HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-06/07/2018 Hearing TOWN OF SOUTHOLD ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
COUNTY OF SUFFOLK: STATE OF NEW YORK
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Southold Town Hall
Southold, New York
June 7, 2018
9:50 A.M.
Board Members Present:
LESLIE KANES WEISMAN - Chairperson/Member
PATRICIA ACAMPORA—Member
ERIC DANTES— Member
ROBERT LEHNERT— Member (Absent)
NICHOLAS PLANAMENTO— Member
KIM FUENTES— Board Assistant
DAMON HAGAN —Assistant Town Attorney
1
June 7, 2018 Regular Meeting
INDEX OF HEARINGS
Hearing Page
Marilyn Daly, Estate of Robert M. Daly, Genevieve McGrath
and Kevin B. McGrath #7134 3-23
Joseph P. Hoey, Jr. #7135 3 - 23
Christopher and Kristen Neimeth #7146 23 - 25
Neil T. McGoldrick and Amy McGoldrick#7148 26 -30
Konstantine Drakopoulos and Katina Digenakis#7164 31 -35
Susannah McDowell #7165 35 -49
Chloem, LLC#7166 49 - 54
Tracy Weiss and Lee Kruter#7170 55 - 56
Evan and Lynn Lewis #7172 57 - 63
Southold Fire District#7179 63 - 69
June 7, 2018 Regular Meeting
HEARING # 7134 & # 7135 — MARILYN DALY, ESTATE OF ROBERT M. DALY, GENEVIEVE
MCGRATH AND KEVIN B. MCGRATH &JOSEPH P. HOEY,JR.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The first application before the Board is for Marilyn Daly, Estate of
Robert M. Daly, Genevieve McGrath and Kevin B. McGrath # 7134. This is a request for a waiver
of merger petition under Article II Section 280-10A to unmerge land identified as SCTM # 1000-
66-1-13 which has merged with SCTM #'s 1000-66-1-12 and 1000-66-1-14, based on the
Building Inspector's November 6, 2017 Notice of Disapproval which states that a non-
conforming lot shall merge with an adjacent conforming or non-conforming lot held in common
ownership with the first lot at any time after July 1, 1983 and that non-conforming lots shall
merge until the total lot size conforms to the current bulk schedule requirements which is a
minimum 40,000 sq. ft. in the R-40 Residential Zoning District) located at 50 Thomas St. in
Southold.
PAT MOORE : Good morning Board. I have with me
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Pat just state your name for the transcript.
PAT MOORE : Oh I'm sorry, Patricia Moore 51020 Main Rd. Southold on behalf of the
applicants. We have a lot of the family here, some could not be here because they were
traveling but they're all obviously very interested and very I guess well this has been I want to
say a little bit of a traumatic process for everybody involved because the merging is something
that certainly the older families were not familiar with. What I am giving you I am just going to
go over just paper work that I put in front of you so you know why I have it there. The first, I
have given you two identical documents, which are the memorandum. I'm going to through
that just to make it simple or simpler to identify the points that I believe are relevant with
respect to this application. I've given you two because we have two separate applications. You
just put one in each of your files. The other document I'm giving you is a little tax map I call it
the cheat sheet because it'll help give you a quick view of what lot we're talking about and the
surrounding lots that constitute this subdivision. Also on the memorandum I have attached
what are proposed, merging, voluntary merging is of the subdivision attached to the memo is a
color coded map so that as I go through it you'll understand our rational and then finally with
the help of David Daly I have to you know great thanks to him we put together a again another
color coded when we were trying to identify exactly what the periods of merger may have been
and this color coded gives the tax lot number of all the lots affected. The coloring is just giving
identifier for their own purposes, who owns what and what their ultimate you don't care about
that but for example lot tax lot 11 the subdivision lot number that's a big challenge because the
lot number on the subdivision is oftentimes one off of the tax map number and that creates a
great deal of confusion. The intended ownership and I'll explain that through my process. The
June 7, 2018 Regular Meeting
current owners as far as their percentage interest and that's why it got a little complicated and
then ultimately I put together the period of common ownership depending on whether we use
the filed map date or we use what the code says is the'83 date or we use '85 which is when the
final map was deemed grandfathered to and the bond on the map was released so we'll go over
that in my memo but for quick viewing I identified that 11 and 12 are going to be merged, 13 is
out extra parcel and 14 & 15 are going to be merged. Then 17 is the oversized parcel that will
be unmerged and the reason that these particular lots were selected for this application is with
the help of the Building Department they looked at it and said okay if we make this application
it addresses for the most part two sets of lots. Since we're separating from the contiguous
parcel but the family is purposely merging those parcels. It will take care of two for the price of
one let's say. As I go through this, it will make sense but again we'll go through the questions
that you may have at the end. So, if you don't mind I'll direct you to the memorandum and this
memorandum is going to apply to both files so I'm going to ask that the transcript the
presentation for this particular application that you've opened be inserted in the next
application. Otherwise, you have to hear me twice with the same set of
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I was going to ask you whether you wanted me to open both at the
same time.
PAT MOORE : That would be great absolutely.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Because it appeared to be obvious that these arguments are going
to be quite similar. So why don't I just go ahead and read it in to the record and we can address
both of them simultaneously. This is Joseph P. Hoey Jr. # 7135. This is a request for a waiver of
merger petition under Article II Section 280-10A to unmerge land identified as SCTM # 1000-66-
1-18 which has merged with SCTM # 1000-66-1-5, 1000-66-1-17 and 1000-66-1-19 based on the
Building Inspector's November 6, 2017 Notice of Disapproval which states that a non-
conforming lot shall merge with an adjacent conforming or non-conforming lot held in common
ownership with the first lot at any time after July 1, 1983 and that non-conforming lots shall
merge until the total size conforms to the current bulk schedule requirements (minimum
40,000 sq.ft. in the R-40 Residential Zoning District) located at 125 Daly Lane in Southold.
PAT MOORE : Great thank you very much. We waited long enough to start the hearing; I was
concerned that if we started at 9:30 1 wanted to make sure both the transcript applied to both.
So let me direct you to the memorandum. I'll start with the property, which is the subject of
these appeals was purchased in 1919 by Thomas F. Daly and has been in the family ownership
for three generations. At least three generations. In 1968, the families Daly and Hoey obtained
approval from Southold Town Planning Board to subdivide the property into 19 lots situated on
three streets to be constructed off Town Harbor Rd. in Southold. Those three streets are Hoey
June 7, 2018 Regular Meeting
Lane, Thomas Street and Daly Lane. The subdivision lots were filed with the Suffolk County
Clerk on October 21, 1968 as file #5192. The lots all complied with the applicable zoning lot size
regulations at the time the map was filed which at the time was an A District was requiring 100
X 125 lot sizes. As a condition of the Planning Board approval, it required the owners to obtain a
performance bond and during that time the roads, the drainage and public water supply lines
and infrastructure were installed in the subdivision. Substantial improvements were
constructed, there are actually there. The performance bond was posted as is required but the
improvements had to be paid up out of pocket without the bond. So you can imagine in the
sixties that was a lot of money. The work required was the grading and installation of the roads,
installation of curbs, installation of drainage systems as well as installation of public water
supply infrastructure and fire hydrants. The installation occurred in the period between '68 and
'85. With multiple communications and inspections by the Highway Superintendent at the time
was Ray Deen and Highway Committee members Martin Suter and others and the Town
Inspector at the time was Ed Baige and later John Davids. If Mr. Goehringer was here these
names would be very familiar to him. Finally with the approval of the Planning Board the
subdivision was accepted and the bond was released. During this period of time the Planning
Board extended its approval of the subdivision map and the performance bond to permit the
completion of the improvements. In 1985 the Planning Board confirmed that all required
improvements had been completed to everyone's satisfaction and the Board authorized the
performance bond to be released. The property owners who developed the subdivision were
Genevieve T. Daly and Katherine D. Hoey. They were sister-in-laws of large extended families
which have been coming to Southold for generations. The husbands had died at that point and
they started and they had to be they were left with the job of completing the subdivision. The
subdivision was intended to provide family members with their own parcels to be built upon for
their respective families. Under the procedures at the time in June 1968 Genevieve T. Daly and
Katherine Hoey obtained 280-A approval for tax lot #5. That's #3 of the map of Town Harbor
Terrace. In order to obtain that's the corner lot we've they know it as the McDonald lot, it is
now in different owners, in order to obtain a building permit for the new house they had to get
Zoning Board 280-A approval because that again at the time the Building Department would
not issue building permits until the improvements of the subdivision were constructed and
approved. Beginning in 1987 the Hoey's and Daly's began to transfer some of the subdivision
lots to family members as part of a comprehensive estate planning and to provide family
members with their own properties. In 2017 the Daly family came to me Patricia Moore for
deed transfers to members of the family. They learned at that time that the town's zoning had
affected a merger of many of these lots and I advised that before additional deeds were
prepared because of the number of percentages as you saw on that color coded, you see the
one six, one it was a little bit overwhelming certainly to me okay. I said well let's deal with the
waiver of merger and then we can address the transfers of title. The family was collectively
_T_
5
June 7, 2018 Regular Meeting
unaware of the effect of the merger law on the subdivision lots as each parcel was identified
with individual tax map numbers and received separate tax bills and was for family purposes of
estate planning and equity among family members understood to be and treated as separate
properties. I didn't include for you appraisals when David Daly passed away. I have them. I
wasn't sure that it was relevant for this hearing but if you want them I'd be happy to provide
them. The appraisals as individual lots are in the range of two hundred and some thousand
dollars each. So, again I had the unfortunate honor of having to have a conference call with
many of these people from my office and explaining what the merger law entailed and that
unfortunately this property had been the victim and the subject of that merger law. So the
ownership interest in the parcels is now in the third generation you can see here. The lots
which are the subject of these appeals have been held by members of the Hoey and Daly
families from the time they were deemed merged as the merger law requirements require. An
outline of tax lot intended ownership, current ownership and (inaudible) common ownership
starting from the date the map was filed is attached and that's that color that I've given you.
The lots are comparable to the lots located within communities and the surrounding area. The
south area of Main Rd. Route 25 in the hamlet of Southold was developed in small lot
subdivision similar to the Town Harbor Terrace subdivision. Lots of comparable sizes are found
directly across the water body known as the Hippodrome and I'll refer you to the 131, B2
attachment which shows the size of the similar lots. We didn't pick and choose. We just listed
all of them and Beixedon is probably the closest because it's a private road, it's similarly
distanced from the Hippodrome as these parcels. So let me go through that exhibit so you can
see. If you look at B1, B2 attachment what you see is that the square footage of are combined
parcels and we'll talk about how we're combining some of these parcels. Our combined parcel
now becomes 93% greater than the lots that we're comparing them to. The single lot which is
the 13 because you can only again you're merging existing property lines so 13 is the extra of
the combined of the merged two. We identify it as 3% smaller but that's really just a statistical
description because there are let's see on Beixedon lot 13 is actually larger than nine of the lots
in that area so there are comparables but when you compare larger, smaller it can be a matter
of a few square feet and we did the numbers and that's the number we came to. But in relation
to what the families concession is it's a huge concession to get them to combine these lots. I
had a long conversation with them in light of environmental issues, concerns and just our
current zoning. I said we should really consider the combining of some of these lots and I've
done that before with other merger applications I've had before the Board and the family is
willing to be reasonable and that's why we have the application submitted the way we have to
this Board. So that's the Beixedon example. I'll turn to now lots across the street on Town
Harbor Rd. and Old Shipyard Lane. That area again is a larger more consolidated area but the
roads are town roads in that area so that's why Beixedon is the better example because
Beixedon are private roads of similar distance to the Hippodrome but when you look at
June 7, 2018 Regular Meeting
communities that is another comparable community and that's exhibit C1 and you can see that
lot 13 is 9% smaller. However again that lot is also bigger than ten of the lots which are off of
Hobart. So numerically again we're doing a percentage but when you look at the exact
comparable lots and how they're being compared we have ten of those lots that are in fact
much smaller. So I give you that if you like numbers and percentages but you can certainly
study it at a later date. So let's go through and the next issue which is so we now have the
proposal in writing here that that Hoey and Daly families have proposed to merge tax lot
number 11 and 12 into a single parcel and that's where I've shown you the comparison which is
eighty to ninety three percent larger than the comparable lots and merging tax lot 14 and 15
again in to a single parcel which results in that parcel the combined parcel being 118 to 132
percent larger than the comparable lots so they are by combining them making much bigger
parcels than the community actually how the community is developed. So now let me turn you
to the color in case you need us to describe it a little further. I'm sorry did you have a question?
MEMBER DANTES : Pat yes if 11 and 12 are merges in an R-40 zone right?
PAT MOORE : Yes.
MEMBER DANTES : So 11 and 12 would create a code conforming lot?
PAT MOORE : It's still always non-conforming yes. The only way you reach 40,000 is if you really
bastardize the lots between Hoey, Thomas and Daly Lane because you can't even bring them in
to commonality. You end up with really one very one much larger lot than the comparables
with two road frontages. It really creates actually a non-conformity to the character of the
community so absolutely even by merging these lots we're non-conforming because the lots
become half acre but even so a half acre lot is in both communities Beixedon and in the Hobart
area and Terry Lane I am familiar with personally because my house is on Terry Lane it was the
combination Polywoda at the time when he bought from Overton subdivision which is one of
the subdivisions off of Terry Lane and back there combined some parcels and ended up with
half acre lots. So my house a ranch built many years in the seventies is a combined half acre lot.
So that's about the largest lot that you see inland. Some of the waterfront lots were a little bit
bigger because they came from a different development across on the water on the bayside
was actually I know the history here very well, it was a camp of cottages and it was developed
from that so really when we look at this development the combining of two lots does create
conformity and compliance with at least the half acre lot requirement. And again this area is
primarily the area that was developed this area including Town Harbor Terrace but the entire
area both on Beixedon and both comparables were subdivisions that were done in the sixties
and early seventies and that's you know the code at the time had quarter acre zoning.
June 7, 2018 Regular Meeting
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let me just see if I understand what you're saying correctly. The
intent here is to do two things simultaneously. First we would have to unmerge a whole series
of lots.
PAT MOORE : No let me the way I understand it from other applications actually we've done
with merging taking let's say tax lot 13 if you look at this colored it helps make it simpler. So you
take tax lot 13 and think of it three dimensionally you lift it up okay, the condition of the
approval is that tax lot 11 and 12 will be combined because the waiver of merger application
can only address the adjacent lot so tax lot 13 is addressing tax lot 12 because that's the waiver
of merger application. That's what the code provides you're following me?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let's just take a look at the numbers here.
PAT MOORE : I'm using tax lot numbers.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay so that's 1000-66-1-13 not lot 12.
PAT MOORE : No it takes some effort to ignore the number.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : 13, 12 and 11. So the 13 you want to retain as an independent lot.
PAT MOORE : Correct. That one is the waiver of merger.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Dependent upon merging 12 and 11 or are they already merged?
PAT MOORE : Well the what happens is the Building Department says well you're merged to 13
which is merged to 14 which is merged to 15 because of the common area of ownership of fifty
feet. We end up with mergers of very odd maps because the merger only requires a fifty foot
common boundary so the Building Department said to us and it was really you know I listened
very carefully cause I went in with separate applications to the Building Department and they
said oh, oh, oh, whoa, whoa let's do this first. Let's figure out you know how this is treated and
then we can go to really then only there's only two or three others that need clean up. So tax
lot 13 gets separated and it gets unmerged from the combined 11 and 12 and it gets unmerged
from the combined 14 and 15. If you see the contiguous, I did it in color so it would be a little
easier.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So 14 and 15 will remain merged.
PAT MOORE : Correct right.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And 11 and12.
June 7, 2018 Regular Meeting
PAT MOORE : Correct. Now the other application we have it makes sense when you look at it
with the other application. The other application is separating tax lot 9 oh excuse me 18. 1
almost did the mistake of looking at the lot number, tax lot 18. Now tax lot 18 we are in fact
combining 18 and 19. So we are in agreement so we're in fact not asking to unmerge from 19
but that's just the way the code reads that I have to do it that way. So we are in agreement to
merge 18 and 19. It merged to the yellow dot one which is
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : 17.
PAT MOORE : Here I need my cheat sheet.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The one that's Daly and McGrath the one with the yellow dots.
PAT MOORE : Here we go yes 17. That's why I need my cheat sheet.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's not labeled on
PAT MOORE : No because it wasn't when the surveyor gave me one set, you actually have
separate surveys of all of these lots. So in your packet you have surveys of every one of these
lots.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yeah but what was so confusing was we didn't see how they were
combined and what was merged with what. So it was just a bunch of lines with no information.
PAT MOORE : I tried my best to go by the code and that's why I'm giving you this memo today
to help walk us through the process because even had I given this to you I'm not sure when you
read it it's like a lot of blah, blah, blah but I prefer the walking through because if you have a
question ask it and that way we can address it immediately. So yes tax lot 17 which in fact when
I did the single and separate of 17 alone that didn't merge but again we are you know it merged
9 merged to it because 9 was the non-conforming excuse me 18 merged but 17 itself had been
in separate ownership that didn't have the same adjacent percentage of ownership as the
common because 17 was never part of the subdivision. It was a lot created by deed in the
fifties, sixties whatever it was it was certainly prior to the subdivision here. If you recall my start
of the presentation the Thomas Daly in 1919 owned all of this land so think of him as anyone of
the farmers out here who had large tracks. That was how at the time in 1919 you could do a
split, you can do a split off really until late into the application of zoning.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So Pat let me just go back for one second to (inaudible) was going to
ask you was explain the other half is not exactly when and on what basis did all these lots
become merged?
9
June 7, 2018 Regular Meeting
PAT MOORE :That's a good because my position is that according to the waiver of merger law it
talks about 1981, but in 1981 the subdivision approval was still continuing and the Planning
Board didn't finalize and bless the subdivision and release the bond until '85.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : When the merger law was replaced.
PAT MOORE : Pardon me.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : By then the merger law was replaced.
MEMBER DANTES : But wouldn't they exempt subdivisions from that original merger law?
PAT MOORE : Yes they were but only it was the old 112 provision of the original code was a list
and the old list had some of the older subdivisions that were in town there are specific ones.
This was not on that exempt list. So there was a lot of communication going on with the town
and the owners, developers here the family saying hey, hey, hey you're not on the list, you're
not on the list make sure you get your improvements done. So there was a lot of pressure put
on the Hoey and Daly family to get their contractors cause remember when you're dealing you
don't know this maybe you do but a subdivision process to get through the engineering and the
improvements is a chore particularly in the eighties out here because what happened is you
had the Planning Board, you had surveyors. This survey was done by VanTuyl. Mr. VanTuyl left
the area for a while. Latham was doing the roads the original Latham. We know Latham Sand
and Gravel now but we know the generation that's running it today who is wonderful. They're
great very on top of things but the older generation took you know they were operating under
a different timeline and a different method of operation and there is I mean I don't know how
now the late Daly and the late Hoey's that were involved, David Daly and Hoey who have since
passed away. They must have been pulling their hair out because they are to the point of like if
they could have gotten a gun and escorted the contractors and the surveyor and I mentioned
Herb Davis and Ray Deen, those names I don't know if Gerry Goehringer is he still on the Board
or not on the Board oh okay stepped down, he would know that these names and would know
that how the seventies the town was challenged in getting inspections done and when you look
at the inspection reports you had Ray Deen saying yeah it's okay we're fine we're good and
then an inspector going back and saying oh no, no, no this is no good. I want you to put another
drain in here and I want you to do this there and they went like that for years. I really
sympathize with that generation that was trying to go through this because it all took money
and remember these two women were widowers. They took on this job and then the next
generation took on the job and you see (inaudible) file where everybody is putting into the till
you know just like they did now everybody puts into the till some money to help move the
process along. So when you ask me
June 7, 2018 Regular Meeting
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I'm getting some of this. What I wanted to clarify is, you indicated
that these two women remained as you know the spouses the wives of the two men who
passed away and the process was still ongoing for the subdivision when the merger law took
effect; the question I'm asking is, was merger based upon death?
PAT MOORE : Merger based upon death.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : In other words when the husbands passed away that was prior to
the merger law being in place.
PAT MOORE : Oh that was they passed away (inaudible)
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : There's an exemption from
PAT MOORE : Oh today oh yeah, yeah no at this time I wish that that exemption was applicable
because I think that
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright I just wanted to clarify because you mentioned that they
were you know widowed so
PAT MOORE : What happened was after the subdivision and that's now we get into the nineties
okay the family started actually from the eighties to the nineties cause there were Katherine I
want to make sure I get the right one, Katherine Hoey as a matriarch held onto the lots for a
long time. The Daly's started doing the deeding out to the family members but Katherine Hoey
was hanging on. She was a good strong woman and at the very end part of her estate planning
as she was getting on in years and the end was in sight then finally she let go and started
passing on these lots. So, you see a period of common ownership which I wrote for myself so by
example just from my own reading of the lot 12 and 13 their merger occurred between '89 and
'07 okay, 11 and 12 didn't merge at all, 14 and 15 1 have a merger between '86 and '91.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Hold it. Can you back up and repeat that, I want to put it on this
map.
PAT MOORE : Well I would you know this was my and I'll yeah so 12 and 13 from my analysis
and this analysis was done with the deeds originally before the single and separate cause I was
hoping I could give an analysis and affirmation so that they didn't have to spend five seven
hundred and fifty dollars that each single and separate costs but when I went to the Building
Department Mike said sorry you need a single and separate even though I had talked about it
with Bill Duffy.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Pat I'm sorry if you don't mind we're still using the Suffolk County tax
map numbers not lot numbers?
11
June 7, 2018 Regular Meeting
PAT MOORE : Tax lot numbers correct. Let me just double check and make sure I've got it, yes.
So tax lot 12 and 13 those two merged between 1989 and '07. That was the period of common
ownership. If I take the from the time the map is released from at that point a grandfathered
map okay but even as a grandfathered map in '85 there were no deeds being transferred out
until some in '89, some in '86 so
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Did you say 1989 through '07?
PAT MOORE : Yes.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : 2007
PAT MOORE : 2007 exactly because in '07 they had done some different title transfers and
percentages because
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Who owned those lots at the time?
PAT MOORE : I'd have to go to the single and separate. It's all within the family. It's always been
within the family. So that's not the issue. It's percentages maybe McGrath has one third, one
third; one six, one six and as David Daly passes away (speaking with someone) thank you David.
So if you go back to this color sheet what David did is the common ownership again he took
from '64 when the map was filed. I don't believe that's the time because you know we had the
subdivision going but I'm just assuming you know the most conservative view which I don't
think legally is correct but till
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let me just recap one thing we can maybe go back to which lots
merged with which. I think that information is probably in here. The question then remains the
subdivision is in process of being recognized as a subdivision because of the improvements that
are (inaudible) worked on at the time. The merger law comes in, subdivision is not
grandfathered as exempt from the merger law because it wasn't finalized at that time.
PAT MOORE : No let me clarify, it wasn't exempt because it didn't appear on that exempt list.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes that's what I mean. They've didn't put it on because it
PAT MOORE : It was still going through the process exactly.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So it didn't make the list of exemptions and then even though these
lots belong to family members the bottom line is they merged because of up zoning because
they were not on the exempt list.
3.2
June 7, 2018 Regular Meeting
PAT MOORE : No they merged purely because they ended up in the same ownership. The
percentages of ownership between the two families. So it was purely think of it as husband and
wife
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : They were not technically checker boarded.
PAT MOORE : Exactly nobody thought checker boarding they were all thinking estate planning
you know the McGrath family should have these two because they're close to our home. The
Daly family should have these because this is our original home we want to be closer to that so
that when the kids are developing you know the family compound the McGraths are all kind of
over here and the Daly's are over here so it was purely family relationships.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Estate planning.
PAT MOORE : Estate planning exactly.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright I just wanted to clarify because there's a number of reasons
this could have happened and they were all non-conforming in size to the zoning in place at
that time.
PAT MOORE : It was that was never an issue.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : And if I can it seems on this particular block the Mullen lot and the
northwest corner is completely outside of the dialogue. It has nothing to do with (inaudible)
PAT MOORE : Yes. Kathy Mullen has been there I think she may have been there since the
fifties, sixties
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : And then the goal here is of the eight remaining lots you're seeking to
establish five lots versus the eight.
PAT MOORE : Correct.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : and then there's still a whole question of the title the individual lot
title what we're taking about the merger and what not why you know five versus a different
number.
PAT MOORE : I'm not sure if I know that question. You understand what you're asking?
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Yeah I understand what I'm asking. I'm fine with it thank you.
PAT MOORE : I think you get it you know. I don't want to
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Does this map apply to both applications?
June 7, 2018 Regular Meeting
PAT MOORE : Yes.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Of the merged lots who's getting which in your mind? I want to put a
name on here. So they merge 14 and 15. Which application is it a part of?
PAT MOORE : Oh which application is it part of?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I'm not going to say who's going to own it. I just want to know we'll
be here till did you bring pizza?
PAT MOORE : Okay let me see okay here we go it's by address because
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : One second Pat. That's a very good question. Pat before we say
which lots are which application number the question is on this chart okay and whoever did this
thank you very much it's quite a lot of work.
PAT MOORE : Here he is. He must be so anal retentive. But I say this lovingly because he and
have been working on this really for two years.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The question is first it says tax lot 11 and 12 okay the first two parts
of the grid and then those are proposed to be merged correct or to stay merged?
PAT MOORE : Yes.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Now why does it say intended ownership is McGrath on one and
Daly on the other?
PAT MOORE : Oh okay because this was done before we agreed to merge. So as far as intended
ownership that was when each was a separate lot. We did this when we first we were trying to
figure out what had merged, what hadn't merged and what the ownership was of the current
owners based on our single and separates.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Come to mic please and state your name please.
DAVID DALY : David Daly. The intended owner on this document between 13 and 12 should just
be swapped everything else is correct.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay so the merged 11 and 12 is going to what did you say
Genevieve McGrath
PAT MOORE : Right so now 11 and 12 are going to be the same person, Genevieve McGrath.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : and 13 becomes Marilyn Daly.
14
June 7, 2018 Regular Meeting
DAVID DALY : 13 will actually be Marilyn Daly and Genevieve McGrath and the Robert Daly
Estate all remaining with one third each because it was the only way to do it equally.
PAT MOORE : Well you don't really care what are end deed is I mean what we're going to do
after this. We're going to put it into we're going to combine it as I
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The waiver would be conditioned upon these mergers.
PAT MOORE : No that's fine but you're going to identify the mergers by tax map numbers. If
you want us to give you deeds after the fact to confirm it
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We'll just put that down as a condition and you do have to file
anyhow. We have to get the filed unmerger information on the separate deeds once it's
PAT MOORE : Right to confirm what we are proposing and ending up with. That's not a
problem.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright let's go back a minute. Just tell me which of these lot 14 and
15 is what application?
PAT MOORE : Alright so the way they did it when it was the appeal was done the Building
Department gave it as an address 125 Daly Lane that's why I put it in the memo to help me
identify Daly Lane lot is tax lot 18. See Daly Lane is down at the bottom. So it looks like 125 Daly
Lane is appeal #7134 where appeal #7135 is 50 Thomas Street which would be tax lot 13. Well
the Building Department Notice of Disapproval says tax lot 13 is 50 Thomas Street, I think he's
wrong. I think he put the wrong address to be honest because
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well it's obviously important technically to be accurate.
PAT MOORE : Yes I'm sorry, 50 Thomas Street tax lot 13 yes that is correct sorry.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So 13, 12 and 11 are all part of that appeal?
PAT MOORE : Yes.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The three that are running fronting on Thomas Street.
PAT MOORE : Yeah it's subject lot, the subject lot 13 has merged with adjacent lot 12 and
adjacent lot 14.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : 12 and 14 so oh because of the common boundary.
PAT MOORE : Exactly. That's what causes the confusion because
ILS
June 7, 2018 Regular Meeting
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Lot 14, lot 12 and lot 11 merged and appeal #just give me the name
is it McGrath or is it Hoey?
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : That one's Hoey.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Hoey.
PAT MOORE : No? Who is it you guys know, no 13. If you go to my application I say tax lot 13 is
Matthew C. Daly as administrator for Robert Daly one third.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Got it. So then the other remaining lots that would be what, lots I'm
trying to get this right.
PAT MOORE : Let me help you a little bit. You take the first page of the waiver of merger
actually wrote it out for you there because I say combined tax lot 14 the owners being Matthew
Daly administrator Robert Daly, Marilyn Daly as surviving tenant (inaudible) by the entirety,
Genevieve McGrath and Kevin B. McGrath and their percentages. To combine with tax lot 15
owners being Matthew C. Daly administrator Robert Daly, Marilyn Daly executor of estate and
so on an so forth so your first page I tried to do that with the technical ownership
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright I'll just review all the material.
PAT MOORE : Yeah it should make things much easier if you just look at the first page of your
waiver.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I'm just writing notes just in case you're wondering.
PAT MOORE : Aren't you glad I gave you the bunch of paper I gave you? I know you didn't like it
when you saw it but
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay got it. Now let's see if the Board has any questions, we've
heard a lot. Any questions Eric?
MEMBER DANTES : Yeah I mean the merger law is like you check the boxes or you don't
standard so why are you just not going for the whole unmerge all the lots? Why are you leaving
some merged?
PAT MOORE : Do you want to give us every single one?
MEMBER DANTES : I just want to know the reasoning.
PAT MOORE : Well the reasoning is in the merger law also provides for environmental factors
and community character and my thirty years of practice my advice was let's be as reasonable
16
June 7, 2018 Regular Meeting
as the family can be. It's really just a judgement call. Yes the same analysis would have applied
for each and every lot but I have to get five board members to agree or who's left four
members to agree.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : There'll be another member joining us.
PAT MOORE : Yes but I don't know if he'll want to participate or not. Just my experience
depending on you know the feeling of Board members purely just gut instinct. But I think the
environmental you know the waiver of merger doesn't allow you to just waive willy nilly you've
got to justify it and you have to show that you're not going to create a great environmental
impact and I think that when you're weighing you know with the concession and you know
environmental impact and the sanitary that each of these homes are going to produce we're
trying to be as reasonable as possible.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : So just again reaffirming what you said earlier and just now by the
waiver of merger you're creating these other lots which are still non-conforming but you're
going to restrict any future or you will not be coming back as far as seeking additional waiver of
merger on those lots.
PAT MOORE : Of those lots yes correct.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : The other question I had which just making the notes that Leslie
embarked upon assigning the actual lots to the application numbers, Suffolk County tax map lot
11 which is in the I guess southeast corner Thomas and Daly Lane I couldn't assign an
application to and it seems that you had implied the merger or what you'll create hopefully if
and when the waiver is granted the merging of lots 11 and 12 which I think logistically makes
sense but from the Notice of Disapproval it was attached to neither of the properties.
PAT MOORE : True except that what we're doing is by merging 11 to 12 and 18 to 19 at least
the Building Department felt and certainly in your I think in your analysis in writing the fact that
you make us put it you know condition the approval of combining 11 and 12 kind of takes care
of 11 because you're allowing the waiver of merger the combination of these two lots to be
separated from 13 and the combination of 18 and 19 1 understand
MEMBER PLANAMENTO But shouldn't it had been included in the Notice of Disapproval
because if unmerge with the other and sort of implied that they were merged yet it didn't
appear in the notice.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I think it's an error.
PAT MOORE : Pardon me.
17
June 7, 2018 Regular Meeting
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I think it's an error because you have 125 foot common boundary on
one side and then you've got 100 foot on the other so it's more than the 50 feet so I don't know
why it wasn't sited as merged.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : And then which lot would it have merged with though?
PAT MOORE : Well that's the question. Actually if you recall that sheet the colored sheet when
we looked at 11 it appeared that depending on when we determine merger to occur so if we
determine it to be '85 it actually was in a different ownership than 12 so it may not have
merged when you look you compare the single and separates but yeah I mean if you want to
have the Building Department amend the Notice so that tax lot 13 1 honestly don't know how
they would do it because 13 can only merge to its adjacent and I guess yeah I guess if they were
to add 11 to merger of 12 which results in merger of 11 and 12 and 18 which merges to 19
which consequently also merges to 11, 11 could be included in both Notices of Disapprovals
and by technically it cleans it up. So I think that's a very good point and thank you Nick for
pointing it out. That's a very easy fix with the Building Department.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's just that this is one of the most challenging on the subdivision
scale. This is not you know two residential lots that merged and so I want to make sure that we
understand quite accurately exactly what took place, what's perceived to be merged and
what's being proposed to be unmerged and remerged or left merged depending on what
happens. I mean if it's deemed to be merged and you're splitting off say a third of it then the
two remaining will remain merged.
PAT MOORE : Exactly.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : They're going to have to be in one person's name however.
PAT MOORE : But yeah if you want to clean it up I mean if that simplifies it and it's an easy fix I
don't think it requires much more than adding it into the Notice of Disapproval.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It might have to added in both applications.
PAT MOORE : Well in both Notices of Disapproval and by letter just I mean my whole
presentation has been we're agreeing and in my application I say we're asking to merge so you
have it included in my application by virtue of we're telling you we're going to merge 11 and 12
so really it's a Mike Verity call if he wants to just add that into the Notice of Disapproval. I don't
think it changes anything that I've done here today because again we're not asking 11 to be
separated. We're asking it to be merged but I will do whatever makes this happen so I'm not I
always park my ego at the door because I want to make sure you guys are clear.
IL$
June 7, 2018 Regular Meeting
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright Pat do you have any questions?
MEMBER ACAMPORA : No.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Now I have the delightful task of asking if there's anyone in the
audience who wants to address the application? No I can't do raise your hands that doesn't
work on a transcript.
PAT MOORE : I mean you do have the letters.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I think that's a real good idea. Eric was suggesting perhaps we get
some comments from the Planning Department or Planning Board just to simply confirm the
subdivision process and so on because that's an important part of the history. If you'd like to
speak please come to the mic and state your name.
HAROLD NEIMARK : My name is Harold Neimark. My question is what's going to happen to lot
13? Is it buildable or could it be merged with 11 or 12 or what?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I believe what they are proposing if I understand them correctly is to
leave 13 as single and separate. Am I correct in that? And that lot would remain 12,496 square
feet in size quite small.
HAROLD NEIMARK : Is that buildable?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It would have a very small building envelope I would think.
HAROLD NEIMARK : But it would be allowed?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : If it's a separate lot and there was enough space on it to put a
modest home then it would be allowed. Anybody else, anything from you Pat?
PAT MOORE : I did send you letters from some family members who couldn't be here.
Obviously they are in support, everybody that's here is obviously in support and that's all.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I think what we'll do we certainly haven't had a chance to read those
letters. When things come in and you've us a lot of stuff to really review. When things come in
last minute it's really impossible for us. We just can't start a hearing and read it at the same
time and understand it and do it justice. I think in future what we're going to do is require that
there's a cut off prior to a public hearing so that the Board has a chance to read everything
before the hearing and then of course you could always submit what you want at the hearing
that goes without saying not just you I'm talking about as
PAT MOORE : No I did deliver the letters prior to the hearing so that you did get.
19
June 7, 2018 Regular Meeting
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I know but we didn't get it we received it yesterday and that means
the Board members received it this morning just before we started the meeting so I haven't
even read them.
PAT MOORE : No problem.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I mean there was not time to do that.
PAT MOORE : Okay I cautioned everybody that yes you were going to need time to review this
and you know I don't know what the Planning Board is going to send and I want to be able to
respond so
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Of course, of course and I don't know how fast they can do it you
know the goal is not to delay this process but I'd like to try and see I think Eric's right cause they
have obviously the archives and the history on the subdivision and so on and so forth. This is a
large challenging application and we just want to make sure we have everything clear to make a
ruling. So Pat would you talk to Mike maybe in the Building Department and see if there's a way
to improve the clarity of the Notice of Disapproval and which notice goes with which
application cause we're going to write two. We have two applications so we need to
understand exactly what's going on with what's the same and what's different.
PAT MOORE : I'll tell you that I did go cause Damon wrote this and I said to Damon, I'm
combining lots and he's like ugh kind of like don't bother me not in a bad way but it's explain
that all to the Zoning Board. Whatever the Zoning Board however you write it they will
implement it so the sense I got was that by agreeing that it's merging to 11 that they will then
recognize 11 as being part of 12 combined. For sure I will tell him I've been here, that we talked
about it and would it help if since he knows you know I'll give him a copy of what I submitted
since he knows that we're combining it do you want to revise the notice with the combined
because that was my suggestion right from the beginning. Listen we're doing it this way, I think
it would make the notice a little clearer and certainly the application is coming into you that
way.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : If we had to we could certainly as long as we were clear about which
lots needed to be unmerged from which we could condition the waiver of merger based upon
the combination the merger.
PAT MOORE : Exactly, I think that's what he was thinking.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So I just want to sure that the numbers are all accurate. Which is
merged with what and which is to be merged together.
20
June 7, 2018 Regular Meeting
PAT MOORE : The numbers I'm pretty
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yeah they are, I just want to make sure that the notice clarifies what
we're supposed to do.
PAT MOORE : Okay I'll just go over it with Damon sitting down and double checking.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Could also do a little quick email saying this application blah, blah,
blah these lots to remain, these lots to be merged.
PAT MOORE : You want me to email who?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Us the Board.
PAT MOORE : Oh okay.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : But isn't that already the map that Pat just offered?
PAT MOORE : Why don't you do this, why don't you read because I
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You know never mind, don't worry about it.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I think the only question that I see here is that lot 11 is kind of the
odd one and which one does it belong to cause it's not mentioned anywhere.
PAT MOORE : No it is mentioned in being combined with 12 not in the Notice of Disapproval.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Not in the Notice of Disapproval.
PAT MOORE : Exactly because the Notice of Disapproval he only deals with contiguous not
contiguous plus.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Right well that's just what it is.
PAT MOORE : I'll talk to Damon about it and whatever it takes even if it's a small maybe he can
do it by way of his email or memo you know.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well look you know what I don't know it's his call but the bottom
line is if you really look at the adjacencies of all of these properties the whole kit and caboodle
merged.
PAT MOORE : Yes well it' would have been an acre plus. I mean the merger would have resulted
in an acre plus.
23
June 7, 2018 Regular Meeting
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Once there were two conforming lots then that would have been
that. It's such an odd
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : But that's what I think Pat said that if they actually merged you'd end
up with these odd shaped lots and there's also the double (inaudible) that requires future
variances. This is much cleaner as far as whoever chooses to develop something at some point.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well look in the interest of some other hearing this morning, if
there's nothing more from the audience
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I'm sorry just one question that was sort of floating in my head for
Mr. Neimark, you had asked a question regarding in the future I believe it was lot 13, are you in
favor of this overall application or both applications or are you against the concept of ever
seeing a house on that corner location?
PAT MOORE : Gee that's a loaded question.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : He's a family member?
PAT MOORE : No.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Hold it, hold it. If somebody wants to state your name please.
NINA NEIMARK : My name is Nina Neimark and we live we are lot 5 so we're kind of caddy
corner from 13 which will be this tiny lot and we are a little bit concerned that somebody will
build a tiny house where there are nice you know big houses and we're just that's our concern.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well that's when you walk out the door it's a civil matter then you
can talk as much as you want to.
NINA NEIMARK : That's our only concern.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I'm sorry I just want to understand your location. You're lot 5 which is
a much more substantial lot tucked in the back corner?
NINA NEIMARK : Yes.
PAT MOORE : That was the one excuse me I'm going to put it on the record, when I talked
about the 280-A application that's the lot. So this lot got split off before the bond could be
released so 280-A was approved in order to allow what was called the McDonnell house that
was a family member at the time right? Oh it was sold off okay actually the sale of that property
helped pay for the bond in the road improvements cause I saw the timing of it was how it was
funded. So that one the Planning Board said you know and the Zoning Board said okay fine but
22
June 7, 2018 Regular Meeting
because the roads haven't yet been approved you gotta apply for a 280-A which is extra. It's a
variance for access.
NINA NEIMARK : That's really our question that's why we asked.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Understand thank you for clarifying. Alright anything else, you
alright? I'm going to make a motion to adjourn this hearing to the Special Meeting in two
weeks. We can receive some information from you and give us a chance to really digest
everything. Make sure we understand everything and if we do we can close it and then we will
have a decision that we will 'be deliberating on either that evening if we're totally clear but
more likely a month from now our next regular meeting.
A.T.A HAGAN : For the record your motion is to adjourn both the Daly and the Hoey.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes thank you very much, I'm going to adjourn them both
simultaneously because we heard everything from both of them anyway, is there a second?
MEMBER ACAMPORA : Second.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor?
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye.
MEMBER DANTES : Aye.
MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye.
(See Minutes for Resolution)
HEARING#7146—CHRISTOPHER and KRISTEN NEIMETH
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Christopher and Kristen
Neimeth # 7146. This is a request for a variance from Article XXIII Section 280-124 and the
Building Inspector's November 22, 2017 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a
building permit to construct additions and alterations to an existing single family dwelling at 1)
less than the code required minimum front yard setback of 35 feet located at 1700 Gin Lane
(A.K.A. 1230 Waters Edge Way) in Southold.
PAT MOORE : Patricia Moore. Very simply this is an application where my client is taking the
existing house, relocating the bedroom to the second floor. There is if you went to see there is
23
June 7, 2018 Regular Meeting
an attached above ground pool that is being removed. They're not keeping that. The house it's
a very modest I actually represented the seller of the property to Mr. Neimeth who is a nice
single little old lady, lovely person and she went to live assisted living. They bought the house
they're obviously a younger couple with children so obviously the needs change. This will be a
really an improvement to the house as far as architectural, bringing everything up to code and
it is again it's a corner lot but it is the only house on the corner. As you can see it's a dead end
exactly. Waters Edge Way is a dead end road adjacent the county the town and county
purchased the development rights so it's never to be developed. I see a right of way but I don't
think that right of way has ever been opened either in fact there's a shed blocking it so I think
that that's been that's pretty much gone as well. It's funny I just noticed it but the Building
Department didn't have it wouldn't make sense because you can't have that many front yards
front yard setbacks and that right of way is showing on the map of Bayhaven but has never
been opened. The Keirnan's have blocked that right of way as well so it's unlikely it will ever be
developed.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's really unopened.
PAT MOORE : It's a paper right of way. So this is really a very straightforward application. The
porch the views to the water are across the street between houses that are on the water. The
porches and the decks for them as a second home are very important and help both in the
design of the house make it a lovely home but as well as the usefulness in the summer which is
when most of second home owners use their home. I will address any questions that you have.
MEMBER DANTES : Who owns the shed?
CHRIS NEIMETH : Chris Neimeth. Just that the Keirnan's are our next door neighbors and they
have sheds in that same right of way. Everyone along the way has sheds in there.
MEMBER DANTES : Does the shed have a code conforming setback?
PAT MOORE : I think it's a pre-existing.
MEMBER DANTES : And a pre-C.O?
PAT MOORE : Good question, I don't know. You didn't put it up right? Let me see.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's less than the square footage it requires a permit.
PAT MOORE : It probably would have I'm sure if it was put there it was its older and it's been
there for a very long time.
24
June 7, 2018 Regular Meeting
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : What's the depth of the porch you're proposing on Waters Edge
Way?
PAT MOORE : Waters Edge way is let me see I have the plans here yep you're right seven feet.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright so it's pretty minimal. I actually have no questions. Anybody
else have questions otherwise we'll see what the audience has to say.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Just one and I don't know if it's' necessarily relevant but are Gin Lane
and Waters Edge Way town roads or private roads?
PAT MOORE : No they're town roads.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Town roads.
PAT MOORE : That's my understanding yeah. I mean I don't know that I've checked it but my
memory is that it does it would appear on the town's highway list.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : and does the community because there's a community beach is there
any sort of association or covenants and restrictions?
CHRIS NEIMETH : There's an association I'm actually the treasurer of the association so there's
an association beach. There's not a community beach that's part of the subdivision and there
are deeded rights to the association beach for the fifty four members of the subdivision.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there anyone wanting to address this application in the audience?
Hearing no further questions or comments I'll make a motion to close the hearing reserve
decision to a later date.
MEMBER ACAMPORA : Second.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor?
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye.
MEMBER DANTES : Aye.
MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye.
(See Minutes for Resolution)
25
June 7, 2018 Regular Meeting
HEARING # 7148— NEIL T. MCGOLDRICK and AMY MCGOLDRICK
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Neil T. McGoldrick and
Amy McGoldrick # 7148. This is a request for variances from Article III Section 280-15, Article
XXIII Section 280-124 and the Building Inspector's December 1, 2017 amended February 7, 2018
Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a building permit to construct an addition to a
non-conforming accessory garage and to legalize an "as built" deck addition and an "as built"
accessory arbor at 1) proposed accessory garage,addition located in other than the code
required rear yard, 2) "as built" deck addition is located less than the code required minimum
front yard setback of 60 feet, 3) "as built" arbor is located less than the code required minimum
front yard setback of 60 feet located at 1671 Meadow Beach Lane (adj. to the Hall's Creek and
Great Peconic Bay) in Mattituck.
PAT MOORE : Yes thank you Patricia Moore on behalf of the McGoldricks. This particular
property is unique in the sense that it is 4.8 acres of ownership but the most of it is part of Halls
Creek and wetlands that are across from Halls Creek to Peconic Bay and this what we're asking
for is to be able to build at this point possibly reconstruct they're trying to use the same garage
to the extent possible but so much time has gone by since this hearing I don't know I want to
leave open the possibility that we may have to demolish it. It originally was proposed with an
addition. You can see that it has it's going to be in its original location with a small addition
towards the house and you've all been there to see the property. The setbacks that we have
here are such large setbacks because of the large acreage that is owned but in fact if we were
to take the upland buildable area you'd have an area of probably half acre so we are applying
some very large setbacks to an area that is pre-existing non-conforming in the sense that the
structures have been built there under different zoning ordinances. The existing garage has a
very lovely circular driveway and a very beautiful tree right in the center that if we have to
move this garage would be compromised. So the owner would really like to keep everything
exactly where it is with a small addition next to the house. So the variance because the garage
is encroaching at a 15 foot setback which makes sense given the size of the buildable area that
was a generous setback at the time that that was built. Under the current zoning because of the
four acres you've got a setback of 20 feet for the accessory structure. There's also two front
yards and the reason for the additional front yard is this is a dead end. It is the right of way that
takes there is my memory three houses at the end. There is the house to the north which is
identified as Coletta and then there is an adjacent property Martin on the west and their house
is very close to the water. It's far away from the right of way. So this house all of the
improvements it's a pretty isolated spot at the very end. It's a beautiful spot but it's really at
the end of what is a paper right of way. Again if you've been there you can see that it actually
the right of way ends and it's his driveway and that's it. So we are applying what we typically
describe as technical variances because of their setbacks but in practical purposes we're really
26
June 7, 2018 Regular Meeting
this is an isolated end of the road property. The arbor it's all the pool and arbor and all of the
improvements are in his back yard facing the water. The arbor was added it's probably it looks
to me like it's vintage with the decking but who knows really. I don't know when it's been put in,
there. We're including it again because we didn't see a permit for it. It may have been
incorporated in the original and just the plans were never amended but we're including it here
for setback purposes.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I'm a little concerned that you mentioned and it certainly is worth
exploring that the existing garage may in fact have to be demolished. What I don't want to see
is if it's called out as additions and alterations and then suddenly it's demolished the Building
Department is going to put a stop work order on it, then they're going to have me go out there
and do an inspection and delay everything and then it's going to be a whole other kettle of fish
because if something is pre-existing it's C.O. is intact and you can add to it with variance relief.
If it's demolished all bets are off. They usually try to make it more conforming.
PAT MOORE : Right. Well I would that's why I'm raising the issue at this hearing because in the
event it is demolished then we do want to keep it as the 15 foot setback. Again a 15 foot
setback is a generous setback and conforming setback to a lot that is an acre in size. You're
conforming, the height of the garage everything is it would be conforming. Applying a 20 foot
setback just pushes the whole structure five feet closer to the house. It starts looking congested
and it is just not a very good design so I want to include it here for discussion that if in fact
when they are taking it I don't want to say taking it apart but they have to do a new roof and
they're adding storage you know what happens? I know what happens, you start taking down
the shingles and you find dry rock or termites that have made a home. So I would ask that it be
also include demolition as a possibility in which case we still want to have the same 15 foot
setback.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well you also want to expand it you're adding an addition.
PAT MOORE : Well yes, yes, yes the addition is nonetheless whether it's we want to keep the
garage just where it is with the addition. If it can be renovated great because it costs him less
but if it needs if at some point it reaches that fifty percent threshold I want to be sure that
we've got language at least testimony and discussion that we do want preserve it's footprint of
where it is because no matter what you have slab. A garage is on slab so the slab is there
whether the wood is there or not so I want to keep it in its place.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Usually when something is demolished if it's replaced in kind that's
one thing but now you're talking about the possibilities so we have to figure this out. The
possibility of building something new that's enlarging the non-conformity cause it's bigger
that's all.
27T
June 7, 2018 Regular Meeting
PAT MOORE : Yes but as I said we're not talking about a non-conforming five foot setback.
We're talking about a fifteen foot setback which given again we have a two acre
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No I'm not objecting to the addition I'm simply saying that
technically when you demolish something you can usually replace it as it was but if you're
replacing it with an addition that's another story so somehow that needs to be addressed in
this so there's no backfiring here.
PAT MOORE : Well my application as far as addressing it really
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Do you want to discuss this with Mike in advance. I mean that's part
of the problem. People don't know don't explore enough whether or not I don't know if Tom
Samuels has looked at it carefully enough to know whether or not this structure is salvageable
which is the most cost effective but sometimes knocking something down and building it new is
cheaper and better construction.
PAT MOORE : Sure but that may be the case but if you want to put it back we'd be here either
way and that's why I'm raising the issue today because when he started this process a different
person not a lawyer an expediter was supposed to be making the application and he waited like
,two years and said what's going on. I think it got buried or forgotten and then he came to me
and I submitted the application but again we have to wait for your calendar to open up so it's
been waiting now another good six to eight months. It needs care, it's not in great shape.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No it's not we saw it.
PAT MOORE : I saw it and my reaction was geez how is this going to be able to hold up the
renovation and I've been here long enough and I've had to deal with for sure I've had to deal
with it where you know maybe when he when Tom first looked at this structure no problem but
it's been three years at least since this plan I mean when did he do this plan, November in 2015
is when he started this. Not your fault, not my client's fault. Somehow or another the person
that was supposed to be doing this just dropped the ball. It happens you know nobody's
perfect.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay well I think we understand what the issues are. The trick here
is going to be if the Board is inclined to approve this garage addition in the front yard right with
the 15 foot setback understanding the front yard is essentially a private right of way it's a dead
end. We have to find some language.
PAT MOORE : Let me correct you. We would meet we are meeting the front yard setback.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yeah I'm not just the location.
June 7, 2018 Regular Meeting
PAT MOORE : It's the side yard, no it's just the side yard. I think the variance cause I'm looking
at the building envelope Tom prepared.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's not the setback.
PAT MOORE : It's a side yard setback.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Accessory garage in side yard. The code requires a rear yard.
PAT MOORE : Oh alright yes. So it's the placement of it in the side right which there is
absolutely
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anywhere in that area.
PAT MOORE : Exactly, there is absolutely no place to put in the rear yard because you're in Halls
Creek so I think that's pretty obvious.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That's a significant reason.
MEMBER DANTES : Or in the front yard.
PAT MOORE : Yeah or a front yard you can't meet 60 foot exactly so, no 60 we can meet we do
meet.
MEMBER DANTES : But the side yard you meet it but not in the front yard.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Cause you're on water so you could be in the front yard.
PAT MOORE : We could be in the front yard which the way the position of the house is it's on
an angle is his front yard but not the flagged lot or right of way lot.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anything from the Board? I think the trick is going to be how to
phrase this so if a demolition is necessary we don't go amuck.
MEMBER ACAMPORA : You're still planning to put a shower on the garage?
PAT MOORE : I don't see a shower. Are you asking or did you
MEMBER ACAMPORA : I'm asking if you're going to keep there is presently a shower head
coming out of the wall.
PAT MOORE : Oh an outdoor shower oh, oh, oh. I thought you meant indoor. That I don't know.
The Building Department doesn't usually have an issue with you know spickets or outdoor
showers. I'll say yes only because they gotta put it somewhere but I think it makes more sense
to do it on the garage than attached to the house.
297
June 7, 2018 Regular Meeting
MEMBER ACAMPORA : Well there looks like there's one also by the arbor.
PAT MOORE : I can't recall. Did you see it when you went there?
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Yeah there's an outdoor shower at both locations.
PAT MOORE : Oh okay. I can get an answer for you. I was hoping Tom Samuels was going to be
here but
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I have one point to make here just to make sure the record reflects
it. The Town Engineer indicates that obviously when they usually condition or indicate that it
has to be 236 compliant for on-site drainage. There seems to be no drainage in place. There's
nothing on the arbor which has a very large roof over it and that needs to be addressed and
then any garage renovation will also need gutters and down spouts and drywell according to
236.
PAT MOORE : If that's a condition of your approval that's fine. I mean the arbor is as built and if
that becomes a condition of
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yeah they just have to put proper drainage on it because that's a
large that's a lot of roof runoff. I don't know why they're calling it an arbor because I would
describe it rather differently.
PAT MOORE : I would have called it a shade structure but okay.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay anything from anybody else, anyone in the audience? Hearing
no further questions or comments I make a motion to close the hearing reserve decision to a
later date. Is there a second?
MEMBER ACAMPORA : Second.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye.
MEMBER DANTES : Aye.
MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye.
(See Minutes for Resolution)
0
June 7, 2018 Regular Meeting
HEARING # 7164 KONSTANTINE DRAKOPOULOS and KATINA DIGENAKIS
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Konstantine
Drakopoulos and Katina Digenakis # 7164. This is a request for a variance from Article III Section
280-15 and the Building Inspector's January 23, 2018 Notice of Disapproval based on an
application for a building permit to legalize an "as built" accessory above grade patio
surrounding an in-ground swimming pool at 1) less than the code required minimum rear yard
setback of 15 feet located at 1005 Mill Road in Peconic. Just be aware that Member
Planamento is recused from this application.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I'm going to step away, I'm recusing myself.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So this is to legalize an as built accessory above grade patio
surrounding a built in pool with a rear yard setback of 4.9 feet, the code requiring 25 foot
minimum. Now as the audience may know we all have inspected
PAT MOORE : 15
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I'm sorry 15 foot minimum. So we've all been out to inspect the
property, we've seen the neighborhood and what's going on there. Let me ask you how high is
that retaining wall along the property line? Come on up and would you state your name.
KONSTANTINE DRAKOPOULOS : Konstantine Drakopoulos good morning. It's about 4 feet high
above grade.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Cause I know it's before property slopes I want to know how high
out of the ground that thing is that's all. If it's going to be you know that big beautiful wall
between the house and Mexico, no it's not it's four foot high. Let me see if I have anything
else, you indicate that you're planting with our neighbor the evergreens. We saw them that
they were already
PAT MOORE : I'll just give you some background. on that just for the record. When we started
this process the owner in the back was a different individual. He had the property for sale it just
happened. So the person who bought it happened to be a client of my husbands and we
realized that I guess he realized it and I said well great. For that property owner it's his side yard
whereas Mr. Drakopoulos it's his rear yard and the two of them go together it's the best
scenario I could ever think of which is that the two of them got together. They worked out this
planting plan where it's a zig zag so that when the trees grow it'll be a nice private screening.
That got all worked out. They shared the cost, it was beautiful. So the owner the buyer the
owner of that house that's under construction is supportive of this application. They all worked
r
June 7, 2018 Regular Meeting
it out so I'm coming to you with support from,the neighbor and with the landscaping that's
already been worked out.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So let's see'what questions you might have, Pat?
MEMBER ACAMPORA : Just in the planning of this, was this the only possible way that the pool
could be constructed with the fact that you know you have this huge concrete moat going
around it. I mean could the property been graded to a more flat level?
PAT MOORE : Well let me just point out from the survey you can see it. You can see the
topography of the property. You see those elevation lines that are up here, we needed that
actually for the Engineer. I wanted to make sure I had the Engineer look at the wall to be sure it
compliant because we didn't want to have any issues that would have necessitated replacing
the wall. So, what happens is when very commonly out here you have a sloped piece of
property, the pool is at grade where the slate patio is so everything is on grade but as the
property slopes back you could grade but it creates drainage problems. And in fact there really
was no practical way to grade without a significant impact on the adjacent property because
you're grading how are you going to control the water runoff at that point. You're actually
creating more of a you have to create some kind of a trench drain or some kind of a drainage
structure to capture that slope. So engineering wise this is the best method because he can
control the water above on the impervious areas and then the rest of the property is graded
but you can see the regrading of the lines that are showing on the map. So he's able to grade to
the thirty foot slope there that's showing and then there's plenty of room to grade it back so
that this property is pretty good sized. It's a nice large property so the grading can be a more
natural less steep but had he had to grade around the pool without the retaining wall you
would have had a steep angle. I understand why he did it and when he did it he didn't realize
the Building Department would consider that to be a structure and it's funny because you never
really know with them. Sometimes it is and sometimes it isn't. I've been to the Building
Department to check to see you know what height, what you know the rules. In this case they
said it was a structure and fine we were dealing with a setback. But you have some retaining
walls maybe they're two foot high unconsidered a structure. They're a landscape feature so I
think it really is a factual situation and in this case because the wall the difference in the grade
in the back of the property to the front of the property ended up being a higher wall than I
think you would have anticipated.
MEMBER ACAMPORA : So when you're putting you're going to back fill some of that area on
the other side of the wall
PAT MOORE : Yeah the Building Department wouldn't let us he got a stop work order. I asked
him I actually went to them and said listen the pool is legal. That has a building permit. That
32
June 7, 2018 Regular Meeting
was not there shouldn't have been a stop work order on that. Let us backfill so we can make
sure the pool isn't compromised. They said no don't touch anything and so we didn't touch
anything and that's why it looks the way it does.
MEMBER ACAMPORA : So when you backfill that then you're going to have the brick then from
the pool to where you're doing the filling in for the rest of the retaining wall. Is that correct?
KONSTANTINE DRAKOPOULOS : Yeah right where the pool pavers five feet on the sides and ten
feet on the back on the grass beyond that and then right by the retaining wall I'm going to put a
fence (inaudible) the whole entire pool we have young kids.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yeah you're required to do that to code.
PAT MOORE : But it also the fence on like on top of the or whatever the code requires
KONSTANTINE DARAKOPOULOS : Whatever the code requires whether it's the top or the side of
it.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I'm not seeing any drywell for pool dewatering and there's no pump
equipment, no pool equipment located here.
PAT MOORE : Yeah where is all that equipment? Look at the side of the house pretty far from
the pool is a that's an AC unit.
KONSTANTINE DRAKOPOULOS : Yeah but right next to it is all the pool equipment.
PAT MOORE : Oh it's not showing on these plans I guess they weren't there yet but that's
where you're going to put it?
KONSTANTINE DRAKOPOULOS : No it's there already.
PAT MOORE : It's there, okay.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You mean in that area that says gravel and slate walkway, plastic
fence, AC unit, generator, outdoor shower.
PAT MOORE : You sure?That seems far away.
KONSTANTINE DRAKOPOULOS : Yeah they put it all over there.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Oh it's on the other side.
PAT MOORE : It's on the right hand side.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Ah there it is, concrete slab, pool equipment.
33
June 7, 2018 Regular Meeting
KONSTANTINE DRAKOPOULOS : I don't know why it doesn't say it.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No I see it there it is. No it's not on the side where the shower is it's
on the other side.
PAT MOORE : Concrete slab, pool equipment. It's inside the box of the building the house see
the writing inside.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yeah I see it now I do. There needs to be a you know dry well and
you know well the whole thing is going to have to conform to 236 anyway you know onsite
drainage requirements but I'd like to know where this drywell is going to be. Rather than
waiting all that time to go and get it redrawn on the survey I think I'll just put in here a
condition of a drywell and you have to be in conformance of 236 and you'll have to when you
go to get a the Building Department
PAT MOORE : It's funny I'm surprised the Building Department it may have been already part of
the building permit application cause usually when you do a pool you have to give them that
information.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well it's not on here so I'm going to make sure it exists. Would you
just say what you said into the mic.
KONSTANTINE DRAKOPOULOS : The pool company pulled the permit I thought the permit
included the retaining wall but I guess I was wrong.
PAT MOORE : No the drainage.
KONSTANTINE DRAKOPOULOS : Oh the drainage.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Do you have drywell someplace for pool de-watering?
KONSTANTINE DRAKOPOULOS : No they didn't install a drywell.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Right it's just not showing on here that's all.
PAT MOORE : It's part of your contract?
KONSTANTINE DRAKOPOULOS : Yes.
PAT MOORE : He did get a building permit for the pool and I'm positive that it's always part of
the building permit application so if you want me to verify
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Would you do that please.
34
June 7, 2018 Regular Meeting
PAT MOORE : Sure I mean I didn't pull the permit so I don't know.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there anyone in the audience who wishes to address the
application? Anything from you Eric? Hearing no further questions or comments I'm going to
make a motion to close the hearing subject to receipt of a copy of the permit for the pool
indicating that a drywell is to be installed or whatever document I mean building permit is one
thing but if you have a contract with the pool company that shows.
PAT MOORE : I see notes that I have a 4 x 8 proposed dry well next to the pool equipment like
in the grass east of the pool equipment. It's a notation but I which may have been given to me
by the pool company.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I see cause it's not on the survey that we got.
PAT MOORE : No it's not and I'm surprised cause usually we do you know but yeah
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Something from them something from the pool permit something to
verify that that's being
PAT MOORE : Okay if not on building permit ask pool company.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Hearing no further questions or comments I think I made the motion
to close subject to receipt of confirmation of drywell of proposed installed drywell.
MEMBER DANTES : Second.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor?
MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye.
MEMBER DANTES : Aye.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye.
(See Minutes for Resolution)
HEARING#7165—SUSANNAH MCDOWELL
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Susannah McDowell #
7165. This is a request for variances from Article XXIII Section 280-124 and the Building
Inspector's January 23, 2018 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a building permit
to construct additions and alterations to an existing single family dwelling at 1) less than the
35
June 7, 2018 Regular Meeting
code required minimum front yard setback of 40 feet, 2) less than the code required minimum
side yard setback of 15 feet located at 180 Strohson Rd. (adj. to Sheep Pen Channel/East Creek)
in Cutchogue. Let's just clarify what this is for. This particular garage structure received a
variance for repairs and for front yard and side yard setback and it was conditioned with no
sleeping space, unheated non-habitable. Both the plans, the floor plans that were submitted
and the site inspection that we all did showed that somewhere along the line this was
developed into an apartment and it has not been a garage has been occupied and there is also
within our file a Building Department code enforcement violation confirming that and it would
appear that originally the assessor went out to the property Kevin Webster and discovered that
this garage that was conditioned as non-habitable was in fact a habitable apartment. So how is
it that you that that happened and how is it that you're standing in front of us in complete
violation of the condition that you know allowed the previous two variances?
PAT MOORE : Well I'm going to let him speak because he has to speak for himself on doing the
work but I'll speak in terms of how we want to solve it. The connecting the 13 x 13 connection
allows then the garage to become habitable because it will be attached to the house. It gives
the wife the ability to renovate the kitchen and keep everything exactly as it is. So the garage
the variance previously was the garage but the garage was in exactly the same location. It got it
looks like from the photographs of that variance application at the time it had the roof pitch
and it had like a sun deck on top of it which I can appreciate that at that time the sundeck
would have been somewhat intrusive on the adjacent property and it was a cleanup a repair
making the garage you know to current standards.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well Pat I have to say you know this wasn't that long ago it was 2017
so I believe this Board with some exceptions remembers the prior variance and what was
applied for.
PAT MOORE : Good. No honestly there's no excuse.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : What you're doing is asking us to legalize by some technical means
an illegal apartment.
PAT MOORE : Well let me correct it's not an apartment. It's still unheated okay. It was
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well there's sleeping quarters, living quarters and there's a kitchen
and there's a bathroom.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : What about the mechanicals?There's not a heating system?
PAT MOORE : It's not heated. No it's not heated so it has air conditioning but it's not heated.
June 7, 2018 Regular Meeting
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : So it's conditioned.
PAT MOORE : Conditioned space yeah but you know what before I'm going to have him speak
because really it's he's got to explain himself.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : First we need to know who him is.
CHRISTOPHER MCDOWELL : Christopher McDowell. I mean I can only apologize. (inaudible) my
motivation was my parents are getting on in age and you know we bought the house two years
ago now
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Can you talk just a little bit louder or pull the mic up we record this
sir.
CHRISTOPHER MCDOWELL : My motivation was to have somewhere for my aging parents to
stay when they came out to visit their grandchildren. We actually live in Bermuda. So my wife is
here for two months in the summer and I come out for probably eight weekends. The rest of
the year the house is closed up, turn off the power and turn off the water so you know I can
only apologize. We got the permission to rebuild the garage and I found some plans from the
(inaudible) who were there previously. I looked at those plans and thought actually that's a
great idea why don't we put a bedroom in there but as I say the motivation was really for my
parents when they're over. It hasn't been used.
PAT MOORE : It's not rented or
CHRISTOPHER MCDOWELL : No we have no intention of that. As I said my wife is up with the
two boys for eight weeks in the summer,July and August. I come out for weekends.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well Susannah McDowell was the one who received the variance
relief for the garage okay so it's your family who received that for a garage and it stated
categorically in there I got it right in front of me subject to the following conditions, accessory
garage shall not contain any habitable space. Apparently you didn't realize what habitable
space was but you thought it would be alright instead of cars to put people in there?
CHRISTOPHER MCDOWELL : I apologize. There are no people in there right now. I can
understand if there was you know a thought that I would try to rent it out you know Air BNB
that wasn't the motivation at all. It is very occasional use. The house itself is very occasional use
just two months in the summer. I live in Bermuda. So again I only apologize.
PAT MOORE : So if we can get beyond the violation okay there are two options obviously.
Option one is turn it back into a garage okay but if they need the space because the house is
limited in its size and the need it for his older parents they come in from out of the country they
37
June 7, 2018 Regular Meeting
come and stay with their grandchildren and his wife the alternative is to expand the house.
When I look at this house ideally it's not to expand the house because if we had to expand the
house we'd be before you for a variance. So there is no way of any expansion to this house
without a variance because the side yard setbacks are pre-existing and we'd have to get a
variance to make any modification to the existing house. If we were to go on the seaward side
of the house we need certainly in addition to the variance Trustees and D.E.C. so it is certainly
it's I want to say inexcusable. I'm glad he's here because the apology had to come from him. It
was as he said he cut corners and that's you know never something that we want to encourage
but let's assume that he hadn't done it. This would be a good way of making that space
habitable even if it's for the limited purpose that he's using it. The addition is only 13 x 13. It
connects two structures that are very close to each other. The garage had been pre-existing so
the house is pre-existing in its location and the garage was pre-existing. The addition is being
put at a conforming 20 foot setback from the side yard so we are not asking we don't need a
variance for the addition. It meets the code and by putting the structure together let's say that
he had not done anything and he had come to me and said well I need the extra living space
how do I do it?This is the logical way of doing it. We actually I was at the site with the architect.
We looked everywhere, we looked around and said really that makes the most sense because
the garage is there. It's not going to change its location whether it houses cars or it houses his
parents for you know ten days in the year. It doesn't change the number of windows on the
same side as it is now. The proposal is to take the garage doors and make one garage door a
French door and the other door panels with a window. The side the Roden side of the house is
still the same little window that it had before the garage was renovated and now after the
garage gets renovated so punishment just for punishment sake yes. I mean he's had to go
through this process but regardless you need a variance and as far as changing the character of
the neighborhood which is really the standard we're looking at if you go up and down Strohson
Rd. you can see that all of the houses on the same side of the street on Strohson Rd. all built
very close to the road because they're trying to keep the setback from the marsh and the
wetlands. Roden I know Mr. and Mrs. Both sent their own letter. They opposed it and I think I
see them here they'll speak for themselves. They're just upset that it was done in violation and I
you know can't fault them for that. I think any neighbor would be upset that after being you
know reading a decision that says you're not supposed to do something and you go ahead and
do it that's not good. But you do face this a lot before the Zoning Board a lot of they don't want
an accessory apartment so as far as the kitchen goes I think it's just a sink right? My memory
was it was a sink is there a refrigerator like a college refrigerator so that's it. It's not a kitchen
and they don't plan to put a kitchen. There's a lovely kitchen in fact the wife this alternative the
architect did a very nice job where he can do a renovation of the existing kitchen because one
of the things they debated was how do we modify this house because the kitchen is in need of
updating. So this does hit two birds as far as Mrs. McDowell who is the one who primarily
38
June 7, 2018 Regular Meeting
spends the summers here and you know again you were the removal of the improvements
inside in fact I think when you do put the structures together the improvements in the garage
are not code compliant as far as energy code HVAC and all those things so anything that's there
is going to have to be revised to building code standards so what's there he's going to be
punished. He's going to end up having to make alterations to the garage to make it habitable
space which means that you're going to have to put in proper insulation, make it heated,
conditioned space, windows will have to meet the energy codes so this was very much a
temporary solution to an immediacy for the family but not a long term solution. So we are here
to say you know if you can get passed the fact that it's a violation everything that's in there will
be made code compliance so it will be renovated and restored or made into true habitable
space. I did go I gave you an outline because I went through the standards and I did point out
again where I had given it to you but just wanted to make sure I included it here today in my
presentation the fact that alternative to this variance would be to make modification to the
house. So there is no alternative that would not require a variance so yes the garage goes back
to being a garage. It's again for a family that's here for just a couple of weeks in the summer.
It's a very nice garage but someone over the top or for their needs they really need living space
more than anything else. Do you need anything else?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anything from the Board at this point, Pat?
MEMBER ACAMPORA : So if this was to be approved there would be then no garage.
PAT MOORE : There's part of it I think was being left for storage if I recall.
MEMBER ACAMPORA : But it would not be for a car.
CHRISTOPHER MCDOWELL : All we've got is a beaten up Honda minivan that's sort of carries
the kids up and down to the beach so the answer is no.
PAT MOORE : I mean they still I think the architect originally talked about leaving some space
for storage the beach stuff that families usually have.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : The plan doesn't show that.
PAT MOORE : It didn't show that but I know we've talked about it.
CHRISTOPHER MCDOWELL : We put all the garden furniture and all that stuff in
PAT MOORE : Right now it's used as storage space when the family leaves for closes up the
house for the winter but as I mean even as finished space you can use your house and store all,
your stuff in there.
39
June 7, 2018 Regular Meeting
MEMBER ACAMPORA : But there would be no place the car would remain outside.
PAT MOORE : The car will stay outside like it does now yeah. I mean there's adequate parking
there. It's a stone driveway that allows the car to park there and as he said it's his wife with the
kids and the beat up minivan that's about it.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And who has been living in the garage?
CHRISTOPHER MCDOWELL : Just my parents.
PAT MOORE : They're in their eighties?
CHRISTOPHER MCDOWELL : No one lives there. My father was born in '36 he's 82 my mother is
77. They're the only people staying.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So why then would you not want to consider if that's your only goal
to just occasionally have your folks there, why not apply for an accessory apartment in an
accessory structure to legalize it?
PAT MOORE : I don't think you meet the criteria for accessory apartment. It's not a full time
their home is a second home. I mean yeah had that been an option certainly it would have been
the easy one cause you don't have to spend any more money.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You're right. For family use but if it's only going to be part time.
PAT MOORE : At any point in time anybody who in the future wanted to make this a permanent
home they would have that option whatever the laws would be assuming they're the same laws
that we have today they would have those options but that's really not for their needs today.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let's just see what's do you have a question at the moment?
MEMBER PLANAMENTO Yes, relative to emergency access Strohson Rd. is a very narrow
unimproved road; the subject property has you know less than normal side yards and you go to
6.2 foot setback on the garage structure in the front yard and you have 13 feet on the other
side how do you propose any access in the event of any form of an emergency vehicle gaining
access to the property?
PAT MOORE : Well I mean you do have 13 feet on the other side. Remember the garage is going
to stay there. The space between the house and the garage is also it has 13 feet so we're not
the conversion of the space for emergency access whether it's a garage or living space is
actually it doesn't change here. The fire department would have the same issues whether you
grant this variance or you don't grant this variance. I don't see emergency access as an issue
40
June 7, 2018 Regular Meeting
here because there's no impediment to getting into the house or the driveway and once you're
in the property there you have access of 13 feet on the opposite side on the west side.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there anyone in the audience wishing to address the application?
Please come forward and state your name for the record.
CHARLES RODEN : My name is Charles Roden. I own the house immediately adjoining to the
west of the structure. I think you already have a letter from us and my wife objecting. I would
also want to mention because we have an email from our neighbor to their east Mary McCloud
who unfortunately broke her arm and cannot be here today but she wanted to make sure she
also wrote a letter objecting. I don't know if you have it. She had planned to be here but she
broke her arm so it may or may not she may have mailed it the last minute but she wanted us
to make sure that you knew that she also had an objection to addition so us on both sides of
the property. And I just want to start out by saying in making the objection it really distresses
me because as far as I'm concerned I would want to bend over backwards and double any extra
mile I can to help a neighbor and I would not want to make an objection frivolously just on you
know unprincipal. But in this case where we find it very disturbing for several reasons; the
garage actually backs I think it's within six feet of our property line. When the original variance
was asked and they wanted to fix the garage well we weren't going to make any objection at
all. I mean why would we, the garage was already there and if it was dilapidated and as the
request came in it was falling apart and they wanted to fix it. Well we had no reason why we
would object. It was with a great shock that we discovered that without being told, without any
discussion with any neighbor that it was converted to habitable space even though as you
noted both in the original variance and the C.O. said cannot be inhabited and so our first shock
and we only discovered this a week or two ago when we got the letter from the attorney saying
they wanted to make some alterations. The plan in fact that we received showed just a box
connecting the house to what was in the plan that we received I can show it to you if you're
interested a wooden garage. So the whole thing as far as we're concerned was done in
complete secret. There has never been any discussion with either Mary on the other side or of
us of what they were doing. We would told they were repairing the garage. The letter received
from the attorney said they wanted a connection between the house and a wooden garage and
as far as we're concerned we are totally in the dark as to what they want to do and I think
that's a total variance where in fact your entire process is as you pointed out when you had the
original variance it said no habitable structure so that's a violation right away. The second thing
is you were hearing neighbors are supposed to know what's going on. There should be
complete transparency so if there are some issues and there are some other issues involved in
this that all neighbors actually know what is going on and have a chance to see it. In this case
and I really am distressed because they're very nice people. Susannah's parents live on the
block. We've known them we've been on Strohson Rd. for more than twenty plus years. We
41
June 7, 2018 Regular Meeting
know the parents, we know the family, it's a wonderful family and it's wonderful that Susannah
when the Trenecott's sold the house who were friends of ours we thought it was really
wonderful that in fact that Jim and Joanne's daughter was actually going to be on the block and
it's a wonderful family block. It was a great shock to us to discover that now things are being
done in secret, that changes are being made in the garage and it's almost as if there's a
deliberate effort now I'm sure that's not what they meant to do but it comes out that way a
deliberate effort to not tell us what's going on. There were plenty of opportunities for them to
walk by and say here's what's happening and those opportunities were not taken. I should say
that although the garage structure is the same in place actually there were changes. Number
one when the garage was going to be repaired it had a flat roof which we could not see from
our property. We were never shown any kind of side drawing. We never shown what it was
going to look like. We never saw an elevation plan and now there's a high pitched roof so
where before it had been invisible from our property even though it was near our property line
now we have a pitched roof that is quite visible. The second thing is whatever was in the garage
didn't bother us in the new building I walked around and I see windows looking out over our
property right at the property line which I find very disturbing. The third thing is even though it
is for Chris's parent which is very wonderful you now a permanent structure so what happens if
the house is sold. The house is sold and you now have a garage which is not conforming which
has not been passed by neighbors and you have an improved property and whoever buys it
now buys something that is usable for however they want. So for all of these reasons we have
to object to this and as I say it makes me personally very unhappy because it's a very nice
family. It was very wonderful for us to know that Jim and Joanne's daughter was coming, that
there would be children there it was more of a family enterprise and we're a very family
oriented street but I think the variance cannot and should not be granted as it stands now. I
don't think it is either from a town's point of view appropriate for someone to legitimize a
change that was specifically prohibited and I don't think it's appropriate for a change to be
made when in fact the people changing have violated everything that was asked for in the code
which is especially transparency with regard to neighbors. So for all of these reasons
unfortunately and I say sadly we have to object and I hope you reject the variance.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thank you for your comments, anything from anybody else?
BARBARS RODEN : Hello my name is Bobby Roden. I live on the adjacent property and last
summer I did suspect that something more was going on and I was very disheartened to find
this large black roof rising in the air becoming very visible, it's right exactly on our property line.
There's hardly room to walk between the property line and this garage and there's this large
roof there now that's very, very ugly and black right on our property line. Now, if they build an
extension the new variance request we see there's nothing on that variance it tells us at all
what the elevation would be, what kind of a structure it will be. I mean maybe they're just
42
June 7, 2018 Regular Meeting
putting in a little (inaudible) or something like that but wait a minute what does it look like on
our side. Is this now black roof going to extend all along our property line, not something we
really wanted to see and it was a white flat roof before. It was not so we were really
discouraged to hear lies continuing it was not a sunroof by any matter or means. There was no
access to that roof, there were no stairs going up and we're right on water why would
somebody climb on the roof of the garage when there's a porch out front and every place else
to sun themselves. It was not a sunroof in the twenty years that we were there no one was ever
on that roof to sun themselves. So I don't really like deceit. Please let's just stick to the facts. A
garage was not repaired, a guest house was constructed. It shouldn't have been and no one
told us that. So the deceits and the lies are not what I like from a neighbor so then going
forward no matter what this person says how do I know it's truthful. How do we know that
once he gets approval something else will you know take advantage of. Sorry, sorry I broke the
law well I don't know if that ever been a defense. We are always here and always available to
be spoken to and as my husband said we have no conflicts with any of the neighbors. We never
have. On the other hand I'm sorry to say I'm just going to bring this up his parents who live two
doors over have been in this room to protest other neighbors constructions. A neighbor across
the street wanted to build a swimming pool
MEMBER DANTES :This is kind of irrelevant now please stick to the
BARBARA RODEN : Okay so that might irrelevant but I just think that to be before a Board that
does things lawfully it's important to follow the law and I'm not and I think going forward
someone would use this as a guest house and its existing. I mean the fact that the plans drawn
up as having an existing now before it was a garage now it's an existing guest house.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Can I ask you a question please? This garage reconstruction or
rebuild or replacement was granted by this Board with those setback variances on February
16th of 2017 not so long ago like a year and a couple'of months, do you have any idea when you
became aware that this property this garage was being used for habitation?
BARBARA RODEN : Oh yeah we know a week ago. We never looked into it. I thought that it
looked like a guest house but I didn't that was that.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : What I'm asking is that to your recollection after this structure was
built it appeared to be a garage when did you notice people staying in it.
BARBARA RODEN : We did not notice people staying in it.
CHARLES RODEN : The first time we were aware when we received the lawyers letter that said
that the plans are on file and that was when we actually got this like a week ago and we went
down cause we were curious to see what it was they're asking for and that was the first time
43
June 7, 2018 Regular Meeting
actually it was a major shock. It was really a major shock to look at the plans and see (inaudible)
that this'was a connecting to a as the letter said a wooden garage structure but to see on the
plans it said existing bathroom, so it was
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay so you weren't aware that people were living in it, it's just
through this process that you.
CHARLES RODEN : I understand that someone did issue a complaint, I don't know who it was.
We have to ask our neighbors across the street.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The assessor when property is improved the Town Assessor who is
right over there goes out to inspect property to look at potential increases in taxes and so on
because there's been an improvement and we have in our file which is public knowledge an
email from him saying I believe this C.O. is for a non-habitable garage and the interior is
showing an apartment you know bathroom, kitchenette and I think that's how Code
Enforcement got involved as a result of that.
BARBARA RODEN : So when you give a variance and structure gets built, does somebody go out
and inspect it?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes of course, the Building Department goes out to do a C.O. for final
inspection.
BARBARA RODEN : So the Building Department never saw that.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And the C.O. said garage no habitable space.
BARBARA RODEN : So it was after they got the C. 0. they put it in?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I can't tell you. I don't know the exact month.
CHARLES RODEN : We were not aware and I think among the things that disturbs us most really
is the fact that we were totally kept in the dark. That is what our neighbor on the other side and
second issue is not just the need now which might be minimal for Chris's parents but now you
have a house that is permanently enlarged which can be sold, which might be sold and you now
have something that's totally different going forward in the future and that's (inaudible) and
that does affect us (inaudible)
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : One of the questions I would suggest the Board has to ask itself in
looking at the balancing test for variance relief is if this had been proposed as a demolished
garage and an addition to the house from the beginning okay instead of a replacement of an
existing garage would the side yard and front yard variances have been granted or would they
44
June 7, 2018 Regular Meeting
have had you know would there have been other considerations, because now that's what
they're attempting to do is to legalize what is not a legal structure per it's C.O. and it's
variances. I'm just pointing that out for everybody. Well we have your letters, we have your
testimony now in the record. I want to give counsel an opportunity to say what she'd like to say
or Mr. McDowell and then I think we can close this.
PAT MOORE : I do want to put on the record, I'm not going to go into a dispute. They feel how
they feel and I'll respect they have that right. I do want to give the Board as far as history goes,
the house that they had they received a variance to expand the house and their garage is 20
feet from the property line so I have the before and after just as far as putting you know they
can feel and they can object and so on but I do want the facts to be clear that their garage is 20
feet from the property line and then their house is west of the garage. So as far as impact as we
said the garage is there so whether it's turned back into a garage that's not going to change its
present location but I do want to give you the before and after. This is part of the town's
records as to their variance and I
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You're talking about the neighbors?
PAT MOORE : The neighbor's house yes.
CHARLES RODEN : Actually I should point out it was not our variance. The garage was there
twenty years ago.
PAT MOORE : No, no, no the variance was made by the applicants. The house was pre-existing.
Here's the pre-existing house here's the current house. Just for sake of so you don't have to go
back out and
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Pat sorry to be clear this is the packet that you gave us at the start of
the meeting?
PAT MOORE : Yes. Now what I just mentioned it's the pictures are there.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We have it.
PAT MOORE : Let me just for one moment because I do want him to address the neighbor
McCloud but let me propose something as far as the concern he's raised and I think Pat
mentioned what would be a good compromise here is leaving a bay adjacent to Strohson Rd. so
that storage and a car could be continued to be used there and just allow for the room the
extra bedroom space on the what would be the two bay portion. That's kind of how I
understood it was originally going to be done and I apologize the plans that you have to show
from one end to the other I think with a living just like a living room area/sitting area but for
45
June 7, 2018 Regular Meeting
purposes of the family and an additional bedroom that could be enough space for somebody to
have an open concept bedroom with a little sitting area quietly particularly elderly parents
when they come to visit a quiet spot away from the very energetic grandchildren and also if
they decide tomorrow to sell then at least you've got some portion of the garage still being
used for storage which they might not need it but maybe some future owner might need it so
that would be something that I just checked and he's certainly amenable to that. It's a
compromise, it's less impact as far as future owners. This current owner as he stated already
while it's his family it's very minimal use of the property in total just because of their lifestyle.
Essentially she grew up out here with her parents in the neighborhood and the grandkids are all
there and it's lovely that you know I'm glad you pointed out what a nice family they are but I do
appreciate your concern about future families.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You're talking about if you were to attach those two structure,
you're talking about a single side yard setback of 6.2 feet from the property line is that correct?
PAT MOORE : Where the existing garage is.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yeah.
PAT MOORE : Yeah but what I'm proposing is let that portion
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's an additional wall right according to you're going to connect with
some habitable space proposing I'm looking at the plans here.
PAT MOORE : Let me see what you're talking about here. So the addition you want the site plan
oh you want the architect's plan?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I'm trying to see if it's noted on here I don't have a scaled ruler with
me.
PAT MOORE : So his concern from step one his concern about the elevation of this 13 x 13
addition. It's a small almost a shed sized structure that connects the two, the garage to the
house where it matches the roof peak is matching in architectural style are you following?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yeah I know what the survey says with the setback but it indicates
the Notice of Disapproval says the 5.5 feet from the front yard and 6.2 feet for a side yard. Well
what I'm trying to do is answer a question the neighbor's raised which is how long and what
would that wall look like if it would be connected. Now looking at it and it's going to be 13 feet
that way between the house and now look at the elevations to see what the height is.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : It appears to be higher than the garage.
46
June 7,2018 Regular Meeting
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yeah a little bit cause they're doing a gable instead of this is more
like a gambrel. I think it's very close enough.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : It's also because the garage is built at grade and you got the
transition between the kitchen so it's just up a modest amount.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It would appear that it's about the same height of the garage.
CHARLES RODEN : And that garage was that roofline was changed
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : ,Yes I know it was a pitched roof originally. This is more like a
gambrel.
CHARLES RODEN :The other change in the garage I should point out was
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Shhhh wait this isn't working. We're recording this and we have to
be able to you know not have all this ambient noise, that's fine you can do that after the point
is that portion that they're proposing to add is 20 feet from your property line.
PAT MOORE : No 40 feet or more. That portion that's being added
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : 40?
PAT MOORE : Twenty, twenty, twenty you're right sorry.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So that's not as close as the garage is. I just want this is not to say I
don't mean to suggest any kind of decision by this. I just want everybody to understand what's
before this Board and what they're proposing because you haven't understood exactly what
they were doing so I want to share those drawings with you but beyond that you know I don't
know what else there is we can say at this point about this and we do have another hearing.
CHARLES RODEN : I just want to make one other comment. The garage as it existed and
whatever was in the interior you know was in the interior. We didn't even know but the
changes were two fold that we were not aware of. One was the pitched roof, it had been a flat
roof.
MEMBER DANTES : We had the pitched roof at a public hearing and it was in front of the Zoning
Board.
CHARLES RODEN : and we had no knowledge of the fact the change, it changed the sight line for
us. The second thing is it had been a blank wall in the back of the old garage so whatever the
garage was it was there and it didn't affect us and it didn't affect the privacy. The new
47
June 7, 2018 Regular Meeting
apartment now. has windows facing on our property virtually on our property line which is a
change.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well look, we do understand that changes were made without
benefit of permit okay.
CHARLES RODEN : And without benefit,of input.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well the only way you do input is you talk informally or you have the
public hearing and there was a hearing on that you were aware of but the changes were made
after the hearing so we understand what the history was. There's no need to rehash that. I
think we know what's being proposed.
PAT MOORE : Let me just my client just has a few more comments because he's got a plane to
catch and you might be done by then but go ahead.
CHRISTOPHER MCDOWELL : My wife spoke to Mary the next door neighbor so she has written
in that's news to us. Her only issue was if there's was any connecting of the two structures and
we did get agreements. We'd do it after the summer which of course we would.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay thank you.
PAT MOORE : And I would point out it's only one window and it's the same window that's on
the garage. There's no additional window being proposed on Mr. Roden's side.
CHARLES RODEN : The windows on the garage not
PAT MOORE : No their garage there's only one small window before and there's a small window
after from the garage application and it's the same we're not making any changes to that side
of the house we're keeping it exactly the same. It's only the garage doors.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anything else from anybody?
MEMBER PLANAMENTO,: Question, how many bedrooms are in the existing house?
CHRISTOPHER MCDOWELL : There were three, I believe the (inaudible) may have used one of
the rooms downstairs. I have two children so it literally is the only other alternative
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : So there's three or four bedrooms?
CHRISTOPHER MCDOWELL : Three bedrooms upstairs.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : And they're all upstairs?
48
June 7, 2018 Regular Meeting
CHRISTOPHER MCDOWELL : Yeah.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Hearing no further questions or comments I'm going to make a
motion to close the hearing reserve decision to a later date.
MEMBER DANTES : Second.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor?
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye.
MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye.
MEMBER DANTES : Aye.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye.
(See Minutes for Resolution)
HEARING #7166—CHLOEM, LLC
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Chloem, LLC 3 7166. This
is a request for a variance from Article XIII Section 280-56 and the Building Inspector's February
13, 2018 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a lot line modification to increase lot
area of a non-conforming lot at 1) proposed lot measures less than the code required minimum
lot area of 80,000 sq. ft. located at 64755 NYS Route 25 and 64175 NYS Route 25 in Greenport,
New York. Mr. Lark would you like to come forward.
MR. LARK : Richard Lark Main Rd. Cutchogue, New York for the applicant CHLOEM who I
represent. Charles Manwaring who is the general manager of CHLOEM is also here to answer
any questions. We'll keep this fairly short since it's a fairly straightforward application. I believe
all the posting and the mailings are completed is that right? Okay and also complete is the
application before you. I think it's a fairly thorough application that kind of speaks for itself. I
think it answers any questions that anyone has. Very briefly the applicant owns Southold Fish
Market, CHLOEM owns Southold Fish Market and is a contract vendee to buy an adjoining 100 x
200 parallelogram type shaped parcel which contains 20,177 sq. ft. The reason for the
application is the applicant wants to purchase this property to expand his parking. In
summertime parking is really tight at the fish market ,and this was an opportunity that was
afforded him by the neighbors who are really putting a subdivision type application and so this
opportunity presented himself for him to purchase this and it increases his present lot is 46,309
and it increases it to 66,486 and (inaudible) purchase parking and the other use he wanted to
49
June 7, 2018 Regular Meeting
buy it for is to guarantee his customers a view to exit because this is on a fairly dangerous curve
where numerous accidents throughout the year and you cannot you have difficulty if that was
blocked off. Right now the current owner has allowed him to mow the lawn back and put a row
of arborvitaes which behind these arborvitaes is where the parking would be created and he
wants to leave that all open because anybody exiting the fish market then could see the
eastbound traffic otherwise you can't and he's had no accidents in exiting ever since he made
that arrangement with Mr. Tuccio next door to keep that all open because you get a decent
view for eastbound traffic. The larger parcel which he wanted to this was an opportunity to buy
required a lot line change or re-subdivision which is before the Planning Board however they
could not grant the re-subdivision because the 20,000 sq. ft. is undersized under the zoning
which is MII which is 80,000 sq. ft. and we're here today because even though we're adding the
20,000 to the 46,000 to get the 66,000 we're still under the 80,000 so it requires a variance
before the Planning Board will even consider the re-subdivision although they've said if the
Board of Appeals allows you to add on to the property we're all in favor of it because it limits
any development from there and apparently what they're trying to subdivide in the back
because it got a huge amount of wetlands that property this doesn't enter into it one way or
another so they said it's really up to the Board of Appeals. So when you consider the five
statutory factors in balancing these factors considering this commercial neighborhood along
with the purpose of the application I respectfully submit that the application for this variance
should be granted so we can proceed with the Planning Board then to because they will insist
they've already said that when if they grant that application to re-subdivide they will insist that
the deed from the Tuccio Patterson who own it will then be merged with CHLOEM's existing
property. So there'll be one property of 66,000 sq. ft. and of course the tax lot would just be
one number then. So again considering the balancing and the character of the neighborhood I
think it's fairly clear there will not be any detriment to the commercial neighborhood by adding
this and will be an improvement in several ways. It will take away his congested parking which
has been a real problem in the summertime with the fish market. There's enough but it's tight
and this would then allow for the ample parking because the his season believe it or not really
starts pretty much after St. Patrick's Day and continues right on through almost the end of the
year there and the fish market and he does need the space for the parking. So that was he just
jumped at the opportunity when Tuccio said,would you like to buy this because it's of no use to
us in our subdivision. So again that's it and I think balancing the five factors unless you have any
questions Charlie is here to answer them for you.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well I remember the transformation of Hollisters. So we all live here
and kind of know how things unfolded. I have just a couple of questions. Obviously Planning
Board is required for subdivision. We'll do lot line modification they have to bless that. Will the
5�
June 7, 2018 Regular Meeting
additional parking require site plan approval from the Planning Board at this point? I mean
somebody's gotta lay out where that new parking is going to be.
MR. LARK : It'll be in the back of that row of arborvitaes is where it intends. It's in the back and
then he'll move his dumpster back there and try to clean up that whole one corner which is
kind of a it is what it is you know what I'm trying to say. With the fish market the disposal of is
everyday but he wants to hide it.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I just wanted to know because usually when there's additional
bunch of parking spaces which you certainly need site plan approval they start looking at the
site because I remember back when we granted the permission for the fish market with an
accessory eat in restaurant bar kind of thing they didn't feel because there was no
v
intensification of use at the time that a site plan approval you know they had to go through
another site plan approval because it wasn't more intense than the restaurant
MR. LARK : It was less intense it was like a sixty or seventy foot restaurant at that point seating.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yeah so I certainly don't see any issue at all with the lot line
modification. You're actually reducing the degree of non-conformity but you're numbers are
not the same as the Notice of Disapproval. You were saying 66,000 what the notice says is lot
22 is non-conforming at 48,352 sq. ft. and will remain non-conforming at 68,525 ft.
MR. LARK : That is correct. I stand corrected then that is correct. We're going from 48 to the 66
which is 20 percent still under.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So I think for me the issue I'd like to explore in the record because
clearly congratulations it's become a very successful popular go to fish market and restaurant
but the original approval from the Board in 2012 were for a four table maximum sixteen seats
and I've gone in there many times to eat. There are more than four tables and there are twenty
four indoor seats and there are during the season an additional nine outdoor picnic tables that
can seat at least four people. So my question is, has your success caused us to examine the,
intensity of is it now no longer like a little_ accessory to the fish market which is what was
granted in which case there is an intensification of use. It might be multiple uses now,
restaurant and fish market. So I need to mention this in the record because this is the
opportunity to do that.
CHARLES MANWARING : Charles Manwaring the owner of Southold Fish Market. I'll never
exceed the there's no way I'll ever exceed the fish market that side the take out side will never
exceed the fish market side. Dollar wise, customer wise I mean the fish market is my thing.'
mean yes the other part is very good. I'm happy with what we do there and you know but the
June 7, 2018 Regular Meeting
fish market is the main my main thing and if I do God bless me. I'll be very happy but I'll never
exceed the fish market end of it according you know as far as the food side.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay the original accessory so let's assume it's still that way, the fish
market and there's an accessory restaurant but the original restaurant cause I remember it very
well called for four tables with sixteen seats and you have twenty four seats which is eight more
than what was granted which is like thirty something percent increase plus now the summer
spill over you know outdoors. So I don't know what the Board thinks about anything. I don't
want to interfere with a successful business that's not what I'm looking at here but I do think
it's important to recognize as we try to do it just the one that was just before us what was
granted and what's actually happening.
MR. LARK : Is it primarily on the weekends the outside?
CHARLES MANWARING : Yeah I mean well
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Come on I go there all the time it's all the time.
CHARLES MANWARING : I mean it's mainly weekends, the weekends are the busiest you know
Fridays, Saturdays and Sundays are definitely th'e busiest time. I mean granted we are busy at
certain times of the day.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN' : A lot of people go for lunch. It's nice outside they're going to eat
outside.
CHARLES MANWARING : We close early so we don't really have a huge dinner crowd.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's not an objection, it's a query because we need to make sure that
what's before us is clean. I just want to make sure that it's still an accessory to the fish market
and that it hasn't exceeded what was originally granted.
MR. LARK : What time do you close your operation every day?
CHARLES MANWARING : There are no in winter time six o'clock during the week. In the
summertime seven or eight o'clock on the weekends but I don't go that's it I work a hundred
hours a week I'm not working anymore. We're not extending any hours.
MR. LARK : So it's not basically a dinner crowd then it's just a lunch.
CHARLES MANWARING : We get a dinner crowd yeah we get both crowds but it's an early
crowd. We're out of there you know we're done earlier.
June 7, 2018 Regular Meeting
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Look here's why I'm doing this, on the December 20, 2012
determination the special exception for this use was granted subject to two conditions. One
was storm water but I want to read this first one, no increase in the size, scope or intensity of
the proposed four tables sixteen seat prepared seafood takeout eat in area is permitted. Should
the applicant do so the Board of Appeals may by its own motion call for a public hearing to
consider the revocation of the Special Exception permit and or the need for additional relief
from the code for two uses on the subject property. To the average individual who's driving up
to your place there's two uses. There's a restaurant and there's a fish market. Now as long as
that restaurant remains an accessory to the fish market then it wouldn't jump into the category
of two principal uses but if it's starting to become more like a restaurant that's very popular
that's you know take out is fine that's part of the fish market. You have the right to cook you
always did on the other side of the street. So I don't know I'm bringing it up
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I think the name also alone indicates it's a market while I understand
what you're saying and I've been there and actually just recently disappointed I wanted to have
dinner and I couldn't.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Too busy.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : No, no, no it was closed. So it used to the dreaded Monday night then
Tuesday so we still have these periods that until I guess fourth of July where people are up and
running I think the name says market and while yes it can be perceived that it's a restaurant it's
clearly I think ancillary. I didn't know about the specific count myself but I would think.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well again (inaudible) related to the floor area there was a small bar
which you still have I think there's four seats over there. It's a small increase in the number of
tables. It's about eight more than the sixteen that was permitted.
MR. LARK : Isn't the true test the dollar value not the dollar but volume of the fish market
versus the dollar volume of the eating portion.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well that's certainly a strong criteria. I honestly don't know beyond
that if there's other standards.
MR. LARK : Cause I've asked him that question and he says dollar wise percentage wise
CHARLES MANWARING : Yeah percentage wise the fish market does three probably almost
three times as much as the take out side and that's like even if when they come in and they
check you or something if that should change you know my licenses will changes. That's the
way it kind of rolls.
531
June 7, 2018 Regular Meeting
MR. LARK : With the Health Department?
CHARLES MANWARING : Yea with the Health Department.
MR. LARK : Cause they're in there all the time.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Health Department for the restaurant part and the fish market too.
CHARLES MANWARING : I gotta get everybody coming so it's never ending.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well counsel just made a suggestion which is you're going to have to
go before Planning anyway and maybe one of the ways to do this is to look at the outdoor
tables as we know are seasonal anyway and the parking that you're going to propose so that
they understand that they should be perhaps providing some guidance in that regard in
addition to what they have to do to bless the non-conforming lot line because the last thing you
really want to do anyway is have more chaos on your property. The whole idea is to get less.
CHARLES MANWARING : I just want to make it nice that's my like I look at them bushes and you
know I don't it's ugly and you know across the street they did a nice job and I'm trying to make
to keep everything nice over there, I cut the lawn that I don't even own keeping that nice so we
have a view you know a point of view so that everybody can see.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yeah there is that safety aspect too that's pretty tough. It's really
hard to even know where the curb cut is because of the materials that are used I can't tell you
the number of times I've seen people go over the curb the curbing cause they weren't sure
where the actual cut was that might even be something they can also assist you with you know
in the planning process. That's part of your application. Okay I think we can work on this and
figure it out. Anything else from anybody, anyone,else from the audience wanting 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 ACAMPORA : Second.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor?
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye.
MEMBER DANTES : Aye.
MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye.
54
June 7, 2018 Regular Meeting
(See Minutes for Resolution)
HEARING#7170—TRACY WEISS and LEE KRUTER
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Tracy Weiss and Lee
Kruter # 7170. This is a request for a variance from Article XXII Section 280-116A(1) and the
Building Inspector's January 16, 2018 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a
building permit to make additions and alterations to an existing single family dwelling at 1)
located less than the code required 100 feet from the top of the bluff located at 9475 Nassau
Point Road (adj. to Little Peconic Bay) in Cutchogue. Is there someone here to represent the
application? Would you please take either stand and state your name please.
JOE READ : My name is Joe Read, I'm the contractor.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay Mr. Read. So this is a small addition with a 45 foot bluff setback
where the code requires a minimum of a 100.
JOE READ : Yes and it's actually slightly angled away from the bluff. The bluff is very stable it's
eight feet and we want to keep it covered like it is now. It's appearance would be exactly how it
appears right now and screened in and covered except 8 feet further.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So it's an eight foot enlargement of an existing screened in porch.
We've all been out to inspect the property just so you know we've seen it.
JOE READ : You know where the bed that's there that's where it's going to end and we're just
going to move those plants. No trees go down nothing.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That's great cause that was the only concern Soil and Water had was
that the it wouldn't threaten that well they said it wasn't going to threaten bluff stability at all
but don't remove the large tree near the
JOE READ : That one big tree which stand right there and we wouldn't even affect the roots.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well it's not on a big foundation or anything. It's just slab.
JOE READ : We'll put a hidden pier.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That's fine. The one thing they did point out though did you get a
copy of Suffolk County Soil and Water recommendation? I think we should give you one. They
did recommend removing the sprinkler heads at the top of the bluff. They do that every time
they inspect any property along a bluff and they see the typical sprinkler heads that are going
55
June 7, 2018 Regular Meeting
back onto the grass near the flowers. They're going to suggest removal of that because of
potential leaking over the bluff.
JOE READ : You put that in there because I'm sure they want to maintain that bluff as much as
anybody else.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Most people don't realize that it does trickle backward and it does
slope that way.-
JOE
ay:JOE READ : I think that when they purchased the house which that was probably already there
but I see I agree with you. I'm sure they want to maintain that bluff also.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright the actual size is 8 foot by 17.4 is that right?
JOE READ : It's 17.4 now and so it would come out 8 feet.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So it's 139.20 sq. ft.
JOE READ : Yes and again it would look we're going to move those existing bushes to the end of
the bed and appearance wise it would be hard to even see anything. Nice spot right?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Beautiful. There's so many beautiful properties. Anything from
anybody, Nick?
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : No questions.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Pat or Eric?
MEMBER ACAMPORA : No you addressed my concerns.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anyone else in the audience wishing to address the application?
Hearing no further questions or comments I make a motion to close the hearing reserve
decision to a later date.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye.
MEMBER DANTES : Aye.
MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye.
(See Minutes for Resolution)
s6
June 7, 2018 Regular Meeting
HEARING #7172— EVAN and LYNN LEWIS
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Evan and Lynn Lewis #
7172. This is a request for a variance from Article III Section 280-15 and the Building Inspector's
February 27, 2018 Amended March 20, 2018 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for
a building permit to construct an accessory shed at 1) located in other than the code required
rear yard located at 2395 Village Lane in Orient. Good afternoon, would you please state your
name for the record please.
EVAN LEWIS : Evan Lewis.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So you have kind of a flagged lot with three frontages.
EVAN LEWIS : Yeah so we have about as many frontages as one can have.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Short of having nothing else but (inaudible) you're two thirds of the
way there.
EVAN LEWIS : We have about a five square foot patch that is not visible from one road or
another.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Now in addition to this 10 x 12 foot accessory shed that you want to
put in and of course it's located in the front yard because of the frontages it needs a C. of A.
from Landmarks Preservation Certificate of Appropriateness do you have that?
EVAN LEWIS : I'm not aware of that so I met with the Historical Commission in Orient and they
had no issue with it but I haven't met with the C. of A.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The Landmarks Preservation Commission because it's a historic
district needs to review the plans primarily for aesthetic reasons I think because of wanting to
fit in with the character of the neighborhood.
EVAN LEWIS : So perhaps I've met with them and I'm just thinking of them under a different
name so that's Damon Rallis.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yeah.
EVAN LEWIS : Yeah so I've met with them and they're all fine with it. I've shown them the
mocks up of the style and where it would sit and so they
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So did you get a C. of A. certificate of appropriateness?
EVAN LEWIS : I don't believe I did so I'll have to talk to Damon about that.
S71 "
June 7, 2018 Regular Meeting
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : They need to issue that. We don't need it to make our decision but
you need it in order to go forward.
EVAN LEWIS :-I will talk to Damon about it.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So see if you can submit that or let us know when it's coming. We've
all inspected the property so we know the area. We know what other accessory structures are
there. There are several right in the same area that you're proposing so I don't really have any
questions. Let's see if anybody else does.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : No questions.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Nothing from the Board at this time, someone in the audience?
ELLEN MCNEALY : Hi my name is Ellen McNealy and I'm a neighbor. I own the property across
the street from the end of the driveway. Concerning their request for a variance I have no'issue
with their constructing a shed for the purposes as stated. I do however take issue to some
extent with the proposed location of it. I understand that due to the historic the location with
the historic (inaudible) the side wall directly facing Willow Street the Historic Preservation
Commission had to approve this location and apparently many of those. As the application
seems simple enough and with the above approval members of the Board are not likely to
(inaudible) to the site although you indicated that you had. It's a view of the possibility about
capability that I decided to take photographs from various points of view to give content. While
doing so it occurred to me that there would an appropriate alternative site for this shed which
would not diminish it's utility but would eliminate its effect on the historic aspect of the street
scape in adjacent properties one of which is my property across the street. For that reason I
have annotated the surveyors survey giving information as to the view shed as it were the
proposal. I've also prepared a packet for the Board showing the photos of the site from Willow
Street. Please note that when facing the end of the driveway parallel to the street the property
angles to the left. In the eastern side of the property adjacent to the (inaudible) farm barn
(inaudible) which is in its third year I believe there is a very large pine nine feet in from the
street side property line with a twelve foot foliage diameter almost reaching to the ground. The
edge of which is four feet from the driveway. There is a ten inch I'm sorry ten feet trunk to
trunk from the pine there is a large Holly also with foliage extending nearly to the ground also
about four to five feet away from the drive. They are both dense and green all year. Fifteen feet
further in from the driveway there is an old maple with another on the (inaudible) side. The
north side of the garage facing Willow Street there's only one (inaudible) on the northwest side
as can be seen from the street. It's my contention that the shed be best located on the east side
of the property and in line with the,east edge of the garage. It would be virtually unseen from
Willow Street due to the covering foliage from the evergreen which while preserving it's utility
June 7, 2018 Regular Meeting
for the owner as well as the historic view scape from Willow Street and the rest of the
neighborhood. If you'd like to see the photographs and the packet that I made up I'd be more
than happy to
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Sure. Would you like to share them also with the neighbor?
ELLEN MCNEALY : That's the photograph from my front door my house across the street. That's
the survey the tree positions and the three photographs and this is a larger version of
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You're thinking perhaps here would be better.
ELLEN MCNEALY : Yes.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay let me ask the applicant to come back to the podium and sir
did you see what she's suggesting?
EVAN LEWIS : I did. Let's just make sure I'm seeing it the same way.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : What you're proposing here by your driveway she's saying why not
over there cause from her property there's your driveway.
EVAN LEWIS : I understand so I can assure you I actually created two visual mock ups (inaudible)
this location. I have them on my IPAD if that helps I can show the Board and I presented them
to so those were actually the two locations I've proposed when I was (inaudible) Historic
Commission they prefer the one on this side of the driveway rather than the on Ellen has
indicated closer to the garage. I actually don't care that much. I mean other location would be
okay to me. It would require if this Board says it should go here I would then have to go back to
them of the two locations and again I can show this mockup they did prefer this other one
along the line of the (inaudible)
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Did they put any explanation in writing or tell you anything about
why it was preferable.
EVAN LEWIS : I think what they preferred was that there are other accessory buildings in the
adjacent property and they felt it would look more in keeping. The two rather than sort of
putting it over on that line with the garage I mean I suppose aesthetically I would agree with
them but again it doesn't really impact the usability as Ellen has indicated and at the end of the
day I probably don't care but you would have to advise me as to does that mean go back to
them and say you know this is the preferred location by the Appeals Board and if they then say
no we really insist.
59
June 7, 2018 Regular Meeting
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That really depends on how they're C. of A. is written. In other
words I don't know the extent to which they approved it based on they always do it based on
visual appearance and I don't know the extent to which they have jurisdiction over the location.
It's a front yard no matter which way although if you tuck it back farther
EVAN LEWIS : Well they're all front yards.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I guess it's still a front yard so you know our variance doesn't
change. It's for an accessory shed in a front yard. Their approval is based on aesthetics. What
we have to find out is if their approval was in part based on this preferred location or they don't
really care either.
EVAN LEWIS : I'll have to double check. I mean of the two
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : If you don't care and they don't care and she does, put it where
everybody will be happy.
EVAN LEWIS : Right. I mean they did care when I met with them but if I provide greater context
maybe they won't care.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Mr. Evans is it possible cause you have like a wood shed with a little
cedar roof and some other stuff there, would that have to be moved? Was that something that
came up in conversation?
EVAN LEWIS : I have to move that.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : So perhaps that's why they suggested the other location.
EVAN LEWIS : It wasn't there when I reviewed it with them.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : The little wood shed?
EVAN LEWIS : The little shed was not there so it might help if just can show you. So this was the
mock up on the eastern border so this obviously does not exist. This was photo shopped in at
this location so this is more the location that Ellen is proposing sort of in back line with the
other garage. Another angle of that and then the second location was this one which is
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : By the driveway.
EVAN LEWIS : Correct and they felt that this was more in keeping with the adjacent property
and the other accessory structures.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Cause they're clustering them. How tall is that shed, like 12
60
June 7, 2018 Regular Meeting
EVAN LEWIS : Maybe a little less I'll have to look at the plans.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Do you know how many feet off I can't tell from the survey what
does it say oh wait there's a tiny indication. It's 45 feet setback from Willow Street.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : But then perhaps as sticking with the proposed application perhaps
you can put landscaping in front of it whether it's a nice (inaudible) holly or something that's
ELLEN MCNEALY : The reason I photographed it from Willow Street you saw the image looking
toward Willow Street which it actually shows the houses that I was referring to they were from
early twentieth century if not before and the garage has been there at least as long as I've lived
there which is over thirty years so to have a more modern building next to something that is a
much older version of (inaudible) struck me it could be completely blocked from view at all
putting it next to the garage in back (inaudible) on the corner of Bay Ave. and Willow St. which
are very older (inaudible) this is a more modern (inaudible) so even though (cannot hear paper
shuffling) and I was concerned about it. It seemed to be very easy to move it back to an equally
non-conforming place that was not anywhere it was visible and impact on the adjacent
properties.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Have you seen the drawings of the shed?
ELLEN MCNEALY : I saw the photographs of the shed of the mock up.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's a 12 over 10 pitch so
ELLEN MCNEALY : No objection to the shed per say it's just the location.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright I'll tell you what, let's do this I don't think there's anything
more we can, talk about. The bottom line is will you contact Landmarks Preservation and find
out or the Building Department Damon might know where this C. of A. is and to see whether or
not there is any information regarding preference in it if the approval was based upon exactly
where it appears on the survey or what.
EVAN LEWIS : I'll check. I mean it seems to me that the reason I'm standing here is because
anything we put will impact some site line by definition. So the location now does not prefer
impacts the site line of that adjacent property. The other location will impact the site line of a
different adjacent property.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : If I may ask why Ms. McNealy is here. Ms. McNealy would the
location as submitted would it be acceptable to you if there were plantings? The application as
submitted would it be acceptable to you if there were plantings?
June 7, 2018 Regular Meeting
ELLEN MCNEALY : No. I don't think so. I mean if there's an easy equally non-conforming place to
move something why plant in front of something that would obscure further the adjacent
property which is historic in the historic district and not necessarily increase the usability of the
property at all when it can be moved back to something where it would be even probably more
usable from the house and certainly not as conflicting in style wise with the adjacent historic
properties?
MEMBER DANTES : I think I kind of figured it out. It looks like Bay Ave. is kind of a main street
and Willow and Navy are smaller streets. When they put the shed there they took it as far off
Bay Ave. as they could to impact less people. That would be at least my interpretation.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well it's 45 feet from that road. That's a pretty substantial setback
for a very small shed.
ELLEN MCNEALY : It is but if you look at the photographs it's adjacent to the existing practically
adjacent to the existing sheds and is (inaudible)
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It forms kind of a cluster, I'm sorry you said style? Well I don't know
you know the Historic Preservation Commission says the style is fine with them. They certainly
are the arbitraries of what they feel is going to work with the historic structures that are there. I
mean that's really something the ZBA doesn't get into that's not our jurisdiction it's theirs.
ELLEN MCNEALLY : There's a historic property on the east side of the driveway and there's one
on the left side of the driveway.
EVAN LEWIS : So I'll contact the Historical Preservation Committee again and see what their
sense is, what location whether they care deeply or whether it's sort of(inaudible)
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That's fine and just let us know. So why don't we do this, instead of
just to give you time to go ahead and get this information I'll adjourn this to the Special
Meeting in two weeks and then you can investigate this a little bit more and find out why their
preference was there and how important it is and whether it affects your certificate and where
the certificate is in process. The sooner you get that to us the better but that depends on when
you can contact them. We'll try and have a decision we'll close it if there's no further questions
we'll close it in two weeks at our next meeting and if we're able to get this early enough we'll
also make a decision that night. We'll have a draft prepared. Anything from anybody else on
this application? I'm going to make a motion to adjourn this hearing to the June 21St Special
Meeting.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Second.
fie
June 7, 2018 Regular Meeting
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor?
MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye.
MEMBER DANTES : Aye.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye.
(See Minutes for Resolution)
HEARING#7179—SOUTHOLD FIRE DISTRICT
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for the Southold Fire
District, LLC # 7179. This is a request for a variance from Article X Section 280-46 and the
Building Inspector's April 2, 2018 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a building
permit to construct a storage building at 1) less than the code require minimum side yard
setback of 10 feet located at 315 Boisseau Ave. & 55135 NYS Route 25 in Southold. Is there
someone here yes there is thank you for your patience everybody.
WILLIAM GLASS : My name is William Glass, I am the attorney for the Southold Fire District. My
office address is 503 Main St. Port Jefferson, New York 11777. Let me just correct one thing if I
may quickly because it's important. The agenda has us as the Southold Fire District LLC and we
most certainly are not. Southold Fire District is a subdivision of the State of New York. It's a
municipality.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So the LLC has got to be gone.
WILLIAM GLASS : Yeah so that's not there it's not us and that's a very key element to what I
want to say to you which is that and I've had discussions prior to today with the Town Attorney
about this. We as a government entity are and please be very, very clear this is not an
adversarial anything but we're a governmental entity and as such we're entitled to a treatment
under the what's referred to as the Monroe Balancing Test which when I spoke to the Town
Attorney he indicated that potentially this Board might not be completely familiar with and
that's fine and I get it and I'm okay with that. The Monroe Balancing Test basically is Monroe is
a it's a long ago case decided by the New York State Court of Appels that basically said when
you have two municipalities that have to kind of mesh their interests they have to have some
there's a balancing test that applies not a strict resort to Planning, Zoning etc. that certainly the
Town's right to plan and zone is an important right just as the fire district's right to provide
June 7, 2018 Regular Meeting
emergency services is an important right so you have to mesh them. So what I ended up telling
him and what I'm telling you is I kind of like to do if you would a two part presentation because
think you're probably more comfortable with the in essence a normal presentation for an area
use variance and I get that and I'm fine with that. I'm also going to present to you in writing a
separate presentation with respect to the Monroe Balancing Test and that way you'll have it to
review and to look at and along with that I'm also providing you with a basically a copy of the
Monroe case for your interest edification as well as an opinion from the New York State
Department of State Council's Office some years ago on the subject, how it applies as well as a
publication it's an excerpt from the James Koon local government technical series which
probably most of you are familiar with.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I know that one.
WILLIAM GLASS : So with that I'd like to give that to you. Yes I'm sorry I just have the one to
present to the Board. I figured you didn't need it all right this second. Again the material in
there really refers to strictly to the Monroe balancing test which I submit is two things, one it's
really the right test and secondly it's not all that dissimilar from what we normally talk about in
terms of use and I'm sorry in terms of area variances. Getting to the point of the matter those
factors include whether an undesirable change will reduce the character of the neighborhood
or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of the area variance.
submit no. What's happening here is actually we're removing in the process two storage
buildings. An existing storage building on the old fire house property as well as a garage
building on the property recently acquired by the fire district. So both of them are coming
down. The house of course has already been moved and what's going up in its place is a fairly
modestly sized storage building for the purposes for which it's going to be put. When we talk
about the character of the neighborhood, the main tenant of this neighborhood is the Southold
Fire Department. It's a big building, it's there, it's in your face anybody and everyone knows it. I
think that it's anyone who lives and or seeks to live in the neighborhood is going to keenly
aware that that's going to be their neighbor. It's been there for a long time. It's not going to go
away. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method feasible
for the applicant to pursue other than an area variance and the answer is not really. You have I
believe in front of you the map which shows what's to happen here is a significant part of this
project if you will is this access road. The fire district wants to have more than one way to leave
its property. You know there are occasions when that becomes a necessity for an emergency
basis. For instance when something is actually when a problem I mean literally the
circumstance can occur where there's a fire directly across the street from the firehouse which
makes the firehouse it means the members can't really respond in. It means the apparatus
although it's a real short drive it's kind of a too short of drive in order to be able to hook up to
water, to be able to get water on the fire. Having this if you will this back entrance or exit from
4
June 7, 2018 Regular Meeting
the fire district property will be a critical aspect of being able to respond. The same thing
happens if an accident were to occur in front of the building any number of things. So the
benefit can really only be achieved in this manner and when I say that I'm also referring to the
fact that where the storage building is located you'll notice it's kind of tucked in and that's
because the roadway really needs to be a straight road. These are large pieces of fire apparatus
that need to go out of there and it can't really be doing a series of ninety degree bends. If we
were to put that structure elsewhere that's the effect it would have. Whether the requested
area variance is substantial I submit that it's not. It's I think the required side yard variance is
ten feet. We're approximately five feet off. You could say that it is substantial because it's fifty
percent but five feet is five feet. In that regard I don't believe it's all that substantial. I also point
out the fact that in doing this project the fire district is actually removing three structures that
encroached on the side yard to the north. So in some degree we're actually sort of going the
other way and is going to be less area that's going to be affected by this new alignment of
things. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical
and environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district, again I submit for the same
reasons I expressed before it's a firehouse. People know it's a firehouse, it's not a hidden thing.
The structure is an important part of that firehouse. You'll note of course that there was a
storage building there, that's being removed. That was a very, very, very small building. It
basically could hold you know like a pick-up truck sized vehicle. The district has larger pieces of
equipment that it uses and has if you will a seasonal basis like for instance a fireboat, brush
truck. There has to be a secure method of storage for these things. There has to be some place
secure, safe out of the weather. The old structure there wouldn't fit them. it wouldn't hold
them at all. That's another part of why this has to happen and whether the alleged difficulty
was self-created, which of course is relevant to the decision but doesn't necessarily preclude it I
suppose you could argue that it is self-created in that we came up with the you know we found
the need for some type of storage and the only option was either to build it here or to build it in
the middle of our parking area and that's just not feasible. That parking area is needed for the
responders to respond and get to the firehouse. It doesn't make sense to locate parking further
away to make their trip to the firehouse longer around another structure. So, if it is self-created
suggest to you that it was for a good reason. Those are the factors that I would draw to your
attention with respect to the typical area use variance. Again I have set forth in writing the
material that I gave you with respect to the Monroe test, again a lot of the things you'll see in
there are fairly similar there's actually more points than there is here. There are like nine points
under the Monroe test where are we're dealing with fewer but they all come down to the same
thing. It all comes down to the fact that the Southold Fire District is the organizer and the if you
will the supervisor of the Southold Volunteer Fire Department. They fund them, they're
responsible for them, insure them they take care it's a tax paying entity that pays for the
equipment. Their municipal function is to provide emergency service. That's fires, accidents,
65
June 7, 2018 Regular Meeting
EMS all of you know anything and everything that we associate with emergency service other
than police and in order to do that that Board is given a lot of lee weigh under the state law to
decide what it can rather what it needs to do in order to do it. One of the things that
mentioned in the letter that I gave you is the statute that basically says the Board is authorized
to construct buildings, to acquire real properties. These are all things that my Board has the
absolute right to do under state law. Again subject to some balancing with regard to the Town's
interest and I submit to you that if you look at this from either perspective, the area use
perspective or the Monroe balancing test perspective that our request is reasonable under all
circumstances and should be approved.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay the garage is 54 X 60 and it looked to me on the elevations that
it was 18.7 feet high for the wall. Do you know what the height is to the ridge of the building by
any chance?
WILLIAM GLASS : The height of the building, I have elevation of 29.2 on the building itself.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well just so you're aware every Board member has been out to
inspect the property and the surrounding area so we see what's residential and there's some
commercial carpentry shop behind where this shed sorry garage is being proposed and the
height sometimes makes a difference. There's some mature evergreens along one area, there's
a hedgerow along a small home that fronts on Boisseau, that's the one that would be most
profoundly impacted not by the garage particularly but by the possible movement in and out on
that driveway. There's only about one house that I can see that might have some impact
relative to just the driveway just going in and out.
WILLIAM GLASS : Yeah but I believe that that comes under the heading of a permitted use.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It is a permitted use. No, no I'm not saying it's not. I'm just saying
that you know large pieces of equipment
WILLIAM GLASS : It's not going to be
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's not going to be that often.
WILLIAM GLASS : No it's not going to be a thoroughfare. I mean I believe members will respond
in through it. Members that live up you know to the north.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Pull their cars in.
WILLIAM GLASS : Right, they'll just bring their automobiles in that way because it'll be quicker
to get to the trucks.
66
June 7, 2018 Regular Meeting
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Mr. Glass at the beginning of this hearing you had indicated we had
the wrong name on the agenda, what is the correct name? Is it simply
WILLIAM GLASS : Southold Fire District just like the Town of Southold it's Southold Fire District.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's just a legal notice error it's not an LLC.
WILLIAM GLASS : It's a minimal error but again my reason in particular for pointing it out is we
are a municipality just like you are. Well not you personally but the town is. The district is
governed by a five member elected Board of Commissioners. Not that many people come out
for the election but it's held notwithstanding every year and they raise money by taxation just
the same way the Town Board or the School Board or any other Board does.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Pat any questions?
MEMBER ACAMPORA : No questions.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Eric?
MEMBER DANTES : I do not.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anyone in the audience wishing to address the application?
WILLIAM GLASS : I have one final request. I heard you say to an earlier applicant that your
decision will probably be rendered on his or her matter in about two weeks at your next
meeting, I presume that that might be the case with this one as well. I would just ask you to
consider whether it would be possible to expedite the decision at all. I know you're still in
session simply because actually there's already been delays with respect to this project. I think
that the very fact that we're here if you will kind of came as a surprise to the Commissioners
maybe an architect or somebody should have told them to expect it but nobody did and so
they've done the right thing you know they've submitted the applications and gotten us here
but you know basically we have contractors waiting to go. It is an emergency service
organization. These are public works contracts so for all of those reasons I just ask you if you
might consider expediting a decision.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well I can assure you we will have one at our next meeting in two
weeks. I don't think we can do it sooner than that simply because we have to have a quorum.
We have to meet you know, it has to be noticed legally noticed before the public and
MEMBER DANTES : I would comfortable for a vote myself I don't know about the other
members.
67
June 7, 2018 Regular Meeting
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well it wouldn't be legal until a draft was signed. I mean we can do a
straw poll. We have the authority to indicate to you which way the draft is going to go.
WILLIAM GLASS : If that were possible even.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : But we can't nothing is legal until there's a vote and there's
something in writing and I sign it and it gets filed with the Town Clerk.
WILLIAM GLASS : I understand. I think you probably understand that you know public works
projects are just different from private works projects. There's a lot of back up in order to get
going forward and that's really kind of where we are. You know we have contractors, we need
to be able to give them a start date as soon as possible so that's all I'm asking.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Sure I understand. The second the decision is signed you can go right
to the Building Department and get going. I mean they're waiting and ready and available and
we certainly have no interest (inaudible) other than cooperating with the Fire Department you
know they save our lives and they certainly put theirs at risk. Do you want to do a poll?
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I'm fine with that.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright let me just without an actual formal vote ask who would be
in favor of an approval as applied for, Pat?
MEMBER ACAMPORA : I would.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Eric.
MEMBER DANTES : Yes.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Nick.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Agreed I would.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And so would I. So based upon this informal polling I think you can
be assured that in two weeks you'll have an approval.
WILLIAM GLASS : That's terrific because we can at least get our people we can't build but we
can mobilize them which is critical so thank you very much.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : What I would do is go to the Building Department and just simply say
this is coming and they know and I'll go in the next day after our meeting and sign it and it's
gotta go to the Town Clerk but you can ship a copy right into them and you should be good to
go.
68
June 7, 2018 Regular Meeting
WILLIAM GLASS : I appreciate your attention.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright let's see if there's anything else before the Board here. We
got a couple of resolutions. I have to make a resolution to close the hearing reserve decision.
MEMBER DANTES : Second.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor?
MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye.
MEMBER DANTES : Aye.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye.
(See Minutes for Resolution)
691
June 7, 2018 Regular Meeting
CERTIFICATION
I Elizabeth Sakarellos, certify that the foregoing transcript of tape recorded
Public Hearings was prepared using required electronic transcription equipment
and is a true and accurate record of Hearings.
Signature Z949
Elizabeth Sakarellos
DATE :June 18, 2018
70