HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-10/06/2016 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
October 6, 2016
9:25 A.M.
Board Members Present:
LESLIE KANES WEISMAN -Chairperson/Member
ERIC DANTES— Member (Absent)
GERARD GOEHRINGER— Member (left at 12:55 P.M.)
GEORGE HORNING — Member
KENNETH SCHNElDER— Mem ber
KIM FUENTES— Board Assistant
WILLIAM DUFFY—Town Attorney
October 6, 2016 Regular Meeting
INDEX OF HEARINGS
Hearing Page
Lauren Beck#6994 3 - 5
Peter and Meredith Rugg#6989 6 - 11
Marc and Deirdre Sokol #6992 11 - 21
Absolute Improvements Inc./John Costanzo#6988 21 - 27
Virginia and Michael Bontje#6982 27 - 33
Ira and Susan Akselrad #6986 34 -42
Max and Jimena Faerber#6991 42 -46
Planning Board of the Town of Southold #6976 46 - 67
October 6, 2016 Regular Meeting
HEARING #6994— LAUREN BECK
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The first hearing before the Board is for Lauren Beck which is
application #6994. That is a request for variances from Article XXIII Section 280-124 and the
Building Inspector's July 12, 2016 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for building
permit to construct additions and alterations to an existing single family dwelling at 1)
proposed addition located at less than the code required minimum side yard setback of 20 feet
located at 250 Pine Tree Court in Cutchogue. Is there someone here to represent the applicant?
Would you please state and spell your name for the record.
JOSEPH GULMI : Sure my name is Joseph Gulmi and I'm here as a representative for this
application of Lauren Beck.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright so it appears that the proposed additions and alterations will
have a single side yard setback of 15 feet where the code requires 20 feet is that correct?
JOSEPH GULMI :That is correct.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It looks like you're expanding an existing room on the southwest
side of the house. It's about 10 by 12.4?
JOSEPH GULMI :That's correct.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : What else would you like us to know about the application?
JOSEPH GULMI : Well the location of the property is somewhat secluded from the rest of the
neighborhood. This is consistent I think with the renovation is consistent with homes in the
area. It's a heavily wooded property. It's really not visible from any of the adjoining properties
and the area in question amounts to about 15 to 18 square feet. It's somewhat diminimus. I
don't think it'll have any impact whatsoever. I've spoken to my neighbor who's property does
adjoin abut mine. They're not concerned about it and you really have no line of sight to the
actual 5 foot encroachment.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay. Let's see if the Board has any questions. We've all as you
know been out to visit the sight.
October 6, 2016 Regular Meeting
JOSEPH GULMI : Yes by the way the woodpecker has enlarged the hole enormously it's an
amazing creature.
MEMBER HORNING : Was he there today?
JOSEPH GULMI : He was there all right up to nightfall. I have no idea what he's doing.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We're lucky to have woodpeckers in the vicinity.
JOSEPH GULMI : Absolutely I just wish he wasn't such a frequent visitor.
CHAIRPERSON WIESMAN : Okay well Ken you have any questions or comments?
MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Just a comment about how far is the adjoining dwelling away from your
property line about the neighbor?
JOSEPH GULMI : I would say about 70 feet at least maybe more and the area between the two
homes are it's a woodland area and we've landscaped our side of it I mean that's about the
distance.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER : I noticed on the survey it says a framed shed to be removed.
JOSEPH GULMI : There is a shed that I put on railroad ties several years ago which I'll take
down. It was a temporary structure that became much more permanent. Also I might add that
my the adjoining property their garage which is in the front of their house is closer to the
property line than the actual home. It's a detached garage but it's not even near the proposed
site.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well that's useful information the setbacks for accessory structures
is less than principal structures like the dwelling but it's still pertinent. Thank you.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Okay no further questions from me.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Gerry?
MEMBER GOEHRINGER : No. This gentleman before us is very, very good to show us the entire
area around showed me the entire area around and I'm aware of everything that's going on
that he's requesting.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : George anything?
MEMBER HORNING : Just to ask if sir if you had considered any alternative designs that would
have made your request for a variance unnecessary?
October 6, 2016 Regular Meeting
JOSEPH GULMI : Actually one of the things that we had considered this is on the southwest
corner on the west side of the house where the west side of that room all of the utilities come
into the house. The electric lines we had buried they run into the house, there's gas that runs
into the house on that side, there's oil the oil tank and the oil fill is on the west side of the
house that's the only other wall that we could of expanded. Anywhere else it there's no usable
space in the house to gain access if we had built an addition so the cost of construction and the
fact that the utilities are located there was a serious consideration the engineering that would
be involved. Furthermore we would then have to make a change in the roof design which also
adds to the cost considerably. We'd be changing direction we'd actually be moving out on the
west side of the house so that was another factor that we had considered but in the end they
seemed to be very cost prohibitive. Additionally if I built out on the west side I would then be
pushing access to the side yard and to the back yard almost within 10 or 15 feet of the property
line. I'd have to remove all of the existing stone work there so it was considerably more
expensive and a lot more difficult. I'm not really sure you know the actual cost but we had
people come in and look at it and they told us it was an expensive proposition to do it that way.
MEMBER HORNING :Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay is there anyone in the audience who wishes to address the
application? Okay hearing no further questions or comments I make a motion to close the
hearing reserve decision to a later date. Is there a second?
MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Second.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor?
MEMBER HORNING : Aye.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Aye.
MEMBER SCHNElDER : Aye.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye.
(See Minutes for Resolution)
October 6, 2016 Regular Meeting
HEARING #6989— PETER and MEREDITH RUGG
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application is for Peter and Meredith Rugg #6989. This is a
request for variances from Article XXIII Section 280-122 and the Building Inspector's May 6,
2016 amended July 28, 2016 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for building permit
to construct additions and alterations to an existing nonconforming accessory building with a
conforming use by adding a second floor at 1) the proposed additions to the accessory building
will constitute an increase in the degree of non-conformance located at Munnatawket Avenue
on Fisher's Island. Steve good morning would you state your name for the record please.
STEPHEN HAM : Stephen Ham 38 Nugent St. Southampton for the applicants. I have a
memorandum for
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : What a surprise.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER : We haven't seen you in a while sir.
STEPHEN HAM : So the memorandum goes thru the variance standards they're a couple of
things that I just want to point out. This accessory building that's the subject of this application
was granted a variance for a front yard location in the year 2000 by this Board and as there are
three conditions to the approval at that time and one had to do with setbacks from
Munnatawket Avenue. One had to do with screening and the third had to do with keeping it
consistent with accessory uses and dimensions for accessory buildings. I maintain in the memo I
address the various issues but I want to point out that this particular building I believe could be
built under that variance that was granted in 2000. It's not changing its location so it meets the
current the setbacks that were established when it was built that we're consistent with the
approval granted in 2000. The Rugg's are willing to allow this evergreen hedge row to grow so
that the additional height can be screened and the third condition had to do to make sure it
was consistent in all other respects other than its front yard location to the rules for accessory
structures and buildings and although it's increasing in height and if the improvement is
approved is if the variance is granted and the improvement is made it is consistent with the
height for this zone district for accessory structures and it's use will be for permitted uses in the
R80 zone district. Mr. Rugg is here if there are technical questions concerning the building or
anything you might have that I might not be able to answer.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The Town Engineer has submitted some comments to us and has
suggested that the second floor addition would have to comply with Chapter 236 of the
drainage code that is the town's drainage code meaning gutters and leaders and so on which
I'm assuming is likely to have been installed anyway but I just want the record to reflect that we
October 6, 2016 Regular Meeting
have that information in our record. Let's see where so the height that you're proposing is
conforming at 22 feet. It's 55 feet from the street.
STEPHEN HAM : It's consistent with that 2000 decision which I have attached to the
memorandum so you can see the conditions that were imposed at that time.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So it's a workshop and a half bath on the second proposed second
floor that's being considered here. Okay let's start with George down there.
MEMBER HORNING : Utilities in the building then are going to be proposed to be half bath?
STEPHEN HAM : A half bath, a basin would be and I don't know about lighting
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You have to come to the microphone.
MR. RUGG : Good morning board members my name is Peter Rugg. The existing structure has
power and cold water. We may add a small water heater for washing your hands and other
things but that's all we need.
MEMBER HORNING : I must say I drove by there, stopped there the other day in fact I did not
notice an evergreen hedge row. You talk about an existing vegetation and things like that but
I'm not sure that you actually completed the condition number two of the previous decision
with required screened, shielded from direct view of Munnatawket Avenue by the planting of
an evergreen hedge row adjacent to and in full length of that side of the building. I didn't notice
that over there.
MR. RUGG : Mr. Horning that row of rhododendrons and evergreen was planted as soon as the
structure was completed. They've grown quite high above the edge of the roofline by now and
as Mr. Ham has stated we'd be happy to let them grown higher if there's additional planting
that the Board would like we could certainly accommodate that as well but we were under the
impression that what was there was in full compliance with the Board's orders from 2000.
MEMBER HORNING : Well I mean if you could see the building and the requirement is to have it
completely shielded from view then the requirement really hasn't been met.
MR. RUGG : I understand your point. There are additional there's additional growth between
the building and Munnatawket Avenue including a large Cryptomeria a Korean dogwood,
couple of large other plants that are providing additional screening. I recognize that when one
is driving past the driveway it is possible to see up the driveway and see the north side of the
building but it's the west side that faces Munnatawket Avenue that's completely screened.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Thank you sir anything else George?
October 6, 2016 Regular Meeting
MEMBER HORNING : Yea the LWRP the coordinator determined that the project was
inconsistent how are you going to
STEPHEN HAM : I was afraid you were going to ask about that. I have an additional
memorandum for that. My memorandum addresses what I believe to be the law and that is
that this application should not even be before be subject to review by the LWRP coordinator. It
fits within two maybe three definitions of minor action under that law and I had a conversation
with Mark Terry. I pointed this out he said that he would look into it got back to me, I had an
email from him and he said the decision stands. I address why I think that decision is incorrect
in my memorandum both in terms of the literal meaning of the law as well as his rational.
There's a clear section in the LWRP in Chapter 268 and I'll point one of them I identify three of
them one of which has to do with your variance making authority but the one I point out is
where the ground area of an existing building and there's no net increase in it then that is
considered a minor action and minor actions are not subject to review by the under that
statute. Mr. Terry having consulted with the Town Attorney got back to me and said the
decision his decision will stand because and maybe Mr. Duffy can explain this but the reasoning
that I was given was oh that's different because this is an increase in the degree of non-
conformity as opposed I supposed to if you have an existing conforming situation and your
Board is asked to grant a variance that's a change from conformity to non-conformity as
opposed to an increase in the degree of non-conformity which is my case. I submit and I argue
in that memorandum that there's no practical difference. It's a distinction without a difference.
You as a Board that's what you do. You grant variances and the policy that he cited in his
memorandum to you was a zoning consideration that everything should the policy of the town
is to have everyone adhere to the zoning regulations. Well, you'd be out of business. I mean
that's your job is to deal with situations where variances and changes to the application of
zoning regulations are necessary so that's the point I make in the memorandum. Now, if you
agree with Mr. Terry that this is an inconsistent how to we deal with it well the policy that he
cites Mr. Horning is a zoning that's the it has nothing to do with anything environmental,
coastal, waterfront whatever. It's a zoning regulation that he cites as being impacted by the
community I think it talks about erosion of the character of the community because the zoning
regulation is not being adhered to. Well you as a Board can decide under your usual application
of the criteria for the granting of area variances you can in my opinion and under that statute
find a consistency here otherwise everything that came before you would be inconsistent under
that law.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : There's one other reference which is the character of the
neighborhood and so and that is certainly one of our standards so let me ask you are there
other accessory structures in front yards that you're aware of in that area along that particular
road or nearby?
October 6, 2016 Regular Meeting
STEPHEN HAM : No I'm not aware of any are you Peter?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Sorry would you just come to the mic.
MR. RUGG : Because it's a corner lot the front yard is difficult to define. It faces the water
although it's not on the water. The view from the water of the house looks like it's the front of
the house which would actually say that this structure is in the back but technically because it's
a corner lot and that's the access to the house it's considered the front lot. In terms of the rest
of the neighborhood right across the street is a landscaping and commercial operation. They
don't actually have any outbuildings but there's a huge there are huge piles of rocks and mulch
and firewood and things like that. It's not the kind of neighborhood in that particular area that
the local store is down the street and around the corner is the electric power company and a
gas station so it's right on the edge of a commercial section of town where the outbuilding
being in the front yard may not have the same impact as it might in another totally residential
area.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Thank you.
STEPHEN HAM : Further in the other in the 2000 variance your Board found that there was a
sloping terrain which made a rear yard location for an accessory structure impractical.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : There's no proposed increase in the footprint on this property on
this accessory structure rather, all of the setbacks are to remain as built?
STEPHEN HAM : Correct.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay anything from you Gerry?
MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Yes. I was just suggesting that since the original 2000 decision required
the foliage that we think is already planted why don't you just send us a picture of the foliage
so that we can put everything to bed and that's it?
STEPHEN HAM : And further they're willing to accept a condition that it be satisfactory to your
Board. Perhaps you want to make it a condition to a C.O. once it's completed that if necessary
that would be alright Peter?
MEMBER GOEHRINGER : You are going to conform to Chapter 236 though putting in the
drainage and so on?
STEPHEN HAM : Well I'll point it out to the architects certainly yea.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yea they're going to have to just wanted to put it on the record
because we had comments from the Town Engineer.
October 6, 2016 Regular Meeting
MEMBER HORNING : I'm concerned how we address this LWRP, policy one I'll read it into this
thing I mean cause I'm a little confused by it, foster a pattern of development in the Town of
Southold that enhances community character, preserves open space, makes efficient use of
infrastructure, makes beneficial use of a coastal location and minimizes adverse effects of
development. The applicant testified he's not on the shore so it's really I don't know how it's
deemed to be a coastal location since it's not on the water at all. How do we mitigate what this
guy says because we have to find it consistent somehow?
STEPHEN HAM : I understand. You can overrule him and find it consistent because you find that
the standards of a variance are present in this case otherwise if every variance application in
this town would be inconsistent everyone not just ones that increase the degree of non-
conformity.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I see your point.
STEPHEN HAM : please read my memo.
T.A. DUFFY : Granting of the variance would make it consistent with the LWRP.
STEPHEN HAM : I'm sorry what?
T.A. DUFFY :The granting of the variance would make it consistent with the LWRP.
STEPHEN HAM :Just by granting it.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yea correct and we can put we will have to put that information in
the section of the decision that references the LWRP that and the fact that it's screened from
generally screened from public view will also mitigate adverse impacts if there's a condition
there
STEPHEN HAM : To the extent that the town is unhappy with the existing screening the Rugg's
are pleased to accommodate to the extent practical absolutely.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is it reasonable to just ask you to take a few digital pictures and
email them into the office and then Kim will forward them to us just simply because we don't
have the benefit of a site inspection other than George who's obviously on Fishers Island he
does all those inspections and we're unable the rest of the board members
STEPHEN HAM : Right and the photographs I sent in were taken in the winter too so it's sort of
hard to see.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay that makes sense anything from you Ken?
October 6, 2016 Regular Meeting
MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Nope no questions.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anyone in the audience wishing to address the application? Hearing
no further questions or comments I make a motion to close the hearing subject to receipt of
photographs of the existing landscaping screening the subject accessory structure. Is there a
second?
MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Second.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor?
MEMBER HORNING : Aye.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Aye.
MEMBER SCHNElDER : Aye.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye.
(See Minutes for Resolution)
HEARING #6992— MARC and DEIRDRE SOKOL
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Marc and Deirdre Sokol
#6992. This is a request for variances from Article III Section 280-15 and Article XXII Section
280-105C(3) and the Building Inspector's July 8, 2016 Notice of Disapproval based on an
application for building permit to construct accessory structures and erect a deer fence at 1)
proposed additions located in other than the code permitted rear yard, 2) proposed deer fence
located in other than the code permitted side or rear yards located at 308 Park Avenue (adj. to
Great Peconic Bay) good morning Mike would you please state your name.
MIKE KIMACK : Good morning Michael Kimack for the applicant who is in the audience today.
I'd like to break my presentation into two parts. The first dealing with the accessory structures I
would bring your attention to the new survey that I have given you and point out some of the
changes from the old one which were minor in detail first. If you look at it in the lower right
hand corner there was an existing wood walk that had been relocated a little bit to the east
from its original location on the survey about maybe ten feet or so as was the existing wood
October 6, 2016 Regular Meeting
staircase to bring it more into conformance with the passage with the foot passageway. The
original location put it on the property line and actually over the property line. On top of that
there's a blue stone fire pit shown proposed which has been constructed. I checked with the
Building Department and that did not require a building permit but the thing is that we wanted
to be able to give you an accurate survey because this survey will also be presented to the
Trustees and I didn't want your survey to be out of conformance with their survey. In addition
to that the corner of the proposed deer fence has been altered to a forty five degree angle
coming down the hill. I'll talk about the deer fence in a separate issue and then also the
driveway which is within your jurisdiction barely but it's not something that requires a variance
has been changed to have a swing around up in the upper left hand corner of the property
rather than just a square coming into the garage. Other than that the proposed structures on
the ground are the existing as built deck which does not extend any further seaward than the
original one but was squared off if you can see the original location of the deck inside its
contours there. The pool is to the west of that lining up with the front of the deck and the patio
then surrounds it. The pool and the proposed patio's location really are the only place that the
pool and patio can be placed on the property it doesn't have another location to be moved to in
order to be in conformance or to work with the deck and work with the house itself and it also
ties back into the driveway coming around to going into the two car garage. Yes George.
MEMBER HORNING : Mike I was wondering if you could just point show us where the rear yard
is.
MIKE KI MACK :The rear yard?
MEMBER HORNING : Yea I mean cause that's the swimming pool and the pergola and hot tub
supposed to be an accessory structures in the rear yard you know you're proposing it in a side
yard or partial side yard where is the rear yard?
MIKE KIMACK : They had determined that the rear yard is along the bank George. They
determined that the front is as I understand it the front yard is on the north side of the
property.
MEMBER HORNING :That's the rear yard?
MIKE KIMACK : No that's the front.
MEMBER HORNING : Yea okay.
MIKE KIMACK : That's the front basically yes you're right it's partially to the side only because
that's the only way we can fit it in there basically.
October 6, 2016 Regular Meeting
MEMBER HORNING : I just want to ask you where is technically where is the rear yard and is
this
MIKE KIMACK :The rear yard is the Great Peconic Bay.
MEMBER HORNING : Okay so in other words the pool and stuff would have to be conforming it
would have to be shifted in southerly from the house to be in the rear yard?
MIKE KIMACK : Well to be conforming it would have to shifted easterly basically in order to get
behind the house completely. George let me suggest the other thing too is looking at this is the
property extends all the way up to the road and there's a driveway coming back in.
MEMBER HORNING : I mean Mike I was confused I was there yesterday as well and I don't know
where the rear yard is to tell you the truth.
MIKE KIMACK : Well when they wrote the disapproval up they wrote it as other than the rear
yard basically on that one.
MEMBER HORNING : Yea that's why I'm asking where is the rear yard.
MIKE KIMACK : And they basically it would also work I mean the requirement of a variance
would also work if they treated the private road as a front then it would be the side. It works
either way to be a side yard. Probably more of a side yard if the private driveway they're
considering that to be the front where the driveway comes in.
MEMBER HORNING : Yea well that would be a logical way of thinking about it.
MIKE KIMACK : Yea they might have considered that. They didn't explicitly say that when they
wrote up the Disapproval primarily they just indicated that it was other than the rear yard.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The proposed hot tub just as the deck is as built now it's not
proposed its existing correct?
MIKE KIMACK :The patio had been built correct and
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :The hot tub is sitting on it.
MIKE KIMACK :There's a hot tub sitting on it?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yea.
MIKE KIMACK :Then it's an as built.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Last time I looked I was probably
October 6, 2016 Regular Meeting
MIKE KIMACK :The last time I looked it was the last time I was there it was off to the side.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yea well okay now it's sitting there.
MIKE KIMACK : Okay so now it's sitting there you got the location of the proposed hot tub with
its patio, the as built wood deck obviously
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And the pool is staked out.
MIKE KIMACK : The pool is staked out as well as the patios staked out on that one side and then
also which is not staked out and I pointed out to you is the concrete the proposed concrete pad
for the air conditioning units. I'm not quite sure if that falls within it falls within the hundred
feet but I don't know if it falls within your purvey but I did want to point that out to you.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No it's not of any concern.
MIKE KIMACK : And the driveway changed location would not be something that you would be
interested in but there again it's a much more accurate description of what's on the property
and that's why I wanted to get the plan to you.
MEMBER HORNING : Mike can I make one other point about the front and rear yards. In terms
of the deer fencing that could make a difference too.
MIKE KIMACK : It's still front either way because the deer fence goes all the way around correct
it does but I is there any other questions on the accessory structures on the property?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No not from me I don't know from anybody else.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER : They have a conforming side yard setback.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Side yard setback is conforming or it would have been cited.
MIKE KIMACK : It would have been cited exactly it's just that
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's just the partial location.
MIKE KIMACK : It's the location and our position is that really from the houses structure and
from the movement into the deck area that was really the only place to put the pool that made
any kind of sense. I know that your responsibility is to say is there any way to ameliorate the
situation and our response to that is to have a pool this is the logical and really the only feasible
location with the patio around it and then the hot tub of course is on the other side.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And you're proposing a 40 foot setback for the swimming pool is
that correct?
October 6, 2016 Regular Meeting
MIKE KIMACK : Only because yea it lines up yes because the top of the bank curves back it's
obviously much more room in the front where the stone steps come down there's a lot more
over there than there is on the forty foot side but because it curves back but we kept that
straight line coming across I mean that was really the only way to do it to neck it in so that we
would from the decks point of view we were nowhere further seaward than the deck had
extended but then of course the bank curved back in at that particular location so there really
wasn't much
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well the Trustees will be reviewing your bulkhead setback at 74.3
feet is that correct?
MIKE KIMACK : I believe that's the case yes they'll be looking at that. That application is in.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay so this could be subject conditioned based upon approval from
the Trustees correct?
MIKE KIMACK : Yes.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let's walk us through the proposed deer fencing the elevation that's
all because it's on the water it's lower the height proposed as a picket fence I presume that
picket fence is lower than the deer fencing you're proposing.
MIKE KIMACK : It is. What we're proposing here is yes a deer fence around the property.
However what I did is I took a series of photos that you have and you may look at and say why
did Mike take a picture of all the surrounding vegetation? Because in this particular instance
the deer fence is going to be up against a privet line which is higher all the way around the
property in essence on the north side and the west side there's (inaudible) right there and the
private road side there is already an existing vegetation line all the way around higher than
eight feet for the property. When you get down so that when you put when we proposed to put
that fence up it really is simply to keep the deer out and I'll let Mr. Sokol speak to that
reasoning it doesn't it's from a visual point of view it's really going to be minimized greatly.
There's you're really not going to be able to see the fence as a standing alone fence as you do
around most of the vineyards and so. This is all going to be priveted. On the west side and I'll let
Mr. Sokol talk of this also he has already discussed this with his neighbors one thing on the
north side if you look at the fence location the fence location on the north side is on the inside
of the privet because he had been in discussion with his neighbor in order to keep that so that
there is absolutely no visible aspect to the fence at all on the north side with the neighbor it's
on the inside. It's on the outside down the private walkway but as you can see there's privet on
the other side and there really isn't any reason to once you put it up against the green you're
not going to be able to see it. On the east side there is a the neighbor now is constructing a new
October 6, 2016 Regular Meeting
house and I understand from the discussions with the neighbor he's going to put up a I'm sorry
the west side he's going to put up a privet line after the fence is put in against the fence so the
fence will come inside and be completely hidden from there. The one thing I will point out that
is a change in the fence and yes the picket fence along the walkway is four foot high I'm sorry
along the bank along the waterside that's four feet. Until it gets to the eastern side over there it
comes down the bank at a forty five the original survey showed it coming straight down and
then coming across they chose to do that. What we would suggest and it's not showing on the
survey is that we would be acceptable of the fact of planting privets along that eight foot line
until it gets to the four foot line so that from the water view the only thing you're really going
to see is the four foot fence and not the eight foot deer fence.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Just making notes that's what taking the time here.
MIKE KIMACK : It's I know that generally that a deer fence raises concerns and that's one of the
reasons that when we looked at this particular thing we recognized that the deer fence the way
it's proposed is really going to really look as much a part of the privet line as anything and
where it's going to be except on the north side it's not going to be visible because the inside of
the privet is it'll be a double privet row on the inside of the double privet on the private drive
side there's another row of privets on the other side of that so it's not visible there and then
from the waterside there's no eight foot fence except for that little corner which we will bring
the privet line down the rest of it is a four foot high picket wood fence basically on the bank.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :That required Trustee approval also?
MIKE KIMACK :The four foot one?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yea.
MIKE KIMACK : It's within their jurisdiction.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yea they'll be looking at it.
MIKE KIMACK : Yea they'll take a look at it.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And probably that portion of the proposed deer fencing that's
actually sitting on the slope.
MIKE KIMACK : Yes, yes basically and
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well anything within what is it a hundred feet is within their
jurisdiction so they'll look at all of that.
October 6, 2016 Regular Meeting
MIKE KIMACK : Well either the bank or the yea I mean they've got it's all covered basically in
their jurisdiction. I'd like Mr. Sokol to come up and go through some of this on the deer fences,
the discussions with his neighbors and also one of the reasons why he wants to put the deer
fence up.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay.
MR. SOKOL : Hi I'm Mark Sokol. My wife and I own the property that's being discussed. We
have lived in Southold now for probably about ten years. We lived in Cedar Beach before.
We've experienced deer issues. We have two dogs that roam the property and we are both in-
laws have had Lyme disease. We've had brushed with it on the property and we decided that if
at all possible we want to prevent the deer from coming to the property. When we first moved
on to Park Avenue we weren't sure how much of a deer problem there was but although we
don't see a ton of them we see a lot of their remnants and so we're noticing more and more
deer and deer problems there. So as we started doing the landscaping around the house we
came to the decision if at all possible we'd like to prevent the deer from occupying the
property. So what we tried to do is to construct a plan that minimized the visibility of the deer
fence. Of course we can't have an eight foot fence on the waterside so we're trying to do this
four foot fence at the seawall. We've noticed that unlike the creeks and the Cedar Beach area
where the deer come up through the creek quite a lot here that does not happen on the bay at
least over where we are they don't we don't see deer tracks on the sand and things like that so
we believe that that would be sufficient there and what we've tried to do with the landscape
plan is to make the deer fence itself invisible. We've noticed that as deer fences become
adjacent to privet the privets will grow through them and so just to walk around the property
much like Mike did on the west side which is now Mr. Pawlowski's property the deer fence will
be on the west side of the privet hedge that we've already put up. That is actually between the
privet and a four foot I believe maybe a temporary fence that he's put up during the
construction of his house but his intention is to put up privets or arborvitae or some sort of
green. I had a conversation with him asking if he had any issues with our deer fence. He said no
not at all. Then to our immediate north are the Mary and Mel Eisenstein. The privet hedge that
existed when we purchased the house is actually right on the just on our side of the property
line that's a privet hedge that's owned by us and we maintain and we decided to put the deer
fence immediately south of that privet hedge so on our side of the property but as close to that
privet hedge as possible. Again we'll probably plant a bit on the south edge of that deer fence
but it'll be right up against the privet hedge. Our belief and what we've seen before is that it
disappears into the privet. We also actually we spoke to both the Eisenstein's and the Carrey's.
Just to let you know so that private road that is on our west I own. That private road allows
access for three properties to a portion of the beach. That beach is owned by me, maintained
by me. It has those little the little structure the deck etc. for them to use so essentially that
October 6, 2016 Regular Meeting
private road is access for three homeowners to walk down to the beach so the deer fence that's
proposed on the west side of my property is actually not anywhere near the property line. It's
on the line between my main property and the private road which I own so it's I don't know
eight or ten feet the east side I'm sorry I'm confusing myself so anyway it's like eight or ten feet
from the property line with the (inaudible). In discussions with the Eisenstein's and the Carrey's
and the people who use that little beach that's where we came to this change to have the forty
five degree angle of that deer fence so that from their little beach platform they don't feel
claustrophobic and see this deer fence around them and that's why you see that forty five
degree angle. The deer fence on that eastern edge is going to be east of the privets on the edge
of that private road. That road there's no vehicle access on that road. It's really just a road for
people a walking path maybe people carrying kayaks down to the beach so it's not going to
impinge on any sort of vehicle traffic or anything like that.
MEMBER HORNING : Mr. Sokol who has the right to use that right of way?
MR. SOKOL : There are three it's deeded to three homes. It's the home that's immediately
north of us and then there are two homes that are the next property north. They're along Park
Avenue it's the Conway's currently and the Carrey's. Those three properties have deeded
access to that eastern third or quarter of the beach. If you look at the beach you see there are
three jetties or groins between the eastern most two jetties is the area of the beach that they
have access to.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yea I was going to ask about that cause I see that it's on the other
side on the east side. It's on the easterly side of the existing privet in a right of way and I wasn't
sure who I knew it was a deeded right of way but I wasn't sure who owned that right of way.
MR. SOKOL : I own that right of way.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So that fence is on your property.
MR. SOKOL : Precisely.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Because it looked as though it might not be.
MR. SOKOL : Yea, yea no it's I own it I have to maintain that.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well I see where the property line is designated you know in dark all
the way around but it's good that we check that and just so that you're aware in case you don't
know all the Board members have been down to your property.
MR. SOKOL : I met a couple but I think that covers what I've talked to my neighbors, I have no
there are no issues and we ended up to make that change because of some neighbor comment
0
October 6, 2016 Regular Meeting
and other than that you know we feel strongly that for our own safety we'd like to maintain this
deer fence if possible. Thank you very much.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You're welcome. Let's see if there are any questions.
MIKE KIMACK : Are there any further questions of me?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Ken anything?
MEMBER SHCNEIDER : No, no questions.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Gerry?
MEMBER GOEHRINGER : What color Mike are they suggesting the deer fence to be in reference
to the point of the shortest or the lowest black plastic around steel?
SOMEONE SPEAKING FROM THE AUDIENCE : Inaudible.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : George.
MEMBER HORNING : I don't think I have any other questions other than I'm still is the right of
way the front yard I might ask that again.
MIKE KIMACK : I think it probably if you look at it they hadn't designated which one if you look
at it, it certainly makes more sense when they say other than the rear yard the side yard pool
then basically it would be a complete side yard pool. If it was the north side it's a toss-up
because half the pool is really in the rear yard as opposed to that side so perhaps when they
looked at it they did designate the easterly side along that walkway down there is the front
basically.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER : I think the distinguishing characteristic of this is that it's a flagged lot so
that helps in your argument where you may want to propose placing the deer fence. It's not like
your northern property line is a front yard to Park Avenue.
MIKE KIMACK : And once we're coming all the way around with that deer fence Ken if it was the
walkway that would still require the variance on that side and if it was the north side it would
require the variance on that side, if it was the walkway it would require the variance at least for
the front and then the north side back to the house at the particular point cause it only requires
six and half feet after that you know if that was the case so you're right but in our particular
situation since we're asking for a deer fence completely around the entire piece of property
October 6, 2016 Regular Meeting
whether it's the north or the east the end result is the same. The variance would be a
requirement.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Exactly. Yea I suspect it's the north side that they designated despite
the right of way as a front yard because otherwise they wouldn't of sited the hot tub in I guess
it's other than they did say other than.
MIKE KIMACK :They did say other than the rear yard.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So if they're confused what do you think we're supposed to be.
MIKE KIMACK : We've been there before.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well for me the you know the consideration here is that it's a dead
end essentially and the visual impact is mitigated by not only existing screening but it's location
at the end of a dead end. It's not like people are driving by it so typically if you're looking at a
standard residential street where all the houses are facing the street if you were to put up eight
foot high fencing you know it would have a very, very significant impact which is why the Town
Board chose to just do side yards and rear yards so that it was set back from that street and
didn't affect the character of the neighborhood but there are lots like this one where it's rather
confusing as to what's you know what yard is what.
MIKE KIMACK : I think the owners tried to do as much as possible to mitigate that issue by
planting a lot more of the privets all the way around you know in anticipation that they really
wanted to make it as invisible as possible.
MEMBER HORNING : One further question could you verify that the approximate distance along
that right of way from the northerly property line to Park Avenue is that around three hundred
feet as it says on the survey or what does that three hundred feet mean?
MIKE KIMACK :That is the line.
MEMBER HORNING : Up to Park Avenue?
MIKE KIMACK : Yes from there up to Park Avenue that's the meets and bounds George.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there anyone else in the audience who wishes to address the
application? Hearing no further questions or comments I make a motion to close this hearing
reserve decision to later date.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Second.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor?
October 6, 2016 Regular Meeting
MEMBER HORNING : Aye.
MEMBER GOEHRINER : Aye.
MEMBER SCHNElDER : Aye.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye.
(See Minutes for Resolution)
HEARING #6988—ABSOLUTE IMPROVEMENTS INC. /JOHN COSTANZO
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Absolute Improvements
Inc./John Costanzo. This is a request for variances from Article XXIII Section 280-124 and the
Building Inspector's June 10, 2016 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for building
permit to construct additions and alterations to an existing single family dwelling at 1)
proposed additions located at less than the code required minimum rear yard setback of 35
feet, 2) proposed additions located at less than the code required minimum side yard setback
of 10 feet, and 3) proposed additions more than the code permitted maximum lot coverage of
20% located at 80 Dogwood Lane (3200 Kenneys Road) in Southold. Morning Chris, please state
your name for the record.
CHRISTINE RIVERA : Christine Rivera on behalf of the John Costanzo.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : This looks like a rear yard setback at 6.5 feet where the code
requires 35 feet. A single side yard setback at 4 feet where the code requires 10 feet that's for
an attached deck extension and lot coverage of 24.5%, the code permitting a maximum of 20%
is that correct?
CHRISTINE RIVERA : Correct.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay so please proceed.
CHRISTINE RIVERA : I took the liberty while you were on recess to distribute a couple of
photographs of the lot and the house on it. Again this is a corner lot and the house was built in
the early 1960's on a slab and the position of the house right now I assume is what they're
calling the rear yard setback is an existing setback. What we're going to do is we're going to
October 6, 2016 Regular Meeting
tear down the two lean to sheds in the rear and also there's a shed to the side yard which are
going to come down and the total square footage of the three sheds is 154 square feet and
we're going to add a garage which is 288 square feet so the net is 134 additional square feet to
the structure that we're doing and there is absolutely no other place on the property to put this
garage because as you can see from the terrain on the right side on the corner of Kenney's Rd.
the property slants quite a bit and it's very impractical to put a garage on that location. So we
put it on to the easterly side with a nine foot setback and we brought the garage forward which
would give us a 35 foot setback from Dogwood Ave. and the deck that we're proposing is
basically slightly larger than the existing patio and front porch that is there now so it brings the
total as you mentioned before Leslie to 4.5% more than the 20% allowable by the code.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : What's that percentage?
CHRISTINE RIVERA : It's total lot coverage would be 24.5
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Right but the deck is how much?
CHRISTINE RIVERA : The deck and porch is 800 square feet and it's only slightly more than
what's existing there now. As you can see from the pictures there's a front porch that goes right
across the front of the house and the Costanzo's are going to make this their permanent
residence in approximately eighteen months and therefore they need the garage and that's
why they're tearing down the other lean-tos and the stand alone shed.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :The proposed deck is 26.6 feet by 18 feet.
CHRISTINE RIVERA : Correct.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That's really a very large deck. Is there any kind of consideration to a
slight reduction to the size of that deck therefore reduce the lot coverage?
CHRISTINE RIVERA : I don't think there's a problem with that at all. We have it at 57 % feet from
Kenney's Rd. right now but you know if that's going to be a condition I don't think it's a
problem.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well it's simply to in order to reduce some of the lot coverage so the
degree of non-conformity of the proposed lot coverage which I think given the fact that you're
going to do a step down anyway to the existing patio and there's hedgerow all around there
that screens it from the street. In fact they might want to plant even more visual screening
based on the amount of traffic on Kenney's Rd. Dogwood's quiet by Kenny's is very busy. I just
thought I'd mention it to get your reaction to that to see if you might want to amend that a
little bit in order to
October 6, 2016 Regular Meeting
CHRISTINE RIVERA : I don't think they'd have a problem with that.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay well that was my only question Ken do you have any?
MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Yea, do you know if any other properties in this neighborhood that have
excessive lot coverage similar to what you propose at 24%2 %?
CHRISTINE RIVERA : I would probably think so. As you can see from the picture this is basically a
two bedroom bungalow built on this slab in the early 60's and many of the houses there are
quite large two story structures, colonials and what not so if you're asking me the exact square
footage I don't know but I would think that when they were built they're far excessive than this
is.
MEMBER HORNING : Ma'am you have the Pre CO which says it was built before 1957 just make
a note of that.
CHRISTINE RIVERA : Okay I went to the property card and it just said 14,500 in 1959 and that's
MEMBER HORNING :There is a Pre CO was built before 1957.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER : The size of the lot is 9,449 square feet correct?
CHRISTINE RIVERA : Correct.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER : So one percent of that is almost 95 square feet. So every percentage is
95 square feet. If you cut back the deck we can get closer to a more conforming square footage
maybe like 22% that would what do you think Chairperson?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well that's I think basically I'd have to look no I would have to really
see what prior variances might have been granted, what kind of lot coverage if we're looking at
character of the neighborhood relative to lot coverage. Otherwise I guess it's sort of subjective
about the percentage the point being that our job is to grant the minimum variance that we
possibly can if justified at all and so I think the Board is just trying to see what makes some sort
of reasonable sense. Maybe we should just let them talk it over and amend their application to
the greatest extent that you think is practical.
CHRISTINE RIVERA : If you do want I think it would be most practical to bring it to consider the
rear yard there where those lean-tos are to bring a deck from the back of the house so to speak
we cut off a couple of feet of that I don't think that would be a problem because they really
want to be on the Dogwood section of the property because of the beautiful water there even
though it's a thousand feet away it's still
October 6, 2016 Regular Meeting
MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Oh what you're saying they want to retain the proposed porch is that
what you're saying?
CHRISTINE RIVERA : The front porch is going to be torn down and replaced with a deck a front
porch made out of decking material and to be carried around to the westerly side of the
property but if we need to reduce the 18 by 25 foot deck I would probably take that off that
back of the house you know where the six foot setback is now. I certainly think we could cut off
a couple of feet and still maintain what they really need as far as a patio is concerned.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yea because you know there's a substantial slope the house is much
higher than the road however it slopes down so where the patio is it's kind of below the house
so you know obviously sight lines and privacy are a concern. Why don't we do this Christine if
the Board I'll see if the Board has any other questions but we could I guess we could ask you to
just amend your application after thinking through how you might cut this lot coverage back a
little bit and submit that to us. Does that make sense to you Ken?
MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Yea. I think there's room to move with that lot coverage for sure. I
understand the difficulty it's obvious because of the setback issue its pre-existing conditions but
certainly the lot coverage I think we could work with.
CHRISTINE RIVERA : Well you tell me I mean I'm sure the Costanzo's are agreeable if you want
22% I'm sure that we could probably accommodate that without a problem.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well I think that 2% is pretty small given there are a lot of dwellings
along Soundview for example and to some extent on Kenneys that are similar kinds of
structures similar kind of dwellings on they're not corner lots. Most of them are not corner lots
but they're probably about the same size and so this particular bungalow is pretty characteristic
of the neighborhood though a number of the homes have been renovated and improved in fact
we just had a variance right on the corner of Soundview and Kenneys for a front yard setback.
So why don't we aim for 22 if that makes sense to the Board.
CHRISTINE RIVERA : If you look at there is an existing sliding door there now. If I cut it back to
just maybe
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Where the door is
CHRISTINE RIVERA : Where the door is that should be if my calculations are correct
approximately you know 80 to 100 square feet maybe more so you know
October 6, 2016 Regular Meeting
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So what we could do to expedite this is deny as applied for for the
lot coverage and grant alternative relief of 22% and let you proceed to go ahead and work it
out. Then we don't have to wait, we don't have to hold you up.
CHRISTINE RIVERA :That would be great.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anything from you Gerry?
MEMBER GOEHRINGER : No I think that's a great idea I really do. It's always a problem when a
house is on a slab and so on and so forth and they don't want to go to a second story cause
then you gotta tear everything up.
CHRISTINE RIVERA : And a second story right now is they were contemplating a second story to
be honest with you with a new septic system and the septic system had to go on the westerly
side and it was a high water table. It had to be an enclosed septic system and it was cost
prohibited you know so they really scrapped that whole idea. They just decided add a garage
and call it a day basically.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER : It is what it is. There's some big rocks there too.
CHRISTINE RIVERA : I know there's a huge boulder that
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That whole area is full of clay and glacial boulders. I have one in my
basement I live on Soundview. It's right in my foundation. It's my corner stone I call it.
CHRISTINE RIVERA :That's unique that's a first for me.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well I built an addition and you know unfortunately the excavator
piled up all the backfill right where the boulder is so he couldn't roll it so I had to design
formwork around this big boulder to pour the concrete around it just crazy. That's that
neighborhood drainage problems.
CHRISTINE RIVERA : So if I understand correctly I'll reduce it to relief would be given at 22% am I
correct?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : What you would need to do once a decision is rendered is to submit
cause it's alternative relief a final survey showing that amended application and probably you
know where the percentage of decking and so on and so lot coverage. We will stamp that and
send it to Building and then you can proceed.
CHRISTINE RIVERA : And I will either try to bring it off the back combination just make it
October 6, 2016 Regular Meeting
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That's fine it's really up to you how to do it I mean we're not going
to design it we just want to try and reduce the variance.
CHRISTINE RIVERA : Very acceptable. Thank you.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Just to be clear the rear yard setback of 6% feet is to the proposed
garage?
CHRISTINE RIVERA : No that is to the existing house.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :That's what's there. They're going to remove those sheds.
CHRISTINE RIVERA : The proposed garage those two lean too sheds I think one even has an old
fashioned pump in it or something. Those two sheds in the back the lean-to's are coming down
so the house is not we're not increasing the non-conformity of that.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER : The 6% feet rear yard setback is to what again the house?
CHRISTINE RIVERA : No, right now on the let me just get this right.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER : I'm looking at the southerly property line of the dwelling and it looks like
a four foot an existing four foot what are they calling that a side yard setback. This one here
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well this is listed at 5.6 feet.
CHRISTINE RIVERA :This is 5.6 and that's coming down
MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Yea I know. The house is what 4?
CHRISTINE RIVERA : So this is skewed it's not 4.2 here that will remain and these two come
down (inaudible away from microphone) because it's slightly off the property line.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So all that's coming off but it looks as though because it's skewed
the setback along the rear varies somewhat. They cited it at 6.4 feet.
CHRISTINE RIVERA : Yea because this one here is about 6.4 because you see it's not on the
property line and this is 4.2 so it's
MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Okay, okay so it's and the garage is proposed at a conforming setback?
CHRISTINE RIVERA : Yea this is 30 some odd
MEMBER SCHNEIDER : The proposed garage.
CHRISTINE RIVERA : Yea. We're bringing it off the back 35 feet to the deck.
October 6, 2016 Regular Meeting
MEMBER SCHNEIDER : What's this 6 feet 6 inches?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :That's probably where the existing shed is.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER : But TBR is to be removed right?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yea.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Okay I was confused.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :The garage is in the side yard.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER : I would say that's the rear yard.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Here we go again. Every time we deal with these corner lots I have
one myself I should really anything else George, everybody good? I'm going to make a motion
to close this hearing reserve decision to later date. Is there a second?
MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Second.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor?
MEMBER HORNING : Aye.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Aye.
MEMBER SCHNElDER : Aye.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye.
(See Minutes for Resolution)
HEARING #6982—VIRGINIA and MICHAEL BONTJE
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Virginia and Michael
Bontje #6982 and that's been previously adjourned from October 6t" so we don't need to read
the legal notice into the record again. Mr. Bontje we have your comments based upon your
discussion with the Trustees and we have an email that we've received yesterday from John
Bredemeyer who reviewed your letter and he I think I'll do you have copy you wouldn't have a
October 6, 2016 Regular Meeting
copy let me read it to you so you can address it. Per our brief conversation yesterday he's
saying to me read the above referenced letter which is at slight variance from my recollection
of my discussion with Mr. Bontje on September 30th. It is advisable that Mr. Bontje develop
plans certain for the drainage attributes he indicated are possible for both a sanitary system
and site drainage and immediately start those reviews with the town Engineering Department
and Suffolk County Department of Health Services as they may compel design changes from the
plans now before us. When the SCDHS and town reviews are nearing completion in anticipation
of approvals we might reconsider who is on first with any new submission or amended
application. Now I emailed him back and asked him to provide comments with regard to the
rear yard setback where there was a rock revetment you know there's not a bulkhead but some
rip rap and once we have that information I believe we will have enough of the comments that
we need from the Trustees. While I very much appreciate your letter and its substance our
obligation to the other town agencies is to get that information from them. This email as far as
I'm concerned is sufficient. I don't need a formal memo other than the fact that it doesn't
address the rear yard setback. I think it has more to do with the front yard setback.
MR. BONTJE : Yes it does.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : At this point while you are correct to some extent in suggesting that
a number of the issues we're talking about are more primarily with the Trustees concerns than
our concerns we still have environmental impacts to look at and so to that extent certainly the
sanitary and the front yard setback and the elevation of the proposed raised septic is of some
concern to us. The Town Engineer will deal with the drainage with you and with the Trustees
more thoroughly than we will. So, I don't want to stop you from showing us whatever it is you
want to but I think what I'd like to propose to the Board members and to you is that once we've
received these comments and we hear what you have to say today that we close this hearing
and we go ahead and adjudicate and make a determination that will also require approval from
the county and from the Trustees and if those approvals are not forthcoming then you will have
to come back before us. There is that risk. The reason we often hold things open is so that an
applicant doesn't have to do that they can just you know we're all on the same page if they
make you move something a little forward or backward then we can grant that same consistent
variance so that you don't have to reappear but given that you seem to really want to move this
forward if the Board is wiling I'm certainly willing to go ahead and adjourn this to the Special
Meeting in two weeks with a draft prepared to deliberate at that time based upon the belief
that we will have everything we need from the Trustees at that point. So we won't hold you up
in any way even if we close today we would still adjudicate we would still be deliberating two
weeks from today. But I would like to give you an opportunity having said all that to please
present anything you'd like to.
October 6, 2016 Regular Meeting
MR. BONTJE : Okay I guess there was a misunderstanding between Mr. Bredemeyer and I that I
thought we would proceed the way the Trustees had originally indicated which was to send it
out to you folks in your consideration since it didn't comply with zoning and from zoning
considerations and then come back to the Trustees and then do the Department of Health
Services. I can see doing that maybe concurrently with the Trustees but not necessarily
concurrently with this. The second part so basically the second part I'd like to clarify is that in
fact you are looking for comments on anything in the rear yard and again I don't want to put
words in anybody's mouth but John was basically said well we're kind it's kind of all in the front
yard that's what they're concentrating on which makes sense because of the we're not in the
wetlands themselves. We're going to be set back further and you know again the septic system
is a consideration. It'll only be an improvement in the end because you're moving way back
from the wetlands. Right now it's like 40 feet from the wetlands so it's going to go twice that
back from where it is now. Although I understand it will be raised because of ground water
issues in the area and one other thing I wanted to point out did you receive from I know your
office had requested informally it wasn't in writing a copy of the survey
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We all did just got it this morning.
MICHAEL BONTJE : Ok good.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Thank you very much now we can read it.
MICHAEL BONTJE : So what I had Nat Corwin do is to put on the house and the deck which are
the structures to kind of what I got out of the conversation was to simplify the drawing. It's
down to basically the issues that you guys are concerned with and so it's basically it's the same
house, it's the same existing house, it's the same setback requests and so I just wanted to make
sure that and did you receive enough copies I think I had them send eight or ten so everybody
has a copy and we're all set. So I just like to note that that's entered into the record and is there
anything else beyond the Trustees comments that you guys would you folks would need for
your consideration?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I don't. You're proposing the house setback from the edge of the
wetlands or the water at 27.3 which is considered a rear yard because it's not bulk headed and
the existing house what's the setback on the existing house from the same line?
MICHAEL BONTJE : From that line it's about 15.8 and both of those by the way are about 2 feet
less to the wetlands.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I'm seeing the little tiny 15.8 now.
MICHAEL BONTJE : Yea in the background it's 15.8 that's the existing.
October 6, 2016 Regular Meeting
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay so you are increasing the setback there and in fact you're
proposing actually only a small corner of the dwelling at a non-conforming front yard of 30.5
the rest of it is at the conforming 35 feet.
MICHAEL BONTJE : Yes.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes. Well this is very clear now.
MICHALE BONTJE : (inaudible) speaking away from the microphone. Sits in the front and there's
actually four lots there's two lots (inaudible)
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Are you getting him on the recorder? Here's the problem we're
recording it and unless you're into the mic our transcriber really can't hear you.
MICHEAL BONTJE : No problem. Basically what I just wanted to point out on the front yard we
have they're actually two skinny little lots that are unattributed that go through there that have
no tax liability, no owner per say so I guess and where Island View Lane is shown is another 16
feet past my line my property line and that's where the road is and that's the northern of the
two lots and that southern lot is a right of way which is basically undeveloped and it's a private
roadway it's a private access so again even though it's 30.5 feet it's going to look like a 50 foot
setback because you have this undeveloped right of way and unless everybody wants to
develop it in the future unanimously I don't think anybody will and I don't see the town taking
the road any time soon either. Again that would just be another liability for them and for you
folks so it's
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : What is the width of the right of way 16 feet?
MICHALE BONTJE : I believe it's 16 feet yea and there's another one stacked on top of that to
the north. It's a very odd situation and that's where Island View Lane lies in that second lot and
right of way that goes through. From what I'm told from the folks who were there from the very
beginning when these were cottages and before the subdivisions were done I don't know if you
know but a lot of the lots out there are kind of odd looking I know the Milowzo's was for
example it looks like a lightning bolt you know coming off the street and what happened was
was the farmer owned the field that's now a conservation easement further down the road and
to maintain his/her access right of way to that field they were granted these lots and so again
the lots were never attributed to anybody you know they have a tax lot number but they have
no lien on them it's kind of unusual. So anyway those two lots stem from that particular
agreement and the southern one is undeveloped it just kind of sits there as a greenway and the
northern one is where Island View Lane actually occurs right now approximately it may vary a
foot or two here and there. But anyway those are the items that I wanted to put on the record.
Thank you for your consideration so you're waiting right now for a note from John.
October 6, 2016 Regular Meeting
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yea I just want him to confirm what I assume is that they have that
they don't have any issues that they want to address themselves that we should be considering
with regard to the rear yard setback. Sometimes we put in a non-disturbance buffer that's sort
of thing.
MICHAEL BONTJE : Yea I'm sure they're going to do that as a matter of fact I think I show it on
my more detailed plan.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You do have a proposed well no it just says rocks.
MICHEAL BONTJE : Yea on the more detailed plan I think I have a ten foot buffer non
fertilization you know non turf buffer which is I know what the Trustees you know they usually
require about ten or fifteen.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : They do yea so that's one of the reasons why I just wanted to hear
what he had to say because if that's what they're going to do we might as well do it as well but
if it's uncertain I think we'll just leave it alone and let them address it and we'll just simply
address the dimensional aspects of the variance.
MICHAEL BONTJE : Okay that would be great and again my recollection you know the
conversation again he may have a separate one per the email by the way I wouldn't mind
having a copy of the email so I could just put it in my file if you have one was that they were
pretty much focused on the front of the house and that was pretty much their concern as far as
I could tell.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well he's kind of proposing a more coordinated more slowly
progressing process but I honestly think if the Board agrees with me I don't see a reason why if
we condition it properly we should delay this particular variance consideration and
MICHAEL BONTJE : And frankly it makes it easier kind of mentally and calendar wise.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I understand where you feel you've accomplished something for one
thing.
MICHALE BONTJE : To get across one line and then again if I have to come back I understand I
have to come back that's my
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright as long as you're clear about that. Kim can you make a copy
of this for Mr. Bontje please. I'm just giving her my copy so she can run over and make you a
copy right now. Is there anything else the Board wants to talk about with regard to this
application?
October 6, 2016 Regular Meeting
MEMBER GOEHRINGER : This is a very funny statement which has absolutely nothing to do with
this Board but for thirty three years I worked for the County of Suffolk and ran an organization
for them and five out of the ten days people called me regarding pieces of property like you
were discussing and I very simply said to them ask the assessor to assess it and when it comes
back as unknown owner you can buy it a public auction from the County so that may be a
suggestion you may have.
MICHEAL BONTJE : Now that I'm going I should of thought about that twenty five years ago but
I knew yea it's an unattributed parcel and so very often they can be abandoned since it's
private property abandoned to the middle in this case either lot could and then I could buy it
from them.
MEMBER GEOHRINGER : You have to watch it because sometimes they do assess and nobody
realizes it and then it comes to public auction so you have to watch it.
MICHEAL BONTJE : Okay it's not a bad piece of advice great. Those are my additions to the
record. The next hearing then is two weeks from now which would put it on the 201h?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well it's not a hearing. We will be up in the Annex building the
conference room on the second floor the board room. We will be deliberating assuming and I
don't see any reason why we can't get an additional comment from John regarding that rear
yard setback we will have on the agenda a resolution to close this hearing and it's staying open
in order to receive that written comment and then we will also have on the agenda assuming
that we can get the draft done which I don't see any reason why we can't we will have on the
agenda a draft for deliberation to make a determination that night. It's an open meeting you're
welcome to sit in if you wish. You can call the office to see what time your scheduled well we
don't have a time we don't know how long it's going to take but you can see what order you're
in and as a courtesy usually if someone attends I will move the agenda so you don't have to sit
through five or six or seven other deliberations waiting for your own. There's no reason to do
that if we can so
MICHAEL BONTJE : And when did that normally start you said that was in the evening.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We start at six o'clock. Sometimes with executive session you know
but we have a couple of other odds and ends to take care of but that's October 201h and it's just
upstairs from our office.
MEMBER HORNING : Final question Leslie. I wanted to clarify the rear yard setback since you're
talking about it. Is it proposed at 27.3 feet as is shown on the survey or is it 25 feet as the
Notice of Disapproval shows?
October 6, 2016 Regular Meeting
MICHAEL BONTJE : The lot line itself is like the average high water which you see is 27.3 feet
(inaudible-away from microphone)
CHAIREPERSON WEISMAN : Talk loudly or you can use one of our mics and stand closely.
MICHAEL BONTJE : Basically the deed goes to the water line and the water line is considered
mean water and mean water is two feet past the wetlands cause there's a slope that comes up
and the Trustees have their wetland line on top so from the wetland it's about 25 feet from the
lot line 27.3 that's shown there. The actual lot line is the water line and the water line is the
mean water line in this case. There's no fixed line it's just the edge of the water.
MEMBER HORNING : So is the Building Department correct in citing it at 25 feet rear yard?
MICHAEL BONTJE : Given the survey I would say it's probably 27.3.
MEMBER HORNING :That's what I'm asking.
MICHEAL BONTJE : I mean I have to go with the surveyor because he's the surveyor but again
the wetland line it's different for the wetland itself. The wetland itself is 25 feet because of the
fact that the wetland climbs that little rock revetment and the wetland flagging is on top of the
bank which is two feet further back from the lot line. Does that make sense?
MEMBER HORNING : Yes thank you.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright well there is no one else in the audience so I presume there's
no other comment anything else from the Board? Alright I'm going to make a motion to adjourn
this hearing to the October 201h Special Meeting subject to receipt of comments regarding the
rear yard setback from the Board of Town Trustees.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Second.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor?
MEMBER HORNING : Aye.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Aye.
MEMBER SCHNElDER : Aye.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye.
(See Minutes for Resolution)
October 6, 2016 Regular Meeting
HEARING #6986— IRA and SUSAN AKSELRAD
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Ira and Susan Akselrad
#6986. This is a request for variances from Article III Section 280-15, Article IV Section 280-18,
Article XXII, Section 280-116A(1) and the Building Inspector's June 21, 2016 Notice of
Disapproval based on an application for building permit to construct new and legalize "as built"
additions and alterations to single family dwelling and legalize "as built" accessory in ground
swimming pool at 1) "as built" accessory in ground swimming pool is located in other than the
code required rear yard, 2) "as built" deck addition less than the code required minimum side
yard setback of 15 feet, 3) proposed additions and alterations located less than the code
required 100 feet from the top of the bluff. Located at 4125 Nassau Point Road (adj. to Little
Peconic Bay) in Cutchogue. Morning Rob let me just run over what the notice appears to be
saying so you can confirm it. The pool the as built pool is partially in a side yard where the code
requires a rear yard or front yard on waterfront parcels. The construction is at 72 feet from the
top of the bluff. The code requires 100 feet and the minimum single side yard setback is
proposed at 4 feet where the code requires 15 feet. Okay I think that's sort of it those are the
three variances. I think there's a second story addition is that portion of an existing or for a
proposed oh is the side yard for a proposed deck or an existing?
ROB HERMANN : There's a mix. The some of it is as built. It's primarily the northerly deck that is
as built that's 4 feet from the property line. The house itself is also 14.2 feet from the property
line so even without the as built deck we would be before you for the second story addition if
that helps?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay I'm just taking a few notes cause I wanted that clarified cause it
was a little unclear about the deck. So the house is 14.2 foot from the side yard and
ROB HERMANN : That's the historically existing house yes.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay. Now the deck is this as built at 4 feet or proposed?
ROB HERMANN : There is an existing deck in the northerly corner of the house which is 4 feet
from the northerly property line that was constructed based on aerial sometime prior to 2001.
It does not have a permit and is thus part of this application.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And you want to maintain that?
ROB HERMANN : Correct. Well part of it. I'll go over all of that.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alrighty, I'll turn it over to you.
October 6, 2016 Regular Meeting
ROB HERMANN : I've never presented to you in an empty room before.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You want us to go get a few people I'll call the Town Clerk. You need
an audience other than us?
ROB HERMANN : And Ken has switched sides it's just
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well that's because the Town Attorney is over here now. We just
want to see if you're paying attention that's all.
ROB HERMANN : As you're probably initially observing there's a lot to this application. I'm going
to go through it as quickly and succinctly as I can but I do want to go through each of the three
variances because it's essentially almost three variance applications in one and each of the
variances are almost unrelated like the reason for each variance is almost unrelated to the
others so I'll go through them one at a time and then if you have any questions I'm here to
answer them and the project architect is here as well. First I want to get the swimming pool out
of the way. The swimming pool is located in a required side yard per 280-15F. We know that
the pool was constructed sometime prior to 1994 by two owners prior so it was not
constructed by Cardinale who is the prior owner but by the owner prior to Cardinale and at the
time it was constructed on lot 1000-111-9-6.2 because the subject lot which is 6.4 was actually
just created last year by the owners after they the current owners after they purchased the
property last August and they purchased lots 6.2 and 6.3 which is to the north of 6.2 and
merged them into lot 6.4 which is the larger 1.7 acre piece that's in front of you. So, what's
important to understand about the pool variance again notwithstanding the fact we know it
was constructed without a building permit over twenty years ago. Had the owners elected not
to merge the lots they could have proposed a conforming dwelling on former lot 6.2 which is
the southerly half of the property where the pool is and it would have situated the pool in a
conforming rear yard. Because of when the pool was constructed it's not actually before this
Board today for bluff setback relief. Not only was it constructed prior to the passage of local law
9-15 last year it was also constructed prior to the Trustees bluff setbacks that were established
in '04. So, in effect the side yard non conformity was almost created passively by the merging of
the two lots because now that is all one property relative to the dwelling the pool is in a side
yard but obviously the benefits of the owners having merged the lots are great from the town's
perspective, from the neighbor's perspective, from environmental perspective because they've
effectively sterilized what was really a conforming building lot so you won't have a second
dwelling on this 1.7 acres. You won't have a second septic system etc. We also feel that
independently of the history of the site that the pool meets all the variance standards. Pools
are very common in this neighborhood. Six of the eight parcels to the north and south have
pools. The swimming pool that's located four properties to the north was actually constructed
October 6, 2016 Regular Meeting
pursuant to Board decision 6161 in 2008 which allowed a new swimming pool to be
constructed in a required side yard in that case the Board determined the relief was not
substantial because the pool despite being in a required side yard met a 33 foot setback and
here the pool actually meets a 58 foot setback so almost double the setback of that property in
case 6161 and nearly three times what the normal accessory setback would be for a pool here
nearly three times what the setback would have been for a new dwelling here. The southerly
neighbors also submitted to the Board a letter of support indicating that the pool had been
present since prior to his purchase in 2005 and that the pool poses no harm to his property. Oh
I also wanted to mention that the pool has a wetlands permit from the Trustees that was issued
to Alan Cardinale in 2013 under wetlands permit #8147. So, that's really it for the pool. We feel
the pool is a pretty straightforward request which again is really due to the fact that these two
conforming lots were merged into or these two building lots were merged into one property.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER : I have a quick question. What about the pool house is that an as built as
well?
ROB HERMANN : The pool house is as built but it is not before you because it was built prior to
the bluff setbacks required under 280. It's not in a required side yard and it meets the side yard
setback requirements. So they still have to go about getting it fully permitted with the Building
Department but it's not non-conforming. In other words because of the way that the house is
being the way the additions are being designed while the pool is in the side yard the pool house
is actually to the rear of the house.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Understood but it's an as built.
ROB HERMANN : It's an as built.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER : But it's not sited in this Notice of Disapproval.
ROB HERMANN : Because it's not non-conforming.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Because it's not non-conforming.
ROB HERMANN : Correct. It doesn't require relief. In other words if they just wanted to go in
today and get a building permit just for the pool house they could do that.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER : It's amazing that they were able to build all of this without a permit. I
mean this is that's considerable I mean the equipment that must of gone down there and well
anyway.
3
October 6, 2016 Regular Meeting
ROB HERMANN : It's a long time ago and it's been there for a long time and I'll get in a few
minutes some of the stuff that really is egregious and needs to be corrected like where the
septic system is for the pool house. The Akselrad's are looking to correct all that now.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Rob I just want to say one thing. You keep referring and you have in
your letter to the required side yard no it's the non-conforming side yard.
ROB HERMANN : Non-conforming side yard yes I'm sorry.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :The permitted yards are front and rear on waterfront property.
MEMBER HORNING : May I ask a quick question? Ownership then the two lots that were
merged you're saying were 6.2 and 6.3 they became 6.4?
ROB HERMANN : That's correct.
MEMBER HORNING : Previously when these as built were built was it the same owner that
owned both of these two lots?
ROB HERMANN : The same owner prior to Akselrad they were the same owner. It was Alan
Cardinale.
MEMBER HORNING : And prior to that was?
ROB HERMANN : That I do not know. I know Bennett was an owner. I don't know if both parcels
were passed or not.
MEMBER HORNING : But you said the pool was already there when Cardinale.
ROB HERMANN : Yes from looking it on line aerials the pool has been there since at least 1994.
It looks like the pool and the pool house both been there since 1994 which were prior to
Cardinale's purchase.
MEMBER HORNING : Which would maybe mean that the prior owner to Cardinale built these
things.
ROB HERMANN : That's our belief yea. Yea that is exactly what we believe to be the case. Okay
so unlike to Ken's point unlike the swimming pool which does not require the bluff setback
relief and again I think they noted in the Notice of Disapproval at the very bottom it says you
know as built construction prior to December 2015 with reference to that code change but the
proposed dwelling additions and alterations unlike the pool do now require bluff setback relief.
I think it's important that the Board recognize that the owners could not possibly have
anticipated that this bluff setback relief was going to be required because ironically they bought
3
October 6, 2016 Regular Meeting
the property last August and then the law was changed last December. So while we can't avoid
the relief the relief had not been anticipated. The need for a bluff setback relief had not been
anticipated but again because the existing house is less than 100 feet from the bluff the
proposed addition is located less than 100 feet from the bluff. However it's important to note
that the proposed design does nothing to diminish or encroach upon the existing bluff setbacks.
Rather we are removing the most seaward 3.6 by 20 foot portion of the existing northerly deck
and also the 4 foot by 10 foot arbor that's on the easterly side of the house and so by cutting
that northerly deck back Leslie I know you mentioned the different setback in your notice but
right now the minimum existing bluff setback if you draw to the existing northerly deck as the
bluff starts to curve a little bit to the northwest on the neighbor's property is actually 66 feet
and that's being increased to 69 feet. That's 72 foot setback is drawn to part of the proposed
alteration on the north side of the house so it's just important to note that the actually existing
bluff setback is 66 and we are proposing to increase that by a few feet to 69 feet by cutting
back that seaward protrusion of that as built deck.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Where are we here? Hold on a minute.
ROB HERMANN : So this is the house so the house is here and this is the existing deck and the
deck protrudes east of the historically existing line of the house so cutting this back
accomplishes several things. One, it pulls back the easterly extent of the house back to what
was always there and it also allows the pool house to stay in the rear yard.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : What is that setback?
ROB HERMANN : This is 66 to the existing corner and it moves to 69 when we cut this section
off and then with respect to the other relief which I'm covering now this of course also
decreases the overall footprint of the as built non-conforming deck and it reduces the length of
that deck along the northerly neighbors. With respect to neighborhood character this is it's
really new ground here with respect to the bluff setback so there are of course numerous
dwellings throughout the surrounding neighborhood that are located less than 100 feet from
the bluff including both of the immediately adjacent dwellings to the north and the south
because again prior to December of 2015 Chapter 280 did not require bluff setbacks in
connection with Peconic Bay and prior to 2004 there were no bluff setbacks under Chapter 275.
So that takes us on that same topic to the third final of the three variances. This one under 280-
18 these are the bulk requirements again as I clarified in the beginning relate to the side yard
setback minimum side yard setback from the northerly property line and again that relates to
two things the historically existing dwelling being located 14.2 feet from the northerly lot line
and also this as built deck that's located only 4 feet from the property line. We submit with our
application that neither the existing deck nor the proposed addition have had or will have an
3
October 6, 2016 Regular Meeting
adverse impact on the northerly neighbor. Understanding this is it's a lot of side yard relief for
the deck itself that they're asking for but with respect to the deck the deck has been there for
at least fifteen years without reported harm or apparent harm to the northerly neighbor. As
evidenced in the photos I submitted with the application I assume you saw at the site there is a
significant hedge row and other vegetation that screens the deck and the northerly side of the
house in general from the northerly property owner and that northerly property owner has also
submitted a letter to the Board supporting the application indicating the house and deck have
been present there for many years and have caused no harm to her property. With respect to
the house additions again there's nothing we can really do about the 10 inch variance from the
northerly lot line but one thing that the design does do is you'll notice that on the road side of
the house there is a one story footprint addition which is really the only major footprint
addition to the house that's proposed which is the garage. This is the garage addition up front
although it would not have been unreasonable I don't think to just continue that garage along
that 14.2 foot setback. The garage has actually been inset a bit so that the garage addition the
footprint addition actually meets the side yard setback it's proposed 16 feet from the property
line. So I know that doesn't make the rest of the side yard variance go away but the point is
we'd like to minimize how much side yard relief would be necessary relative to the house
footprint itself. And again it's worth noting as I just mentioned before that we are proposing to
remove that most seaward chunk of the deck which reduces the area of the non-conforming
deck and also its length along the property line. As a final thought I just the one variance
(inaudible) we're not really discussing is the environmental impacts and with respect to the
project as a whole we have incorporated numerous mitigation measures that are designed to
result really in what we hope would be an overall improvement to the physical environmental
conditions to the site. Those are listed in my application but for the record I'll just run down
them as quickly as I can right now. Again that most seaward 3% by 20 foot section of decks to
be removed because of the as a result of the various additions and removals the total lot
coverage of buildable land as a result of the project actually decreases by 174 square feet to
9.99% or about half of what the code allows. Again the minimum bluff setback to the principal
building increases by a few feet as opposed to being diminished probably most important with
respect to the environmental impact is the fact that the primary dwelling's pre-existing non-
conforming septic system which is located only 58 feet from the bluff crest is going to be
removed and replaced with an upgraded Health Department approved system that's located
totally outside of wetlands jurisdiction almost 150 feet from the top of the bluff almost 100 foot
landward relocation of that system nearly 200 from the surface waters of Little Peconic Bay. As
I mentioned to Ken before there's also a pool house septic system which is located less than 15
feet from the top of the bluff and thus less than 75 feet from the bay. That system will also be
removed and replace with a new system that will be located outside wetland jurisdiction more
than 100 feet from the top of the bluff and 160 feet from Little Peconic Bay. The new house the
October 6, 2016 Regular Meeting
finished house will be equipped with a drainage system of leaders, gutters and dry wells of
course to capture recharge roof run off. We are proposing that a pool drywell be added to
capture backwash from the existing pool. Approximately 1033 square feet of existing lawn
maintained along the top of the bluff will be removed and replaced with native vegetation and
permanently maintained as a non-turf buffer and of course project limiting fence will be
installed to contain site disturbance and runoff during construction. Finally I would just finish
again I want to underscore the significance of the fact that the owners did merge these
properties and so having this renovation which does very little to change the footprint of the
existing house maintains the pool in its current location is still overall a net desirable benefit or
should be from the town's perspective as opposed to having proposed a second dwelling to go
along with the swimming pool on the southerly line. So that's all I have I know it's a lot. Again
there are several different variances here. I can try to answer any more questions the Board has
and again the architect is here if you have any questions with respect to design or construction
etc.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Just looking at my notes from the site inspection. Would you explain
something about the deer fencing on the southerly property line?That's not in the front yard.
ROB HERMANN : Oh, oh the deer fencing on the southerly property line. I see the existing deer
fence but I it looks like I actually don't know whether is that our or is that the neighbors. It turns
on both sides toward the property to the south and does not continue up to the subject lots
front yard so unfortunately I can't answer your question cause I don't even know if that's I
don't even know if that's their fence or the neighbor's fence. If it's their fence I don't know why
it turns that way you know what I mean?You see what I mean?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I do. Is the homeowner here?
ROB HERMANN : They're not and as much time as I've spent staring at this map I never noticed
the fence before.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That's our job. Okay well number one we have to make sure that all
deer fencing is on the subject property for starters.
ROB HERMANN : Or off it.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Or off it. Or that we get a variance if needed for it. I don't know why
it was cited in the Notice of Disapproval.
ROB HERMANN : Again to me the way it bends to the south on both ends creates the
impression that it's designed to encircle the property to the south. It would make no sense at
October 6, 2016 Regular Meeting
all as a deer fence for Akselrad because it wouldn't keep out any deer. It doesn't enclose the
Akselrad property.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yea alright we'll leave it.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER : You want to investigate it somehow or
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well the bottom line is it wasn't cited in the Notice so I'm assuming
the Building Department didn't necessarily conclude that it was on the subject property so but
it's kind of vague so I don't know I guess they assumed it was vague also but the bottom line is
it's not really before us. I just wanted to make sure that it shouldn't be before us.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Now Rob said a good point that it curves down to the other property. I'll
go with that.
ROB HERMANN : I was looking to see if the original survey noted it any differently. It doesn't. It
does show a note fence 2.5 feet west normally what the surveyor's do to show an
encroachment by an adjoining neighbor so again I
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Maybe they're on the subject property the neighbor is.
ROB HERMANN : That's what I'm saying so I don't know to actually to offer testimony that it's
the neighbors but the circumstantial evidence would suggest that it's the neighbors fence.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay we'll go with that.
MEMBER SCHNEIDER : Yea I would agree with that.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright let's see does anyone have any questions Gerry, George,
Ken?
ROB HERMANN : The architect Melissa Cisette just spoke to Ira Akslerad who says he's pretty
sure it's the neighbors fence because the neighbor is very concerned about deer.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You want to come to the mic please and just state your name please.
MELISSA CISETTE : And he says the deer fence continues onto the neighbors front yard on the
street side.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay thank you. Let's see so is there anyone else in the audience
who wants to address this application? Hearing no further questions or comments I'm going to
make a motion to close the hearing reserve decision to later date. Is there a second?
MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Second.
October 6, 2016 Regular Meeting
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor?
MEMBER HORNING : Aye.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Aye.
MEMBER SCHNElDER : Aye.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye.
(See Minutes for Resolution)
HEARING #6991— MAX and JIMENA FAERBER
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Max and Jimena Faerber
# 6991. This is a request for variance from Article XII Section 280-53 of the Southold Town Code
and the Building Inspector's April 7, 2016 amended August 8, 2016 Notice of Disapproval based
on an application for building permit to construct additions and alterations to an existing
nonconforming building with a nonconforming use to be converted to a conforming single
family dwelling at 1) proposed addition located at less than the code required minimum side
yard setback of 20 feet located at 2072 Village Lane (adj. to Orient Harbor) in Orient. Is there
someone here to represent the application? Please come to the microphone.
MAX FAERBER : Hi Max Faerber.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay let me just go over what the application involves which is
converting a non-conforming building that has multiple dwelling units in it to a single family
dwelling which is a conforming use with a 9 foot single side yard setback where the code
requires 20 feet that is the existing setback and this also secondly requires a certificate of
appropriateness C of A from the Landmarks Preservation Commission. You have four units
seasonal units apartment units it's in an MI zone district and you're proposing to add eight foot
eight inches by six feet by enclosing an existing open porch. Correct?
MAX FAERBER :That's right.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay what else would you like us to know?
October 6, 2016 Regular Meeting
MAX FAERBER : I think first I have to give you the original of the what is it called the affidavit of
posting.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay please bring that forward. I should note that the LWRP do you
have a copy of that letter from the Local Waterfront Revitalization Program director? No. Just
to let you know it is considered to be consistent with those policies so that's good. We could
get you a copy if you want it for your files. We should give them a copy. Kim will make you a
copy. Okay please proceed.
MAX FAERBER : So I'm not really used to hearing so I'm not sure what I'm supposed to say
maybe the fact that we bought this house and we're really attached to Orient. It's currently not
really usable for what we plan to do. It's four units so we spent a lot of time with Heidaki who is
here our architect thinking how we can turn it into a single home and it really changes the
whole floor plan if we encroach that little opening the deck that would if we encompass in the
house this little nook that it's right now open. I think that's why we're asking for a variance.
MEMBER HORNIING : Do you rent the property right now?
MAX FAERBER : No we own it. Oh if we rent it to people?
MEMBER HORNING : Yes.
MAX FAERBER : No we don't.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Have you approached Landmarks yet?
MAX FAERBER : Yes our modifications were accepted.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Your application was accepted.
MAX FAERBER : Exactly yes.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : But they haven't taken any action yet or have they? Do you know?
MEMBER HORNING :They approved it.
MAX FAERBER :They approved it.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :They approved it. Alright so it's already approved.
MAX FAERBER : Yes.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay, mostly they're concerned with design elements obviously
because of the historic nature of Orient village.
October 6, 2016 Regular Meeting
MAX FAERBER : And we're very attached also to the historic side of Orient so we would never
change anything that's (inaudible).
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's a very small square footage that you're enclosing really very
small without changing any of the setbacks.
MAX FAERBER : I think that people would not notice will not notice the difference even people
from Orient.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Do we have a copy of the approval? We have it in our file? I missed it
oh here it is in front of my face. Certificate of appropriateness dated July 19, 2016.
MAX FAERBER : My wife insists that I say that we have three children so we actually intend to
make a good use of the
JIMENA FAERBER : Hello I'm Jimena Faerber and what I want you to understand it's four
different units because the ex-owners used to rent the downstairs the first floor and so it is
right now three kitchenettes, three living rooms, three bedrooms and so just by tearing a single
wall down and making one big living room you'd still live with little things where there used to
be a kitchen here and there so in order to have a livable space and we don't plan to have like a
rental thing like they were doing before that's why we thought
MAX FAERBER : We need that extra space if possible.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes.
HIDIAKI ARIZUMI : Heidaki Arizumi architect just one additional comment. They are waiting to
one part of the existing house has a garage so the street wouldn't be affected by the exposed
cars and that actually bumped somehow made the whole first floor smaller so they needed to
deal with it and that is the main reason we need a bump out into (inaudible) so it's just the
walls between (inaudible)
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well it's really almost it's along a private right of way where you're
proposing to you know that accesses some of the waterfront houses along that the bay and it's
facing that you know it's facing the side yard really rather than even Village Lane and it will not
be noticeable in any way I'm sure. I don't have any questions particularly since it's been
received from Landmarks anything from anybody?
MEMBER GOEHRINGER : No I don't think I mean we're not terribly concerned about the little
roof addition and so very simply since we have the decision I think we're good.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay George anything?
October 6, 2016 Regular Meeting
MEMBER HORNING : No, I had a note here was there a Pre CO on this building ever issued do
you know certificate of occupancy? I mean when was it built a long time ago right?
MAX FAERBER : Yes.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Do you have any copy of a Pre CO?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I'm not sure you know what the difference is between a certificate
of occupancy and a pre certificate of occupancy.
MAX FAERBER : No I don't know.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's the date. Some buildings are really they pre date the 1957 zoning
regulations so that would be considered a pre certificate of occupancy. Otherwise going
forward it's a certificate of occupancy. You have to have one or the other I'm sure.
MAX FAERBER : Yes because I'm sure the question arose when we bought the house. My
recollection from it is there's been modification made to the house in 1995 so at that point I
think they obtained the C.O. and that's my recollection.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Do you have a copy of that C.O?
MAX FAERBER : I can look into it yes.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER : We'd like a copy.
MEMBER HORNING :That helps you to establish existing setbacks.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I'm looking to see usually there's something submitted with the
application so I'm just looking to see if there's a C.O. in the application. Do you know Heidiaki if
there's a C.O. in the application packet?
HIDIAKI ARIZUMI :The I think it's there.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I'm going to look. It might very well be. I obviously missed the
Landmarks decision.
HIDIAKI ARIZUMI : Original house is historic building so even if they don't know when it's built
so obviously there's nothing about it.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yea there's a 1999 C.O. in here Bill just found it.
HIDIAKI ARIZUMI :The original owner did renovations a couple of times so
October 6, 2016 Regular Meeting
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yea we have one from '99 that shows additions and alterations at
that point yea to an existing seasonal multi family dwelling that's what the C.O. states. Yea
there was a prior ZBA decision on this yea there was a decision in 1995 previously which is in
the packet also. We have everything we need anyone else in the audience who wishes to
address this application, anything from the Board? Hearing no further questions or comments
I'm going to make a motion to close this hearing reserve decision to later date.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Second.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor?
MEMBER HORNING : Aye.
MEMBER SCHNElDER : Aye.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Aye.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye.
(See Minutes for Resolution)
HEARING #6976— PLANNING BOARD OF THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The application that's before the Board of Appeals is a request from
the Planning Board of the Town of Southold application #6976. This is a request from the
Southold Town Planning Board dated May 31, 2016 and again June 17, 2016 for an
interpretation pursuant to town code Article XXVI Section 280-146(D)(1) as to whether the
proposed uses as applied for on a site plan application from Sports East Fitness Club proposing
to construct an annual membership club meets the definition of a membership club as defined
by the town code in Article III Section 280-13(8)(7) uses permitted by special exception in a
residential zone district and Article I Section 280-4 definitions club membership or country or
golf recreational facilities and recreation facilities or commercial. Proposed location is at 9300
NYS Route 25 (Main Rd.) in Mattituck. Now before we get started I want to make something
very clear to the applicants and to the audience. What is before us today is not the special
exception that the applicant has applied for. We will not be making a decision of any kind today
either. The reason there are only three members here just not because they're not interested.
Member Goehringer has recused himself he is associated with property on Sigsbee Rd. and felt
October 6, 2016 Regular Meeting
it was in the best interest of ethics to do so and member Dantes his wife is having a baby so
that's good news. However that means that there are three of us which constitutes a quorum in
which will allow us to hear this application. However member Horning has to leave to catch the
ferry back to Fishers Island at 2:15 so if we can conclude what everyone wants to say by then
we'll be done otherwise we will have to adjourn or we will have to accept written comments
only okay just to give you the time frame and to why we're sitting up here this way. Now the
subject property on which Sports East is proposed is in an R-40 residential zone district. An
annual membership club is a permitted use by special exception approval of the Board of
Appeals in that residential zone district. The Planning Board has asked us to interpret the code
which we are allowed to do according to our powers and duties as an appellate jurisdiction to
determine as to whether or not the application to the Planning Board and the Zoning Board as
applied for by Sports East fits the definition of an annual membership club or does not. There
are three relevant definitions that are before us. One in the code is for a club membership or
country or golf club and I'll read them all to you in a minute. The other two definitions the
Planning Board has submitted to us, is for a recreational facility or a recreational facility
commercial. Only the annual club membership club or golf club is a permitted use in the
residential zone district and we are here only to determine whether or not the scope of the
project that Sorts East is applying for meets that definition or doesn't. Now I know there are
many of you who have opinions about the application in general but I would request you do is
address what is currently before this Board which is whether or not the application as applied
for fits the definition and I will review with you the scope of the project as applied to the Zoning
Board and the Planning Board ask the applicant to make comments or the applicant's agent and
then I will read to you the description of the three relevant definitions in the code that the
Zoning Board has been asked by the Planning Board to look at. First of all what we have in our
record and I want to make sure that this is accurate so I would like the applicant to confirm or
correct this record but what we have in our application and in the Planning Board application
from Sports East is a proposed multi-sport membership club on a 20.8 acre parcel in the R-80
zone district consisting of an outdoor synthetic soccer field and five outdoor tennis courts with
240 parking spaces. A 150 foot by 550 which is 82,500 square foot two story building and that
almost 82,500 square feet is just the ground floor. To include on the inside a 150 by 135 which
is 20,250 square foot soccer field, four tennis courts, two batting cages, a 75 foot by 50 foot six
lane twenty five meter swimming pool, a 5,000 square foot gym, locker rooms and showers, a
multi volley ball and basketball court, a rock wall, two yoga spin or spin classrooms, a kitchen
and a thirty two seat cafeteria food service for members, a pro shop for members, bathrooms
and storage, three offices and pre and after care programs for the children of members. That is
what is in our application and that is what the Planning Board has described in their site plan
application. Should we have that confirmed or addressed before I read the definitions or do you
want me to just go ahead and read the definitions first?
October 6, 2016 Regular Meeting
PAUL PAWLOWSKI : Paul Pawlowski applicant. Just to clarify it's a single story 140,000 square
foot building on R-80 zoning and that's the only thing I want to clarify as far as what was
applied for.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay so that was applied that was amended to the Planning Board
cause that's not what the Zoning Board has in our application. We have a two story building.
PAUL PAWLOWSKI : Yea it's a single story.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It is now single story and it is now
T.A. DUFFY : A hundred and forty thousand square feet?
PAUL PAWLOWSKI : Yes and that's what the Planning Board has seen since day one so I don't
know why the math was wrong.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay well they what they submitted was the original application.
You have to remember they did this originally in June.
PAUL PAWLOWSKI : Yep I know.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay thank you very much. So now I'm going to read the three
definitions that the Board has to examine. First of all the Special Exception permit is for a club
membership or county or golf that is in Section 280-4 definitions. This is the definition of a
membership club. An entity established for the principal purpose of engaging an outdoor sports
such as golf, tennis, swimming, fishing, hunting or similar activities but not including any form
of aviation, outdoor traps, skeet or target shooting or motor boat racing. Then also in the
definitions neither of which are uses permitted in the R-80 zone district is a definition of
recreational facilities which is defined as follows, recreational uses are characterized by
predominantly outdoor activities by patrons including but not limited to stables and riding
academies, regulation golf courses and golf related activities, tennis and racket sports clubs,
platform sports, baseball batting and pitching cages and swimming pool facilities. It shall not
include such activities as racing, jai alai and amusement parks. Finally, recreation facility
commercial, an indoor or outdoor privately operated business involving playing fields, courts,
arenas or halls designed to accommodate sports and recreational activities such as billiards,
bowling, dance hall, gymnasium, health spas, skating rinks, shooting ranges, tennis courts and
swimming pools. So now you have I believe the full background of what is before the Board
today. I think I'd like to turn this over to the applicant's agent so that he may address the Board.
CHARLES CUDDY : Good afternoon Charles Cuddy I'm appearing for Sports East. I want to go
back a little bit to the beginning and I'm certainly aware of your concern with the definitions
October 6, 2016 Regular Meeting
cause we're going to get to that in a few minutes but I want to talk about the memorandum of
May 3111 because it's very significant to the applicant and I think to this Board. I want to point
out to you and I gave you several documents I handed up but A. that I gave you is the Notice of
Disapproval from the Building Department. That Notice of Disapproval you'll note has only
Special Exception, it doesn't ask for an interpretation. When the Board got this they had an
opportunity through their Section 280-141 to either reject that application or not reject it. They
accepted it so all that was ever before this Board was as you said the Special Exception. There
was no request by the authorities that should be requesting it for an interpretation but what's
happened now is the Planning Board has asked for an interpretation and I understand that they
have a right to do that but I think it's a very limited right. I think it has to be something that's
relative, excuse me relevant to what they're doing. What they have asked you to do is to apply
this code again. What they're really saying to you is let's have a do over. I don't think you can
do that in this town. I don't think one Board can ask another Board because you would have a
situation where the Town Board does it the Planning Board does it and I don't think there's
anything in the code that suggests that you can have an appeal a collaborative appeal. The
appeal time ran. If they wanted to appeal the decision that was the Notice of Disapproval that
ran a long time ago, they never appealed it. What they're asking you now is to laterally take an
appeal and ask you to essentially do this all over again and I think it's just wrong to do and it
shouldn't have been done. We're here and we're going to address the questions that you've
brought up but I'm not willing to waive this question of jurisdiction. I don't think this Board has
jurisdiction, I don't think the Planning Board can give you jurisdiction and I think it's important
that that be in the record and that's why I have given you A. and I'd also like to tell you a little
bit about B. which is January 25th letter from the Planning Board which remarkably confirms
that this is the right thing and the right place. It says another indication of whether a proposed
development is consistent with the town's comprehensive plan is how it fits into the current
zoning. In this case the use is considered by the town Building Department as fitting under the
Special Exception section as a membership club. Under that section of zoning code the use
must meet certain conditions. Under that section of zoning code the use must meet certain
conditions all of which the Building Department found to be met. Effectively the Planning Board
is acknowledging that this is a Special Exception application and nothing more no
interpretation. It took them four months from January to the end of May to decide that there
was another problem. I don't know how it came up, we don't know why it came up but we're
here today in part to answer it and I would like you to think of a couple of things and we'll talk
about because it's important to us to talk about the definitions that you just brought up which
are in the May 31 letter. If you get to commercial recreational facility which is one of the things
they've asked you to consider I want you to realize that that's in the B general business district
280-48(B)(6). It specifically says that the entire building the entire site must be an enclosed
facility. Obviously we're not an enclosed facility we're partly outside and partly inside and by
October 6, 2016 Regular Meeting
the way there is no area in general business where we could actually put this site so I don't see
how that could possibly apply. The other definition is recreational facility that is if you look in
the code in the LIO district which is the light industry park. There are two places in the town
where there's a light industry park one is just north of the dump in Cutchogue and the other is
just next to where the Corizini Asphalt plant and the old lumber yard were in Greenport. It
would be hard to believe we could do tennis and outdoor soccer in either of those locales. I
think whoever wrote this really didn't look very carefully at what they were writing and once
again I think the important thing here is to think about the location of this site and it's
interesting because the location of fitness clubs in this town is not just in the general business
district. Two of those clubs are located one in the HB district and one in an RO district so no one
is too sure where locations of this type should be but we think it's very important that this
location is the right location and I point out to you the exhibit D that I handed up to you is the
county of Suffolk saying exactly that. They have a staff report from the department which has
hired zoning and planning people and the staff report says this is the right thing in the right
place and we believe it is. I'm going to ask Mr. Path who's a general manager of Laurel Links to
show that these uses are very similar from the country club to our club.
JOSEPH PATH : Thank you Charles. Joseph Path I'm the general manager at Laurel Links Country
Club in Laurel. I've been involved with Laurel Links since the inception. I've been involved on
the club side serving as I'm a member of the club, I've served on the initial Board, I was an
officer and I've been the general manager since its inception and during the early and during
the early stages I worked very closely with Laurel Links Limited which was the development
company that formed the project and worked its way through the town for the necessary
approvals. Laurel Links is zoned R80 and I just want to confirm that we did receive the Special
Exception as a membership club in December of 1998. I also wanted to point out that we have
many people know that we have a golf course and tennis course and a pool, outdoor facilities
for recreation by our members and their guests. We also have a lot of indoor uses and
amenities for our members as well. We offer fine dining and several different dining areas, we
have locker rooms, we have a golf shop, pro shop, we have a pool house, we do camps for
members and their children where we utilize a lot of these indoor spaces as well. We have a
halfway house out on the golf course again with indoor amenities so it's not just an outdoor
situation at Laurel Links and the other thing I'd like to mention is that we did also in the process
receive a negative SEQRA declaration and I know that's not before you today but I wanted to
just mention that so that's on the record and I just wanted to say that I see the uses between
these two facilities as very similar and on a personal note I think it's just a great idea for the
community. Many people have said to me aren't you worried its competition to your club. It's
not the case. I think it's just great for the community. It provides some many useful amenities
October 6, 2016 Regular Meeting
for everyone that lives here and I think the two of us will be perfectly fine being near each
other and serving the community that way. So thank you.
FRED MARKHAM : Hi I'm Fred Markham and I am a professional real estate agent with Daniel
Gale Sotheby in Cutchogue and I thought it was appropriate that I've been following this issue
for some time to explain to the Board that it should be noted that there are really no other
parcels for sale or that have been for sale for some time on the Northfork well town of
Southold shall I say in a business district that could be used as this facility is before you about
thank you.
PAUL PAWLOWSKI : Hello Paul Pawlowski Sports East applicant. Thanks for your time today. I
want to point out you know today I'm speaking as a resident who happens to be the applicant
that's pretty funny right. So, I mention this because it's not a situation where a homeowner is
asking for a variance, a developer is asking for a strip mall or any applicant that is seeking self-
gain. It's quite the contrary. One of this proposal is put forth for not one not a few but for all.
We thought of each detail and how best to build a private annual membership club for our
town and for our members. One of the purposes of the ZBA is to mitigate variances or
applications that come before you that might stretch the code whether it be you know asking
for a building that's too large for what's allowable under the code or anything of that matter
that would require a variance in a ZBA. The main point of the ZBA I feel is to help mitigate
things that stretch the code. In this case the ZBA has a unique opportunity not only to protect
the rights of land owners surrounding our property but also with this application to have the
ability to improve the quality of life for our community. One thing that you know I do want to
point out and in the process you know just so you know it's on the record and people
understand is when we submitted our application I submitted a generic sketch plan to the
Planning Board and at that time it's really just an idea and a simple blueprint of hey we would
like to do this you know can this fly. I am a resident I'm also a developer so I understand the
process really well I've done many buildings and many site plans and many subdivisions and the
biggest thing you have before you when you're going for these applications that require a
Special Exception is will it be approved. As the applicant we have to spend a lot of money and a
lot of time and you know to get anything like this approved so you start out you go to the
Planning Board you meet with them you show them your idea and normally you get a sense of
will this fly or not and with a sketch plan the capital investment is small it's really just a work of
art a simple little plan. So that's where the process started. I bring in a sketch plan I sit with
some of the review staff and at that time we only had a sketch plan. Then the Planning Board
referred it to the ZBA where we had our first public hearing on the matter. Our application form
day one to now hasn't changed at all. Our sketch plan hasn't changed at all and we came before
the ZBA because we were referred with a very promising letter from the Planning Board to go
before the ZBA and if you remember that letter from the Planning Board to the ZBA ensured it
October 6, 2016 Regular Meeting
basically endorse this project and I think if anyone reading that would take it the same way we
did. We got positive feedback from sketch plan. We got a good vibe you know we came to the
ZBA and at that meeting there was probably almost a hundred people there and I would say
ninety out of a hundred people were in favor of it and what we were asking for at that time and
today hasn't changed at all and I remember specifically and it's even in the minutes that the use
that we were asking for was allowable under the code but would require a Special Exception
and that meeting was the best ZBA meeting I've ever attended and unfortunately I've had
attended a lot. Not only was there tremendous public support but as an applicant I have to feel
out what you guys are thinking and I'm not holding anyone to that but when in that meeting it's
kind of said and it's recorded that this is allowable but you know what we're going to let
Planning Board be lead agency on SEQRA and we'll render our decision at a later time. At that
moment we had already had a sketch plan, multiple meetings with the Planning Board then a
very positive ZBA public hearing and for us as the applicant that's when we have to make a very
big decision. Do we still think this is going to pass and in order for the Planning Board to
approve this and then eventually the ZBA to approve it we needed to move forward with
SEQRA. In order to move forward with SEQRA you have to do a ton of site plan work when it
comes to engineering, setbacks, a full gamut of expenses. We have to go to the Health
Department, the DOT, multiple agencies you name it. At that time we were moving forward
with the Planning Board for four plus months under the direction of a process and a normal
process which was going on and I bring that up because I have to say I'm confused and this has
completely gone against any sort of process I've ever been before in my life when it comes to a
Special Exception but no one needed any of this stuff that we worked on for four to five months
and spent well over a hundred thousand dollars to determine what we're here for today and
that's extremely confusing and I really want to point that out because you go through these
processes with some encouragement and some real understanding that this might happen. Not
one time and I even actually said to the Planning Board I have no problem if you tell me today
this isn't going to fly. I only wasted a couple of thousand bucks on a sketch plan. I'm a big boy
our partners we can do something else with the property multiple things but I do have a major
problem that we're questioning use and what we've applied for which hasn't changed from day
one to today. I'd like to read to you a bullet point of statement of facts, we have applied for an
annual membership club as defined by the code. There's a few definitions in there but under
annual membership we are a membership based club only. We will not need a variance. We are
well within the side, rear, front setbacks and in fact we more than tripled. A Special Exception
use includes the following: tennis clubs, country clubs, golf clubs, annual membership clubs,
accessory playgrounds, maintenance buildings, food service for the members. Purposes to
engage in outdoor sports where all sports outdoor sports we have a combination of both indoor
sports and outdoor sports but ultimately every sport that we're playing is an outdoor sport.
We're just giving our members the opportunity to do it in the winter under a roof. There is
October 6, 2016 Regular Meeting
precedent set with Laurel Links which received a Special Exception and they have both indoor
and outdoor activities for their members. What we are proposing is in the Southold town
Planning Board's Comprehensive Plan and if you read that about a sports facility it's amazing
how we define that it's almost like we wrote it. What we are proposing can only be done with a
Special Exception if we want to just in our town it's going to require a Special Exception and it's
going to be an R80 zoning nowhere else. There's no opportunity there's no property large
enough. It just cannot happen and we've done a ton of research we actually reached out to the
Cardinale family to buy the property across the street that's a no go and it's not actually large
enough. This is unanimously accepted by the Suffolk Planning Commission that looks at these
things that knows that there might be one in Riverhead for the college. That knows planning,
that knows the special exception, that knows R80 you know they comprise of ten to thirteen
people and it was unanimously supported. We will have very little effect on traffic. We updated
our traffic study in August we did another count just voluntarily because we did resubmit this to
the Planning Board yesterday to get back on there. Not only will we have little effect we will
improve the safety in that area by being the only one in that area with new sidewalks, new
curbing, a turning lane. That are desperately needs some new DOT improvements and we
would be the one paying for that and doing that. There will not be one gallon of water leaving
this property in fact we're going to improve the drainage aspect and the water runoff aspect as
it stands today with our improvements. We would be the first of its kind in all of Southold Town
to have a septic treatment plant that will reduce the nitrogen that goes into the ground. Since
we are preserving close to 70% of the property, we will not require much irrigation at all. In
fact, we will leaving all the mature trees that we can we will have no natural grass it will all be
synthetic and we will probably need the equivalent of a half an acre of irrigation for this entire
property on a 20 acre piece. We will not increase the current noise level passed what's already
there with the traffic that goes by every day. You will not be able to see this building from the
road as it sits 600 feet from the road and if you were able to see it would look nothing different
than the barns to the west and our Architectural Review Board unanimously approved. We got
as far as that approved this building. There will be a large privacy buffer on all sides of the
property including a privacy fence which will improve the safety and privacy for our neighbors.
We are asking to do this in a predominately commercial area business area on the Main Rd.
near the largest building in our town and not in a saturated residential area. Anything closer to
the residential area will be preserved. We will be a private club yet affordable. You have our
pledge that all of the above is fact and accurate. Our application defines the need for a Special
Exception. Without that Laurel Links would never have happened or North Fork Country Club
wouldn't have happened. No members would have had the opportunity. This will be privately
funded. This will help the tax revenue. Our schools are losing enrollment numbers yearly and
this will help a parent make a decision of staying in our town versus leaving. The impacts of
Sports East will have when it comes to SEQRA far less of an impact compared to what we are
October 6, 2016 Regular Meeting
allowed by right without needing to come to the ZBA and that's a major subdivision. A major
subdivision could yield ten to thirteen homes no less than ten and no more than thirteen and in
R80 we're allowed accessory apartments so technically we could have twenty six dwellings on
this property with ten to thirteen pools and we could clear pretty much to the five foot ten foot
setback. That will never be our intention and it's just something to point out that what we're
proposing on a SEQRA level is much better than what's allowable by right. For the partners of
Sports East there's no personal gain at all except what a member would receive and that's an
opportunity to enjoy sports, be active physically and have a sense of community. Those are
statements of fact and not opinion. We have worked hard with the Planning Board to come up
with a great site plan. We feel as an applicant we have done our part. We understand there will
be opposition however ask the kids of those parents that oppose this and see if they want
Sports East. It's the people are physically in need of a pool and they're ailments if they want
Sports East. Ask a competitor who wants to continue to play their sport through the winter if
they want Sports East.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Paul I do have to stop you I'm sorry.
PAUL PAWLOWSKI : I have one more minute.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : In an abundance of respect I wanted to let you go on and repeat
what is already in two public hearing records one before the Planning Board and one before the
Zoning Board which talks about the merits, the positive impact on the community that such a
facility might have and so on and so forth. I must say again what is before the Board today is
whether or not what you've proposed meets the definition that the code states is a club
membership or country or golf. Let me just ask a few questions and then we can get back to
that. First of all I want to remind you that this is not a variance and no one ever said you
needed one on this property for what you're proposing. The Zoning Board does have a great
deal of latitude when it comes to variance relief. A Special Exception permit does not have the
same standards that's number one. You said this has never changed from day one but earlier
when I asked you, you corrected me and said it has changed it's now a smaller building.
PAUL PAWLOWSKI : It's now a larger but the building size never changed from our original
sketch plan.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : What was included in your sketch plan?
PAUL PAWLOWSKI : Everything that you mentioned was included in the sketch plan.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And is that what you submitted to the Building Department?
PAUL PAWLOWSKI : Yes.
October 6, 2016 Regular Meeting
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So the other thing I want to correct in the record is that when you
appeared for the Special Exception permit the statement was made in fact I believe it was made
by me that an annual membership club is a permitted use by Special Exception of the Zoning
Board in an R80 zoned district. I never said that what you were applying for met the definition
of an annual membership club okay. I just want that to be very clear. So, let's look at a couple of
things. I'm going to read this again and I'm going to ask you or your representative or anyone
else who wishes to do so to address what is permitted in that zoned district as applied for. It is
an entity established for the principal purpose of engaging an outdoor sports such as golf,
tennis, swimming, fishing, hunting or similar activities but not including any form of aviation,
outdoor trap, skeet or target shooting or motor boat racing. Ourjob today is a very narrow one
because that's all we can do today and that is to decide whether or not what I've just read is
what the applicant is applying for. If it is it is legally permitted by Special Exception in the R80
zone district. If it is not it is not permitted by Special Exception. That's really what the essence
of what we're looking at today is all about. So I want to give you or anyone else who wishes to
every opportunity to address that particular issue.
PAUL PAWLOWSKI : We are one hundred percent applying for that exact statement that you
just read yes we are. Club membership or country or
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Are you establishing this for the principal use of engaging an outdoor
sports?
PAUL PAWLOWSKI : Yes.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And how is that?
PAUL PAWLOWSKI : We have outdoor facilities and we are we have outdoor facilities.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You're proposing well it's now reduced. When we first looked at it it
was a two acre building on one floor.
PAUL PAWLOWSKI : It's larger.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's now larger.
PAUL PAWLOWSKI : Yes larger.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay it's not 82,5000 it's 140,000 so it's even bigger.
PAUL PAWLOWSKI : Yep large building because we're putting indoor tennis courts and soccer
fields and things that require space that are indoors however
October 6, 2016 Regular Meeting
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Right which is what I read off earlier so you're not removing
anything from that application you're making the building larger in order to accommodate
those uses.
PAUL PAWLOWSKI : Yes.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay. I don't have anything else to say at the moment. Is there
anyone would you like to say anything else Paul before we turn the podium over to anybody
else.
PAUL PAWLOWSKI : Absolutely. Thank you for your time tonight. We need your help. We need
your support. Without it this does not happen.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Thank you Paul.
DENISE GEISS : How you doing my name is Denis Geiss and I live on Sigsbee Rd. and I actually
have a whole thing written about noise and traffic but that is not what we're here for today is
that
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :That's correct.
DENISE GEISS : So at this point all I want to well what I'm concerned with and my family has
lived on Sigsbee Rd. for four generations and I've lived in Mattituck for forty four years so it's
not like the people that come and say oh I've lived here for two years let me change the world.
I've lived here my whole life so my concern is then the multi-use of this field of this project they
want to have indoor and outdoor sports which we were saying I believe that the scope of things
should just be indoors. I believe what you were saying which is my concern and then there's a
whole only outdoors I apologize right and then most of this is actually going to be indoors but
my concern is we've heard from Mr. Pawlowksi, Mr. Slovak it's going to be a gym, an indoor and
outdoor sports facility and basically a day care center for before and after school care for
children. My concern is is this going to be if this is built are we going to keep adding things. I
don't think that from what I've read and what I understand that it can be a multi-use situation
on the piece of property so that is really my concern that the multi-uses we haven't defined if
it's indoors or well we've defined it's indoors and outdoors and we've also defined that not only
is it going to be a gym but a swimming pool and that we've defined that we're going to have
before and after day care. I mean Mr. Slovak is going into that very specifically that they're
going to ask for a bus stop in front of the building. He's going to help children on the bus after
he's going to help them with their homework. I think you need a special license I understand for
a day care type of facility and specially trained people. I don't think that fits in to the gym and
the indoor outdoor sports facility so that's my I just want to state that cause I do have a lot
more but you I was going on the whole Special Exception thing I'm not just what we were
October 6, 2016 Regular Meeting
stating so those would be my concerns that I would ask the Board to strongly consider before
allowing this project to be built because once it's built we cannot get back that property and
we'll have what will happen if this property this complex closes. Then we'll have another empty
building at the entrance to our town and that's not really what we want. Thank you.
JULIE AMPER : Julie Amper from Mattituck. I too had prepared something about the precedent
this would set but it's not applicable today. My concern having heard your definition is that
we're going to have some tennis courts and a field outside. Inside we're going to have a field,
tennis courts, gyms, yoga studios, climbing walls a heck of a lot more indoor activities than
outdoor activities so I wonder how that qualifies under this Special Exception rule when the
vast majority of the activities at this center will be indoors as opposed to outdoors.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Thank you, anyone else please state your name and where you live.
(UNNAMED) : Would you please redefine the uses of special exception that you had as you last
defined it before Mr. Pawlowski sat down.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :The definition or what they have applied for?
(UNNAMED) : For the indoor use as opposed to the outdoor use.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : In other words I just reread what a club membership or country or
golf club is you want me to reread that or read the other two definitions?
(UNNAMED) : It was in relation to the outdoor use and the indoor use for the special exception.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I'm still not sure what you want. There's a recreational facility,
recreational facility commercial and a club membership. I'll reread them all okay now that
you've heard some more testimony because it's hard to keep this stuff in your head. Club
membership or country or golf you'll have this memorized by the time we leave. An entity
established for the principal purpose of engaging in outdoor sports such as golf, tennis,
swimming, fishing, hunting or similar activities but not including any form of aviation, outdoor
traps, skeet or target shooting or motor boat racing. That is what is permitted in the R80 zone
district. Now and I should just interrupt myself for one second to say the Zoning Board does not
write code. We are not the legislative body okay. The Town Board does that. Our job is to
decide if the code as it's written is applicable or not. There are other venues through which
codes can be changed through which a change of zone can be obtained. All of those are
through the Town Board. The next two definitions, recreational facilities, recreational uses
characterized by predominately outdoor activities by patrons including but not limited to
stables and riding academies, regulation golf courses and golf related activities
October 6, 2016 Regular Meeting
(UNNAMED) : Okay that's what I wanted to touch on. When I walked in I was a few minutes late
and the person the gentleman speaking was from Laurel Links and he said that his business had
been granted a Special Exception and so I'm going to presume his business might have been
granted a Special Exception because his was a golf course. Is that a safe assumption to make?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I believe that would be the primary use. I should also point out that
Mr. Pawlowski obtained a Special Exception permit for a golf course as well previously from the
Zoning Board for Cedars.
(UNNAMED) : And then the other for Cedars okay and then did I hear you say that earlier Mr.
Pawlowksi's original plan was an 80,000 square foot
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : 82,000 plus
(UNNAMED) : 82,000 square foot structure but that he had increased it to 140,000 square foot
structure to increase the indoor size of what you know what he would need to necessitate
indoor use?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I believe that's what we just heard.
(UNNAMED) : So barring any of the other notes that I was going to speak on today
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I'm sorry I have to interrupt you for a second we didn't get your
name.
JOY ELLINGHOUSE : Joy Ellinghouse. So barring any of the other notes that I wanted to speak to
today just the notes that I took in the five minutes that I've been to the meeting just wanted to
clarify those things. Just I guess make the connection that you're only here you don't make the
actual rules about what a Special Exception is you only rule on if this if what he's asking for
meets the definition of Special Exception and could it be granted in this particular case that he's
asking for.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That is what we're here today to determine and if it is legally
allowed then we will have to proceed with the Special Exception permit. If it is not then we'll
have to see what comes next.
JOY ELLINGHOUSE : So if it meets the definition it would be legally allowed and if it doesn't
meet the definition it wouldn't be legally allowed.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :That's correct in that zone district.
JOY ELLINGHOUSE : I don't have anything more thank you.
October 6, 2016 Regular Meeting
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I think the audience before we go on I just want to one second Mr.
Cuddy you were nodding your head yes that you wanted those the rest of those definitions
reread so let me continue to do that and then let Mr. Cuddy speak. The recreational facility was
characterized by predominately outdoor activities by patrons including but not limited by
stables and riding academies, regulation golf courses and golf related activities, tennis and
racket, sports clubs, platform sports, baseball batting and pitching cages and swimming pool
facilities. It shall not include such activities as racing, ja alai and amusement parks. And finally,
recreational facility commercial, an indoor or outdoor privately operated business involving
playing fields, courts, arenas or halls designed to accommodate sports and recreational
activities such as billiards, bowling, dance halls, gymnasium, health spas, skating rinks, shooting
ranges, tennis courts and swimming pools. Those are the three definitions in the code that are
applicable to this code interpretation. Mr. Cuddy?
MR. CUDDY : I'd like to say a few things. First of all I think I addressed the problems with the
two definitions recreational facilities and recreational facilities commercial. I mean I think that
hey they don't apply because you can't fit into them and also they don't apply because if you
look at the use as it's set forth one of them says you have to enclose the facility which is not
and that's all you can do. You can't have an outdoor facility so I think they really don't apply
and whoever looked at them didn't look very closely at them but your concern is with the
indoor and outdoor sports. I would point out to you that there's no percentage set forth at all in
here. It doesn't say you have to have all or none. It says that you should have that and we think
that we do and that's what Mr. Path was saying to you before. We have outdoor sports. We
have tennis, we have soccer. We're putting them inside because you can't play them outside all
year long so there maybe is a hybrid situation here and I think that the Board has to look at
that. This is not a situation where it's either A or B this is a situation where you're combining
something. You're combining an indoor use and an outdoor use. The outdoor use is very
significant. If we could put a pool outdoor if we would but you couldn't swim in the pool in the
winter time. We're trying to have something that's meaningful to people that need lessons in
swimming because a lot of people have indicated that to us so I think what we're doing is saying
we're combining an outdoor use and an indoor use. Does it say that? It doesn't say specifically
that but it's a hybrid use and this is the only type of use that we can find that fits into this
particular section and we think it works, we think it's worked in the golf club. Don't forget the
golf club doesn't just play golf and that's what Mr. Path was pointing out. You gave a Special
Exception and when you gave that Special Exception you (inaudible) a lot of things that said
that you can have a restaurant, that you can have calisthenics inside, you can have physical
activities inside that's not there at all for golf club but yet that happens and we're saying in our
situation it also happens. We have different uses inside, we have some uses that are virtual
October 6, 2016 Regular Meeting
identical inside and out so I think you have a hybrid situation. I think this is the right place to do
it. I think it's the only place to do it if you really look at the code. Thank you.
PAUL PAWLOWSKI : Paul Pawlowski Sports East first thank you for that Cedar Special Exception.
We appreciate it and
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You qualified.
PAUL PAWLOWSKI : We qualified and I'd say close to ninety eight kids were in the camp this
year and the reason we went for that Special Exception was to give an indoor golf opportunity
with an indoor golf simulator. One of the best improvements to that course that's been around
since 1908 privately and it went 1965 publicly. The one thing that I do want to point out is that
letter from the Planning Board is addressing code 280-4 and you read club membership
recreational facilities, recreational commercial. Our application and our Building Department
denial specifically states 280-13 and that a Special Exception use includes the following: beach
clubs, tennis clubs, country clubs, golf clubs, annual membership clubs, accessory buildings,
swimming pools, tennis courts, recreational buildings, maintenance building, catering for
members and their guest. No building part there should have any parking or loading area
should be located within a hundred feet of a street line. No problem and they can't exceed 20%
of the area lot. Every part of our site plan addresses them and not one not even one syllable in
280-13 talks about percentages of indoor and outdoor so we've applied for 280-13 and that's
what I meant by we defined that code and we've met every ingredient under that Special
Exception with our site plan. We also fall under 280-4 which is the Planning Board letter and
we've never ever applied for a recreational facility and a recreational commercial facility so I
don't even know how the Planning Board sent that letter based on our Building Department
denial.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Two things. First of all I will answer your question by reading what
the Planning Board's letter says okay and then I would like you to understand that 280-13 is
referring to all of the different kinds of uses in the town that qualify for that are permitted in
certain zone districts by Special Exception approval. It's just a list of things that must come
before the Board for a Special Exception. It's not saying they all can happen everywhere in the
same place all the time. Then I will answer your question by reading a little bit of why the
Planning Board wrote this okay. The Planning Board has been reviewing the site plan
application referenced above. On May 2nd the Board conducted the public hearing and during
that hearing heard concerns about whether the use as proposed is permitted as a Special
Exception on this parcel. The Planning Board after reviewing the town code and various
definitions in the code question whether the use as proposed could be considered an annual
membership club and they go on to explain why. So that is and I'm not going to bore you with
October 6, 2016 Regular Meeting
all the lengthy stuff. It's part of our public record but the point is they had a public hearing,
listened carefully, looked at what uses were being proposed by Sports East and at that point
had no authority to do anything other than to question the Zoning Board who has the authority
to decide through this process of code interpretation whether or not what Sports East has
applied for meets the definition of an annual membership club in terms of how it is defined in
the code currently. That's all I just wanted to clarify that that's why you're here.
PAUL PAWLOWSKI : I just have one question and if you could answer it great if you can't as a
Zoning Board from our first public hearing to now is it surprising to you as a Board that this
question was raised this late in the game?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I don't know that I'm going to answer that because
PAUL PAWLOWSKI : I understand.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well no I'll explain what the because is all about I mean I'm not
skirting the issue. Any town agency at any time has the right to come before this Board to
request a code interpretation. I am not sure that this question may have not you know this
question may have actually been raised through the Special Exception process but we only had
one hearing and we adjourned because Planning Board requested lead agency in order to
conduct the SEQRA review. So I cannot tell you whether this would of come up upon further
evaluation. We were waiting to look at positive or negative impacts and then we would have
made a decision which would have had to address specific standards that would have defined
whether or not this application as applied for qualified. So in fact I'm not surprised but you
know but the process is what it is and it reveals various aspects of an application. This is a very
large project. It has very large impacts on our community and it is not surprising to me at all
that it takes a while to figure it out. So that's my answer to that question. Please go ahead.
ANN MURRAY : My name is Ann Murray. I'm here just as an observer and a citizen and given
we're talking about a very narrow legal question here and not whether it's a popular
application and people need it. I want to stick to your definition of permitted in an R80 zone
and it seems to me that the primary purpose is not outdoor sports obviously that's number
one. Number two to me it seems to fit the definition of a recreational commercial facility with
indoor and outdoor areas and it will be a gym so it seems to me that this is a hybrid kind of
application that doesn't really fit within the code definition that you are seeking to interpret
here so I would argue that. It would not be permitted and that's just my view of it. Thank you .
MARY GRACE STEINFELD : My name is Mary Grace Steinfeld. I'm a parent in Southold Town and
I don't mean to be emotional. I just think that and I can't be as technical as you guys are
because you're up there and you've been doing this every day and I have respect for every one
October 6, 2016 Regular Meeting
of you up there, for the Planning Board I truly believe that anybody in these positions are trying
to do the best for our town and create the best town possible. I just think that sometimes you
have to look at while you're crossing your "t's" and dotting your "i's" what fundamentally were
these codes put into place for. They are put into place to try to create the best community
possible and I get it that the Planning Board gets up there and they make code and then they're
asking you to interpret just like Congress makes laws in our country and they turn around and
the Supreme Court makes interpretations of this but very often you will see Supreme Court
decisions come down and say hey I gotta look at this and say what fundamentally does it come
down to the heart of this and what did the original makers of this really mean. I think it's great
that Cedar Golf Course came up here and spoke and they had gotten that Special Exception but
I don't believe that any code like that was made with the idea that generally speaking it should
be a facility that requires a bond. It was made to create something that would be accessible to
the majority of people and this type of facility would offer things that we have talked about for
so long and hasn't happened. Many times has been brought up on the town level but hasn't
happened and it just hasn't happened because we don't have the money. I racked my brain
thinking why is he doing this because I truly believe that if he built four houses on this property
it would be less of a headache for him and he would make more money out of it and the only
reason I can think is that he does want to create something that is beneficial for this
community. So I can only tell you don't throw out the baby in the baby in the process of the
bath water here. This is something that if it's tossed off I don't believe we'll ever get that
opportunity here again. I just don't believe it you know. So that's all I'm going to say as a
parent.
(UNNAMED) : If I can just for a moment with a devil's advocate because I can get emotional
about this subject as well and just to answer the counter argument to that, that property was
bought as a residential property. Its twenty acres and Mr. Pawlowski I understand what your
motivations may or may not be with developing that property but as a twenty acre residential
lot it may have served you better to buy a commercial piece of property to develop this
particular project. It seems to be very much wanted in this community and I think on another
site you'll have a very positive outcome with it. This site however is not ideal for a 140,000
square acres square feet of structure. The traffic cannot endure any more on that well I can tell
you just having recently visited Mr. Pawlowski's last building on Main Rd. the bank's not even
finished and the building is not the building next door to it is not even fully at capacity there's
only one business there
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Excuse me I'm going to have to cut you off on that. That is not
(UNNAMED) : I'm just saying I couldn't get out of that I couldn't get out of the parking lot there
the other day it took me four minutes.
October 6, 2016 Regular Meeting
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Traffic impacts are a concern to everybody in this town. We all live
here we know what happens in pumpkin season. We all live here we know what that we are
your neighbors up here okay
(UNNAMED) : This site is not ideal for this.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thank you for that comment but the point we are trying to make is
that our decision is not based on whether or not the community the North Fork could benefit
from such a facility. That's for another day. What is before us now is whether or not the facility
as applied for meets the definition. I keep repeating that because I want the public to be aware
of the limitations of what this Board can do. We cannot rewrite the code. It is what it is. Our job
will be to thoughtfully and carefully evaluate everything that's in the public record. I will go
back and review the minutes of the original public hearing the transcript of the Town Board
Jean Corchoran was Supervisor when this definition was put into place. I have that hearing
transcript on LaserFishe. I intend to give it full scrutiny to try and to the best of our ability
interpret what the original intent of that code was which is often what we do when we do a
code interpretation. So please be aware that every one of your considerations will be thought
through with an open mind and with as much honest and careful scrutiny as we can possibly
give it. We understand that this is an important issue in the town and I can assure you that it
will be given our very careful intention. Mr. Cuddy did you want to go next because he was
standing up for a while and then we'll get to your comments.
JOE SLOVAK : Joe Slovak Sports East. Just for the sake of brevity I just want to clarify I've been
an educator for twenty years and what I spoke about before care and after care in school we
talk about that because a lot of schools have programs for kids who are left alone in the
morning and they go home to empty houses. So my motivation my intention was as members
of the club we can set up something for them. Did I mention bus the answer is yes. If I spoke
out of turn then I apologize. If it's not allowed by code if we're not allowed to help our
member's children with homework then so be it. I spoke as an educator and I spoke from my
heart and I spoke that this would be good for the community and that's what I'd like to clarify.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Thank you for your comments.
BRITTA BABASHATT : Britta Babashatt I am the owner of the Sunflower Patch in Southold. I also
was a previous owner of Maritime Day School that was put in in Cutchogue. I'd like to step
forward today just because the Board and the Town of Southold so graciously granted me and
my partner at the time a Special Exception to put in the first private preschool in a commercial
space. It was questioned as the property here is being questioned. It was proved to be a
positive asset to the community and I feel this is the same situation. We have an opportunity
here in the Town of Southold through private people stepping forward and investing their
October 6, 2016 Regular Meeting
money privately into the investment of our children and the community and as was our project
it is a reach by all of the Boards to let this project happen and trust in a private group of people
to put this project forward. However, the changes that I've seen with my project in the ability to
change the fees of early childhood education and what is offered in our community is the same
changes that we I grew up here, I went to New Suffolk School, went to Southold High School. I
now raise my children which are sixteen, twelve and ten in this community the changes are to
the investment in children's programming and to the sports which are a key to our community
here are far overdue and it's not going to be done by the town specifically and it's not going to
be done unless some (inaudible) and as the woman said before if this opportunity passes there
will not be that opportunity again. No one will come aboard and raise this money to do what
Paul Pawlowski and his group of investors have done and I believe that in a time where the time
since I've grown up to now what our children have to be offered in the world they live in has to
be positive and I support their ability to put those things into place and we have to look at what
our youth need and what they need is a place to go and it's been
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Ma'am we thank you for your comment and again we have a great
deal of testimony in prior public hearings from the community both indicating support for this
kind of facility and concerns about it. Again that is not the kind of testimony that will address
the issue that's before the Board. We have until well we have another ten minutes and then
we're going to lose our quorum not because we want to but because the ferry schedule is going
to require us to. I don't want to cut anybody off. If need be we will have another hearing. We'll
continue it if there's enough reason to. If not anybody has the right to submit anything they
wish in writing okay addressing what they believe to be the code interpretation that is the
subject of this hearing. Mr. Cuddy I want do you have just a very brief comment?
MR. CUDDY : So you will have this will be open for a period of time?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : What I can do is ask the Board to hold this open until the Special
Meeting which is in two weeks from today where we can accept written comments or any
other kind of documentation you wish and then we can close it at the Special Meeting to allow
ample opportunity for people who weren't here or think of something afterwards whatever you
would like to submit the Board is welcomed to enter into our public record. I don't know that
we need to prolong this beyond another two weeks unless we think there's some benefit for an
additional public hearing. I doubt that to be the case I'll ask the rest of the Board if they think so
but if they do then what we'll do is adjourn it from the Special Meeting to another public
hearing but I suspect two weeks will be ample time for anybody who wishes to chime in on this
to do so. So let me give you the floor.
';,y
October 6, 2016 Regular Meeting
MR. CUDDY : I wanted to correct the record because I think people don't understand what R80
is all about and the young woman before was announcing that R80 is just a residential district
that's not true. R80 includes permitted uses such as wineries, horse farms, domestic farms,
domestic animals, goat, pigs you could have all of that without getting a Special Exception.
Special Exception you could even have a nursery school, you could have a camp a summer
camp for two hundred and fifty children at this site. So R80 is just not residential and I think it's
a mistake for people to think in those terms. I also am most hopeful that you will consider my
earlier concern and that is that this should never have even come before this Board because
frankly I don't think there's any jurisdiction for what the Planning Board has done. I recognize
that you can have interpretations but you can't have an interpretation when it's really an
appeal and that's what they've done. They have not said to you this is part of our site plan we
need to know a definition of can you have parking here. Can you do something in a subdivision?
They have actually asked you to review what had been reviewed by both the building inspector
and this Board and I think that's wrong for somebody to do cause that's going to happen again
and I think that it'll be a terrible precedent for the town to let people waive back and forth like
this. Thank you.
ARNOLD BLAIR : Hi my name is Arnold Blair. I have a little history in this town about facilities. I
was involved with the Y when it was proposed in Riverhead and I volunteered and became sort
of the Northfork liaison for what was the Riverhead project and that was a project that had to
raise about eleven million dollars. Bob Entenmann had committed two million dollars he was
going to (inaudible) facilities and what they needed was some kind of permission from the
Riverhead Town Board I'm not sure of their legal process but that's where it was Town Board. I
participated in the visit to the (inaudible) Y with executives from the YMCA and Shawn Walter
who was the town supervisor of Riverhead and Jodi Giglio for a visit. I was blown away. I had
never been to a Y before and the activity with the kids going on everywhere that you'd look not
only the swimming pool but every facility was packed with kids having a great time. I said wow
what a great, great kind of facility to have. There's nothing like it here.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I'm sorry sir again I regret that I have to cut you off because you
need to address the definition in the code. We're running out of time and anything can be done
in writing.
ARNOLD BLAIR : The plan failed because of political decisions by the Town Board. They could
have passed it. They found excuse after excuse, after excuse. They proposed to the Y if you met
certain conditions we would approve it. The Y met all the conditions. They found other reasons.
I just hope that in the political process for this facility which is greatly needed out here that it
doesn't become a political football.
+;uu
October 6, 2016 Regular Meeting
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I would like to reassure you and everyone else that this Zoning Board
does not ask what your party is or anything else that's personal. We do the best we can to
ethically examine the facts before us and this is a democratic process not a political process.
MARY EISENSTEIN : Good afternoon Mary Eisenstein Mattituck. The question I have is about
clarification of process. Would you please explain what the process is going to be from today
forward and just kind of you know the fact how does it go back and if it goes back to the
Planning Department does is come back to you the Zoning Board of Appels? So would you
please clarify the process?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I will attempt to. Depending on what happens with this hearing this
determination if the determination is that it is an allowed use we will have to proceed with the
Special Exception permit application to the Zoning Board which is still open. We will have to
probably and again we have to find out legally how this has to happen. The Planning Board had
as lead agency had the SEQRA process before it. We cannot make a determination or grant a
Special Exception without a SEQRA determination. So we'll have to sort that out. If in fact it
does not fit the definition in the Board's determination then we will have to ask the applicant
how they wish to proceed. The applicant always has an opportunity to withdraw the application
as applied for and to come back without prejudice with a different application. Let me think
what else might happen. If in fact it goes forward as a positive thing it will have to go back to
the Planning Board because this cannot be approved without Planning Board approval. We're
only one half of the equation.
MARY EISENSTEIN : The fact that the Planning Board did have the SEQRA determination so are
we saying then this process will come back and go through the same process again? I mean the
Planning Board
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I don't think they concluded their SEQRA process. I don't think it was
completely concluded. Now, now neighbors no fisty cuffs please do you want to pipe in on this
Bill or did I describe this properly?
TOWN ATTORNEY : Just on the SEQRA issue it was not completed as the Chairwoman stated.
The applicant withdrew their Planning Board application prior to a Planning Board rendering of
SEQRA determination. I understand he said he reapplied to the Planning Board yesterday. I
have no knowledge of that.
PAUL PAWLOWSKI : The Sports East application for outdoor sports requires triple the square
footage that we need for indoor sports on a mathematic basis. I understand that's a large
building and a large project for our town but when we're talking math I guess even though
there's no percentage in the code our outdoor sports require much more space. Lastly our uses
October 6, 2016 Regular Meeting
or what we the amenities we put forth for our members hasn't changed from day one from
when I met with the original Planning Board staff so that's I just wanted to point that out. You
as a Board have a really tough job always because you have to go by the definition of the code.
We feel and so did the Planning Board staff we felt we applied for and we defined under the
code so that this would pass not be rejected or we would of never started ever. It's vital that
this Town Board, Planning Board and Zoning Board understand and what we tried to say all
along today this will never ever happen if it's deemed commercial. This town will never have a
facility that we're proposing if it's deemed commercial ever. There's no property large enough.
It will require it will have to happen in an R80 zoning and it will have to have a Special Exception
period or it will never happen in our lifetime. Thanks for your time.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thank you Paul. Counsel is just reminding me we're going to have to
adjourn to the Special Meeting at this point but is everyone in the audience okay with anything
else that you wish to say doing so in writing rather than having another public hearing and
delaying things even more? Okay fine. I'm hearing a lot of yes's. Okay I think that that makes
sense. If that changes you will know about it but we're going to I'm going to therefore thank all
of you for your testimony and for your time and your attention and I'm going to make a motion
to adjourn this hearing subject to additional written submission to the Special Meeting on
October 201h at six o'clock p.m. Is there a second?
MEMBER HORNING : Second.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor?
MEBMER SCHNElDER : Aye.
MEMBER HORNING : Aye.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye.
(See Minutes for Resolution)
October 6, 2016 Regular Meeting
CERTIFICATION
I Elizabeth Sakarellos, certify that the foregoing transcript of tape recorded
Public Hearings was prepared using required electronic transcription equipment
and is a true and accurate record of Hearings.
Signature
Elizabeth Sakarellos
DATE : October 21, 2016