HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-09/07/2017 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
September 7, 2017
9:42 A.M.
Board Members Present:
LESLIE KANES WEISMAN - Chairperson/Member
PATRICIA ACAMPORA – Member
ERIC DANTES – Member
GERARD GOEHRINGER – Member
NICHOLAS PLANAMENTO – Member
KIM FUENTES – Board Assistant
WILLIAM DUFFY – Town Attorney
?
September 7, 2017 Regular Meeting
INDEX OF HEARINGS
Hearing Page
Bernadette Strachan, The Estate of Stuart Strachan and Kenneth
Strachan Jr. #70783 - 12
George F. Lanos #7071 12 - 17
Lisa and Charles Howard #7083 17 - 24
Patrick and Linda Kraus #7085 24 - 27
Chelsea Wilsberg-Chalone #7087 27 - 31
Tracy Peck and David Crobett #7087 31 - 35
Michael Harkin #7088 35 - 36
North Fork United Methodist Church (CV) (RMB Realty, LLC) #6936 36 - 40
John Heeg and Gia Fischetti Heeg #7075SE 40 - 54
John Heeg and Gia Fischetti Heeg #7076 40 - 54
?
September 7, 2017 Regular Meeting
HEARING # 7078 – BERNADETTE STRACHAN, THE ESTATE OF STUART STRACHAN AND
KENNETH STRACHAN, JR.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The first application before the Board is for Bernadette Strachan,
The Estate of Stuart Strachan and Kenneth Strachan, Jr. This is a request for a variance under
Article III Section 280-14 and the Building Inspector’s March 24, 2017 Notice of Disapproval
based on an application to legalize two unrecognized non-conforming lots at 1) proposed
residential lots having less than the required 200,000 sq. ft. in area at 310 Narrow River Rd.
(adj. to Orient Harbor) in Orient. Pat would you like to address the Board on this?
PAT MOORE : Yes, good morning, Patricia Moore on behalf of the proposed purchaser Robert
Rocco who with the consent of the owners, the sellers of the property the Strachan family that
you listed. This application is actually correcting action that was taken back in 1990 when the
New York State D.E.C. acquired the open space portion of what is described as lot number one
on the Kenneth Strachan Jr. and Margaret L. Strachan subdivision map of lot line change and
setoff. That was approved back in by the Planning Board February 20, 1987. What occurred is
that this subdivision was approved back in ’87 by the Planning Board where they created one
lot line change between lots what would be the house parcel and lot 2 and then subdivided off
a setoff what would be at the time considered a setoff of a one lot from a larger parcel. At the
time the subdivision was created it was adjacent to Orient Harbor and the wetlands were under
the ’87 regulations they created what would have been an open space of the natural buffer
between the lots, the development portion of the lots which were each approximately well the
two improved lots excuse me one improved lot and lot 1 which is the subject lot about three
acres or two acres, two plus acres in size with the remaining portion of the parcel what’s
described on the map as a dike appears to have been where the wetlands begin to override the
land and that portion of the property on all the three parcels shown on the subdivision is shown
as open space. The size of the open space depended on what was the portion attached to the
individual lots. So the subdivision was approved and thereafter in 1990 New York State D.E.C.
was acquiring significant portions of the wetlands in the state along the harbor. These
properties as well as other properties in Orient were the subject of negotiated acquisitions and
that’s the key because had the D.E.C. come in and done a taking a condemnation we wouldn’t
have to be here because the State’s action would have created the modification to the
individual lots as a taking. However, because the D.E.C. was doing it through negotiation a little
arm twisting negotiation but a negotiation nonetheless it would be no different than if I came
along and acquired a portion of a lot there should have been some action between the Planning
?
September 7, 2017 Regular Meeting
Board and the D.E.C. to formalize these lot line changes. We’re a little more sophisticated
today. I know I’ve been part of applications on Fishers Island where lots are being modified
through not for profits, for I guess a museum and other state type agencies and the Planning
Board actually goes through a process of a lot line change to formalize it so that the lot that
remains has a certain blessing by the Planning Board. That did not occur here so here we are.
Well then there’s one other little wrinkle to this, after the D.E.C. came in and acquired
significant portions of Orient Harbor adjacent wetlands the Town of Southold up-zoned this
Orient this area to five acre zoning. Ordinarily up-zonings on with pre-existing lots grandfathers
those lots but in this case we had this unusual event between the subdivision process and the
acquisition. So my client when the property is for sale and my client had me doing some due
diligence and reviewing the history and we were not finding the lot that is being is the subject
of the sale matching anything on the town records and that’s when we proceeded with this
process. Had the State and the Town done this process back in 1990 an area variance wouldn’t
have been required because the zoning remained two acres and this lot is more than two acres
in size so it would have been conforming at the time. That’s not the case now. We have a non-
conforming part of a lot that shows on the subdivision map and that’s why the area variance
here is required. So we’re here on a technical application. This is really cleaning up what was
something that was supported and encouraged and certainly done with the town’s knowledge
back in 1990. Unfortunately it wasn’t as precise as we are today and here we are so that’s the
purpose of this application. It’s not changing anything with respect to what would remain the
buildable portion of the lot and what was at that time the non-buildable portion of the lot. If
you have any question I’d be happy to address them.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well I just want to enter into the record a couple of items so that
you can address them. One is that the Planning Board well let me just say what is indicated
here. The proposed subdivision to legalize two unrecognized lots in the R-200 zoned district is
not permitted because currently the combined parcel measures 3.2 acres. Following the
subdivision lot 9.4 will measure 1.9 acres; lot 9.5 will measure 1.2 acres, bulk schedule requires
a minimum lot size of 200,000 sq. ft. Just so the record reflects what the Notice of Disapproval
says. We received comments from the Planning Board which I will read into the record. Thank
you for the opportunity to comment on the application. Planning Board has reviewed their files
and found that the two subject parcels were created originally as a single lot, lot 1 by Planning
Board’s subdivision approval on February 23, 1987 see attached subdivision map with lot 1
highlighted in red and we can go to laser fiche etc. Planning Board supports the requested
variance because the original intent of the subdivision has not changed. The area identified as
lot 9.5 is the same area identified as part of lot 1 on the original subdivision map. This area is
owned by the NYS D.E.C. and is preserved from future development. The area identified as 9.4
is identical to the development area of lot 1 on the original subdivision map thus there will be
?
September 7, 2017 Regular Meeting
no additional impacts to the environment or to the community by granting the variance
because no new development will be created. Am I right then Pat in saying that what the
Planning Board is saying and are you in agreement that there will only be one residential lot
created through this subdivision?
PAT MOORE : Correct.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay so one that is owned by the D.E.C. remains undeveloped and
this proposal would permit the recognition of one building lot?
PAT MOORE : Correct. The D.E.C. just to clarify what appears to be the case at least on the tax
map is that the D.E.C. portion is now been merged to adjacent wetlands. So it’s all open space.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The LWRP recommendation is that it is consistent provided the
following he’s listing a bunch of policies however I do want to ask you about this, due to the
lack of public water, sole source aquifer, expected high groundwater and close proximity to
surface waters in this area the development of a future residential structure is expected to
contribute to the incremental and compounding adverse effects to groundwater and surface
water quality over time. Therefore what he’s suggesting is the applicant has indicated that a
future landowner will construct a single family residence on lot 9.4 with a new sanitary system
capable of contributing nitrogen and other contaminants to groundwater and ultimately
surface waters. Several recent studies have linked on-site sanitary systems with contributing
nitrogen to surface waters resulting in impacts that include; algal blooms, hypoxia and fish kills.
In local waters after atmospheric deposition, groundwater is estimated as the second largest
external source of nitrogen totaling 21% of the total nitrogen load. Now this is the important
thing that I’d like you to answer. To mitigate future impacts from a sanitary system it is
recommended that the Board require the installation of an alternative on-site sewage disposal
system capable of achieving a reduction of total nitrogen to approximately 19mg/l to preserve
ground and surface water quality. So what Mark is actually suggesting here is an advanced
sanitary system not the standard. Can you address that for us?
PAT MOORE : I’ll say that as an attorney placing that kind of restriction when the parcel is five
hundred feet from Orient Harbor plus an additional most likely based on Health Department
regulation an additional two hundred feet making it seven hundred feet if I did my numbers
right yea seven hundred feet away and a parcel that is more than two acres I believe that those
kind of conditions are not necessary and I would prefer to leave it to each home owner and the
Health Department to consider these systems and the functioning of these systems because
they’re the newest hottest type of system but they are still in the I want to say study review
stage. So to that extent I believe that it’s unnecessary in this case given the fact that we do have
existing conditions and we are in fact correcting what had been done back in ’87.
?
September 7, 2017 Regular Meeting
T.A. DUFFY : But you still have to go to Planning right?
PAT MOORE : Yes and we still have to go to Planning to finish up the process.
T.A. DUFFY : It might be better for the Planning Board to take
PAT MOORE : It appears to me it would. I’ve seen the Planning Board place the same condition.
I don’t agree with it but that’s ultimately a decision to be made by another agency.
Nevertheless my client may avail himself of that type of system anyway so that may be
something that he would be interested in. I would ask that that would not be a condition here
that I will discuss it with the Planning Board at that time.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright I just wanted to give you an opportunity and make sure that
all that is in the record.
PAT MOORE : Yep I had seen that. I did discuss it with my client and he may avail himself of that
system as well.
MEMBER DANTES : I’m looking at the application Pat and in it you have an old variance from
5/22/80 it looks like regarding a 280-a, do you know what that variance was for?
PAT MOORE : Yea I believe that before the subdivision because 1980 the subdivision was in ’87
so the existing the house on the middle parcel was there
MEMBER DANTES : You’re talking about lot 2?
PAT MOORE : Yea, lot 2, so I believe that that was an application for 280-a since it was access to
that house was through a right of way it was not a mapped road at the time because the
subdivision had not been created so it still appears as the tax map number because the parcel
at the time was all one lot. That is a moot application in that the 280-a process is that’s an
alternative when there is no filed map with a mapped road so at this point we don’t need 280-a
because we have access through a subdivision.
CHAIPERSON WEISMAN : Does the Board have any other questions at the moment or should
we see what the audience has? Who in the audience would like to address the application,
please come forward to the mic and state your name?
ELIZABETH HOLTZMAN : My name is Elizabeth Holtzman. I have submitted a statement to the
Board. I hope it’s been distributed. Since we’re talking about technicalities first let me say I
appreciate the opportunity to be here but I want to start with the technicalities since you are
obliged to obey the law here. I believe that the Board is precluded from acting on this request
at this time because the requested have failed to comply with the requirement of a properly
?
September 7, 2017 Regular Meeting
posted notice. I don’t know if you had an opportunity to read that it’s in my first paragraph of
my statement. But the posted notice affixed to the for sale sign in front of the property which
was the only posted notice on the road in front of the house was torn probably by the wind. We
had a very windy weekend last weekend but when I came to look at the sign it was not fully on
the post so there was no full sign carrying the full information with regard to this hearing.
Actually I tried to stick the little pieces that had fallen off back on but apparently they fell off
because my neighbors told me that and I think some of them will be here to testify to that as
well that the full notice as required by the town law was not complied with so there is not
proper notice for this and you should have asked the preceding speaker to address that point
with due respect. As to the merits of the request I strongly oppose it. I’ve been a resident of
this property that I own which is across the street from the property in question for fifty five
years. My parents bought that property in 1962 so we’ve been there a very long time. For more
than half a century I’ve had the immense pleasure and privilege of living in this very rural part
of Orient in the town of Southold. The property sought to be given a zoning variance is a wide
open space adjacent to wetlands and a slave burial ground. Across the property you can see
Peconic Bay Orient Harbor. It is a beautiful spot when all the residents of Orient and this town
of Southold treasure now and should be able to treasure for many, many more years to come.
The beauty of this spot should not be marred and destroyed by the creation of two houses or
even one house that could be built only by violating the present five acre zoning requirement.
The five acre zoning requirement was intended to preserve the rural character or Orient. It was
carefully thought out and it was appropriate. Granting the zoning variance would be an
unjustified assault on the zoning code. It would also create a terrible precedent. Why wouldn’t
a variance always be granted if this one is granted making the five acre requirement
meaningless? If granted this variance will have a destructive impact on the beauty and the
vistas of Narrow River Road and the special rural character of Orient. There can be no
justification for abandoning the existing zoning requirement in light of Southold towns’
responsibility and this Board’s responsibility to preserve the beauty, the spectacular vistas and
the rural character of Orient. For that reason the application should be soundly rejected. The
fact that the property owners didn’t address the technical issues since 1987 should not be a
burden that falls on the adjacent owners and the people of Orient and everybody who comes to
that area to view the beauty of the area. It’s their fault they have to live with it just like a
statute of limitations and it shouldn’t be varied in this case. In addition as the Board has
mentioned there are considerable impacts on the availability of water for adjacent properties
of the two buildings and the granting of the variance. I know about water contamination. We
had Temic contaminating our water for years and some of my neighbors are still affected by it.
Why are we creating additional problems for the contamination of our and the availability of
clean water? Further the water because of the further issue arising from the facts I’m told the
water table is very high at this point and the property involved is low lying meaning that waste
?
September 7, 2017 Regular Meeting
waters may leach into the wetlands, Hallocks Bay and Orient Harbor. Addressing the point
further the prior speaker talked about seven hundred feet from Orient Harbor I would beg to
disagree. The actual bay may be seven hundred feet away but there’s a small estuary that
comes almost at the edge of the property line. I know that because I walk past it and because
I’ve kayaked almost up to that point. What’s going to that not seven hundred feet away. That
may not even be a hundred feet away and that water flows right in to Hallocks Bay and right
into Orient Harbor. How can we in the year 2017 with what we know allow further pollution of
that beautiful waterway and those estuaries and the Harbor and the Bay. It’s not something
that’s going to be addressed oh well maybe we’ll give this to the Planning Board and oh well
maybe the owners will do this and that. The additional construction that will take place because
of the variance granted by this Board will add to the pollution of the bay the harbor the
estuaries and also dramatically affect the water supply. This is not an abstract issue. I do not
drink the water in my house. That’s a direct result of the contamination of the water supply.
We have seen that in Orient. Let me also add that the beauty of Narrow River Road as it is
presently configured is something we hold and trust you hold and trust not just for ourselves
but for future generations. What will we tell our children and grandchildren if we sell out their
heritage for a mess of porridge? I strongly urge that the zoning variance be rejected. Thank
you.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thank you for your comments, anyone else?
HELEN LECHMANSKI : My name is Helen and I live on King Street Orient. Everything that I was
going to say has already been said. I wanted to address some of the issues that Liz just
addressed and I don’t want to repeat. Now I just would like to say that the land there is heavily
used the bay for recreation; fishing, clamming and there’s very few places left around that you
can still do that. Also I’d like to mention that I did not see the sign until this morning. We
walked over to the land and picked it up off the ground. So we haven’t been notified or any of
our neighbors of this hearing. There was not notification. I would just like to protect the bays in
Orient also and I don’t see that what’s going to happen is going to protect our bays. That’s it I
think.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thank you. I’m just going to address the comment you made about
notification, we have a list of all of the relatively adjacent property owners that the law requires
any applicant has to notify in writing and you know we get green cards back from these
mailings indicating that the neighbors have received notification of a public hearing and why
and I’m just looking to see what green card do we have all of them back? Oyster Ponds
Historical, Richard Madigan, Elizabeth Holtzman, Mildred Vesutshi, we have six notices Pat do
you want to address the notices to see did you do all the mailings?
?
September 7, 2017 Regular Meeting
PAT MOORE : Yes.
HELEN LECHMANSKI : Well I can say that I wasn’t notified and also the sign we saw it this
morning only because we walked on to the property to pick up the paper that’s down and all
wet on the ground. So that means that any of our neighbors that weren’t notified wouldn’t of
known about this meeting this morning because there was no sign to read.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Right, understood. We actually have a listing of ten properties and
we have six of those mailings returned. We have return receipts so six out of the ten who were
by law required to receive it’s not everybody in the neighborhood that’s supposed to get
mailings just those that are adjacent because they have potentially the greatest impact. So, just
to let everyone I just wanted to check to see what you were saying about notification proper
notification. Alright thank you for your comments, is there someone else who would like to
address the Board?
ELIZABETH HOLTZMAN : I did not actually receive it and the posted notice which is also a legal
requirement was not satisfied here. I don’t know how the Board can proceed in absence of
that.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We have a letter from Carolyn and Jim McLaughlin in our record and
from Nina (inaudible) also, people who live in the area just so that you’re aware we have those
you have copies of those don’t you Pat?
PAT MOORE : I believe so my secretary (inaudible)
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Any questions from the Board members?
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Leslie sort of maybe just a question point of order, you had
mentioned that the green cards Mrs. Holtzman received one and that you had the return
receipt.
MEMBER DANTES : Nick it shows that it went to 180 Bergen St. Brooklyn New York 11217. Is
that your address ma’am?
ELIZABETH HOLTZMAN : Yes sir but I never received it.
MEMBER DANTES : Have you been to Brooklyn lately?
ELIZABETH HOLTZMAN : I just came from Brooklyn this morning.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We have tracking on it. I mean it might have gone astray but we just
want to make sure that things were done as they are required by law to be done and
sometimes green cards just don’t come back. I mean sometimes people are on vacation for
?
September 7, 2017 Regular Meeting
months and they don’t we just don’t get them back. We do our best and so do applicants we
require that they submit or explain why certain green cards were not received back.
PAT MOORE : And if I do receive any additional green cards back I typically I want to say always
but we make a very strong effort to get them all to the Board for your files even if they come in
late we provide them. As far as the signs I was given two signs to post. I personally so I can
swear to it that I personally staked both signs. One was facing the right of way which is it’s a
corner lot there and the other one on the street. As far as I could tell I was there I want to say I
might have been there on a Friday last Friday and they were still up. Whether the wind took
them yesterday we had a terrible storm I can’t attest to that but the fact is that the parties
were must have received some form of notice because the fact that they are here satisfies the
notice requirement under the law so the fact that in and of itself provides proof of their
knowledge of the application.
HELEN LECHMANSKI : I would just like to say regarding the notification a neighbor who lives
down the road from me happened to mention it otherwise I wouldn’t be here today and I live
close to this property that’s the only way I found out.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Also just for those of you in the audience the legal notices which
describe the requested relief are posted in the Suffolk Times in a timely way. That’s part of the
legal requirement. Not everybody reads them. It certainly wouldn’t necessarily go looking for
them if you didn’t know something was going to affect you in your neighborhood but just so
that you’re aware they are posted in Southold Local and in the Suffolk Times, anything else
from the Board?
MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Unless you want to leave it open until the Special Meeting in case
anybody else wants to comment by mail.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well I’ll tell you maybe that’s not an unreasonable suggestion. Given
the fact that some of you had concerns that people who may be affected by this decision were
not aware of it, didn’t have time to think it through or to appear today what I can do is make a
motion to adjourn this application to our Special Meeting in two weeks which would then give
anyone who is interested if I hold it open rather than closing it then anyone who is not here
today or even if you are here today and you wish to submit anything in writing regarding this
application you or anyone else may do so and copies will be given to the applicant’s agent so
that she may also address them if she chooses to do so. That’s the process we go through and I
think given the concerns people have about being duly noticed that’s probably a reasonable
thing to do. Go to the mic please.
??
September 7, 2017 Regular Meeting
ELIZABETH HOLTZMAN : Is the change in the meeting date going to be posted too so that
people can see it? Remember what I’m talking about, one of our concerns here is not just as a
property owner with a vista I’m talking about the beauty of Narrow River Rd. and the people
who come and look at it and the people who enjoy it. It’s a benefit for the whole town. It’s a
benefit for I mean for the hamlet of Orient and it’s a benefit for the whole Town of Southold
and so there needs to be a posted sign with a new meeting date.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well let me explain. The new meeting date the Zoning Board meets
twice a month. We meet for public hearings on a Thursday during the day. Two weeks later we
meet over in the Annex conference board room and that is called a Special Meeting and that is
a meeting that is not open anyone can attend they’re all open meetings but that is not a
meeting where testimony is taken. What we do is discuss before the public applications. We
generally have drafts of decisions that we want to vote on and that is where we will discuss
those applications and vote before the public. Nothing is recorded and no testimony is taken
and there are no questions and answers. So we don’t notice I mean we have an agenda posted
on our website the town’s website and that is the only legal notice that we are required to give.
In other words the posting is for public hearing but what we can do is just give you an
opportunity to let anybody in the neighborhood know by word of mouth that this is happening
and if you wish to submit anything for the Board to consider prior to that meeting we will do so.
We will make it part of our public record. We will all get copies. We will read everything. The
agent will have an opportunity to read it as well and respond and then all of that will be
considered in writing a draft decision and in deliberating on that draft. If there are further
questions we have the option of carrying that over or adjourning to yet another public hearing
date. That’s unusual in a situation like this but it is not unprecedented and that would then give
another Thursday during the day to hear from more people but if the Board feels that given the
comments we’ve received we have enough information to make a responsible decision, an
informed decision that’s what we will do two weeks from today but everything you submit will
be part of the public record even though it wasn’t at a hearing. Does anyone have any
questions on that, anything else from the Board? Yea you can address it to me or to the Board
of Appeals, send it to Kim. You can email it if it’s easier for you and she will forward it and print
copies or you can pop it in the mail or drop it off at the office. Our office is in the Capital you
know the bank building up on the corner here on the first floor. You just go in to the counter
where it says Building and Zoning and the bank’s on one side and the entrance to the
departments on the other just drop it off ask for someone from the office and they’ll come and
get they’ll come out and meet you. Alright then hearing no further questions or comments I’m
going to make a motion to adjourn this hearing to the Special Meeting on September 21 st.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Second.
??
September 7, 2017 Regular Meeting
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Seconded by Gerry, all in favor?
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Aye.
MEMBER DANTES : Aye.
MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye.
(See Minutes for Resolution)
HEARING # 7081 – GEORGE F. LANOS
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for George F. Lanos # 7081.
This is a request for variance under Article III Section 280-15 and the Building Inspector’s April
13, 2017 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to construct an accessory
garage at 1) located in other than the code required rear yard at 460 Horton Ave. in Mattituck.
Is there someone here to represent that application? This is a proposal for an accessory garage
located in a side yard where the code requires a rear yard location. It’s a one car twelve foot by
twenty foot proposed at the end of an existing driveway near a kitchen entrance and let’s see
it’s got a 5.5 foot side yard setback at somewhat of an angle. What else would you like us to
know Pat about this?
PAT MOORE : Well we’ll see if this what I think is a straightforward application isn’t. The reason
for this variance as you pointed out the 5 foot setback to the property line is actually
conforming as an accessory structure. The height of this structure this garage is 15 feet in
height so it’s actually less than well obviously less than the 18 feet which is the typical the
height of this garage is a typical height of a shed. My client as you can see from your inspection
it’s a modest house. It has no garage and my client is getting older and having a garage would
certainly make his life easier as well as it does not detract from the character of the
neighborhood. The home to the, you saw it from the photographs I believe it’s to the west on
the left side also has a garage of similar design. It may be actually a little bit bigger because it
looks to be a garage and a half next door but in character again it’s a one story the neighbor’s
garage is a one story garage. My client and I discussed alternatives so as to not have to go for a
variance but if we were to have it as a connected structure then it would need to be a principal
setback which is a larger setback than five feet so it would have made the setbacks non-
conforming. In addition the house has a window which is because it’s such a small house its
??
September 7, 2017 Regular Meeting
light and air into what is the existing kitchen attaching the garage would eliminate source of
light in there so the bottom line is that this was the most reasonable appropriate design for this
one story one car garage. I’m here to answer any additional questions you might have. It’s
pretty again a straightforward application.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well let’s see what the Board has, Nick would you like to start?
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Actually Pat just answered the question I wanted to ask regarding
why wouldn’t you attach the garage to the house. I mean visually you could see that you would
lose a window. It is a small house but I didn’t understand I guess the applicant’s intent other
than seeing that within the community there are other free standing garages.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Gerry?
MEMBER GOEHRINGER : I think the typical question is as you probably heard from me so many
times why can’t you put it in the rear yard and of course we have a physical reason why you
can’t put it in the rear yard so in that particular situation I don’t have (inaudible) necessary
objective.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well I was going to say that what’s the physical reason of not putting
it in the rear yard, the shed that’s there?
MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Well basically the rear yard is very narrow.
PAT MOORE : Yea because of the angle of the property and the house it does create a narrow
opening. Also, the winter use of the house getting from a garage that you’ve parked your car
into the house it’s a longer walk less protected so the design of this after a lot of thought was
proposed in this location.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER : It also causes a longer driveway if you were to put it back in that and
that’s what I looked at from that standpoint also.
PAT MOORE : Correct.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Which is more snowy or whatever the case may be.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well there were other accessory garages in the neighborhood.
PAT MOORE : Yes there are.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I didn’t see any in the side yard. They were all in a conforming rear
yard.
??
September 7, 2017 Regular Meeting
PAT MOORE : I remember the picture next door I’m looking oh okay yea the neighbor has a
garage but it’s actually very close to my client’s I think my client’s house is set back further so
their garage looks to be oh maybe within a ten foot setback of my client’s house so it appeared
to be closer to side yard.
MEMBER DANTES : The 5.5 foot side yard setback for the garage what’s the closest building on
the neighbor’s property on that side of the house?
PAT MOORE : On that side visually it’s the adjacent garage looks like let me look at the picture
because I don’t have the neighbor’s survey. It looks like well the neighbor’s car if you look at the
photograph you can see that the neighbor’s car appears to be pretty close in the driveway. It
appears to be pretty close to in fact actually you see the driveway on our survey which is the
curb there’s a curb and a line along the curved brick and then an additional line, that’s where
the neighbor’s driveway is.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I’m sorry Pat I think Eric was asking on the west side.
PAT MOORE : Oh I’m sorry you’re right I apologize. Let me see if I can put myself oh okay I’m
looking at the picture on the opposite side. The picture actually shows the closest five foot side.
You can see there the house that appears to be there’s a house and then there’s a driveway
and there’s a blue car in the driveway you see the photograph? Here let me if I can approach
this is the street oh that’s why I think that property is vacant right now.
MEMBER DANTES : Is it a building lot that might be developed someday?
PAT MOORE : I would imagine it is. I don’t know one way or the other.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : (inaudible) part of the old burial grounds owned by Oyster Ponds.
PAT MOORE : Oh so then maybe it isn’t. Well it does show a Timothy and Deborah Monohan. I
don’t know that it’s it looks to be the parcel of Fliss and Monohan so would think it’s a private
single lot.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Wait a minute.
PAT MOORE : Oh my goodness I keep getting myself turned around.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No, no, no I know what I did. It’s on my notes.
PAT MOORE : It’s now or formerly of Gregg White. That side is Gregg White and it looks then
there’s Shirley Rhoad so I can’t I may have a tax map that can tell.
??
September 7, 2017 Regular Meeting
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well we should also note that the I mean there is a photograph that
shows some sort of a structure nearby. It’s close to the shed basically that you could see
through the trees. However, should also note that the 5.5 is the closest setback that because
everything is at an angle that side yard increases (inaudible) survey to what was it eleven
something I gotta find this thing.
PAT MOORE : Eleven six.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yea so that’s more than what the code requires for a setback. Is
there anyone in the audience who wishes to address this application, anything else from the
Board?
MEMBER ACAMPORA : Yea I have a question with regard to the picture drawing here of the
garage, are they planning on putting leaders, gutters I mean it is on a slope and so I’m
wondering how they plan to if someone does build on that vacant property that that could add
to a problem for those people.
PAT MOORE : Yea I believe that the storm water code would require it no matter what so
whether you said it or not the town engineer because it’s a new structure we’d have to have
dry well gutters leaders leading into a drywell and most likely given its proximity the drywell
would be on the behind or around the 11 foot distance. If I was designing it I don’t know that
anybody’s gotten to that level of detail but yes the town engineer part of the building permit
application requires showing of drywells for storm water.
MEMBER ACAMPORA : Are they going to build up the property there?
PAT MOORE : Well you’d have to level to keep it level for
MEMBER ACAMPORA : Or are they going to dig in?
PAT MOORE : I don’t have that degree of detail and construction.
MEMBER ACAMPORA : There really is a slope there.
PAT MOORE : Yea there would have to be some leveling but it looks like there’s the slope is not
the picture is I’m sorry what was that
MEMBER DANTES : I don’t think they’ve figured that out yet.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Not based on the drawing we got. It will be on slab.
PAT MOORE : It will be on a slab. It looks like because it’s a driveway already it looks to be
pretty flat in that area.
??
September 7, 2017 Regular Meeting
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I thought it was extremely level exactly and they would just put down
a pad even though in the far corner there’s a dip
PAT MOORE : I think the picture because it’s a google earth picture it has a tendency to create a
little bit of a rounded edge of the photograph.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there any proposed utility other than electric?
PAT MOORE : No just electric no water.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No plumbing no heating?
PAT MOORE : No.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anyone in the audience wishing to address the application? Hearing
no further questions or comments
PAT MOORE : May I just interject one? My client called me that he was recently in a car
accident in rehab for five weeks with kidney surgery I mean this is surprising. I don’t know your
typical your decisions sometimes have time limitations on the variance, if there’s any way of
waiving that time limitation here because I don’t want to
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The variance relief now lasts for three years with a possibility of
three one year extensions at the request each year of the applicant to the Board of Appeals.
PAT MOORE : Alright I’ll explain that to him. I don’t know his personal situation as far as being
able to construct. I know that that was quite a shock to me you know that he was involved in a
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : He does have significant time frame within which to you know to
accomplish.
PAT MOORE : Yea three years plus an additional three years that should be plenty of time to
make that decision.
MEMBER DANTES : Has anyone asked for an extension?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No.
PAT MOORE : Pardon me?
MEMBER DANTES : No one has ever asked for an extension.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Not as of yet.
PAT MOORE : Not as of yet if they even know that there’s a timeline.
??
September 7, 2017 Regular Meeting
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The law allows it you know usually people intend to build and they
get going on it
PAT MOORE : Yea you get the variance this is I think that was his plan in fact. He had the
contractor lined up everything was ready and this unforeseen accident occurred.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright, now hearing no further comments or questions I’m going to
make a motion to close this hearing reserve decision to a later date. Is there a second?
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Second.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor?
MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Aye.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye.
MEMBER DANTES : Aye.
MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye.
(See Minutes for Resolution)
HEARING # 7083 – LISA AND CHARLES HOWARD
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Lisa and Charles Howard
#7083. This is a request for variance under Article III Section 280-15, Article IV Section 280-19
and the Building Inspector’s April 26, 2017 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a
permit to construct an accessory in-ground swimming pool and a one story frame accessory
pool house at 1) proposed in-ground swimming pool located in other than the code required
rear yard, 2) proposed one story accessory pool house located in other than the code required
rear yard at 455 North View Drive in Orient. Would you please state and spell your name for the
record.
WARD WELCH : Ward Welch from CDD Architects representing Lisa and Charles Howard
request for a variance the property at 455 North View Ave in Orient. The property is a shy one
and a quarter acres accessed off of Brown Hills Rd. The owners would like to build a pool and
pool house over the pre-existing irregular condition of two front yards does not allow for the
construction of either a pool house or pool both of which are allowed (inaudible) on properties
??
September 7, 2017 Regular Meeting
with standard determined yards. Theirs represents a hardship only relieved by a zoning
variance. The relief requested will normalize the zoning of the property thereby allowing typical
rules to apply. Nothing beyond what it commonly allowed is being requested and the proposed
work is within the setbacks and size requirements. It is modes in scope and in keeping with the
character of the neighborhood. I have the documents today that were originally submitted as
well as a further development final scheme which shows that we’ve reduced the proposed
impact on the property and also respects the neighbor’s concerns regarding the views of the
sound and also the documents I brought along today shows that neighboring properties have
received the similar variances to build accessory structures in front yards.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay let me just indicate that we’re looking at we understand that
technically there are two front yards on this property very, very steep slope. The house well the
proposed pool house is 27 feet by 20.8 feet with a 48 by 16 foot pool is that correct?
WARD WELCH : That is correct and what was submitted originally and we again we just further
finalized the scheme and reduced the size of the square footage of the pool terrace the square
footage of the pool house and pulled the entire thing closer the layout of both closer to the
house so as to reduce the impact on the neighbor’s view.
MEMBER DANTES : Did you hand a copy of that up to us?
WARD WELCH : No we just brought it today.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We’re going to need copies of that so that we’re addressing exactly
what it is you propose. It doesn’t demonstrably change the fact that they’re in you know the
front yard rather than the code required rear yard but we want to make sure that whatever
documents we stamp are the correct ones so that we don’t have problems so that you don’t
have problems with the Building Department, so will submit new plans.
MEMBER DANTES : Wait so everything is the same and the pool is just closer to the house?
WARD WELCH : The pool house also is closer to the house everything pulled towards the house
and that’s the neighbor to the west their driveway creeps onto the Howard’s property in
serpentine fashion and they have a (inaudible) quarter out to the sound that we are trying to
protect by pulling the house the pool house closer.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : How high will the retaining walls around the pool have to be?
WARD WELCH : The retaining walls at the pool we design them such that they’re five feet
because there’s a gentle slope down from the new yard up or the existing grade at the house
??
September 7, 2017 Regular Meeting
which is a grade we will be building up is one twelfth and we’re having a gently slope down to
108 and which is the top of the retaining wall and the pool terrace at 103.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So the maximum height of the retaining wall to make a level
platform for the pool is five feet?
WARD WELCH : Yes and the retaining wall is only on the south side of the pool.
MEMBER DANTES : Have you ever done what is it, it’s called a site section drawing of this that
shows all this?
WARD WELCH : Yes. I don’t have the site section in these drawings.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You must certainly have done one however.
WARD WELCH : Yes.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So we will need a copy.
WARD WELCH : Okay.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER : As soon as possible.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And because of the topography we do have comments from the
Town Engineer because the drainage on that site is going to be quite complicated that we will
require that you it’s required of all structures conform to Chapter 236 of the town’s storm
water management code that all roofs, driveways and impervious surfaces must have drainage
if it’s existing it has to be certified in terms of size and location so we’re really going to need a
drainage plan. They’re going to require it in the Building Department anyway when you go
there but the Board would like to actually have access to that information as well because we
want to make sure that everything is contained on site, that it all drains into dry wells, that
there’s no runoff over what is an important you know kind of it’s not a dune or a cliff really but
it’s a drop off it’s a precipice. Let’s see what else
MEMBER DANTES : Screening the neighbors, the evergreen screening.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well we have to it’s an odd shape piece of property so let me ask
you to address this sir, previously when properties have been approved for swimming pools in
non-conforming locations it’s not uncommon for us to require evergreen screening to protect
privacy in view of neighbors can you address that?
WARD WELCH : Well this neighbor has specifically asked that we move the house back so that
they can view across the property so they
??
September 7, 2017 Regular Meeting
MEMBER GOEHRINGER : The pool you’re referring to.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The pool house.
WARD WELCH : The pool house sorry the pool house and the pool the whole pool complex he
pulled back so that the planting that is on their line and on the Howard’s line remains as it is.
On the other side it’s completely overgrown as it is. On this side they actually want to leave it
open.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So their preference is not to have privacy but views of the sound.
WARD WELCH : Yes.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Good that we asked.
MEMBER DANTES : What about along the road, you plan on doing something there or kind of
leaving that open?
WARD WELCH : On North View? I’ll bring up a photo of the highest point of North View Rd.
along the property which right now shows that the existing house can’t be seen and so the
trees and the existing growth that’s down there we expect to hide this as well. So this is taken
from the highest point on the road down there and the existing house is there.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : What side of the property are we talking about?
WARD WELCH : We’re on (inaudible) bottom west corner of the property on the street here and
right now this is the driveway that goes this bit of the driveway is what goes across the
Howard’s property from the neighbor and this was so now this has been pulled back. These are
the photos that you guys were given originally this has all been pulled back now. There is a
large tree here and a tree here that exists that the neighbors view quarter is really limited to
that’s way over there and so we pulled this back so that they have from this point
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Just so that you’re aware everyone on the Board has inspected this
site personally. We do that with all applications prior to a public hearing so we know visually
what you’re talking about. Let’s see other than wanting the amended plans site plans and a site
section showing the elevational change, the slope and so on is there any other question the
Board might have at this point.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Substantial questions I have.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright Gerry why don’t you go.
??
September 7, 2017 Regular Meeting
MEMBER GOEHRINGER : I met with the town Engineer this morning. He is looking to have a
non-turf buffer on the north side of the swimming pool and he is concerned about water and
definitely storm water coming down the hill and basically running off the road as well as storm
drains on either side which is part of the compliance of Chapter 236 on both driveways so that’s
that particular issue.
MEMBER DANTES : I have a question for you Gerry. Should we let the gentleman do his storm
water plan and submit it to us then the engineer can review it rather than
MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Definitely well that’s what I was going to say so we (inaudible) to some
of the things that the town engineer has requested.
MEMBER DANTES : No I know I’m just afraid of the town engineer doing this in the abstract of
maybe the gentleman has a better idea or more his own ideas and can do it his way.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER : No question about it. Well he’s going to comment on that plan anyway
or whatever we get from you okay so as soon as we can get it the Town Engineer will look at it.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : If we adjourn this to the Special Meeting to give you two weeks to
put this together and would that be sufficient time for you to provide we have the amended
plans already I’m sure the site plan.
WARD WELCH : I mean we can get all of that yea we can get that to you sure.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay that way we can take a look and if and give the Town Engineer
an opportunity to review. The sooner we get the sooner we’ll be able to make a determination
for you and we can get it to him for his review and if everything is in order we’ll close it in two
weeks and then we will deliberate on a draft decision two weeks after that. We meet twice a
month. Depending on how soon we get it and how soon he can give us comments at the very
earliest we may be able to deliberate in two weeks as well but all that would have to be in
place. We’d have to receive it, he’d have to comment then if we can get a draft together in time
we can do that in two weeks if not it’ll be a month from today well not from today but in an
approximate month.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Leslie how is the structures height how is that calculated from the
grade because
WARD WELCH : From the average grade.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The average grade is how the Building Department does it. They take
the highest and the lowest and then they average it and that’s how you determine the height.
??
September 7, 2017 Regular Meeting
WARD WELCH : Part of this thing was to push it in to the point that
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : To the hill side.
WARD WELCH : Yea to the hill side such that (inaudible)
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : But isn’t it an 18 foot maximum height?
WARD WELCH : On there it’s written as 16.5 but we’ve lowered it.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Because I saw 18 maybe I’m mistaken, 18.10 is the ceiling height and
then 26 is where the deck commences with 23.8 for the top of the railing.
WARD WELCH : Is that from wait okay
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Would you repeat that because we need to get this in the record.
WARD WELCH : That is from the pool deck not from the average grade because the average
grade immediately kicks up around the whole house and the front of the pool house grade is at
1/12 th and it comes down to the backside.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : So I guess just for the record then would you state what the actual
structures height is from the average grade?
WARD WELCH : Well from the average grade in the new scheme we made sure that it’s only 16
feet.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Sixteen feet.
WARD WELCH : Yea which is what the requirement is.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Last question, it sounds stupid in reference to making the question
and I’ll admit to that what is the purpose of having a flat roof on the pool house?
WARD WELCH : Just to view a deck.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Is that going to impinge anybody else any neighbors in reference to
that location and that view?
WARD WELCH : Well the neighbor to the west is the only neighbor that looks across to the east
to the northeast again that property is completely you can’t see that property and certainly on
South View Drive you can’t see any of that so these guys at next door Grant and Allen have said
have responded that they’re okay with I mean they’ve gone through this with us and have seen
where it is and they’ve said they’re fine with it.
??
September 7, 2017 Regular Meeting
MEMBER GOEHRINGER : I’ve been on this Board for many years and we have denied over the
past several years not recently this type of accessory structure okay. Many of them were roof
top ones on special designed houses okay we’ve denied those also alright I don’t particularly
have an objection to it other than the fact that if it causes a nuisance to neighbors that’s a
different situation and since we don’t have anybody testifying at this particular time I suspect
that the Board will deal with it at this particular time but I’m just mentioning that as a point.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Actually I wanted to ask you what you’re proposed use is for a space
that you have labeled open studio?
WARD WELCH : They actually the house that they have you guys went there there’s no storage
in the house. There’s a garage but it has a lot of water problems. It’s useless. They have two
kids. They do a lot of sport activities and they have a lot of water equipment so they just
wanted you know have a place to keep it.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That’s fine. I just want to know what you meant by studio.
WARD WELCH : It’s not intended to be a studio. It’s intended to be storage.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Could you please label your drawings storage. Studio means
something very different to this Board. That’s a habitable space that’s quite different than
storage, anyone else on the Board, anyone else in the audience wishing to address the
application?
MEMBER GOEHRINGER : I just want to mention this one last thing and that is the water runoff
from the house, tremendous amount of roof area and a tremendous amount of retention of
that water is going to be required within this situation.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well yea that’s going to be part of your drainage plan and obviously
the town requires gutter and leaders and dry wells for all kinds of pervious surfaces. Okay so
what I’m going to do is make a motion to is there anyone in the audience I didn’t see anyone.
Alright I’m going to make a motion to adjourn this hearing to the Special Meeting to receive the
following; amended site plan showing the new location, any particular architectural drawings
that shows average grade to the height of the structure from the average grade, a site section
showing the elevational change for the proposed pool and a drainage plan. Anything else that I
left off that the Board
MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Non-turf buffer.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well that’s a condition. If you wish to show that where you would
like to put it on your new survey or site plan in your case that would be fine. Then it’s recorded
??
September 7, 2017 Regular Meeting
and we don’t have to condition it as such we’ll know where you want to put it. Alright so there
is a motion before the Board is there a second?
MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Second.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor?
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Aye.
MEMBER DANTES : Aye.
MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye.
(See Minutes for Resolution)
HEARING # 7085 – PATRICK and LINDA KRAUS
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Patrick and Linda Kraus
#7085. This is a request for a variance under Article III Section 280-15 and the Building
Inspector’s May 8, 2017 amended May 30, 2017 Notice of Disapproval based on an application
for a permit to legalize an “as built” accessory shed at 1) located in other than the code
required rear yard at 1305 Sandy Beach Road in Greenport. Would you state your name for the
record please?
PATRICK KRAUS : Patrick Kraus.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So you have a shed located in the side yard where the code requires
a rear yard. We have an old VanTuyl survey that doesn’t show the shed at all I don’t think.
PATRICK KRAUS : Yea I just put the shed in there. I didn’t realize that there was a requirement
to put it in a back yard because I have two front yards. Basically I have two front roads.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yea Bay Rd. and Sandy Beach.
PATRICK KRAUS : Yea exactly so they told me that I needed to go through this so here I am.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well the shed itself doesn’t look like there would be too much
difficulty to lift it and move it but it would still be in a non-conforming front yard.
??
September 7, 2017 Regular Meeting
PATRICK KRAUS : Yea I didn’t realize that it’s a side yard I don’t have a rear yard.
MEMBER ACAMPORA : And you have a shed right next to the shed on the other property.
PATRICK KRAUS : Yes that’s the other properties yea.
MEMBER ACAMPORA : There’s just a fence there?
PATRICK KRAUS : Yea.
MEMBER DANTES : What is a seasonal duplex cottage exactly?
PATRICK KRAUS : It’s whatever it’s rated as I mean
MEMBER DANTES : No I know what’s the
PATRICK KRAUS : The definition?
MEMBER DANTES : No what do you actually have?
PATRICK KRAUS : Oh it’s just there’s no heat in it, basically two family.
MEMBER DANTES : Cottage?
PATRICK KRAUS : Yea two family cottage.
MEMBER DANTES : It’s not like there’s one owner.
PATRICK KRAUS : I’m the owner.
MEMBER DANTES : So you own both units?
PATRICK KRAUS : Yes.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Do you know what the distance of your other side yard that’s totally
open what that actually is?
PATRICK KRAUS : It’s less than what the I’m not sure the exact distance but it’s a lot less than
what the side is on that where the shed is.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Oh yea I know that but because that where the shed is it’s
completely blocked the side yard is really blocked.
PATRICK KRAUS : There’s about
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : A little bit.
??
September 7, 2017 Regular Meeting
PATRICK KRAUS : Yea there’s plenty of room to walk through I mean yea it’s about probably
four feet I don’t know what it says on there but four or five feet.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I was just asking because the other side yard is totally open.
PATRICK KRAUS : Yea it wouldn’t go there I mean it would look very out of place there too.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : And I think by memory you have like Rubbermaid storage sheds on
the other side.
PATRICK KRAUS : They’re just garbage.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Oh that’s garbage.
PATRICK KRAUS : Yea it’s for garbage disposal just to put stuff in outside.
MEMBER DANTES : My other question was on one of these pieces of paper it says there’s a
three foot side yard setback to the shed but that’s your own guesstimation it’s not something
that was done by a surveyor?
PATRICK KRAUS : No there is a survey what’s his name Matt what’s his name whoever did the
site plan.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER : SEC? Sherman Engineering.
PATRICK KRAUS : Sherman yea Sherman.
MEMBER DANTES : How come the Notice of Disapproval doesn’t show three feet?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : They don’t really care they just care that it’s in a side yard. Just one
other question, how is it that you have come before this Board now?
PATRICK KRAUS : Because I put the shed in and then someone drove by and thinking the Zoning
Board or the Building Department said that this wasn’t legal basically so I had to make it legal.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So somebody notified the Building
PATRICK KRAUS : No I think the Building Department actually came because they had to when I
did some work on it they had to do an amendment to the C.O. and the guy looks at it I think it
was John Jarski he looks and says oh I don’t think that’s legal. You have to have so I was okay I
guess I’ll go through the process and make it you know legal.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright we got it.
MEBMER DANTES : Does Sherman Engineering do they have a guy on Long Island?
??
September 7, 2017 Regular Meeting
PATRICK KRAUS : He’s on he’s based he lives in Florida but he’s actually from Shelter Island
that’s where I’m from so he goes back and forth and does work on up here and down there.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : And that’s Matt Sherman.
PATRICK KRAUS : Matt Sherman yea. I think he’s done quite a bit of work in Southold and
Greenport too.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay. Well most important here you really don’t have a conforming
place to put this shed.
PATRICK KRAUS : Yea exactly.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It’s either going to be in one of two front yards or one of two side
yards.
PATRICK KRAUS : Either that or knock it down which I rather not do.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let’s just cut you some slack alright, anything in the audience from
anyone on this application? Hearing no further questions or comments I’ll make a motion to
close this hearing reserve decision to a later date.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Second.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor?
MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye.
MEMBER DANTES : Aye.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Aye.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye.
(See Minutes for Resolution)
HEARING # 7094 – CHELSEA WILSBERG-CHALONE
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Chelsea Wilsberg-
Chalone #7094. This is a request for a variance under Article XXIII section 280-124 and the
Building Inspector’s June 19, 2017 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to
??
September 7, 2017 Regular Meeting
construct additions and alterations to an existing single family dwelling in conjunction with
Building Permit No. 41688 at 1) proposed additions less than the code required minimum front
yard setback of 35 feet at 410 Cedar Drive in Mattituck.
SCOTT DESIMONE : Good morning madam chairwoman my name is Scott DeSimone. I’m an
attorney and my office is located at 41780 Main Rd. in Peconic and I represent the applicants.
At the short recess you took previously I approached and spoke to Mr. Duffy about a house
keeping issue, he said that when he had left that if there were any issues to let you know that
he had no problem with the application that’s being made to amend the application. I do have
an affidavit if I may approach. The building permit was issued to Anthony Chalone and the
Notice of Disapproval was issued to Anthony Chalone however his wife Chelsea filed the Zoning
Board application so just for housekeeping purposes we were seeking to amend the application
to include Anthony as a co-applicant here so that you know there was appropriate standing.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Everybody get that? It’s just a name.
SCOTT DESIMONE : And then I have a hand out for the originals for the record and then there’s
a copy for each board member. I just wanted to bring to your attention that within my papers I
had referenced the setback at 33.76 and it is 33.9. I had looked up the wrong survey so 33.9 is
correct. The Notice of Disapproval is correct. So the co-applicants are a young couple with two
young children and they permanently reside in Mattituck and work in the community. The
original building permit was to undertake interior renovations plus an addition to the subject
property. The additions was 495 square feet and the existing one story single family dwelling
was 1,042 square feet and that is situated upon a 15,000 square foot lot. The property is
located on Cedar Drive in Mattituck. It’s located in an R-40 zoning district which requires a
minimum lot area of 40,000 square feet but it is currently legal non-conforming as to front yard
setback and lot area. Cedar Drive is a private road and most of the parcels improved with single
family dwellings also currently enjoy legal non-conforming front yard setbacks and lot area. I
did include a print down from the Suffolk County GIS showing foundation map indicating that
most of the homes are similarly setback from the front yard. The subject property is improved.
With the addition complies with the dimensional requirements of 280-124 as to lot coverage.
There’s 10% coverage where 20% is permitted. Side yard setbacks are 16.5 feet, 21.4 feet
where 15 feet is required. Total side yard setback is 37.9 feet where 25 feet is required and a
rear yard setback is 79.7 feet where 35 feet is required. So therefore all dimensional setbacks
are conforming to 280-124. When they put the foundation in for the addition the foundation
survey came back showing that they were 1.1 feet short of the 35 foot required setback. As the
Board is aware it must engage in a balancing test and consider certain statutory criteria in
addressing the variance. First being whether the variance would create an undesirable change
in the neighborhood or be a detriment to nearby properties. This variance will not create an
??
September 7, 2017 Regular Meeting
undesirable change to the neighborhood or be a detriment to nearby properties. The variance
requested would permit construction of an addition with a greater front yard setback than the
existing family dwelling. So the addition is actually attached to the house further back from
where the existing home sits. Most of the improved parcels on Cedar Drive share a similar front
yard setback and are non-conforming. The subject property is located in an isolated private
road rather than a well-traveled town road. The applicants have been advised directly and
indirectly by all adjoining property owners who were required to be noticed that they have no
objection to this application. The second criterion the Board is to consider is whether the
benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some other feasible means. As the
foundation was improperly constructed the benefit sought by the applicants cannot be
achieved by any other feasible means other than to completely remove the foundation. The
third criterion is whether it is substantial. The variance is diminimus at best. It’s the applicants
are only seeking 3.1% relief from the required setback. The fourth criterion is whether the
proposed variance will have an adverse effect impact on the physical or environmental
conditions in the neighborhood, it will not and the final criteria is whether the alleged difficulty
was self-created and it was due to an error in constructing the foundation so the applicants did
not self-create this. A contractor self-created this. I have also enclosed several decisions that I
found very quickly. I only went through 2016 page 1 on the micro fiche. Found three decisions
from April of last year and one the following meeting all seeking similar relief actually greater
relief and this Board had granted that relief. So I believe that this application is in keeping with
prior applications that this Board has granted and the notice of posting and affidavit has been
submitted and I’m happy to answer any question you might have.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Just want to clarify that the existing front yard setback is 31.8 feet
and you’re proposing 33.9 which is greater than the existing front yard setback.
SCOTT DESIMONE : That’s exactly right the addition is further back from the existing dwelling.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And that’s for a bedroom and a bathroom.
SCOTT DESIMONE : That’s right.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes we’ve all done personal inspections at this site so we’re familiar
with the neighborhood, the kinds of other properties and what their front yard setbacks look
like. I have no further questions Eric how about you?
MEMBER DANTES : I have a comment. You keep on saying it’s a contractor error but I’m looking
at the building plan versus the survey the contractor let’s just say he built what was on the plan.
It looks like contractor just built what was on the building plans.
??
September 7, 2017 Regular Meeting
SCOTT DESIMONE : Well there was a miscommunication because the building permit was
issued based upon a 35 foot setback and it was intended to be built at 35 feet and there was a
miscommunication because it ended up being built upon that survey.
MEMBER DANTES : I have a problem with the variance I’m just saying I wouldn’t blame the
contractor that’s all.
SCOTT DESIMONE : It was a miscommunication.
MEMBER ACAMPORA : I will just say when I went to inspect the property I was a little surprised
because I was looking for a foundation and I saw a completely built out addition with painters
inside painting the walls. I was expecting to not see it already completed.
SCOTT DESIMONE : Yea the only thing I can say is I don’t think that the applicants expected to
be seen here until November and the home is very small they have two small children and this
was a situation where they had come and filed a building permit. It wasn’t as if they had done it
without a building permit and the relief was diminimus. So I think that there was just perhaps a
decision that they thought that the Board would not be offended by the application.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I don’t think is offensive but it’s always a slippery slope to proceed
without the legal right to do so. I understand how it happened.
SCOTT DESIMONE : And I did look through the record I don’t know how many people come here
seeking relief for as built where they came and built without a building permit and this Board
has granted that relief.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Nick?
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : No comment.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Gerry?
MEMBER GOEHRINGER : No comment.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there anyone in the audience who wishes to address this
application? Hearing no further questions or comments I make a motion to close the hearing
reserve decision to a later date.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Second.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor?
MEMBER DANTES : Aye.
??
September 7, 2017 Regular Meeting
MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Aye.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye.
(See Minutes for Resolution)
HEARING # 7087 – TRACY PECK and DAVID CORBETT
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Tracy Peck and David
Corbett #7087. This is a request for a variance under Article XXIII Section 280-124 and the
Building Inspector’s May 8, 2017 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to
construct additions and alterations to an existing single family dwelling at 1) less than the code
required minimum front yard setback at 35 feet at 1305 Sigsbee Rd. in Mattituck.
MIKE KIMACK : Michael Kimack on behalf of the applicants, nice to see everybody again. Fairly
straightforward I’m not quite sure who visited my stakes should still be there. I checked them
about a week ago. I put them up about three and a half months ago I figured the termites might
have gotten them by now. They are asking that they come forward the 35 foot setback they’d
like to be about ten percent of that roughly I think 10.5% to be within 31.8 feet of it and I know
one of the immediate questions may come up and I wanted to address it is why come forward
and not back? In essence in terms of that you have to look at the interior layout of the existing
house for that answer. When these people who are of modest means wanted to construct
something when you look at the way it was laid out in the inside they’re redoing their kitchen
and when they redo their kitchen on a (inaudible) situation in order to have the door for their
first bedroom and not to oversize the bedroom and have the two bathrooms line up with the
staircase going down it kicked the other bedroom forward basically towards the road. There is
an existing they did request to have a porch there a covered porch anyway. There is an existing
stoop that would be removed and that’s why they are requesting the variance going forward
and not removing the variance going backward because it had more to do with the inside. To be
fair when I looked at the neighborhood I didn’t find where this was prevalent in terms of having
made prior decisions etc. like that. You know I’m fairly good at going through the records to see
whether or not but I would only suggest that their requirements are modest in terms of coming
from 35 to 31.8. It’s about a ten percent on the variance basically and it does design well with
the overall house. The aesthetics of the house should not intend to encroach on the overall
values of the immediate area in terms of what the houses look like. This house is in fairly rough
??
September 7, 2017 Regular Meeting
shape now and I suspect that they would like to be able to spend some money to fix it up. Like
most couples they don’t have that (inaudible) so this was a plan that the architect came up with
in order to address their particular needs with the additional with the bedrooms on it and it
happened to be in a way in order to line everything up on the inside it moved it forward rather
than moving it back.
MEMBER PALANAMENTO : Excuse me could you speak to that point again I didn’t understand
when you mentioned the door. I see a complete renovation that I would think that you could
still manipulate a space to make it a conforming structure. So would you explain where you said
the doorway something
MIKE KIMACK : The door off the kitchen basically you see the one that got the U of the kitchen
coming around?
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Exactly, the back door.
MIKE KIMACK : For that bedroom right there as you enter in that particular point with the
washer, dryer right there the proposed bathrooms back to back are in the center there off of
the staircase right now
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I’m sorry to interrupt are you talking I was asking a question about
the existing structure. I thought that you were saying that there was door that would impede a
conforming design.
MIKE KIMACK : The proposed structure the way they wanted to increase their kitchen when
they brought the kitchen around basically it closed off that entire for that door to get to that
back bedroom basically the door was near the staircase going down to the basement.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Right.
MIKE KIMACK : and then the two bathrooms were in the middle and that kicked when you had
your proposed closet on the other side it kicked the proposed bedroom forward but basically
the proposed bedroom lined up within a foot or two of the proposed covered porch in the front
anyway. The proposed covered porch which is six feet or so in and of itself intruded into the 35
feet by about a foot or two and then this basically is a side adjustment to that porch the
bedroom comes along side of it. I think the house right now is setback 39 and the porch is 33.8.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The porch is proposed at 33.8?
MIKE KIMACK : Yea the porch in and of itself in order to have a front porch would be an
intrusion into the variance.
??
September 7, 2017 Regular Meeting
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That is only a small portion of the front elevation.
MIKE KIMACK : That’s only a small portion of the front elevation however that extension that
goes along the side of it basically goes along with it primarily extends out with that bedroom
basically kicks out with it.
MEMBER DANTES : I have a question for you, I know it’s an older neighborhood it has a lot of
pre-existing non-conformities do you know if there are any pre-existing non-conforming houses
that have the non-conforming front yard setback?
MIKE KIMACK : I looked at there may I mean I looked at the record in there and I didn’t find any
in the record. That doesn’t mean that there aren’t any non-conforming but to the extent that
you had an opportunity to decide on prior decisions in like and similar cases I did not find any in
the immediate area to be fair on that one.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : But certainly there are (inaudible) a lot of non-conformity on
Sigsbee.
MIKE KIMACK : If this was to be designed and constructed I’m not quite sure if you would be
able to discern it much when it was up in terms when it was finished for that area. You’re right
most of the houses are kind of small (inaudible)
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : There’s been a lot of construction on Sigsbee. I mean some of them
are now big houses. There’s an occasional double lot there but there’s also a lot of very small
houses.
MIKE KIMACK : They’re not asking to add a lot to the house. They’re a couple of modest means
so and this apparently Mark Schwartz worked with them and this was a design they came up
with in order to accommodate their needs on that particular piece of property.
MEMBER DANTES : What I’m saying is just driving by I would say that there are other houses on
that road that would have a non-conforming setback.
MIKE KIMACK : I don’t disagree except that I could not present that to you because it wasn’t
something within your decision your prior decision that had been done. I looked at that fairly
extensively. I looked at area and I looked at I normally take three or four different sections and
go through and I didn’t find any specific to a front yard setback situation but I think that you’re
probably correct that area does hold and possess ones that are probably closer than the 35 but
simply has not come up for a requirement to have variance.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Eric we granted a variance directly across the street from the house.
??
September 7, 2017 Regular Meeting
MIKE KIMACK : Gerry was it for the front yard?
MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Yea because the porch there was no porch on that house and they
place a porch on that house.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I think that’s right.
MIKE KIMACK : I was pretty careful because I was looking specifically Gerry for you know in
order to have the precedent set.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Directly across the street.
MIKE KIMACK : Was that the big one that was built?
MEMBER GOEHRINGER : No it’s a long narrow one and they wanted a porch on it.
MIKE KIMACK : Okay and the porch intruded.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Yes directly across the street, it’s almost across the street from the
garage. Actually we have a picture of it right here.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Does the Board have any other questions?
MEMBER ACAMPORA : I do. Are they planning to do any renovation to the garage? The garage
looks like it might have more than just a garage in there.
MIKE KIMACK : They didn’t have anything listed down basically. They haven’t applied for a
building permit for the garage. I suspect when they do that if in fact something pops up in
terms I think the side yard setback (inaudible) I know they got a C of O for it but if they did plan
to do something with that that may require like something on the loft area I think they’re
looking at. The Building Department will most likely ask them exactly what they want to do with
that spot but it’s not part of this at the present time.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anything else from anybody, anyone in the audience wishing to
address the application? Hearing no further questions or comments I’ll make a motion to close
the hearing reserve decision to a later date.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Second.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor?
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Aye.
??
September 7, 2017 Regular Meeting
MEMBER DANTES : Aye.
MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye.
(See Minutes for Resolution)
HEARING # 7088 – MICHAEL HARKIN
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application is for Michael Harkin # 7088. This is a request
for variance under Article III Section 280-15 and the Building Inspector’s renewed April 3, 2017
and amended April 3, 2017 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to
construct a new accessory hoop house and farm building at 1) proposed hoop house located in
other than the code required rear yard, 2) proposed farm building not permitted on a
residentially zoned parcel that is not recognized as bona fide agricultural production, 3) intent
of use by design does not constitute a permitted farm building located at 6175 Sound Ave in
Mattituck. Now before we begin we have a request from the applicant to adjourn this hearing
to a later date. However it would appear that there are some people here to hear this
application which was duly and legally noticed so the Board is willing to take testimony with the
understanding that we will be adjourning to another date in addition to today so if there is
anything that you would like anyone in the audience would like to address the Board and just
before we start that I wanted to just say one thing which is that Member Eric Dantes is recusing
himself from this application and has left the room. Please state your name and spell it for us.
JOHN WAGNER : Good morning my name is John Wagner. I’m an attorney with (inaudible)
Adler and Hymen Hauppauge New York and I’m here today representing Gatz Enterprises LLC
and also Walter and Marilyn Gatz. In view of the request for adjournments that you received I
presumed that the matter will be re-noticed and rescheduled. I would prefer to reserve my
comments. I do have a presentation but I rather present them when the applicant is here and
has made his presentation so we will defer until the next scheduled time for this application
and will you be advertising it or sending out notice of any kind?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : What we’ll do is I’m going to put forth before the Board a resolution
to accept the applicant’s request for an adjournment which will require that he re-notice. We’ll
have to look and see what date is available. I suspect given our calendar it’s probably going to
be January. We just are so filled up that doing that is that right Kim?
JOHN WAGNER : I just want to make sure we don’t miss it the next time around.
??
September 7, 2017 Regular Meeting
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I was going to say well what I’m going to do is tell you now when
that date will be and then that will be it will be noticed again in the Suffolk Times and in
Southold Local and new mailings will be sent out. So any adjacent neighbor who is entitled to
receive a notice of the hearing will do so by mail you’ll receive it as you did for this hearing. So
thank you for your testimony. I’m going to make a motion to adjourn this hearing with new
notices in the paper and mailings to January 4 th. We can probably do it first thing 9:30 let’s say.
Is there a second?
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Second.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor?
MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Aye.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye.
MEMBER DANTES : Aye.
MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye.
(See Minutes for Resolution)
HEARING # 6936SE NORTH FORK UNITED METHODIST CHURCH (CV) (RMB REALTY, LLC)
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application is for North Fork United Methodist Church this
is application #6936. This was adjourned from April 7 th of this year no I’m sorry 2016 so there is
no need to reread the request for special exception per code Section 280-48B(1). This is a
permission to construct a house of worship. So, the Board now understands that the Planning
Board has done its SEQRA review and why don’t you bring us up to date.
BILL MOORE : Good afternoon nice to see you all. Yes the Planning Board has worked this thing
over pretty good and since you last saw it last spring only two material changes I can talk about
with you. The parking originally designed was going to be in northwest corner of the property
and after ARC made comments and Planning Board made comments it was recommended
requested we swing it around to the south portion of the property, the site plan as amended
shows that you have that before you. In addition the Planning Board said yes you meet the
parking requirements of our code with 42 spaces based upon the sanctuary use and the code
calculations but while you’re at it would you give us some overflow parking so we added an
additional 8 spaces event parking on the lawn north and south of the driveway should those
??
September 7, 2017 Regular Meeting
spaces be necessary but the 42 will be more than enough for the anticipated uses. The other
change from when it was drawn and sent to you last spring was a future storage barn along the
easterly property line. It had been erroneously set too close to Route 48 it was out in front of
the church building itself. The Building Department or Planning staff caught that and said pull it
back so we have pulled it back landward if you will or increasing the setbacks setting behind the
church not out in the front yard. We’ll see how our budget goes. It’s going to be for storage a
possible greenhouse back there. If we have the money to do it we’ll do it if we don’t it gets set
aside but that’s really it in a nutshell. As far as I know we have provided the Planning Board
everything that they’ve asked for from drainage to trees to lighting to satisfy their needs and I
think they’re just waiting on your approval so they can sit there and check that box and give us
the final site plan approval.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Now we have the amended site plan?
BILL MOORE : You do. I gave you one full set.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We did adjourn subject to you know the SEQRA determination being
made and understanding fully well that it was quite likely that they were going to be you know
site plan changes and we wanted to make sure that the Special Exception permit reflected the
actual plan that was going to be built and approved by Planning so that we
BILL MOORE : I don’t envision any further changes at this point. The last I’ll confirm with your
secretary you had the last possible (inaudible) I do believe you do July 31 st is the last changes
made to this thing for the Planning Board.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So that’s the date of the I’m just going to look and see that the
BILL MOORE : Yea, I gave a full set of site plan review yea you have a full packet of elevations
and the whole nine yards. So I’ve done the whole spiel in the past my previous presentation
that as far as putting a church on this property it’s ideally situated. The property to the south
has been preserved by Peconic Land Trust to the west so we have no neighbors. To the east it’s
the medical office building. I will note for your history this parcel itself had been previously
approved for site plan and Special Exception for two I believe seven thousand square foot
medical offices. That’s been rescinded when the church bought the property and we’re seeking
a single approximately seven thousand 7,200 square foot footprint there for construction so
dramatically different than what had previously been approved there. The only item the
Planning Board required a cross easement to the medical offices to the east. We are not
designing this facility in such a way to facilitate that and we’ve asked them to nullify or rescind
that requirement and they’re willing to do that. There’s just not reason to be having people cut
through to hit Hortons. We have a traffic light there.
??
September 7, 2017 Regular Meeting
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No there really isn’t.
BILL MOORE : Hours of operation are different (inaudible). That’s it. If you have any questions
I’m happy to try and answer them.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well I just wanted the new Board members to have an opportunity
because they weren’t familiar with the previous hearing you know to see what it is that was
being proposed to review all the material and see if they had any questions.
MEMBER DANTES : I have a question for you. How long has the long permitting process taken
you from when you first applied to when you expect approval?
BILL MOORE : February 2016 is when applications were made simultaneously to Planning and
Zoning.
MEMBER DANTES : When do you think the Planning Board will finally approve it?
BILL MOORE : I have to check their schedule if they got a regular meeting for this Monday or
not I do not recall (inaudible) work session for Monday. I’d like to believe they’ll have it done
Monday but if not then at the next meeting. My last check with Brian Cummings they’ve got
nothing left. They’ve asked for everything.
MEMBER DANTES : About a year and a half?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well we only needed the SEQRA determination.
BILL MOORE : Right and they presented of February of this year.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well the various agencies the Planning Board has to contact in order
to do site plan approval requires much greater time.
BILL MOORE : One observation and that is that in my personal and professional opinion I do
believe the Planning Board asks for too much information too early on. There’s an awful lot of
detail it’s asked for well in advance even though this Board hasn’t made its decision I think is
more than they need to make a site plan determination. That’s in this humble man’s opinion. So
I think that’s part of the issue there, an awful lot of detail from elevations to light fixtures to
lumens, a lot of data gets in there. On the plus side and I’ve pitched this to the church I don’t sit
there and bad mouth the plus is that when it’s done it’s done and not coming back and saying
well geez on hind sight we’d like to go back and do this and such because I’d get pretty annoyed
if I was an owner applicant having presented all that and had it before them for so long. That
would be my bone of contention with Planning is only asking too much too early for site plan. I
don’t think I’ll give you an example, all you need to do in my opinion is to put on a site plan a
??
September 7, 2017 Regular Meeting
condition that the lighting should suffice and comply with the dark code requirement period
just say it and it has to. Don’t sit there and ask for someone to give you a photometric plan
showing what the lumens are across the property. That’s not so easy to get. That’s just one
example of where time stretches. You’re right there are a number of bodies but Planning
Commission of Suffolk County has waived off and said matter of local determination and they
have an agreement already in place to and it doesn’t even get referred to them so there are
some attempts process wise to streamline it but I concur that it’s longer than it should be and I
think that’s partly why.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well it’s also why in most instances moving forward the Zoning
Board when Special Exception permits are required for a permitted uses will be conducting
SEQRA with the help of consultants because that way rather than getting embroiled in the site
plan approval without assurances that you’re even going to get the permission to implement
the project.
BILL MOORE : That’s a very good point absolutely I embrace that.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We’ve taken on the responsibility to do SEQRA which is a big thing
for the Zoning Board because we don’t have the staff or the training that professional planning
staff has but we’re going to be doing it anyway and getting trained.
BILL MOORE : I think it’s a great idea and back channel we tax payers pay all those resources so
tap into the resources in this building as you have. There must be a way that they could
embrace their information
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : They’ll assist us.
BILL MOORE : That’s a great idea because you’re exactly right why give that level of detail on a
controversial special exception you wouldn’t be assured you’re going to get or
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It’s not fair to property owners and okay does anybody have any
questions about this particular application at this point? Also you know we do have available for
Board Members the transcript from the hearing that we conducted so that any questions that
you might have about it are probably answered in that hearing. I think there weren’t any
questions left other than potential changes and SEQRA determination which is why we
adjourned it till we got to this point so Pat unless you have any comments sitting in the
audience.
BILL MOORE : No I promised that I would take less than full time you can’t start till 1:15 anyway
so
??
September 7, 2017 Regular Meeting
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : There you go now we have to just pick a subject and discuss it.
BILL MOORE : My only request if at all possible whatever dispatch you can exercise to render
your decision it would be most appreciated.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I don’t see any reason why we can’t have a determination in two
weeks at our next meeting. That’s the earliest and certainly the latest would be a month from
now but we’ll make every effort to get it done by next two weeks. September 21 st is the next
meeting. Be nice to see something on that corner.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Good luck and God speed.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well that’s appropriate. Alright I’m going to make a motion reserve
decision to a later date.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Second.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor?
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Aye.
MEMBER DANTES : Aye.
MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye.
(See Minutes for Resolution)
HEARING # 7075SE & 7076 JOHN HEEG and GIA FISCHETTI HEEG
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We are going to hear a continuation of two applications for John
Heeg and Gia Heeg Fischetti #7075SE and #7076, one being a variance and the other being a
Special Exception permit for apartment. We don’t have to reread it because it’s an adjournment
from a prior date. Since we last met we have received a new plan that shows the staircase
moved per the request of the Board previously from the side yard and you both had a chance to
talk to the Building Department. Just to reiterate the proposal here is for a Special Exception
permit for an accessory apartment for the applicant’s father and mother and the proposal is to
put on a 200 square foot addition to a 600 square foot existing structure to bring it up to a total
of 800 square feet where the code permits a maximum of 750 and the other thing we were
??
September 7, 2017 Regular Meeting
looking at was the fact that the code says one bathroom and just to summarize your argument
is that the second bathroom is not a bathroom it is by definition a lavatory because it does not
contain a shower it’s a sink and toilet. So is there anything else you want to tell us before we
ask some questions or make some comments?
PAT MOORE : No, I think the plans and the letter I hope are clear enough. So we don’t need the
variance the Notice of Disapproval was amended for the living space that has been brought in
to conformity. Originally Joe was measuring outside walls rather than livable floor area. That
was revised so that it could prove that it was conforming to the accessory apartment lot size
restriction.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You don’t mean lot size you mean livable floor area.
PAT MOORE : I mean the livable floor area restriction.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We didn’t get anything from the Building Department.
PAT MOORE : They issued an amended Notice of Disapproval, they were supposed to.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Did we get anything? I was away for two weeks so.
PAT MOORE : Actually I filed it. I hand delivered it with my letter. Yes revised Notice has been
issued therefore the variance for livable floor area is no longer required so I actually it was part
of the packet that was given to you.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I’m looking at it right here I think it’s dated August 18 th is that right?
Hand delivered I’m looking at it.
PAT MOORE : I think they took out that language about the livable floor area.
CHAIRPERSON WIESMAN : It says a revised notice has been issued but I don’t have a copy of the
Notice it’s not attached Pat.
PAT MOORE : Well we’ll find it for you cause I know they issued it and I was under the belief
that it was attached. I wasn’t in the office at the time when it was hand delivered so I had it
delivered by staff but we’ll look for that.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We need to see that.
PAT MOORE : We’ll get it. I’m surprised they didn’t send it to you directly. Usually they will.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I’m going to ask her to look at the original office file to see to just
double check. I know you had the discussion with Mike because I talked with him.
??
September 7, 2017 Regular Meeting
MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Here’s my copy.
PAT MOORE : You have it?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Of an amended Notice of Disapproval?
PAT MOORE : I wish I could I couldn’t locate my file before I ran out. I had it together with my
other files this morning and when I was running around I couldn’t so I only have my submission.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER : No mine isn’t good mine is I apologize.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well we will need that because we have never granted an accessory
apartment that was proposed with an addition. We have granted variances for over the 750
square feet but only for as built where there were a couple of square feet over by come to the
JOE FISCHETTI : This is the copy for you
PAT MOORE : Oh you were delivering for me.
JOE FISCHETTI : Yea but I didn’t I hand delivered it to you and I got that back just by the way I
mean again the it’s very easy to do the calculation. Just do the numbers when you do the inside
it’s less than 750 so I’m just telling you it is and we told Mike it was so we were just asking Mike
I said Mike give us
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : But as long as we get that I have (inaudible) just want to let you
know we do understand 600 square feet is small it is livable, it is by state code habitable space
however it is small and the Board is going to grapple with permitting an addition to bring it up
to the maximum the code permits which is 750.
JOE FISCHETTI : I’m telling you right now as an engineer it was designed to be livable area
PAT MOORE : Yea but that’s not the issue.
JOE FISCHETTI : The issue is that the definition
PAT MOORE : No, no, no what she’s saying is that the we’re modifying the building to give it
extra square footage as an accessory building to meet the 750 that’s all. Not that your
questioning that it is or isn’t 750.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No I wasn’t I was simply saying the Board has never dealt with a
variance for square footage that was based upon an addition. It was always as built. We don’t
often get (inaudible) you know most often when someone comes in with a request it’s usually
always as built legally or otherwise but that’s usually what we get and if in fact the Building
??
September 7, 2017 Regular Meeting
Department with your conversation has determined that it does not exceed the code permitted
750 square feet the Board will entertain your request to enlarge the existing qualifying
accessory structure to the maximum permitted by code.
JOE FISCHETTI : Of livable area.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Of livable floor area. Now let’s clarify something else that we had a
chance to look at. Joe I remember you saying your concern was you want to get these things in
place. You’re not sure when you’re going to build it you might only build it if you need it. We’ve
subsequently checked because as you know now variances no longer run with the land there’s a
time limit on it. The code limits special exception permits to a period of six months in terms of
from the time that decision is granted. It has to be implemented with the right of an extension
by request to the Board for an additional six months with another public hearing. That is
Section 280-141C and that governs general guidelines for all special exception permits. So you
know it’s not specific to an accessory apartment it’s for special exception permits. So I wanted
to bring that to your attention because of what you had previously said. It doesn’t mean you
have to implement it. It would mean that if you were ready to implement it we’d have to have a
rehearing if it was more than
JOE FISCHETTI : What does the term implementing, meaning getting a building permit?
T.A. DUFFY : Undertake the use.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You must undertake the permitted use.
PAT MOORE : It doesn’t mean getting a building permit. Usually it’s getting the building permit
and starting the project not completion, not C. of O. or anything but do you have you ever had
that issue pop up?
T.A. DUFFY : I haven’t popped up but just reading the code it says you have to undertake the
use; not get a building permit.
PAT MOORE : Well the undertaking the use is a very
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : In many cases the use is already established.
PAT MOORE : That’s our problem
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I know it is but we wanted to point it out so that it becomes part of
the record because you had mentioned Joe that your time frame was fairly extended and future
oriented.
??
September 7, 2017 Regular Meeting
JOE FISCHETTI : You are making this whole thing or the Town is at this point making this such a
hassle but we will do what we have to do because we’ve gone this far and we will go to the end.
We’ll have to do that and if its six months and I have to ask for an additional six months I’ll ask.
PAT MOORE : It just it’ll need another public hearing what she’s saying.
JOE FISCHETTI : Maybe I won’t do another public hearing I don’t know what I’ll do right now.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: You don’t have a choice if you want the extra six months.
JOE FISCHETTI : Yes I understand.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We have to follow the law.
PAT MOORE : Well that might be something well we should really talk to the Town Board
because if you are doing it as a proposed getting Health Department takes at least six months
and I have not gotten Health Department on something on less than nine months.
JOE FISCHETTI : There’s a form from the Health Department that has to be filed out by you and
you can’t I can’t get you to fill it out until you approve it so I have the form in my file. Then they
have to approve it then I have to still submit it.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No I know I know what the procedure is.
JOE FISCHETTI : (inaudible) and then I have to build it. There’s no way in the world you could do
that.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You’re right; the place to take it up is the Town Board and possibly in
the code committee and the other thing you might do while you’re at it is to talk to them about
addressing issues of handicap accessibility because the code is silent on it. It doesn’t anticipate
any kind of special needs. More often than not none of these are personalized. The use is
permitted. In some cases they’re personalized only with a B&B because they’re personal to the
applicant owner and not transferable to somebody else. The same is true with an accessory
apartment in an accessory structure it has to be owner occupied one of the units and the other
is limited to someone on the affordable list or a family member. So there is that level of
personalization but the design is never personalized and I completely agree that to make things
really useful for people with disabilities required some other considerations that typically are
not considered in generic construction but they are not anticipated in the code as it exists now.
So if you wish to point some of those things out to the Town Board I would certainly encourage
you to do that as well because certainly aging and aging in place often involves change in
physical abilities of all kinds. We all face those so it’s probably timely that maybe that be
brought up. At the moment there’s nothing in the code that addresses it. Let’s see if there’s
??
September 7, 2017 Regular Meeting
other questions or comments or any other points the Board would like to bring up. Pat you
want to see if you have any questions or comments or things you’d like to point out?
MEMBER ACAMPORA : I don’t know; I still think it’s kind of open ended here you know as you
were just stating how do you do this by following law of the code it’s for six months when the
Health Department takes more than six months. It makes it you know pretty difficult here with
the understanding
PAT MOORE : Well I think we have to go one step at a time and hopefully the Board grants this
application while he’s going through the Health Department process because obviously you
need the use approved first before you can pursue the Health Department that’s part of their
procedures regardless. We can discuss the practicality of these apartments when its owner
occupied apartments with the way the law is drafted. It may need some ultimate tweaking but
we all know how long legislation drafting takes. He may be unfortunately the guinea pig at this
point but often times code revision you don’t realize the pitfalls until you go through a factual
scenario that nobody really anticipated because as we’ve all said most of the time ninety
percent of the applications I’ve ever been involved in have always been as built. People that
have already had apartments that wanted to you know clean up and get a proper permit for it
and the fact that they tie in the special permit conditions which are usually commercial projects
and that’s why you put the timeline on it because by then you don’t get you don’t finish up your
process and even six months is a little odd for special permits. A commercial project you
typically are going through the Health Department simultaneously with your site plan and then
your special permit. With a homeowner that’s a lot of investment not knowing you know where
you’re going so this definitely needs cleanup but we can only take it I wouldn’t want a denial
just because of these impediments because then you know then we got a denial.
MEMBER ACAMPORA : Well, I mean we have to go by the law and codes and I think right now
the lavatory issue is an issue with what presently exists that we have to follow.
PAT MOORE : Well, I tried to give you the argument that a bathroom is different from a
lavatory.
MEMBER ACAMPORA : You did but there again in the old rule look of how accessory
apartments were legislated in this town this does kind of stick out and requires I think you know
some extra direction with regard to making that kind of determination and then of course the
other to me sticking point is that if you go ahead and you know circumstances down the road
and no one from the family is living in there now we have something that does not fit what
everybody else has been asked to do.
PAT MOORE : Which specifically?
??
September 7, 2017 Regular Meeting
MEMBER ACAMPORA : With having a lavatory.
PAT MOORE : No it’s actually a handicap available unit.
MEMBER ACAMPORA : But we don’t have that in the code.
PAT MOORE : No, no, no well it’s not the first time that a special permit is interpreted that the
code or that the Board has interpreted that a bathroom and a lavatory two distinct things so
therefore you’re not in violation of the code.
MEMBER ACAMPORA : But in an accessory apartment?
PAT MOORE : Well I’m saying in general special permits. We haven’t dealt with this as a request
because we don’t really have many handicap accessory apartment applications. I don’t know
how many you’ve had in the past.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : None.
PAT MOORE : I know my parents have one but it’s attached.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That’s completely different. You know generally as you well know I
won’t argue in definitions what’s a bathroom, what’s a lavatory fine; but what I will point out is
that in general if the code doesn’t spell out and list what’s permitted if it’s silent then the
assumption is it’s not permitted. Now I know this in other words it says three parking spaces, it
says one bathroom, it says one floor, it says one bedroom, it says maximum 750 square feet of
livable floor area, boom, boom, boom, boom. It doesn’t mention anything about another half
bath, lavatory. So any time we make decisions we’re setting precedent as you know and they
come back before us again and again. People like you bring them back to us. So I don’t recall
any instance in which we have made that kind of been requested to make that kind of thing. In
fact in accessory pool houses we have often required that the shower be removed if it was as
built because only a lavatory or half bath is permitted in an accessory pool house.
PAT MOORE : But that’s interesting. That’s a great example of the code being silent as to even
the use of pool houses. It’s a customary accessory and that’s what customary accessories have
the generic language because what is customary and accessory today may have never been
even thought of you know thirty years ago and what occurred thirty years ago may be
completely you know unnecessary today.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well that’s all true however the code does permit as you know very
well that accessory structures may have a lavatory in them a half bath. A garage
PAT MOORE : Does the code the code doesn’t speak on
??
September 7, 2017 Regular Meeting
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes it does. It permits a lavatory or half bath in a garage, in a pool
house, in
PAT MOORE : Did they change the code I didn’t remember it being there?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You argued before this Board for pool house in Orient.
PAT MOORE : Oh lots and lots of times.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It is a permitted use and the Building Department has determined
that that is permitted in an accessory structure. An accessory apartment is a special exception
application and those permitted uses are spelled out very clearly.
PAT MOORE : No but just a lawyer talk code interpretation generically, if in fact the code speaks
and describes a lavatory and we’ve applied the definition of lavatory as just a toilet and a sink
then specifically it’s not a bathroom and the Town Board when they adopted the accessory
apartments saying a bathroom one bathroom is not again it goes back to a bathroom is not a
lavatory. A lavatory is what is customary to an accessory building by our use in pool houses and
garages and workshops and things like that so they are right off the bat a permitted accessory
use but bathroom is not and that’s why the Town Board has to specifically legislate on the
accessory apartment the term bathroom. That was my argument here.
T.A. DUFFY : It could be limiting too, language.
PAT MOORE : That’s where you interpret it is it limited or is it not limited?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : But we’re not doing a code interpretation here.
PAT MOORE : What?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We are not doing a code interpretation. We are doing a Special
Exception Permit for an accessory apartment in an accessory structure. Now, we don’t it’s not
really a variance for the livable floor area if it’s conforming to the code however again to some
extent it is because we have never granted an addition to an accessory structure for the
purposes of establishing an accessory apartment. We could of said okay you have 600 square
feet that’s habitable that’s what you get. It doesn’t matter what we’re saying we’re considering
going that far to say if you want to enlarge it up to what is a conforming square footage for
livable floor area we will entertain that but that in and of itself is distinctly different from prior
applications in that we generally have not said you can enlarge the accessory structure because
the code allows
PAT MOORE : I think I saw
??
September 7, 2017 Regular Meeting
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : There was one denial. There was a denial way back in the day over
off the North Rd. someone who had a very small completely dilapidated structure and wanted
to actually do some major, major changes and we said no you’re by far exceeding the scope of
what this intent is.
PAT MOORE : No, no, no what I recall is code committee meetings after maybe after that
decision or the Board was struggling with whether or not you could do a modification to an
accessory building precisely to fit the accessory apartment all on one floor because I know that
was something I objected to saying why are you limiting people.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It might have been one of the very first ones that was on two floors
and it wound up being denied.
PAT MOORE : Exactly and after that there were some code revisions being discussed and one of
them was a recognition I don’t know if it was at a code committee meeting that the Town
Board said or the Board that was there the majority said we don’t have an issue with modifying
the existing building particularly since we want to keep it all on one floor. I absolutely
remember that meeting and I actually thought it resulted in some code tweaking to allow the
modification.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The code is what it is. I mean I recall discussing it because of that
example but the code wasn’t amended. The code is you know very clear about what’s
permitted under this Special Exception Permit. These uses are permitted because they meet
those definitions.
PAT MOORE : I understand.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : They’re spelled out one, two, three, four, five whether it’s a B&B or
you know the church for example or accessory apartment. They’re clearly spelled out and if you
meet the criteria they’re generally not a problem because that’s all you really have to do is
meet those criteria.
PAT MOORE : If I could make one suggestion. If the Board is reluctant to whether it’s interpret
or consider the lavatory under the circumstances of a handicap specifically handicap accessible
unit because really that’s what we’re talking about. As you write the decision what I would
suggest is that you add some language that should the Board amend the code to allow you
know for handicap compliance or lavatory or whatever the code however the code is changed
we don’t have to come back to you to modify the special permit just because of that change.
That it can be incorporated into our design due to the code revision. It might be as a matter of
law if the code changes but it all depends on how the code is written so.
??
September 7, 2017 Regular Meeting
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well, you can request that but I think that sets a very bad precedent
because it’s jumping the gun and you know writing in a kind of theoretical vacuum about what
future change may or may not happen. You always have the right to come back and say please
we’d like to amend. The code has changed and so on that’s anybody’s legal right. However the
other even if it were to suggest handicapped accessible what that would mean and it generally
does because I do know a good deal about this is that the full bathroom has a turning radius,
has no curb
PAT MOORE : It does.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I know but that is what a handicapped bathroom is. It says nothing
still about an additional toilet facility okay separate from that one handicapped bathroom. In
fact, if it were me I would suggest that one needs to allow for potentially larger livable floor
area because of turning radii and so on if you’re talking about a handicapped accessible
apartment. But again I don’t know that the Town Board is prepared to personalize code
changes to accommodate that kind of sensibility. I hope it would because I think it’s something
that would be useful out here given the aging population. But that is certainly not what is
before the Board today.
PAT MOORE : But it’s an interesting federal issue in the sense that handicap accessibility has a
certain I want to call it Federal ADA
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes, but not in private residences, 504 compliance does not apply to
residential properties.
JOE FISCHETTI : I was going to ask you to check.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You don’t have to you can ask me. I was involved with writing those
standards.
PAT MOORE : Well it is what it is. We’ll deal with whatever you ultimately come back with.
We’ve made our best foot forward to try to persuade you that handicap should be given an
extra
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I would be very supportive of going to the Town Board with you to
tell them how important handicap accessibility is however that is not what we’re faced with in
this application. That’s a separate issue.
JOE FISCHETTI : Let me ask something else, you’re concerned with this extra lavatory causing
future problems. Understand that the Health Department when I go there people always ask
me well how many bathrooms are you going to have? Well bathrooms mean nothing.
??
September 7, 2017 Regular Meeting
Lavatories mean nothing. Its bedrooms that make the livable area so if I put in there five
bathrooms it would not increase the usage of that space. It’s the bedrooms that count. A
bedroom is two people.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : From that code.
JOE FISCHETTI : You’re concerned about causing something to change here that we’ll all have
bathroom everyone will have a lavatory after you do this so what? So if a person has a
bathroom and a lavatory in an accessory apartment big deal.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Joe you know what, the argument needs to be made before the
legislatures, the ones who write the laws. We’re here to implement you know what the code
permits and what the code doesn’t permit based upon the arguments presented and the laws
that we’re allowed to operate under.
JOE FISCHETTI : You do have latitude. You have latitude in the size of the square footage that
you can and have done so you can do it if you wanted to.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : What we are doing is entertaining the square footage already which
I’ve already described to you.
T. A. DUFFY : With regard to the six month issue I think maybe it might be worth sitting down
and talk with Mike about it because as to how he would interpret it. I’m thinking of something
that’s analogous it’s like with a pre-existing non-conforming use specifically like a gas station.
Typically if you abandon the use for a year you lose it but there’s plenty of case law that says
like with Suffolk County because it’s a process when you have to change your tanks it takes well
over a year and the fact that you’re working towards changing you know bringing the gas
station in compliance and working towards permitting your (inaudible) pursuing your permits
you had not abandoned the use. It might be the same argument that you are working to
establish the use because you like you said
PAT MOORE : To comply with all the laws.
T. A. DUFFY : Accessory apartments is one type of special exception but there’s plenty of
commercial special exceptions that there’s no way you’re going to establish within six months
of a year if you still have to go through site plan and everything else.
PAT MOORE : Yeah and I don’t think they’ve ever implemented the six month rule.
T. A. DUFFY : I only looked because it came up because they were saying you weren’t sure when
and somebody said that there’s no limit on special exceptions and I was like that doesn’t sound
right so I looked and found it so I mean really we just found it today so because I know like
??
September 7, 2017 Regular Meeting
Riverhead I think is a year you have to establish it or something so I couldn’t believe there was
no timeline so but it could be that you’re working towards it or something like that.
PAT MOORE : I’ll talk to Mike.
MEMBER ACAMPORA : Pat do you know of other towns and what they have with regard to
their codes for accessory apartments particularly where you know the possibility of
handicapped people having the ability to be an accessory apartment?
PAT MOORE : Riverhead I don’t think legislated to that degree of detail of what’s in the
apartment. Once you get the approval then you build to whatever the building code would
require. Am I remembering correctly?
T. A. DUFFY : I believe so. I don’t think they go in to much detail. It’s more about
PAT MOORE : It’s the use not the
T. A. DUFFY : I think the only thing they address really is kind of newer houses or the size of the
apartment and like if the house is built after a certain year the accessory apartment has to be
limited to a certain size so that people wouldn’t be building essentially two family houses when
they’re really only applying for a single family house and I believe I don’t think Brookhaven
really gets into the (inaudible) like that either. I think it’s just square footage.
PAT MOORE : Beyond Riverhead I don’t really know.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anything else from anybody?
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : If I may, Pat in earlier conversations we’ve talked or presentations
we’ve talked about the differences between bathrooms, lavatories, we’ve talked about or
discussed that a bathroom consists of basically of three pieces. What is the definition or how to
people incorporate bidets or urinals and to the point of that question instead of having two for
lack of a better word I get the lavatory bathroom conversation but instead of having two could
you not just make one larger room that would sort of suffice for two still in a private way but
they’re all part of one room?
JOE FISCHETTI : The NYS building code says it’s three pieces but it does add a bidet could be the
extra piece so in essence a toilet is (inaudible) and a shower or tub and then it says I have to
remember the code it does say bidet could be part of that extra piece of the bathroom so it
does add a bidet into the bathroom.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : But it doesn’t add a second toilet.
??
September 7, 2017 Regular Meeting
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Right but that’s what I’m saying well what about a urinal. I’ve been to
many homes where people have a urinal.
JOE FISCHETTI : Just giving you the definition of what a bathroom is.
PAT MOORE : I understand your point. Could there be a design element here.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : What I sort of envision and it’s not my place to design your project or
your applicant’s project but it would seem that if you have a larger bathroom with just
handicap accessible to begin with why couldn’t you make it larger and then add a urinal feature
and have whatever shared large scaled shower whether there’s multi heads I mean I think
we’ve all seen homes that have these. So I don’t know if that’s a solution.
JOE FISCHETTI : Well it’s not a solution in this particular case because of how this very narrow
structure we couldn’t add increase the size of the bathroom to make it extra. Secondly there’s
privacy issues here. Unless the bathroom was accessed with two spaces we couldn’t do that.
The whole problem is if you’ve ever had handicapped people in the morning they’re taking a
shower. It takes a long time especially with an assistant working with them. They’re using that
whole space.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : You shared then so may I honestly didn’t get thought to prior to this
hearing so that’s something that was awakening so I appreciate that it just seemed to me that
you could relocate the mechanical room or something and have access to the shower area from
both sides. I don’t know it’s just my own opinion from what I see and then to that point though
with a smaller space it seems while you show a realtor a turning radius and I don’t know the
specific dimensions that perhaps Leslie has but the doorways are all narrow and to get into the
closet if somebody is in a wheelchair you’re not accessing two thirds of the space to begin with.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You need thirty six inches.
JOE FISCHETTI : Yea the shower has there’s no
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : No it’s like a little ramp or whatever. I understood that but the
doorways, the bedroom, the closets you know they’re all 2.8 the doors.
PAT MOORE : Three feet.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : The closet is 2.8, the door to the bedroom is 2.8.
JOE FISCHETTI : The bathroom was set to be handicapped.
??
September 7, 2017 Regular Meeting
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Right but if somebody is in a wheelchair I can’t imagine how they’re
going to move around which is sort of Leslie’s point earlier about maybe there needs to be
larger spaces.
JOE FISCHETTI : It’s not fully designed to be handicapped. The whole house was not designed
only the bathroom. It’s specific for what I designed it for and again it’s for the future so if I find
in the future that I specifically need a handicap I make a three foot door when I’m building it. I
mean I have no problem with that but the bathroom specifically was handicapped because we
needed to get into the shower and out of the shower and into the bathroom and again it’s
specifically for
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well if someone is using a wheelchair they’re going to need 36 inch
clearance with the smallest chair on any door, bedroom door, bathroom door, turning radius,
lowered closet wrung you know and you haven’t gone into that level of detail. So we’re talking
about some vague assumptions and some more specific requests. The bottom line is we need
to look at plans that pretty much conform to what the code Special Exception Permit
requirements follow with the exception of permitting an addition to the existing structure
which as I said in and of itself is a new thing that the Board would be doing but certainly the
Board wouldn’t be in a position to allow you to go over what would be conforming with an
addition because then that’s creating non-conformity which flies in the face of what this Board
is supposed to be doing so I’m glad the Notice of Disapproval is going to clear that up and then
at least the Board can say alright we’re permitting this addition to bring the structure up to
what is the maximum code conforming livable floor area permitted and then beyond that we’re
going to have to pretty much stick with what’s allowed and the benefit of this application and
the discussion is that certain issues may have been brought to light that Town Board should
consider and I think they would probably look fairly favorably at making some you know
changes. This code was not developed to be a be all and end all for anything. It was simply that
it was clear more affordable units and aging in place with intergenerational living was a realistic
proposition out here and allowing more housing units to be leveraged out of existing structures
rather than building new structures and overdeveloping was a plan. To some extent it’s been
helpful but it certainly hasn’t been a tremendous number of apartments created or anything
like that so it’s rather limited in it’s
PAT MOORE : It is more personal as you said because of the owner occupancy issues as well and
it’s a big investment you know to this is a hundred thousand easily maybe more so you don’t
unless it’s family you’re not going to spend to get it back in rental as affordable or whomever
it’s not a return the general public would use.
??
September 7, 2017 Regular Meeting
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anything else Pat, Eric, Nick anybody? Alright hearing no further
questions or comments I'm going to close the hearing subject to receipt of an amended Notice
of Disapproval confirming 750 square feet or less of livable floor area.
MEMBER GOEHRINGER : Second.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor?
MEBMER PLANAMENTO : Aye.
MEBMER GOEHRINGER : Aye.
MEMBER DANTES : Aye.
MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye.
(See Minutes for Resolution)
September 7, 2017 Regular Meeting
i
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 : September 15, 2017
c55 ,