new. We received
a permit from the Southold Trustees on February 17, 2016 which required that the new
residence be located 85 feet from the bulkhead. This required moving the proposed house
north or landward about 15 feet which would really be north of where the existing house
footprint was. The house itself is does not need a variance. However accessory structures must
be located in rear yards or on waterfront lots in front yards as long as they respect the principal
building front yard setback. A variance was requested in was granted rather in 1964 by the
Southold Zoning Board for the garage structure to be built in its current location which was
appeal #628. As accessory structures may not be located in side yards the new house location
established by the Southold Trustees increases the side yard overlap with the accessory garage
structure to a total of about 17 of 19.7 feet. That is the reason for the variance request. There is
no work proposed in the existing garage and we request that the garage be allowed to stay in
its existing location. Then the second issue there’s a shed on the property which is adjacent to
the boat basin. It’s unclear when the shed was built but it was not built by the Raimondi’s. The
Building Department raised an issue with a nonconforming 3 foot side yard setback when they
did their routine review. We obtained an aerial survey for the NYS DEC letter of non-jurisdiction
which shows the shed existed on April 6, 1976 which was forty years ago. I have two copies of it
(away from microphone) It’s a little fuzzy cause it’s a copy. I can get an original here if I need to.
I believe that the Southold Town code went into effect in 1957 the file shows an addition to the
existing house on the property issued in 1957 and the C.O. granted in 1958. Presumably the
??
June 2, 2016 Regular Meeting
existing house was built before zoning but again it does not allow us to determine the sheds
construction date. As a side note the owner had been requesting that the leaking roof on the
shed be reroofed which was done last summer before this variance request was pending. Again
we are not proposing any new work on the shed. I think it is a picturesque structure with a low
ridge eleven feet and has been part of the fabric of this waterfront for so long that I don’t
believe anyone takes offense to its location. We ask that it be allowed to stay in its current
location as well and I have a letter from the next door neighbor to the east as well in support of
the application. You probably have that in the file (away from microphone)
MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Can I ask you a couple of questions?
FRED WEBER : Sure.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Are you familiar with the LWRP coordinator’s determination of
inconsistency on this project?
FRED WEBER : No.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Can we get a copy of that for this gentleman? He’s citing the
(inaudible) of development of Southold Town enhances the community character to preserve
open space that make efficient use of the infrastructure makes beneficial use of the coastal
location minimizes the effects of the development 1) the framed garage does not comply with
the past Board review variance and “as built” shed does not conform to zoning regulations,
development that does not reinforce the traditional land patterns and comply with a zoning
regulations the Town of Southold could result in an erosion in the communities character and
adverse effects of the development. So here we go Fred here’s your copy. So what we’re saying
in this inconsistency is this what’s the traditional aspect of the shed and within the Trustees
permit you informed the Trustees and they have re-informed your reinforced to you that the
shed is going to stay and that you wouldn’t of re-roofed it if it wasn’t. It’s going to remain as a
shed. It’s not going to be used for any other reasons but to store I suspect boat related
materials and you know all the rest of the cushions and the gas tanks and all the rest of that
stuff am I correct in that?
FRED WEBER : Correct yes.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER : So the only issue here is the garage so I had asked the Building
Department to see if there was a C.O. I noticed within the embodiment of the text that you had
written in the application that you really didn’t have any idea what the situation was with the
garage if there was a C.O. on it or what not. So I think one of the ways to really
??
June 2, 2016 Regular Meeting
FRED WEBER : I did do some you know research on that I mean first off the garage I think when
it was originally built was smaller and the variance was actually to locate it in a front yard
because I think the code at that time didn’t allow accessory structures in the front yard. I think
it was revised because so many people on the waterfront were you know going for variances
for structures that were in the front yard that they decided to change the code so the garage
you know was built in that legal location and then there was also a building permit to add to the
garage that I saw as well and both of those actions you know basically permitted the garage to
be where it is. What we’re doing now is taking down an existing house and moving it back from
the Trustees which increases the overlap it doesn’t change the garage itself or the legality of
the permits that were issued to construct it.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Okay here’s my take. We have to deal with a situation with the LWRP
coordinator and in doing so we basically I would say that the best thing for you to do is go over
and apply for a Pre C.O. and it is my understanding that they will give you a Pre C.O. for the
garage. At that particular point we actually eliminate one variance and we basically take care of
most of the stuff that he is raising at this particular point and
FRED WEBER : The Pre C.O. we file with the Building Department.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Did they give you one?
FRED WEBER : No.
MEMER GOEHRINGER : They won’t give you one?
FRED WEBER : No, no we didn’t ask for one. I didn’t think it was necessary.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER : As late as yesterday they said to me do you want the application and I
didn’t I don’t feel we have to do this on the record so my suggestion is you apply for the Pre
C.O. and that you give us the Pre C.O. and we can just continue this hearing until and close on
the 16 th at our Special Meeting and then we’ll make a decision after that.
FRED WEBER : Okay I’m going to look back in my papers but did you see that they got an
approval to put an addition on the garage?
MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Yea.
FRED WEBER : You did.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Yea.
FRED WEBER : And did they not close that out?
??
June 2, 2016 Regular Meeting
MEMBER GOEHRINGER : But they didn’t get a C.O. for that either.
FRED WEBER : They didn’t close that out is that the issue?
MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Right.
FRED WEBER : Oh.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER : And that’s the reason he’s raising this so make it really clean
FRED WEBER : Yea I guess I saw the building permits but I didn’t realize that they didn’t in a
sense close out.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER : To make it really clean all we’re doing is saying that we’re mediating
this situation by giving you the Pre C.O. for the garage and it’s done. I mean that’s my whole
position on this situation and that’s the reason why I asked staff and the Building Department
to take a look at it and they couldn’t find anything so it’s typical of accessory structures in those
days to be honest with you. There’s no doubt that Mr. Reeve owned this property and there
was no doubt that he probably did all the things he was supposed to do but just forgot to get a
C.O. and you know and that would be my opinion.
FRED WEBER : Okay so we apply for the Pre C.O. do we need to come back to a hearing or get
the Pre C.O. we can hand that in to the Board and
MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Yea we need that within two weeks and let us know if you don’t get
the Pre C.O. that’s all alright and it was my opinion that there was no doubt that they would
probably grant a Pre C.O. and I don’t know that for a fact but that’s just my opinion.
MEMBER DANTES : Or Gerry they might just give him a C.O. based on the building permit that
they have it might not be a Pre.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Well yea I think the Pre C.O. is easier to get though than the actual
C.O. cause then they have to come back and inspect the property again and so on and so forth
and since we’re down to one building inspector.
FRED WEBER : Okay I’ll go over and talk to Mike Verity later today.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER : All you need is the application the girls will give it to you. Connie was
the one that was going to give me the application.
FRED WEBER : Okay.
??
June 2, 2016 Regular Meeting
MEMBER GOEHRINGER : So and I think it just cleans up the whole thing you need one less
variance and that’s it you know the storage building is something that’s been there for many
years there’s no question about it and so is the rest of the property. I mean you’re going to
work on it I’m sure you’re going to work on the storage building a little bit right you’re going to
fix it up a little?
FRED WEBER : I mean it’s not part of what I’m doing. I’m working on the house right now. I’m
not sure you know whether he’s planned to do anything to it in the future but you know I don’t
think he’s going to change the nature of it.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER : You’re not going to demolish it?
FRED WEBER : No.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER : No.
(Someone from the audience speaking)
MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Eugene you just want to state that for the record.
EUGENE BERGER : Eugene Berger of Berger Construction. We are going to side both buildings
and roof the garage so it all matches.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER : I mean certainly substantial garage there’s no question about it.
EUGENE BERGER : Yes and we’re also going to landscape the property it’s going to be you know
very nice.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Very good thank you. Are there any question from anybody in the
neighborhood any questions from the Board I kind of taken over this hearing and I apologize.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER : That’s what you’re supposed to do.
MEMBER HORNING : You’re chairing. No questions from me.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Hearing no further questions we’re going to adjourn to the Special
Meeting. Please give us you know either a note that you’re not going to get it or that you have
it or we’ll be getting it and give it to us.
FRED WEBER : Okay very good.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Alright pleasure gentlemen. I make that motion somebody seconding
it?
??
June 2, 2016 Regular Meeting
MEMBER HORNING : I did yes.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER : All in favor?
MEMBER HORNING : Aye.
MEMBER DANTES : Aye.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Aye.
(See Minutes for Resolution)
HEARING # 6959 – SHIPWAY, LLC
MEMBER SCHNEIDER : The next application is for Shipway LLC application 6959 request for
variance from Article XXIII Section 280-124 and the building inspector’s March 31, 2016 Notice
of Disapproval based on an application for building permit to construct a deck addition to
existing single family dwelling at 1) less than the code required rear yard setback of 35 feet
located at 320 Private Road #7 East Marion NY SCTM#1000-38-1-26. Good morning how are
you.
NORA CONANT : That’s me I’m fine how are you?
MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Eric has something to say.
MEMBER DANTES : I will be recusing myself from this application.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER : The reason?
MEMBER DANTES : I’ve done business with Ms. Conant.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER : There you go.
MEMBER HORNING : What was the reason?
MEMBER DANTES : I’ve done business with her.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER : What would you like to tell us?
??
June 2, 2016 Regular Meeting
NORA CONANT : So I purchased this property and after doing a rehab on the inside I wanted to
do a rehab on the outside and that included removal of the existing deck. At your suggestion I
did bring copies of what the deck used to look like can I bring those to you?
MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Absolutely.
NORA CONANT : You can see it was quite enormous. The deck didn’t conform in any way and
had not been constructed with permission did not have a C.O. so it got removed and now I
would like to put up a small well 9 feet by 26 foot deck to replace it with and I’m hoping that
you’ll let me do that.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER : So there was a previous deck constructed without the benefit of a
permit
NORA CONANT : Correct.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER : and you removed it and according to the survey it looks like that deck
was 20.3 feet by 26 feet and you propose to build one at 9 by 26.
NORA CONANT : Right and I chose that depth because that way the garage is still in the back
yard.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Oh okay.
NORA CONANT : As opposed to Connie explained to me if I made it too deep
MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Gottcha okay
MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Can I ask a question? I’m showing a deck on the survey as 10 by 26.
NORA CONANT : Oh I guess if that’s what the survey says that’s what it is sorry my mistake.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Can I ask another question?
NORA CONANT : Sure.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Would you tell us how this would be and I’m not this is not a baiting
question okay how something less than that would make it much more difficult for you to make
it a usable deck?
NOAR CONANT : Sure the depth was in order to allow for a small table with chairs to go all the
way around it. If it was much narrower I think we could only do something very long and skinny.
The purpose of the deck is really to be able to eat outside without being on the ground.
??
June 2, 2016 Regular Meeting
MEMBER GOEHRINGER : That’s good thank you and the deck will always remain open right it’s
not going to be enclosed?
NORA CONANT : Yea we’re not enclosing it in any kind of sunroom or screened are or anything
like that. I also I hear back from four of the five people I was asked to mail to and the fifth
person wrote me a nice letter saying they have no problem which I made copies of I don’t know
if you want it.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Is there anyone in the audience who would like to address this
application? Are you finished?
NORA CONANT : I don’t have anything further to add.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER : George?
MEMBER HORNING : No questions.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Eric?
MEMBER DANTES : I can’t.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Oh that’s right. Okay hearing no further questions or comments I make a
motion to close the hearing and reserve decision for a later date.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Second.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER : All in favor?
MEMBER HORNING : Aye.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Aye.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Aye.
(See Minutes for Resolution)
HEARING # 6961 – HEATHER and PETER CAMPBELL
MEMBER SCHNEIDER : The next application is Heather and Peter Campbell application # 6961 is
a request for variance from Article XXIII Section 280-124 and Article III Section 280-15 and the
building inspector’s March 15, 2016 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for building
??
June 2, 2016 Regular Meeting
permit for additions and alterations to existing single family dwelling and construct in-ground
swimming pool at 1) less than the code required front yard setback of 40 feet, 2) lot coverage at
more than the code permitted maximum of 20%, 3) following proposed construction existing
accessory garage/shed will be located in other than the code required rear yard located at 400
King Street Orient NY SCTM#1000-26-2-14. Is someone here to represent the application?
KEVIN PERRY : I’m here to speak for the Campbell’s. My name is Kevin Perry. I’m acting as their
architect. I reside at 618 11 th Street in Brooklyn and also at 880 Village Lane in Orient. The
Campbell’s purchased the property last year. Parts of the house date back to the 1800’s. Much
of the addition many of the additions many of the additions to the house are extremely low. It’s
on a it’s in the landmark district in Orient. It’s a non-complying lot. What the Campbell’s would
like to do is take off a rear addition it’s a two story addition put a new addition on the back
primarily one story with a partial area that’s a second floor. They also want to take off a porch
on the front that is about 2 feet from the property line. They would like to reconstruct the
porch back moving it back about 8 feet which is fairly close to the neighbor’s front setback.
They also part of their first floor addition will extend beyond the building on the east side of the
property. Landmarks reviewed the project they’ve given us a certificate of appropriateness.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Do we have a copy of that?
KEVIN PERRY : I have a copy with me although it’s got a typo I asked Damon to correct it. He
listed the architect incorrectly so I can leave it with you but you can get a corrected copy from
Damon I would imagine today.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER : What do you want to do?
MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Take a copy anyway.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Okay we’ll take a copy. So let’s see you’re increasing your front yard
setback from 8
KEVIN PERRY : from approximately 2 feet to approximately 8 feet. Part of the addition off to the
east is also within the front yard by about 5 feet going by memory. We’re also taken all in
where the lot coverage is over it’s over the 20% limit. I also in putting the rear addition on
we’re lapping the garage technically putting in the garage into the side yard. My proposed lot
coverage with the existing accessory cottage garage and shed the enlarged house, the proposed
deck, the proposed pool puts us at 26.37%. I’ve looked at your approvals in the past and have
found if I can find it yea I’ve looked in the historic district Village Lane, Kings St., Navy St. and
Willow Terrace and found twenty two variances granted since 2000 for very similar all lot line
setback and lot coverage issues. I found five variances were granted for new construction
required front yards, seven variances were granted to allow accessory structures and pools in
??
June 2, 2016 Regular Meeting
other than rear yards and seven variances were granted allowing lot coverage to exceed the
20% limit ranging up to 32.15% so.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Yea we’d like to see those. Thirty two percent?
KEVIN PERRY : Yea on Kings St. just down the way. It’s a slightly smaller lot than ours. The
difficulty in Orient is that the R40 zone really doesn’t match the existing context. The neighbor
to the if you look at my aerial photo the neighbor to the right is living within the lot lines or the
setback lines for a non-conforming lot but you’ll see it’s also the A typical building on Kings St.
it’s very far from the street almost all the buildings on Kings St. are up right on the street
porches are very common which I think is why Landmarks sort of appreciated the gesture. In
the design of the house the Campbell’s had me looking to keep the scale of the house down. It
would have been easier probably cheaper for them in the long run to build a big two story block
in the back. It probably would have been visible from the street and it would of sort of
destroyed the scale of the house from the rear yard so they really and I give them a lot of credit
for they’ve really looked for a way to keep the scale in keeping with the existing somewhat
rambling house.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Well the existing lot coverage is 14.47
KEVIN PERRY : Right.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER : and you want and you’re composing 26.37 that’s almost not quite but
almost doubling the lot coverage. It’s a lot. Did you is there any way that you can conform more
to the permitted lot coverage I mean that’s at least
KEVIN PERRY : Well we can take the deck and make it a grade patio that’s a 2.89% knock off the
Campbell’s would be willing to do.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER : So the deck could go to patio?
KEVIN PERRY : The deck could go to a mixture of lawn and patio all on grade.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER : So that would take almost 3% off?
KEVIN PERRY : Close to yea. The deck is a 590 square foot deck as drawn and that would take
me down from down to about 23% which by the way is low on the range of variances that had
been given based on my precedent search. You average around 24% the high being around well
I’ve given it to you it’s 37.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER : I’ll have to review those and the pool looks quite long and large as well.
Could you make that pool smaller?
??
June 2, 2016 Regular Meeting
KEVIN PERRY : I guess we could if it’s necessary.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER : I mean yea you could obviously.
KEVIN PERRY : It’s at a certain point especially when you have young kids a certain size of pool is
just a safer pool.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER : I’m sorry what?
KEVIN PERRY : A certain width of pool at least is mandatory and it’s hard to regulate kids so we
could make it shorter that would not be a problem.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Cause you know we’re trying to reduce this lot coverage here. Let’s see
if any other members have questions.
KEVIN PERRY : Again in Orient it’s not at all unusual for quarter acre lots smaller lots well this lot
is 20,000 this is actually a fairly large lot for Orient. Orient buildings very often run up against
the 20% lot coverage number.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Gerry do you have any questions?
MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Well the question you know you sat through this is not a sarcastic
statement I assure you, you sat through us discussing this with other pool people if you were
here and is this a gunite pool?
KEVIN PERRY : It’s proposed yes.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER : It’s proposed as gunite.
KEVIN PERRY : Well it’s not purchased yet.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER : That’s why it’s 45 as opposed to an even number.
KEVIN PERRY : Right.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER : So the question is what can you reduce it to that would be you know
more attractive for us to deal with?
KEVIN PERRY : You tell me what the number is.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Well you’re dealing if you’re dealing with 18 x 45 now we can go to
the standard of you know 36 or 38.
KEVIN PERRY : 18 x 36 I’m sure would make the client happy. They actually gave me that
number I’m not a pool person.
??
June 2, 2016 Regular Meeting
MEMBER GOEHRINGER : How’s that 18 x 36?
MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Yea whatever could reduce the coverage is going in the right direction.
George do you have any comments on this?
MEMBER HORNING : A comment yea the previous testimony was saying that the legal sized NYS
required diving pool was 32
MEMBER SCHNEIDER : 16 x 32
MEMBER HORNING : This applicant is willing to have you know 18 x 36 or which is greatly
reducing the
MEMBER SCHNEIDER : What’s proposed.
MEMBER HORNING : Yea and if they eliminate decking and have on grade patio another 3% so I
think that made a lot of headway.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Remember when you’re dealing with gunite you’re dealing with much
different than you’re dealing with standard sizes.
KEVIN PERRY : What I can’t promise that between now and the buyout of the pool that it might
not go to a vinyl pool so if you say that an 18 x 36 is a standard sized pool I’ll just tell the client.
We’ll stay there it gives you what you want and it gives them flexibility as they move forward
towards construction.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER : And I know the office had contacted you about the proposed side yard
setback of the pool.
KEVIN PERRY : Yes.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER : It’s not indicated on the plans and you
KEVIN PERRY : It will be. I understand that a ten foot is the minimum and we’ll set ten foot as
the minimum side yard.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Eric do you have any questions?
MEMBER DANTES : Yes my only question is it looks like the way you drew the fence that it goes
over the property line.
KEVIN PERRY : Yea in the back it does now.
MEMBER DANTES : Will that be moved on to the property or what?
??
June 2, 2016 Regular Meeting
KEVIN PERRY : I know that the Campbell’s are willing to do it. I don’t know that they have
specific plans to do it yet.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Well in many cases when we’ve come up against something like that and
the applicant’s fence is encroaching we generally require things to be located on their property
before a building permit is issued.
KEVIN PERRY : Okay.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER : So we can get that done before anything really moves forward.
KEVIN PERRY : We can you know if that I know that there’s an intention to do that. If you need
us to commit it to doing it as part of this application I’m happy to do that.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER : It could very well be a condition of the variance or that would have to be
done before a permit for your work is issued.
KEVIN PERRY : Yea no we’re that could be taken care of.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Can I ask another question? Mr. Perry has there been any indication
from neighbors for any type of screening from this pool are or outside (inaudible)
KEVIN PERRY : The site has been surrounded by a six foot plus high stockade fence for many
years and it’s very well planted so I haven’t had any feedback not on screening.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER : This is a question for the members do you want to require another site
plan?
MEMBER HORNING : Yes and then we can have an amended application and
MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Okay and do it that way. Let’s see what else we have to address. The
green cards they’re in Brooklyn so we have copies.
KEVIN PERRY : I’m sorry I move between here and Brooklyn. I can get them for you by Monday
morning.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Okay well we’ll probably adjourn this to the Special Meeting and subject
to receipt of that and subject to your amended application meaning the site plan reflecting the
new size of the pool and lot coverage calculations and what not.
KEVIN PERRY : I will do that.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Does that sound good to members?
??
June 2, 2016 Regular Meeting
MEMBER HORNING : Yes.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Yes.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Eric. Anybody have anything else? Does anybody in the audience like to
address this application? Hello sir please state your name for the record.
MATTHEW MCCORMICK : Morning sir Matthew C. McCormick with the law firm Solomon and
Harrera 2950 Hempstead Turnpike Levittown 11756. Our office was retained recently by the
adjoining neighbor in opposition of the application. Accordingly since we were just retained
yesterday based on the information that was given to this Board today we’d like to request an
adjournment sometime to both independently investigate and research both the application
what’s been proposed today and some of the precedent that was set forth by the applicant’s
representative. (inaudible) our own opportunity I’m sure he presented fairly and accurately to
the Board but it’d be prudent and incumbent upon us to do our own independent research into
what’s previously been granted and or denied by this Board in the past. In the adjoining
neighbor’s view the application is quite substantial. It’s nearly a doubling of the lot coverage
and notwithstanding the removal of the patio or the deck given that this property is larger sized
there seems to be less of a necessity as compared to prior applications that were granted lot
coverage than to give this application that much leverage in terms of exceeding that
application. Notwithstanding that I can also speak to the fence issue. There’s an open dispute
regarding the fence. Our client is actually bringing in an application before the Suffolk County
Supreme Court for an adverse possession claim against that. That fence has been located there
as far as we can ascertain for thirty plus years. At the time the petitioners purchased or the
applicants purchased that property they presented request to our client for a fence affidavit
which he declined to sign and indicated to them our client indicated at that time that he’d be
willing to have the fence replaced but only along the existing boundary line. In his view that
fence has been there for thirty years the time is hold he’s the rightful claimant of that land.
That application is in the process of or complaint is in the process of being made before the
Suffolk County Supreme Court.
MEMBER DANTES : Wait which neighbor which who do you represent?
MATTHEW MCCORMICK : Arthur Fitting.
MEMBER DANTES : Where is he located next to the property?
MATTHEW MCCORMICK : To the west. He’s the easterly this would be your west.
KEVIN PERRY : This is not the fence you asked me about which it goes to the Armstrong
property.
??
June 2, 2016 Regular Meeting
MATTHEW MCCORMICK : Yea it would be a different fence.
MEMBER DANTES : So that fence won’t be moving. So it doesn’t
MATTHEW MCCORMICK : I don’t know that it affects anything for this Board but to the extent
that you wanted to know about it.
MEMBER DANTES : What exactly does your client want?
MATTHEW MCCORMICK : It’s difficult for him to for me to say exactly what he wants at this
point and time. He just thinks that the application is very substantial that the development of
the house is fairly large.
MEMBER DANTES : How long did your client have the notice before he retained you?
MATTHEW MCCORMICK : I can only tell you that we’re only retained yesterday.
MEMBER DANTES : When did you send out the mailings?
KEVIN PERRY : You have the dates I think it was May 16 th is what rings in my mind but you have
documentation. They also we did two rounds of Landmark hearings that were advertised and
the property was posted for the Landmark hearings. Landmark hearings were I want to say
maybe mid-May so the property’s been posted since almost May 1.
MEMBER HORNING : Do you have any written results from those hearings?
KEVIN PERRY : From what Landmarks?
MEMBER HORNING : Yea.
KEVIN PERRY : I just gave you a certificate of appropriateness.
MEMBER HORNING : Oh okay.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER : We don’t have a signed copy yet so
MEMBER DANTES : Ken maybe we adjourn to the Special it’ll give him time to get the site plan
and give him time to give comments on the new site plan.
KEVIN PERRY : The site plan was sent to Mr. Fitting.
MEMBER DANTES : No, no you’re going to make an amended site plan and you’re going to give
an amended site plan to him to make comments on and then we can go over both of them at
the Special Meeting.
??
June 2, 2016 Regular Meeting
MEMBER SCHNEIDER : And we can review all the information you submitted about the prior
variances granted in the neighborhood we can look at all those and see what are applicable to
your application and it gives this gentleman time to do that as well. So is there anything else?
MEMBER DANTES : Just tell him we don’t take testimony at the Special Meeting.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Yea that’s true we don’t take testimony at the Special Meeting we make
a decision then whether to continue to adjourn it or close it and you can submit in writing
anything
MATTHEW MCCORMICK : Sure so yea because the our client who’s in opposition to it part of
the reason that we are present here is he’s not able to make it here so that’s part of the you
know request for the adjournment so that he can address the Board directly in addition to
whatever research we might be able to present to you. I think it’s important to have his
comments on the public record and given that we just need a little bit of time to do our own
research review the amended site plan I think it would be you know prudent just to give him an
opportunity to have public comment.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER : He’s looking for an adjournment.
MATTHEW MCCORMICK : That’s correct I’m not looking you’re correct I’m looking for an
adjournment so that it can be back on public for public comment.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER : But can’t he submit something in writing?
MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Well he can submit anything he wants in writing and deal with that at
the next hearing that we propose for him but I think we’re in August now aren’t we?
MEMBER DANTES : I think we just review what’s in writing and make a decision at the Special
rather than have another public hearing.
T. A. DUFFY : Adjourn it to the Special Meeting we’ll consider what you put in writing the Board
will consider at that time whether to
MATTHEW MCCORMICK : No, no I understand that it’s just that that forecloses public comment
and I understand that you’re still willing to accept whatever you are in writing take in writing
but that somewhat deprives the you know the neighbor in opposition to give that public
comment and I think that’s important. I really do think that’s important for the Board to hear
that directly from him. In particular because you’re going to make we know already in advance
that they’re making an amended site plan so it’s difficult for me to come back to the client and
say well you can put it in writing but I can’t give you the opportunity to present what you want
directly to the Board based on an amended application and I completely understand I’m with
??
June 2, 2016 Regular Meeting
them we’re on the opposite side of this sometimes I understand the neighbors want to move
forward but it’s definitely a severe variance what they’re asking for. This is isn’t a minor they’re
nearly doubling the lot coverage, it’s a substantial development, it’s a substantial improvement
and renovation to a house in a lot that understand is already non-conforming so if we can work
with the neighbors give us an opportunity to even have them present something to us maybe
there’s something we can work out in the interim I think that’s the better thing to do rather
than just cutting this off
T. A. DUFFY : They’re not closing they’re adjourning to the Special at that date they’ll decide
whether to go to another public hearing or not to continue the public hearing they’re not going
they’re not making that decision right now.
MATTHEW MCCCORMICK : No I understand but I think that ultimately what would happen is
that would just make me come back here and request the same thing all over again because my
T. A. DUFFY : No you just said if he proposes something to you and you may work it out
otherwise you’re asking us to put this applicant over to August.
MATTHEW MCCORMICK : Correct unless
T. A. DUFFY : Why is it imprudent to go to two weeks and see where you guys are before we
make a decision?
MATTHEW MCCORMICK : I suppose they could if we’re at that time allowed to present the
opportunity to adjourn it again if I don’t have any you know any headway with them because in
the event we don’t then I would imagine it would be important for the opposing neighbor to be
able to deliver those public comments. That’s my fear you say okay you know we’re done we
just close it off but if you tell me at the Special Hearing we’re not able to work out an
agreement amongst ourselves or come to some common ground and then I just have to come
back here and make the same application again am I going to be permitted to make that
request at the Special Hearing? From what I understand the answer would be no because
there’s no
MEMBER DANTES : Well you can make a written letter stating his objections and what he would
like and also its advisory what his opinion is and how he feels about the project but it’s not
binding on this Board what’s binding on the Board more is precedent (inaudible)
MATTHEW MCCCORMICK : Sure no I completely understand that. I guess my point is I’d like the
client to be able to direct those comments to the Board and I don’t want to be foreclosed from
that opportunity because I’m pushed into just the Special and I understand where you’re going
??
June 2, 2016 Regular Meeting
with it I understand what his concern is I don’t want to be put off all the way to August but I
also don’t want to unfairly foreclose my client from an opportunity in presenting to the Board.
KEVIN PERRY : If I may Mr. Fitting I think has owned that house for eight years. I can’t speak to
the validity of his claim for the strip of land between the fence and the property. It’s not my
area but I do know that the that issue by itself will not be resolved by August it probably won’t
be resolved by Christmas. It’s an issue that’s going to involve title companies and more than
one attorney so it’s not going to be a quick resolution. We got news of this just yesterday
twenty four hours before this hearing.
MEMBER HORNING : What effects would postponing it or adjourning it until August
KEVING PERRY : We after we had Landmarks prove it which is to me was probably the more
serious battle because they’re looking at the entire envelope and seeing that there was ample
precedent within the village for the other kinds of variances we were looking at we’ve started
to speak to contractors. We haven’t entered into contract yet but you know we’ve gotten it
down to taking some preliminary pricing from plumbers and electricians. If we’re going to be
forced to wait for the resolution of this land issue which is not going to be strictly in the
Campbell’s control construction is delayed it’s almost indefinitely.
MEMBER DANTES : And Landmarks were public hearings held before Town Boards?
KEVIN PERRY : No they were held Landmark hearings were held with Landmarks. There was a
preliminary sketch plan meeting which is not publicly advertised and then there was a publicly
advertised for a thirty day period scratch that I don’t remember the advance period but we
then had a public hearing some time ago.
MATTHEW MCCORMICK : We don’t object to it coming back on earlier I understand August
might be your earliest time. If you guys can fit it in at a time between August and then the
neighbor’s not objecting to that we’re willing to come back as soon as you can possibly hear it
so the fact that it’s to August is not of the applicant’s doing that’s just a result of the calendar.
Just like today the result of the calendar is the applicant isn’t here the opposing neighbor isn’t
here. This is his first opportunity to make a public comment on the application so as much as it
might be equally unfair to put them to August you could say it’s equally unfair to not give the
opportunity to the neighbor to make that comment directly.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Well wasn’t your client notified through mail?
MATTHEW MCCORMICK : He was but simply because he was notified only when did the
mailings go out the 13 th?
??
June 2, 2016 Regular Meeting
KEVIN PERRY : He called me the day that he received it. I told him I was a resident in Orient as
well and that I’d be happy to give him a personal walk through the presentation.
MEMBER DANTES : About what day was that?
KEVIN PERRY : It was Monday following the mailing.
MATTHEW MCCORMICK : So you’re talking ten days ago.
KEVIN PERRY : I have the date in my notes somewhere.
MATTHEW MCCORMICK : You know it’s that’s not sufficient time. The applicant has sufficient
time to put their application together from the day they start doing a permit an opposing
neighbor doesn’t until they get notice of it.
MEMBER HORNING : Sir may I ask your client why is he unable to be here today?
MATTHEW MCCORMICK : He had prior engagements. I couldn’t tell you specifically what they
are but he wasn’t and it also would necessitated our immediate representation so I mean
leaving aside the fence issue it’s I think it is important for the neighbor to be able to make a
public statement on the application and I understand the Board’s concern about moving it
along for the applicant and I’m certainly not asking you to hold it up to August. If there’s time
period under which you could put it between then and today we’re certainly willing to do that.
I’m not asking specifically that it go to August. It’s just that’s the result of where your calendar
goes.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Okay anything else?
MATTHEW MCCCORMICK : No that’s all.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Then I make a motion to adjourn to the Special Meeting.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Second.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER : All in favor?
MEMBER HORNING : Aye.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Aye.
MEMBER DANTES : Aye.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Aye.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Subject to a new site plan.
??
June 2, 2016 Regular Meeting
(See Minutes for Resolution)
KEVIN PERRY : I’ll have new drawings to you Monday and I’ll send copies to Mr. Fitting.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER : As soon as he gets us the drawings check with the office and you can get
your copy and discuss it with your client.
MATTHEW MCCORMICK : Okay what’s the date for the Special.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER : For the Special June 16 th.
MATTHEW MCCORMICK : What’s your time period under which to submit written comments?
MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Up to June 16 th. I mean yea before the meeting.
MATTHEW MCCORMICK : Only because I’m asking to the extent that the applicant submits
something June 14 th that only gives me two days to
MEMBER DANTES : Mr. Perry if you can just email him your revised site plan
MATTHEW MCCORMICK : Yea that would make it a lot easier.
MEMBER DANTES : that way he won’t come back and say I just got it today and I didn’t have a
chance to review it.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER : And you have to cc the Board as well so we you know to your benefit
then we know
KEVIN PERRY : If you’d like I’ll send
MEMBER SCHNEIDER : It should all go through us though.
KEVIN PERRY : Since reproduction of these large format sheets can be hard I’ll send it overnight
mail.
MATTHEW MCCORMICK : We don’t have an objection to him sending it to my email. I just don’t
want to get it the day before that it comes to this Board the day before and I say okay now I
have to run up to the Town Board the day
KEVIN PERRY : It will be issued Monday. These are three changes to an auto cad drive it’s very
light.
MATTHEW MCCORMICK : Yea we have no objection to that.
??
June 2, 2016 Regular Meeting
MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Nevertheless whatever you send to him you should cc our office as well
with an email so you can all say yes that is the drawing that I sent him so we’re all on the same
page. Okay we’re good? Thank you gentlemen.
??