HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-12/06/2018 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
December 6, 2018
9:38 A.M.
Board Members Present:
LESLIE KANES WEISMAN - Chairperson/Member (Absent)
PATRICIA ACAMPORA—Member
ERIC DANTES—Member (Acting Chairperson)
ROBERT LEHNERT— Member
NICHOLAS PLANAMENTO— Member
KIM FUENTES— Board Assistant
WILLIAM DUFFY—Town Attorney
1
December 6, 2018 Regular Meeting
INDEX OF HEARINGS
Hearing Page
Anthony Pirozzi,Jr. # 7216 3 - 9
Cinthia Thorp #7218 9 - 19
Michael and Colleen LoGrande #7224 19 -38
Deborah Ostrosky#7225 39-47
Andrew and Linda Toga #7219 47 - 52
Richard and Siobhan Hans # 7228 52 - 56
Jane Smerglia #7220 56 - 58
MMC Realty 2 Family Limited Partnership# 7221 59 - 60
David and Diane Nelson # 7223 61 - 63
1855 Depot Lane, LLC., Bruce Brownawell and Anne McElroy#7226SE 63-68
Tracy Peck and David Corbett#7209 68 - 78
December 6, 2018 Regular Meeting
MEMBER DANTES : The first public hearing is Anthony Pirozzi Jr. #7216, request for a variance
from Article XXIII Section 280-124 and the Building Inspector's July 16, 2018 Notice of
Disapproval based on an application for a building permit to construct a deck addition to
existing single family dwelling at 1) located less than the code required minimum combined side
yard setback of 35 feet at 1769 Smith Rd. Peconic. Is someone here to represent the applicant?
MIKE KIMACK : Michael Kimack on behalf of the applicants and they are present today also. It's
a pretty straightforward simple request. It's a very narrow long lot. This has been before the
Board on some other occasions for the garage extension. There is an existing deck at the
present time that aligns with the eastern side with the house boundary and that is going to they
wanted basically do is extend the deck outward a little bit and connect it to the new
construction in order to have access, ingress egress to the other main portion of the house or
the way the inside of the house is being constructed. It's open there's no except for the existing
overhang of the existing section of the deck, the rest of the deck would remain open and it's
roughly as I said 215 sq. ft. additional deck to what is already existing. Any other questions of
me?
MEMBER DANTES : Yes, what was the variance relief that's already been approved?
MIKE KIMACK : The variance relief that was approved and I had done that about a year and a
half ago was the two story extension you see on there the garage and the second floor that was
attached to the house and then I believe that there was an administrative or a de minimus one
for the front deck if I remember correctly.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : The front deck?
MIKE KIMACK : The seaward deck.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : There are actually two.
MIKE KIMACK : What two decks?
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : No, two de minimus decisions or authorizations one I believe for the
deck and one for stairs.
MIKE KIMACK : That would be correct yes.
MEMBER DANTES : I'm just trying to figure out what the exactly the increase of the non-
conformity is.
December 6, 2018 Regular Meeting
MIKE KIMACK : The way it was laid out was that it was 9.3 feet, it doesn't extend any closer. It's
within the setback on the eastern side and the non-conformity was for both sides. It was 9.3 on
the eastern side and then 6.2 feet so the combined was 14.5
MIKE KIMACK : But the prior variance we've given you a variance for 6.2 feet and 9.3 feet
you're just increasing the length of the deck is that what you're telling me?
MIKE KIMACK : We're just increasing the length of the deck along the same line. Can you see
the dotted section on the drawing? That's the existing deck with the stairs coming down. All
we're really doing is staying on the same line. We're not encroaching any closer to the property
line within the permitted setback and just extending it forward about ten feet.
MEMBER DANTES : Why does mine say 9.4? 1 don't have a 10.4 on my survey.
BOARD SECRETARY : That was a prior de minimus.
MIKE KIMACK : That was a prior one this one is 9.3 and 6.2
MEMBER DANTES : Why does this survey say 10.4 and my survey says 9.4?
BOARD SECRETARY : Because this is 9.4 and then extends 10.4
MEMBER DANTES : Oh because of the angle this is the other okay so that number is just not
called out
MIKE KIMACK : There's an awful lot of little numbers. We're just extending this out along the
same line basically and the Disapproval was for the 9.3 (inaudible) and that's where the
numbers (inaudible) but it was an open deck and then it tied back to that existing (inaudible)
MEMBER ACAMPORA : There's a lot of construction going on.
MIKE KIMACK : The stakes I had over there I had to a couple of stakes here
MEMBER ACAMPORA : Yeah I saw stakes.
MIKE KIMACK : That was here against the building and then one here (inaudible) and came
across.
MEMBER DANTES : We did get a letter against the application did you receive the letter?
MIKE KIMACK : Yes I did.
MEMBER DANTES : Go back to the microphone and address the letter.
MIKE KIMACK : What components of the letter would you like me to discuss it was lengthy?
December 6, 2018 Regular Meeting
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Eric just out of curiosity before we discuss that, is somebody in the
audience here to discuss this matter in addition to the applicant? Thank you I just wanted to
verify the author is not here.
MIKE KIMACK : They have you know raised a lot of concerns. They have had concerns about this
particular property for some time and I think their main concern is that the deck for some way
would be in their line of sight but it's not going to be anymore, it doesn't have a roof over, it's
not any more raised up than the existing deck it's open so that the deck in terms of its
construction there's not going to be a physical structure of great magnitude to their line of
sight. I think that was one of their concerns and I know they brought up other things in terms of
inaccuracies and drawings but if I remembered correctly they had a concern about that
particular site plan showing the one that I had submitted in showed the air conditioning unit on
that one side and they had a concern about that. That air conditioning unit is no longer there
it's on the other side of the house away from them. So that's been removed.
MEMBER ACAMPORA : I thought they also had a concern about the shower.
MIKE KIMACK : Yeah lets' discuss that. The shower basically the outdoor shower within the
existing setbacks primarily do not require a variance as long as it's open and it's only 24 sq. ft. It
has an open top and no concrete floor. As it was explained to me by the Building Department
they don't consider that even if it was in the setback requirement they don't consider that as an
(inaudible) that also has been approved for a building set of plans. It's been constructed. It's got
that if you walked around the back you may not have it's all been constructed and it's part of
the building and closed in. So they had an approved set of building plans for that outdoor
shower but the outdoor shower we have other situations. As long as it meets those
requirements it doesn't fall under a variance if it does fall within the setback and I know that
the next door neighbor raised that issue also. I think if I remember correctly the last hearing
that we had there is a vegetated plan for a planting plan and if you I think there's an extensive
amount of planting along that whole boundary that they put in and I think there's more
plantings. Tony could you discuss the planting along that side.
ANTHONY PIROZZI : Hi I'm Anthony Pirozzi the homeowner. When we applied for the original
variance we agreed that we would plant a line of hedges between our two properties which
was done. We put a line of Skip Laurels in and when we finish the construction we're going to
continue that towards the roadside. We're in the middle of designing that and then we'll be
submitting for permits for that planting but as we agreed from the beginning we planted that
section that's adjacent to their porch.
MEMBER DANTES : Rob do you have anything?
December 6, 2018 Regular Meeting
MEMBER LEHNERT : No not right now.
MEMBER DANTES : Pat?
MEMBER ACAMPORA : Do you have any further plans like for we'll call it the front that faces
the water as far as expanding that porch or stairs that are there?
ANTHONY PIROZZI : No the only thing we did was we changed the stair design which was I
believe one of the modifications de minimus that got approved but as far as the porch to the
bay there's no plans to change anything there.
MEMBER ACAMPORA : Any other plans down the road?
ANTHONY PIROZZI : No just landscaping at this point in time.
MEMBER DANTES : Nick.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Yes a couple of questions relative to the application Mike, where is
the access to the house currently? Is the front door the small set of steps with the landing?
MIKE KIMACK : Yes the front door is a small set of steps with a landing primarily. What it is is
that deck is being extended over. If you have gone there you see the door that's been put in
there and
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : That was something I wanted to talk about. Since you brought the
door up, the door is already there do you want to talk a bit about that door?
MIKE KIMACK : Well I think it would be I think the reason it was done it was in order to get
better access and better flow ingress egress to the main section of the house and Tony you can
basically explain how that
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Cause the door wasn't on the application a year and half ago or a
year ago.
MIKE KIMACK : It wasn't on the application.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : It was a window exactly.
MIKE KIMACK : explained how the inside flow the function of going from that one section
(inaudible)
ANTHONY PIROZZI : The existing the original front door which is at the top of that stairway and
deck that is there puts you into the house at the extreme rear behind the kitchen and we're
looking to use the door that's in the new room as the main entry into the house because from
December 6, 2018 Regular Meeting
there you go into the hallway and go to the kitchen and go up the stairs. If you came in the
original front door to go upstairs you had to walk around through the whole house to get to the
staircase to go to the second floor. When we added that door the intent was to just have a set
of stairs going down which I believe was within beyond the setback area but then when we
looked at it aesthetically we said it would kind of look choppy with a set of stairs here and stairs
here if we could have one set of stairs and a deck connecting the two doors it would be more
appealing to the eye and more functional.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : So going back to the original access to the house with the landing as
there what we had seen during our site inspection, does that facilitate access to the house?
ANTHONY PIROZZI : The current landing?
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : The current stairs.
ANTHONY PIROZZI : It does. You can get into the house yes.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : So from the standpoint of this application what is the hardship?
ANTHONY PIROZZI : I don't think that that necessarily is a hardship, it's more about what it
looks like.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : So the application is more about aesthetics than any hardship?
ANTHONY PIROZZI : Yes.
MEMBER DANTES : I'm confused by your question Nick. It's for the deck I mean the door is
really not a part of the application.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : The stairs at that landing are so if they function I don't understand
what the application specifically is other than they're looking for a front deck.
MEMBER LEHNERT : You can put stairs without going for a variance stairs to the door.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : The door that was added.
MEMBER LEHNERT : Exactly.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : My question was really just to better understand what if any hardship
exists.
ANTHONY PIROZZI : As far as a hardship there isn't one because we can put a set of stairs to
that other door. We just thought it would look nicer and be more functional if there was one
set of stairs and you could go in either door.
December 6, 2018 Regular Meeting
MIKE KIMACK : I hadn't done the calculation yet but you brought a point there Nick, essentially
you wouldn't need a variance if you put a set of stairs down. You could put if you were in the
setback you could put up to 35 sq. ft. without a variance but also I didn't do the calculation if
we were back 15 feet we can probably do more of a deck coming back to that 15 foot line from
that door and it would be almost close enough to make the connection back to the other deck.
So what we're looking for is simply to have a flow through so you could walk from one door to
the other door and walk on that particular deck in order to walk up the deck and have access to
it. Do you know what I'm saying?
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Maybe that's an alternative. What you've just brought forward is if in
fact the actual front door to the house is the newly installed door where there was a window in
the original review which would lead to that central hallway you could probably without a
variance have the front porch that you want.
MIKE KIMACK : We're here because as the client said from the aesthetic point of view to tie it
together but also from the flow and function point of view (inaudible) chopped up to two
separate little decks with sets of stairs and they're only going to be about 10 feet apart
between the two of them essentially if we made a small deck on one section and a small deck
on the other end two sets of stairs it would be better from the flow and function of the whole
place to have it all connected together. By connecting it together we're asking for a variance in
order to achieve that. Now if you want to call that a does it meet the requirement of a hardship
probably in the (inaudible) probably not but from the clients need in order to have better
access to the house, better convenience, better flow to get back and forth to the main sections
they would like to be able to have the deck connected between both (inaudible) entrances in
order to have that. So if someone wanted to come out of one door and go in the other they
could without going down a set of stairs and coming up another set of stairs.
MEMBER LEHNERT : What is this room going to be used for it says existing bedroom will be
relocated that this door we're talking about? What's going to be the use of that room?
MIKE KIMACK : You mean where the door is?
MEMBER LEHNERT : Yeah.
ANTHONY PIROZZI : That's going to be a workout room.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : So in other words the proposed workout room is no longer an entry
hall?
ANTHONY PIROZZI : It connects to the entry hall.
December 6, 2018 Regular Meeting
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : So you're suggesting that you'd walk off the expanded porch to an
exercise room beyond the elevator shaft to a hallway that would take you to living space?
ANTHONY PIROZZI : Yes.
MEMBER DANTES : I don't understand how it's an existing bedroom to be relocated and it still
has a closet. Doesn't it still meet the definition of a bedroom? I mean regardless of what it's
used for it's still a bedroom right?
ANTHONY PIROZZI : There's no closet in that room.
MEMBER DANTES : So the closet was removed. You have anything further Pat?
MEMBER ACAMPORA : No.
MEMBER DANTES : Do you have anything further Nick?
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : No I'm fine.
MEMBER DANTES : I don't have any further questions. Motion to close reserve decision to a
later date.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Second.
MEMBER DANTES : All in favor?
MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye.
MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye.
MEMBER DANTES : Aye.
(See Minutes for Resolution)
HEARING#7218—CINTHIA THORP
MEMBER DANTES : The next application is Cinthia Thorp #7218. Request for a variance from
Article XXIII Section 280-124 and the Building Inspector's June 29, 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) located less than the code required minimum side yard
December 6, 2018 Regular Meeting
setback of 10 feet, 2) located less than the code required minimum combined side yard setback
of 25 feet at 120 South Lane in East Marion. Is someone here to represent the application?
MIKE KIMACK : Michael Kimack on behalf of the applicant. If you had a chance to visit it's a very
a little cottage. It's a narrow lot primarily. What the applicant would like to do is she wants to
be able to put in a full basement and extend towards the waterside the house about 6 feet
lining up if you notice the existing screened porch is set about a foot on either side of the main
(inaudible) of the house. The proposal is to extend that in the same line and go about an extra 6
feet on the waterside in order to have a better kitchen area. If you look at the layout of the
design for the first floor is the redesign of the inside for a proposed kitchen dining room area. It
would have a full foundation and the house would be raised about two feet above grade
primarily and then on the back side towards the roadside would be new bilco doors for the
entrance to the full basement.
MEMBER DANTES : So if they're raising the house the question is why can't they move the
house to a more conforming location?
MIKE KIMACK : Well they're conforming at the present time from the front yard. The front yard
setback at the time is
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : The survey that I was provided with illustrates front yard setback of
33.1 feet.
MIKE KIMACK : That is correct and this is a 12,365 sq. ft. building I think the front yard setback is
minimum 35 feet if I remember correctly. So we can't move it anywhere closer to the front
yard.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Well it wouldn't be closer it would be off Oak St. You could
potentially if you were raising the house pull it back to make it a code conforming lot and also
meet your side yard setback.
MIKE KIMACK : Pull it back which way, water way or
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Yes.
MEMBER LEHNERT : Towards the west.
MIKE KIMACK : But then what we would be doing is we would be encroaching you see where
that line comes off to the side over there Nick where it backs down again
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Where the existing shed is?
MIKE KIMACK : No on the westerly side over there where the line jags back.
1Q
December 6, 2018 Regular Meeting
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : That's the driveway side.
MIKE KIMACK : The driveway side, that line comes back that's also considered a side yard that
particular one is now 15.3 feet which is just barely you know within the permitted side yard
setback so if we pulled it forward we would be in a variance situation there.
MEMBER DANTES : I think if you pull it I mean it looks like on where it says Mark Schwartz's
proposed site plan on the old survey you are moving the house as it is cause the current
setback at 33 and it gets converted to 40.6 so you're pulling it towards the water. It looks like if
you only pull it to 35 you'll still need a variance you'll need less of a variance if you pulled it to
40.
MIKE KIMACK : 40.6 comes from
MEMBER LEHNERT : Mark's site plan shows 46.8 from the front oh 40.6 I'm sorry it bends.
MEMBER DANTES : So I mean it looks like you could get the 12.2 number to a conforming 15. 1
don't know if you could ever be truly conforming but you can get closer.
MIKE KIMACK : To be sure on that one a new survey was submitted. Do they have that? The
new site plan that Mark did was submitted.
MEMBER DANTES : Mine says July 31, 2018
MIKE KIMACK : No there's a new one, November 29tH
MEMBER DANTES : This one says 33.1 and 15.3
MIKE KIMACK : That's correct.
MEMBER DANTES : Okay. Do we need a revised Notice of Disapproval for the non-conforming
front yard setback then? We got that too? Yeah but this one doesn't mention the front yard
does it? Minimum side yard setback of +/- 25 feet from (inaudible) side yard setback of
(inaudible) well it says a minimum side yard setback of +/- .5 feet but where does the .5 come
from?
MIKE KIMACK : They counted the stairs. They counted the landing as part of on that particular
one. That's where that .5 comes from.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : But Eric's question the Notice of Disapproval which was amended
November 30th doesn't' include relief for a front yard setback.
MEMBER DANTES : What is the front yard setback to this (inaudible) 35 or 30?
11
December 6, 2018 Regular Meeting
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : My understanding is 35.
MIKE KIMACK : I don't think there's a 30. 1 don't have the chart in front of me but I don't think
there's a 30. 1 think I believe it's 35.
MEMBER LEHNERT : If they're not moving the building they wouldn't need relief in the front.
MEMBER DANTES : Usually they call it anyway.
MIKE KIMACK : But if we moved it then we would be you see where that 15.3 is if we moved it
anywhere forward then we'd be in with a variance for a side yard cause that's being considered
a side yard.
MEMBER DANTES : Do you need that door with that staircase there?
MIKE KIMACK : Yes where the house is let's see
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I think sort of my question that I have relative to if the house is in fact
being raised to Eric's point you'd have a side yard variance whether you made the east side
conforming then you'd be seeking it on the left side or vice versa cause right now you're
seeking a variance to the east side so the only question would really be is if out of the effort of
lifting the house for a new foundation you couldn't make the east side more conforming you
know that's awfully close to the lot line basically on the lot line.
MIKE KIMACK : Well the difficulty there is when you got the existing driveway coming in if you
drove up in there basically
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : So the house would be moved basically to be on the existing
driveway right at it which still allows cars to park and turn around.
MEMBER LEHNERT : The driveway could be shifted on the lot.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : And then you'd have a conforming east side lot so and I don't know if
the math involved would be on the west side where it's currently 15.3 feet that would be
reduced but the house would be more centrally located in a conforming position.
MEMBER DANTES : Well the minimum is 10 feet so you can get that 15.3 feet number to 10 feet
and then you wouldn't have a conforming east side but a more conforming east side.
MIKE KIMACK : Well it's 10 and 15 so pick your poison. Which one do you want to have 10 and
which one do you want to have 15.
12
December 6, 2018 Regular Meeting
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : And I think that's you know maybe your (inaudible) choice. What
we're looking at
MIKE KIMACK : You want to take the 5 and move it to 10 and if we move it to 10 then the 15
becomes a variance.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : It's .5
T. A. DUFFY : It's .5 not 5.
MIKE KIMACK : It's .5 because they're counting the deck. I mean they're counting the set of
stairs which they normally don't count but in this situation they chose to count. They normally
don't count a set of stairs that are in the permitted use setback but the .5 but let's say that it's
3.6 feet right now from the foundation so I mean from the property line, we'd have to move it
6.4 in order to meet one of the permitted side yard setbacks.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Or for the proposed concrete stoop moving it to the west actually 10
feet would of course reduce the west setback from 15 to I don't know the actual number.
MIKE KIMACK : If they're counting the proposed concrete stoop and they're still counting a
proposed concrete stoop then we have to move it 10 feet.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Exactly.
MIKE KIMACK : And if we move it 10 feet then I've got a variance like 15.3 feet becomes a
variance.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Right but the difference is you're making the east side conforming, on
the west side yes you'd be seeking a variance but it's no different than seeking a variance for .5
feet.
MIKE KIMACK : But then the economics of relocating and redoing the driveway because if you
remember
MEMBER DANTES : I don't think the economics change though cause you're still lifting the
house and building a foundation.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : But it's a gravel driveway.
MIKE KIMACK : The gravel driveway is (inaudible) did you take a look at the contours on that
property?That piece of property is sitting up on a little high elevation.
MEMBER LEHNERT : Yeah but that gravel driveway is going to be destroyed during construction.
13
December 6, 2018 Regular Meeting
MIKE KIMACK : But if we move it over we're not going to be able to get the proposed front yard
patio as we wanted it but you move it over into the side line over there the patio goes away we
won't be able to get that in.
MEMBER DANTES : What's the existing front yard setback?
MIKE KIMACK : Without the concrete stoop 3.6
MEMBER ACAMPORA : It's half a dozen and one half a dozen of the other basically and to move
it I think west you have the house in front of it that has just gone through a renovation so it's
almost then if you move it to the west it's going to be almost directly in sight of that house so if
they're trying to get a water view where the house presently is they're going to lose that.
MIKE KIMACK : Quite frankly I'm not quite sure I don't know I'm trying to remember their line
of sight if you move their house (inaudible) over whether they lose their water view also.
MEMBER ACAMPORA : That's what I'm talking about. If they move it further to the west they're
going to be in line with that
MIKE KIMACK : And we're trading one variance for another I don't see any particular rational
for that any reasonable aspect to that.
MEMBER ACAMPORA : And that could affect the front yard setback.
MIKE KIMACK : And then the you know the proposed patio and their use of the patio they walk
you know up to their beach and then I'd have to relocate the existing driveway and the cost of
doing that. It wasn't an easy one to begin with and
MEMBER DANTES : Plus it looks like this old survey here by John Metzger there was a stoop
there it looks like on the survey am I reading that correctly? So he didn't call it out
FRANK THORP : I'm Frank Thorp I'm the owner of the property to the east. This house was built
by and I know exactly this house very, very well. It was designed and built by my father in 1937,
1938. The house itself is actually 2.5 feet from my property line. The sketch that was sent to me
shows it 4 point something and what not. When we talk about front yard setback versus rear
yard setback we're talking different things where this is located. The front yard to us is the
water side not the road side.
MEMBER DANTES : Town code defines the front yard as the road that's what we have to go by.
FRANK THORP : Right and granted it's not 35 feet from (inaudible). I have no objection to being
on 2 %2 feet from my property line okay. I don't need the (inaudible) being moved to the west.
My objections are the sketch that was sent to me all the lines were off on the sketch. I call it a
:14
December 6, 2018 Regular Meeting
sketch not a survey because it shows my property line 4 point something instead of the 2.5. It
shows the setback from the road at 42 point something sure that's from the actual road not
from the property line.
MEMBER DANTES : Oh that was the proposed it's not the actual. The actual they're showing as
33 and change.
FRANK THORP : So you received a memo from me in regard to this are there any questions as
far as the house is and where it is? I'm very familiar with this house, I've worked on it for eighty
years.
MEMBER DANTES : I don't have any questions.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Mike maybe I'm sorry I'm getting ahead Eric you have no questions
MEMBER DANTES : Of Mr. Thorp
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Mr. Thorp okay I'll leave you and wait
MEMBER DANTES : No by all means Nick.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : We've been talking about the house being lifted to accommodate a
new foundation, we talked briefly about different ideas of how one could make the renovated
home more conforming to setbacks; talk to us a little bit about the structure itself and the
potential for a demolition.
MIKE KIMACK : Demolition?
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Yeah. What happens that if when the house is being moved there's
issues with silt plates, termites any problems is there any consideration or has there been
discussion?
MIKE KIMACK : Well when you that question actually is best answered by the architect. Now
Mark Schwartz I know would have gone into that house would have looked at the structural
integrity of the beams that go across the bottom of it. When you're raising the house the silt
plates the condition of all of whether or not when you're raising it those are have to be
replaced or have to strengthened up my answer to you is if in fact the architect believed that
the house was not capable of being raised and containing it's integrity in doing so he would
have probably not proposed to raise the existing structure he would have proposed to have it
demo'd and replaced. So the short answer is that I'm sure that the existing structural integrity
of the house is sufficient enough to be able to sustain raising. Now there may have to be some
additional reinforcement underneath it and we've done a few of those before we raise houses
15
December 6, 2018 Regular Meeting
and they've added beams and they've added cross ties to re-strengthen because a lot of times
when you're doing it the house is not necessarily structured in the sense for the carry points
and they might be able to change some of those and so the answer would be that the house as
it sits now has enough structural integrity to remain as an existing structure to be raised and
not having to go into the financial situation of having to demo it and build new. Raising it on a
foundation is one thing, knocking it down and putting up a whole new house is another.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Absolutely and that may require actually a revisit to this Board so I
just wanted to discuss briefly about that that you're aware of the potential that when a house is
being moved things can be discovered.
MIKE KIMACK : There's always a possibility Nick of anything going on primarily. I've done
probably two hundred homes personally and I've done a lot of concrete construction a lot of
moving; I've moved three or four homes. I'm very familiar with the methods and I have not
looked at the interior of that house. I've not looked at the structural integrity of the floor and
the beams. That would have been for the architect to do. When they recommend raising it I
would imagine that they would have taken that into consideration as all potential (inaudible) in
terms of whether or not that particular house in that particular condition can be raised safely
on a new foundation and that since that's a proposal without any other information I would
suggest that that would be in sense be the answer that yes the house can be raised safely,
structurally and sound. It may require some additional beaming and the basement based upon
where the carry points are but that would be the extent of it.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I don't have any other questions.
MEMBER DANTES : Rob do you have any questions?
MEMBER LEHNERT : No I don't have any other questions.
MEMBER DANTES : Pat?
MEMBER ACAMPORA : The shed that's presently in the front that's going to be removed the
one that's on the road not the one that's at the end of the driveway?
MIKE KIMACK : Pat not the other one the one that's on the road that Mark doesn't show on the
new site plan.
MEMBER LEHNERT : It's on the old survey.
MIKE KIMACK : It's on the survey basically. It is under I think it's under a hundred square feet.
MEMBER DANTES : Right but it has to meet the principle front yard setback.
16
December 6, 2018 Regular Meeting
MIKE KIMACK : Yes it will be moved.
MEMBER DANTES : And the other shed will have to be moved to meet the whatever the
required accessory structure side yard setback is. I mean it's a shed I would go over it with the
Building Department.
MIKE KIMACK : The non-conforming on this side I think it's only about three feet.
MEMBER DANTES : But I don't know how the Building Department is doing that diagonal line
whether they're calling it a side
MIKE KIMACK : They're calling it a side yard yeah. I went through that with them already.
They're calling that a side situation under 12,365 1 believe the accessory building setback is 3.
MEMBER DANTES : So we're going to put in our decision that the shed cause it's not called out
on the site plan
MIKE KIMACK : The shed conform to a non-conforming accessory side yard.
MEMBER DANTES :To conforming side yard.
MIKE KIMACK : To a conform to accessory side yard yeah. If it has to be moved Eric it doesn't
have to be moved very far.
MEMBER DANTES : Right it's not a big deal to move it.
MIKE KIMACK : It's not a big deal no. As a matter of fact the other shed could be put back up
there and also with the same setback. I have to remember to bring my charts with me.
T. A. DUFFY : Can you address Mr. Thorp's comments that the distances are inaccurate that it's
2.5 from the property line?
MIKE KIMACK : You know I'm not too sure Bill. I looked at the original survey that was done by
Metzger the building there's 3.6 or he has I'm sorry 3.4 on one side setback and Mark's site plan
is 3.6, I'm not quite sure where the 2.5 came from Bill on that particular one. The difference
between 3.6 and 3.4 is just a mathematical equation on the surveyor that's not anything big so
I'm not quite sure where the 2 % came from.
T. A. DUFFY : Did you see Mr. Thorp's written comments?
MIKE KIMACK : I did not I apologize. Was there anything that I need to
T. A. DUFFY : Well yeah I think that and Mr. Thorp can speak up to it I believe he raised
concerns about construction so close to his property line, how you propose to build a
17
December 6, 2018 Regular Meeting
foundation without going on his property given the narrowness of it and he requested that the
property line be staked prior to construction.
MIKE KIMACK : We can stake the property line. You're right it's close. The excavation would
have to be done from the interior. The point would have to be redone on that one side. With 3
feet there isn't much room but it can be done but it has to be done very carefully and it can
be staked to make sure that they don't encroach over. That could be a condition.
MEMBER DANTES : Would your client be willing to put up maybe just one of those orange
temporary fences?
MIKE KIMACK : You know what the thing is, we could probably put a I think almost put a silt
fence right on the line at that particular point cause you got construction right next to it so the
silt fence would make the most sense. You don't want any hay bales because you could just put
the silt fence itself and then just put it right on the property line as a condition that would be
fine and then the contractor would have to figure it out. I've done it it's not easy but I've done
it. But that would be not an unreasonable request for the silt fence.
MEMBER DANTES : Anyone else in the audience like to speak, any Board members have any
further comments? I don't want to close this hearing yet. I just want to check with the Building
Department and make sure you don't need a variance for that 33.1 just so we don't have to
come back. Just check, send us a letter saying you don't need the variance and our next
meeting is two weeks from today at which time we can make a decision.
MIKE KIMACK : I understand your concern to make sure you have it correct.
MEMBER DANTES : Well I mean otherwise cause then they get the stamped copy they say oh
we missed it and then they send you back for another variance.
MIKE KIMACK : They'll yell at you, they yell at me.
MEMBER DANTES : Right then we come back four months later you just missed the whole
winter just dotting my I's.
MIKE KIMACK : I agree. That would be a prudent approach.
MEMBER DANTES : So we're going to hold this application open and make a decision
MIKE KIMACK : Subject to finding out on that particular one.
MEMER DANTES : I make a motion to adjourn this hearing until the Special Meeting.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Second.
1$
December 6, 2018 Regular Meeting
MEMBER DANTES : All in favor?
MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye.
MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye.
MEMBER DANTES : Aye.
(See Minutes for Resolution)
HEARING#7224—MICHAEL and COLLEEN LOGRANDE
MEMBER DANTES : The next application is Michael and Colleen LoGrande. Request for variance
from Article III Section 280-15 and the Building Inspector's July 6, 2018 Notice of Disapproval
based on an application for a building permit to demolish an existing single family dwelling and
accessory barn and build a new single family dwelling and accessory garage at 1) existing
accessory garage located in other than the code required rear yard, 2) proposed accessory
garage partially located in other than the code required rear yard at 550 Fleetwood Rd. in
Cutchogue. Is someone here to represent the applicant?
MIKE KIMACK : Michael Kimack on behalf of the applicants. I think it would be
MEMBER DANTES : Office is asking if you have any additional mailings?
MIKE KIMACK : I brought them in as much as I had. The post office was closed yesterday. I was
going to stop in and get those cards but unfortunately it was closed so I wasn't able to get
additional green cards. You got all the certified mailings you got all of that and I did post it again
and I did hand that in the other day with both dates on it. The original posting and the
November 23rd posting. We're here before you for two variances, one for an existing garage
that has a Pre C. of 0. on it that is right on the property line on Hamilton Ave. That is proposed
to remain as such. As I understand it the code is such because we were coming before you for
another variance that particular garage became part of this particular variance hearing. It would
be good to talk about then entire thing that we're doing on the property cause we're asking for
the garage but there's an existing house structure and an existing barn on the property as it
now exists. The proposal is to knock the existing house down and do a new structure. That
structure is not before you because it's at the legal setbacks for the side and the front yards but
I do know there was some concern raised by the neighbor in terms of its size. What is before
you is the garage that is being proposed on the south side of the property. It's kind of a
19
December 6, 2018 Regular Meeting
trapezoidal piece and the barn is being knocked down, the garage is being moved back because
in between the proposed new garage and the proposed house is the septic area. So the house
the garage was moved back. Now the garage meets the side yard setback but because of the
way that the property trapezoids down it was determined to be partially in the front yard of
that one side. The garage is 747 sq. ft. It is not as large as it could have been although you
wouldn't be able to do much more to it than already exists. One thing that we did do and you
don't have before you and we thought might be helpful is we did some 3d's basically. There's
three sides showing three different (inaudible) there's twelve there's plenty. The house is not
before you but it would be appropriate I think since I'm here to at least talk about the house
and why it's being constructed as it is. It's a large family
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Mike if I can just interrupt, as part of your presentation dialogue
relative to the house could you also talk about the setback on Hamilton Ave?
MIKE KIMACK : The one for the garage?
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : No, no you said that while the house isn't before us and I understand
that you chose to still speak about the house so as part of your presentation relative to the
house construction whatever it is that you're sharing right now if you'd also include discussion
about the Hamilton Ave. setback.
MIKE KIMACK : For the house?
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Yes.
MIKE KIMACK : Well the setback meets the code set requirements.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : So what I don't understand is Hamilton Ave. a second front yard
shouldn't your front yard setback therefore be equal to the Fleetwood Rd. setback? It's a
second front yard.
MIKE KIMACK : There is on this particular one I think they had two different I think there was an
average setback on that particular one that Mark had done the calculations on that one side.
They had an average setback on that Nick and I would suggest that the Building Department did
not see that as a need of a variance for that one side.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Right so I was just hoping you could maybe elaborate on that, how
the average came up or what houses were used or something.
MIKE KIMACK : I think it was the houses on the both sides when he did that. Mark had
mentioned to me that when he did the setback he did the average setbacks cause he
questioned me why do we need the variance for the garage and I said because they determine
201
December 6, 2018 Regular Meeting
that the proposed garage was partially in that front yard section primarily but apparently they
used the line of houses on that one side to get the average for the setback and the Building
Department did not see the need to basically a variance for the house on the Hamilton side for
the setback. If you look at I think you've got you should have if you have this sheet in front of
you on the 3d's the first sheet basically you're looking at it from Hamilton primarily that's what
it would look like from Hamilton with the house and the garage primarily. The second sheet is
you're at the probably at that particular point you're at the intersection of Fleetwood and
Hamilton as you're coming up around there looking at the house from that one side and on the
third sheet primarily you're on Fleetwood looking back towards Hamilton. You should have the
house overall is a modest structure, it's about 2700 square feet just to give you magnitude of
size. I know when you had a chance to visit the property you saw all of those stakes out there
and they might have been a little bit confusing but
MEMBER ACAMPORA : Very confusing.
MIKE KIMACK : But if you look at the house the stakes were laid out according to all of the
configurations on the house itself. There was no other way to do it except as such.
MEMBER DANTES : The other thing I noticed from Hamilton, the house is set back 32.8 feet and
the garage is 19.1 but what was the average they determined?
MIKE KIMACK : I'm not quite sure what he used as an average but he basically said the
proposed garage was partially in the front primarily and I would imagine he probably partially
probably used the 32 if you brought that line across.
MEMBER DANTES : I don't know how to scale it cause it could be (inaudible) the front or
completely in the side depending on yeah it would be in the front.
MIKE KIMACK : It would be in the front cause the side the back they kept the conformance of
the 20 feet Eric on the back side because this was a under the garage I think was 22 feet so it
would be 20 if it was 18 it would be 15.
MEMBER DANTES : But it looks like D. Morales didn't really know what the front yard setback
would be or what the average would be cause technically to meet the code conforming front
yard setback oh it doesn't count the Building Department doesn't call out the setback it's just in
a non-conforming yard. So that's why they didn't call out this setback for the garage cause it's
in a non-conforming side or front yard location therefore they don't call out the setback.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : The 19.1
21
December 6, 2018 Regular Meeting
MEMBER DANTES : Yeah they just ignore it cause it's already in a non-conforming location so
they don't have to.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Right but the problem that I still don't understand is where the
average came from for the house. I mean in my opinion there should be a variance for the
house.
MEMBER LEHNERT : Where do these numbers come from that Mark gets. In this little box he's
got you know 15, 21, 12? Even the existing house we're at 16.8.
MIKE KIMACK : Mark would have probably picked them up from the houses that were adjoining
on the back side or so (inaudible) average it.
MEMBER DANTES : Do you have any questions Pat?
MEMBER ACAMPORA : What are they going to be doing with that old existing garage?
MIKE KIMACK : That's just gonna be storage the existing one. They've got a large family.
MEMBER ACAMPORA : And the new garage?
MIKE KIMACK : The new garage is a workshop above basically.
MEMBER ACAMPORA : Will it have any plumbing in it?
MIKE KIMACK : There's going to be a half a bath.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Mike relative to the new garage in the application it was stated that
the use is for family activities, what are those activities?
MIKE KIMACK : Well there's a workshop up there. It's not going to be obviously not anything
that requires that falls into a second dwelling situation that you basically don't want. They've
got a large family growing. He's a retired Lieutenant Colonel in the air force I can relate to that.
My son just flew to Korea an F16 for 9,000 miles doing his tour so he's also a Lieutenant Colonel
for the Air Force but their activities I would imagine are just being able to have activity areas
that grandkids, he'll have a workshop and maybe play area for the kids.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : So is it a play area or a workshop?
MIKE KIMACK : It's called a workshop I'll leave it as such. I mean I'm not going to speak to their
particular activities. I know that they got a large family. The existing house does not suit their
needs.The new house is not overly sized. It's about 2,700 sq. ft. it's not a big place.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Is it proposed to be conditioned at all?
22
December 6, 2018 Regular Meeting
MIKE KIMACK : I don't believe so.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : So there'll be no heating or cooling?
MIKE KIMACK : As far as I know no for the garage.
MEMBER DANTES : Any questions Rob?
MEMBER LEHNERT : No not at this time.
MEMBER DANTES : Is there anyone else in the audience who would like to speak, please go to
the podium.
GREG BURDULIS : Hi my name is Greg Burdulis together with my brother Scott we own 275
Hamilton Ave. it's the house that's just south bordering on the property. I'd like to request that
the disapproval is upheld.
MEMBER DANTES : Can I ask you a question, how far is your house from the property line the
front yard setback?
GREG BURDULIS : It's quite far in. I'm not good at estimating distances but it's quite a bit back.
MEMBER DANTES : Okay that's fine I was just wondering if you knew.
GREG BURDULIS : I'd say can I ask somebody who's a neighbor what he thinks?
MEMBER DANTES : No we kind of need the exact but that's alright.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Mr. Burdulis just a question if I may I'm sorry to interrupt, are you
that sort of yellowish house that's sort of behind the proposed garage kind of tucked in a bit of
a hollow some sort of a lattice along Hamilton Ave?
GREG BURDULIS : There's a lattice there yes and it's not a yellow house it's white with a red
roof.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Just by memory I was thinking yellow but it has sort of like two or
three but high lattice that's a bit of an arc shape in front of it?
GREG BURDULIS : Yes.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Thank you.
GREG BURDULIS : So 275 Hamilton Ave. is the house that my grandparents bought in the fifties
and my fifteen year old son is a fourth generation of my family to enjoy it. My concerns about
this proposed development are aligns with those concerns that were brought up by Bob Burke
23
December 6, 2018 Regular Meeting
who submitted his concerns to you along with two pictures of flooding. Bob did not receive a
notice in the mail. He only knew cause I sent out an email on November 301h a week ago today
otherwise he would be here. I have two concerns, one is flooding and drainage. My
grandparents named the house Happy Hollow. It was customary back then to give houses in
Fleets Neck names and many including mine still does. Had signs hanging in the fronts with
their names painted on them. You can still see the sign that says Happy Hollow. My
grandparents chose the name Happy Hollow because the property is in a hollow. The land is
depressed slightly below the level of the surrounding land most notably the road Hamilton Ave.
that it's on and if you look at the property it slopes down from the road from Hamilton Ave.
into the property so it's a low lying property. From time to time we've had problems in the
basement with flooding which could be as high as two feet. Our hot water heater would either
have to be have the igniter replaced or the whole heater would have to be replaced since it was
totally damaged. Back then we were summer residents and we only came out in May or June
and sometimes the heater just wouldn't work so we'd have to get somebody to replace the
ignitor or just completely get a new heater. In 2010 1 got tired of this the heater was destroyed
and I asked the people who installed the new heater Burts Reliable if they could put the hot
water heater on cinder blocks as high as they possibly could so the hot water heater stands on
cinder block almost touching the ceiling. Then in 2016 1 had a heating cooling system installed
by Star Mechanical and because of the same concern about flooding I had them install that
right up against the ceiling. I have a major concern that the proposed development will increase
the intensity and frequency of flooding on my property. This is because the plans call for
construction of a large three car garage with two stories and a bathroom and is (inaudible)
asphalt (inaudible) which is going to be paved right up to my property line. There are currently
trees and soil there and soil provides percolation of the water into the ground and the
vegetation through the respiration of the vegetation brings the water into the air. I back up my
concern with an article from the Suffolk Times entitled Southold Town may restrict tree clearing
on residential properties published May 31, 2016 in which Town Supervisor Scot Russell said he
believes the tree removal legislation should be drafted to (inaudible) of the town's drainage
code. Since clear cutting properties affects the grounds ability to absorb storm water. Tree
clearing has community impacts it's not just private property rights he said. With a garage to be
built within the area of the property that does not require a variance it would lessen the water
issue for my property and once again Bob Burke who submitted his statement has similar
concerns. My other concern is in regard to the changing of the character of the neighborhood.
State rules concerning variances is outlined in the document Zoning Board of Appeals by James
Ed Koon this one prohibit among other things that "the alteration being proposed will result in
a structure or configuration that would seriously be out of place in the neighborhood." The
proposed development will be seriously out of place in the neighborhood. The neighborhood
which consists of more modest structures none of which have a three car garage let alone a
24
December 6, 2018 Regular Meeting
three car garage with two stories. This will significantly alter the character of the neighborhood
and will be out of place amongst the surrounding properties. In the code book it states zoning is
not to influence the municipalities development objectives and protect the health, safety and
general welfare of the people. It follows then that there are strict rules governing when
variances may be (inaudible). Further it says the statutes codify what the courts have previously
held. Granting either a use or an area variance the Zoning Board of Appeals must grant the
minimum, minimum is emphasized in this document, variance that it deems necessary and
adequate at the same time preserving and protecting the character of the neighborhood and
the health safety and welfare of the community. There are five factors that need to be
considered when it comes to a variance a use variance and I'm only addressing a use variance
I'm sorry an area variance and that's the only one I'm addressing here not use variance. One,
whether or not an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or
detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of the area variance. Now on
that point the detriments of property is caused by potential flooding and the character is
changed by this structure. The gentleman over there says modest structure 2,700 sq. ft. that's
not that small. It is huge in comparison to a lot of the neighboring properties. Point two the
factor that has to be considered whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved
by some method feasible for the applicant to pursue other than an area variance. Is it really
necessary to have a three car garage with two stories? Point number three, whether the
requested area variance is substantial, I contend this is a substantial variance. Four, whether
the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental
conditions in the neighborhood or district. Drainage is specifically elaborated elsewhere in the
document, it's one of those environmental factors and Rob Burke and I have made the case
that indeed it does. The fifth point which is self-inflicted, self-created rather issues because that
was a complicated area. Finally I just want to read one more thing from this document. The
Board of Appeal from page one Boards of Appeals do not have a blank check to remove every
hardship caused by zoning ordinances from local laws. Great care must be taken to ensure that
the purpose and intent of the ordinance for local law is carried out. (inaudible) too many
changes without proper foundation destroy the zoning itself and I request the Zoning Board of
Appeals would uphold the disapproval of this variance. Thank you.
MEMBER DANTES : Is there anyone in the audience who would like to speak?
BENJA SCHWARTZ : Good morning, my name is Benjamin Schwartz I live at the end of
Fleetwood Rd. southeast end of Fleetwood Rd. This is pretty much the northwest end where
this house is not quite at the end. May I ask of this hearing of in addition to the people who are
speaking today if the Board has received any written comments and if so who by?
MEMBER DANTES : Yes we have.
25
December 6, 2018 Regular Meeting
BENJA SCHWARTZ : Several people have told me that they had written the Board and I'd like to
make sure that
MEMBER DANTES : Andrea Benzicar, Carol McMann, Barbara Hughes, Ann Howard,
BENJA SCHWARTZ : Not Bob Burke?
MEMBER DANTES : Bob Burke.
BENJA SCHWARTZ : Oh I didn't hear you mention his name okay. I think the best thing just read
I have a little bit longer than I like but if I just read it quickly would you permit me to read a
statement?
MEMBER DANTES : Sure I mean the other gentleman touched on a lot of points so if you have
anything additional.
BENJA SCHWARTZ : Well in terms of what the first gentleman spoke about not turning a blind
eye to the proposed you know house. I am an attorney and I disagree with that interpretation
of the law. I think two variances for two buildings on the property
MEMBER DANTES : That isn't the subject though.
BENJZ SCHWARTZ : It's not the subject but it's possible that the variances could require
conditions pertaining to the proposed house as if they were related to the variance I believe.
Anyway this is my opinion if I may read; a local perspective. On first impression when I saw the
sign posted in front of the old cottage given notice of a proposed development it was not
unexpected. After all the cottage is very small although it's usually vacant ten months out of the
year. When it is occupied it was always full of family and guests. I'm not anti-development. The
house to the west immediately across Hamilton Ave. was recently completely renovated and
they did a beautiful job. Positive thinking led me to assume that the proposed development
would similarly be an improvement of the property. It would enhance the neighborhood. Also
knowing in passing for many years the LoGrande's I expected that they would do something
that would be compatible with the neighborhood but when I saw the plans shown to me by the
next door neighbor I realized the proposed development would be extremely out of scale with
the subject property and would be a major adverse change to the existing character of the
neighborhood. The current small cottage is a prominent landmark in the neighborhood. To
claim that demolition and replacement with a large house would not be a major change is just
wrong. I understand this is a Type II action not subject to SEQRA and therefore (inaudible)
presumed not to have potential for adverse environmental impacts but due to the location and
nature of the subject property there's not only potential there's also certainty that adverse
environmental impacts would be caused if this application is approved. Lack of (inaudible) legal
26
December 6, 2018 Regular Meeting
requirement to follow the SEQRA process does not mean the current ZBA process should not
consider and prevent or at least mitigate environmental impacts. Compared to the summer
cottage it's proposed to replace the proposed development would be enormous. Summer
cottage has one porch the proposed development has three porches plus (inaudible) deck. I
understand zoning doesn't dictate aesthetics but the aesthetics here reflect a self-imposed
hardship to conform to the required setbacks. This is an extreme case in which the proposed
plans do not support the right to a variance let alone two variances for preservation of an
existing non-conforming building and construction of a new non-conforming what I consider to
be a proposed second house. I have been a resident of the east side and southern half of Fleet
Necks neighborhood in Cutchogue for over five decades. The area was developed with mostly
summer residences. Many houses have been renovated to be suitable for year round residency.
My house was built as a hunting cabin then it became a summer residence and when I moved in
it became year round so I understand this but I think the proposal by the property record the
Town of Southold the one parcel is designated as seasonal residence and that would be
changed to a year round and probably also knowing the family has summer visitors but it's not
about the people you know I have no problem with the LoGrande's and your job is not to
evaluate their use of the property. It's whether the property use support this proposed
construction. Inclusion of a bathroom in the proposed garage is revealing. I mean I can
understand if it was a workshop to put in a utility sink maybe even an outdoor shower cause it's
you know for swimming but the toilet I think that indicates an intention to use that as a second
dwelling for sleeping and a kitchen could easily be added, heat could easily be added without
anybody ever knowing about it. The notations on the setbacks on the average setbacks, I went
down to the Building Department they couldn't explain them to me. I did some measurements
on Hamilton St. and I reviewed the relevant law with the average setback of existing buildings
within three hundred feet of the proposed building on the same side of the street within the
same use district well it doesn't it's not clear in the law how that's to be interpreted with a
corner lot that has two that is on two streets and I would ask that the Board send out
somebody from the town to verify whatever measurements were used and to recalculate the
setbacks. When I did that the required setback went from I think it's like 16 feet now to 40 and I
don't know if they used the setback to the existing cottage or to the new house or if those are
permitted to be included in those calculations I was unable to get an explanation of that. Two
other small houses, I know a lot of people who have very small houses in my neighborhood.
The two on that same street and it's one of the things I love about my neighborhood is we have
very diverse we have big houses and little houses. This area is a lot of little cottages down the
one next door we've heard about already called Happy Hollow but the proposed development
would change Happy Hollow from a quaint cozy happy summer cottage close to the water to a
small house dwarfed by separated by the water by a huge garage and a huge house new house
not to mention the drainage issues. The house on top of Hamilton Ave. is called Stucco in the
27
December 6, 2018 Regular Meeting
Sticks. The proposed development would change Stucco in the Sticks from a quaint cozy
summer cottage in the woods to a small house behind and dwarfed by a huge garage and a
large new house. I don't know of any property in the entire Fleets Neck with a three car garage.
I did see houses with three car garages huge houses right against each other down in the Laurel
Lakes subdivision in Mattituck the other day and those houses didn't belong there. A three car
garage doesn't belong on this property the subject property in my opinion. I believe that it
would be in violation of the zoning code that's why they're asking for a variance. I think it's a
horrific idea and it'll set a terrible precedent. What if every lot in Fleets Neck was improved
with a three car garage? A much smaller one car garage could probably fit without a variance
especially if the house was reduced to a smaller size. The old garage on the side could stay
although I think it should be made clear that it should not be could not be expanded or
renovated now or in a future time. If that's permitted to remain I'm not confident that it will
remain in the current condition. Also, related to mitigating any potential adverse impacts from
the proposed variances directly connected to the proposed variances I think a condition
requiring and I've confirmed this with other people who are educated in these areas a condition
if it is permitted to this entire application not segmented. I don't think you're just looking at the
variances, you're looking at the whole neighborhood and of course the new house is going to
be in the neighborhood so I think there should be a condition of any variance if it granted a
variance to have a nitrogen reducing setback system. Also and knowing the history for fifty
years that I've been there I've never seen this family or any family plant anything on the subject
lot. I think a requirement for a condition of a variance of a detailed landscaping plan with native
plants for screening and affective flood control should be a requirement a condition of any
variance if it's granted. Contrary to the answer on question H of the ZBA Questionnaire
submitted with the application, the applicant does own other properties on Fleets Neck near
the subject property. That question was answered no. I have confirmed with the Assessor's
Office that the applicant also owns the lot immediately across Fleetwood Rd. on the north to
the north. Also owns property on Stillwater Ave. which is also in the neighborhood on Fleets
Neck. The lot across the street on Fleetwood Rd. which is also owned by the same applicant
separated just by the low lying Fleetwood Rd. is almost completely underwater at high tides
and during storms. Thus (inaudible) the adjacent neighbors is the creek. Shouldn't notice be
given to the Trustees?The proposed development would obviously increase the percentages of
the impermeable surfaces on the subject lot. Utility of any dry wells is extremely suspect. Very
recently the Town of Southold Highway Department constructed dry wells in an attempt to
correct frequent flooding of Fleetwood Rd. which to my personal knowledge I know it has been
aggravated if not caused by development of lots upstream on those streets. The water flows
from even the street above Hamilton, Glenwood Rd. there's a driveway there that I have seen
the water
a$
December 6, 2018 Regular Meeting
MEMBER DANTES : The honest answer to your question is that they will have to submit to the
Town Engineer for review to meet the storm water management code.
BENJA SCHWARTZ : Well the Highway Department didn't do that but the water table is very low
there.
MEMBER DANTES : I understand it something that will need to be addressed.
BENJA SCHWARTZ : Well I get it. They have a big family, they have a small lot and they have a
lot of money they want a big house but I think an alternative would be for them to buy a bigger
lot or build a smaller house. The proposed construction to build new buildings the house is in
my humble opinion not just waterfront it's almost in the water. The elevation of the entire
property is probably less than five feet above the sea level although the application states it's
not. I don't see any evidence of proof.
MEMBER DANTES : Well it's deemed Zone X by FEMA so according to the survey FEMA deemed
it as zone X and that's what we go by.
BENJA SCHWARTZ : Well I you know maybe that can be confirmed. I have some pictures here of
the corner of the property after a recent rain and I'll give them to you. The property itself has a
drainage problem in that front area. That's pretty much it. I just would thank you for taking
your time but please try to consider the community you know the house that Happy Hollow
there has been available as an affordable rental recently. The community is very close
community. We have a lot of diverse people but the new house would clearly change the socio
economic nature of the community and you know I hope that they do something that will be
good for their family there but they also have there's also a history on the property
immediately across the road the property which they bought there is a dock on that property
and there's also a right of way immediately adjacent to it and as a child I remember I used to
drive a car with a trailer back it down that right of way and use it as a launching ramp. Then the
neighbor on the other side of that right of way put up a retaining wall and the former owner of
the property that now belongs to the subject the applicant put up a split rail fence so now that
right of way is difficult to negotiate with a car. The only one whose done that in recent memory
is the next door neighbor who then used their own property to turn around and exit but I think
that right of way was originally known as a street and it's well established in deeds in the
neighborhood and it should be respected. The fact that the LoGrande's don't seem to you know
well I can understand they want the little fence there and I really have nothing against the
LoGrande's I do hope that they do get something but as the neighbor who just renovated that
beautiful house to the west mentioned to me the other day their asking for a bit much. Thank
you.
29
December 6, 2018 Regular Meeting
MEMBER DANTES : Is there anyone else who would like to speak to this application? Please be
brief.
NANCY SAWASTYNOWICZ : Good morning and thank you for listening to me. My name is Nancy
Sawastynowicz. My family has been in Cutchogue for a hundred year.
MEMBER DANTES : Please spell your name please.
NANCY SAWASTYNOWICZ : It's on my letter. (Spells name) After reviewing the LoGrande #7224
request for a variance from Article III Section 280-15 1 am here to ask this Board to disapprove
this application. The size of the proposed house and three car garage will create an undesirable
change of character to our neighborhood. It will set a precedent to overbuilding on small lots.
The LoGrande lot is the lowest part of our neighborhood. Year round it floods there. In the
winter it is very dangerous when the floods freeze and become ice. I have walked my dogs
around this area for years and it's only getting worse each year. The wetland across the street is
flooding more each year. Global warming is real. Living in Fleets Neck I see the impact each year
and it is getting worse. To build out that tiny lot will only cause more hard surface area which
will only make the flooding worse. The town has been working to try to fix the flooding but it
hasn't fixed it. The project is not fitting to our neighborhood. It will be so overbuilt that three
car garage two story garage does not fit into our neighborhood. Please do not approve this
oversized application. We are losing the character of the North Fork with overbuilding on small
lots. Thank you for your time.
MEMBER DANTES : Is there anyone else who would like to speak to this application?
TOMMY LAMBERT : Good morning, my name is Tommy Lambert I live at 4715 Pequash Ave. it's
the corner of Pequash and Fleetwood. I've lived there for thirty five years. One of the things I'm
concerned about is the workshop. What exactly is a workshop in a three car garage? Is it
mechanical workshop what is workshop?
MEMBER DANTES : The honest answer is it's permitted by the code I mean the definition for
workshop is in Marion Webster Dictionary and that's what the town goes by.
TOMMY LAMBERT : I have to look in Webster's Dictionary? Okay I'll do that. My other concern
is the size of the home. I live in a home that's 1,400, 1,500 hundred square feet three
bedrooms, one and a half baths on the same sized lot, how big is this family? I always hear it's a
big family. I don't understand you build a house because you have a big family? You get a
variance because you have a big family? It was mentioned earlier perhaps somebody look for a
different lot. They own other properties in the area and it's totally out of character. Sooner or
later people are going to come up and ask these little cottages that are there they're going to
301
December 6, 2018 Regular Meeting
ask for variances cause you set a precedent. That's all I have to say in the interest of brevity. I
hope I didn't bore ya.
MEMBER DANTES : Is there anyone else who would like to speak to the application?
DORIS ANDERSON : My name is Doris Anderson I live at 4715 Pequash Ave. Cutchogue. I don't
know about everything that Benja said, all I know is I see our little community changing quite
rapidly. Every time somebody buys a piece of property I go oh no another mcmansion is going
up here. I'm so afraid it's going to become the Hamptons and this beautiful place will never be
the same. Thank you.
MEMBER DANTES : Is there anyone else who would like to speak? Mike do you have anything?
MIKE KIMACK : I will try to be brief. To try to give some clarification to some of the concerns of
the people that made the presentations, if you look back at the site plan again the proposed
house sits within the permitted setbacks basically and it is not part of the variance request. I do
understand their concerns about the size and the magnitude. The LoGrande's have owned the
property for twenty three years. They perhaps have not been there as long as other people
have. It's not in the flood zone line it's not in the AE zone it's out of it. The first floor foundation
level is at 12 it's being raised up in order to make sure that it stays above the flood line zones.
It's also in terms of the overall we're not here before you for a permit that we exceed the
twenty percent coverage. The proposed house and the proposed garage including the existing
garage runs about 16% so it's not a factor it's permitted from the coverage point of view in
terms of how much you can get on that particular sized lot so it's well within the permitted use
requirements of the town code just to give that. Eric was absolutely right, we have to go to the
Town Engineer to get the storm water management plan approved. If you notice on the plan
there's a number of dry wells. It will have gutters and leaders and dry wells. The water table is
not that far down but the property is going to be raised up a bit in order to accomplish that in
order to have the house set up. The garage is sized with three cars simply because it's a large
family. It's under the old code, it's 747 sq. ft. Could it have made bigger I think the new one is
1,200 sq. ft. but that would have been number one outside of the character of what we're
trying to do here. They did it to meet the requirements of the family. It's not that they wanted
as much as they could under the old code for the 747 to have a three car garage and a
workshop above. The property basically the house itself as I said is not part of this and I can
understand the concerns of the neighborhood but it meets the LoGrande's requirements and
the conditions of the family use.
MEMBER ACAMPORA : Can you just clarify the size of the house because before it was stated
2,700 1 see in here it's 2,300.
31
December 6, 2018 Regular Meeting
MIKE KIMACK : If you look at it on top Mark has it on two floors primarily. I think one floor is
like 1,500 the proposed house area is 2,200 the two floors come up without the screened porch
comes up to a little over 2,700 sq. ft.
MEMBER ACAMPORA : Okay cause in here it says 2,364
MIKE KIMACK : That might be and then you might add the screened porch on top of that which
is about three hundred (inaudible) but it meets their requirements on their piece of property in
order to accommodate their family and their grandkids as simple as that. It doesn't exceed the
twenty percent coverage factor with the garage and everything like that. It's not before you
what is before you is the front yard variance request for the proposed garage (inaudible) and
it's the only place we actually could put the garage. We did meet the side yard setback on the
back side of it cause it lines up exactly with the house on that side but it didn't meet on the
front basically on the front side going forward. It was determined to be partially in the front by
the Building Department and that's why we're here.
MEMBER DANTES : Nick what were you going to say?
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Well actually Mike clarified a couple of points. I was going to remind
the members of the audience that it's not about lot coverage. Interestingly the individuals that
have similar sized lots are allowed the same benefit twenty percent lot coverage if you're
residential and accessory uses but I wanted to speak briefly to ask Mike a few questions that
have sort of come up in my dialogue listening to the audience and again reviewing the
application. Mike the first thing I wanted to quickly ask you to maybe verify, on the town tax
map well actually starting with the site plan it illustrates that the LoGrande's own two lots
which would have appeared to have been merged, lots 1 and 2. The notices went to
surrounding neighbors including lot 2 but not lot 3 which would be the adjacent property
owner. Can you explain?
MIKE KIMACK : I'm not quite sure. I mean in terms of who I sent certified mailings to?
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Yes you sent it to the applicant. If you look at the tax map where the
notices went and you should have a copy of this cause you I believe turned it in. Lot 1 is the
subject, lot 2 is clearly owned by the applicant. The adjacent property owners were noticed but
not lot 3. Right but isn't this lot 2 is the property according to the survey this is the applicant's
property which they're applying to place the garage on lot 2 and a house on lot 2 and they're
demolishing a house on lot 1. So why wasn't lot 3 noticed?
MIKE KIMACK : I don't know that would be the Zoning Board.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : So you're saying that staff in the office actually told you these people.
321
December 6, 2018 Regular Meeting
MIKE KIMACK : Mailings that's who I sent it to.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : So then it was an error that was made on our end?
BOARD SECRETARY : I think there's misunderstandings of what the subject lot was.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : So how do we get clarification but now we're aware that lot 2 is the
applicant that you would think that the applicant would say I'm mailing myself a notice, this
doesn't make sense.
MIKE KIMACK : Well what they did on here you're right they colored in one of the lots basically
they didn't color the whole thing in and they picked this up as the applicant.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Right and I think Kim from the office just indicated that she wasn't
aware that lot 2 was actually part of the application. So I don't know if there's a remedy, if lot 3
needs to be there's some sort of misunderstanding.
MIKE KIMACK : There's a misunderstanding because of the oddity of the size of the lot.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Does lot 3 need to be noticed?
MEMBER DANTES : Administratively.
MIKE KIMACK : I apologize because I know what I do is I look at this I don't look at anything else
basically I didn't do my assessments and such.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : So then another question that I had, when you're looking at the site
plan and I understand that the garage is partially in the building envelope and partially in the
side yard was there any consideration to actually rotate the garage to make it more
conforming?
MIKE KIMACK : Well we couldn't move it back any further because
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : No, no maintaining that I'm confused about my direction I guess
that's the east lot line.
MIKE KIMACK : You see where the barn is that's going to be knocked down Nick.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Exactly.
MIKE KIMACK : That's where the septic is going.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Right on the site plan but you still can rotate the proposed garage.
MIKE KIMACK : But then we'd be outside the 20 foot.
33
December 6, 2018 Regular Meeting
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : No you'd still follow that 20.2 line.
MIKE KIMACK : Rotate it how?
MEMBER DANTES : So he can get it back .2 feet is what 20 inches? I mean we're talking about 2
inches.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : No I think that you just rotate the garage so that the garage doors
face Hamilton Ave.
MEMBER DANTES : Oh I see what you're saying.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : And then you potentially well you'd certainly reduce the variance
request from 19 feet to whatever it would become.
MIKE KIMACK : Yeah but then you would set up a variance request on the back side.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : No you'd still have the 20 feet.
MIKE KIMACK : No, no, no the south side.
MEMBER LEHNERT : You would mitigate the drainage concerns to the south to the other
neighbor on Hamilton Ave.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : That was pretty much the thought. I just want to better understand
why the garage building cannot be rotated. You'd still maintain that side the 20 foot side yard
setback and if anything I mean it's a little unusual I would also argue to have a driveway
immediately on the property line with Happy Hollow.
MIKE KIMACK : Well if we took it and reduced it let me see
MEMBER DANTES : It would still be the non-conforming side yard location would be part of the
problem. I mean it makes the area with dimensional setbacks more but it's still I mean the issue
before us the non-conforming side yard setback and front yard setback so first we have to
address that before we can even get to the dimensional setbacks.
GREG BURDULIS : I'll be brief I didn't include this concern in my because I didn't think it was this
major but the fact that the bays actually face my house you know many people back up into
their driveways and can you imagine it's midnight coming home late and the headlights are
flashing straight on to my house while people are sleeping and that was a concern since it was
brought up. I wanted to just bring that up it's something that made me uncomfortable those
bays face my house Happy Hollow.
34
December 6, 2018 Regular Meeting
MIKE KIMACK : Nick if we turned it the way you had suggested that 36.8 would become about
25 and the 30 feet would become 19.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I'm sorry I don't follow your numbers.
MIKE KIMACK : Well what you want to do is take the garage and rotate it ninety correct so
(inaudible)
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Exactly.
MIKE KIMACK : Hamilton Ave. keep the 20 on the back side?
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Yes.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Well you're still 10 feet from the leaching pool.
MIKE KIMACK : Well no I mean that side wouldn't change but you'd be moving you turn it so
that the 36.8 I'm assuming that the garage would be closer to the south boundary line correct
under your analysis?
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I don't understand what 36.8 is. What number are you
MIKE KIMACK : What you want to do is turn it this way face it here
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Exactly, right.
MIKE KIMACK : This is 33 this is 22 there's an 11 foot difference between (inaudible) that would
reduce that by 11 feet and reduce this by
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I have this as 29.9
MEMBER LEHNERT : It would become 21
MIKE KIMACK : Become 21 and then I have a rear yard variance I mean I either got this front
yard partially here or I've got this back in here.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Right in trying to mitigate
MEMBER LEHNERT : Right you'd be mitigating this issue (inaudible)
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Well not just the drainage but my thought was from the headlights
standpoint disruption. You would still need a variance.
MIKE KIMACK : Still need a variance and it's not noticed as such. You guys will put me in in June.
35
December 6, 2018 Regular Meeting
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I heard somebody even suggest a reduced garage.
MIKE KIMACK : I heard that too.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Well again this is my concern I think there's still a question about the
use as far as what a workshop is and how they will use it.
MEMBER DANTES : I looked that up that's what I was doing on my phone I was just looking up
workshop and there is no definition in town code that I can find so then you go to the
dictionary and it just says a small establishment or manufacturing or handcrafts are carried on.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : And we know manufacturing is not a permitted use in a residential
zone.
MEMBER DANTES : I guess it would be where handcrafts are carried out.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : So I again Mike to that actual use whatever the handcraft might be a
little wood lathe or who knows what they might be doing up there as far as a hobby or passion
what if any you mentioned already that there will be no heat, no cooling will there be any sheet
rocking on the walls or flooring?
MIKE KIMACK : I don't know.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : My understanding in prior workshops are these are unfinished basis.
MIKE KIMACK : I would imagine that it probably would be an unfinished space.
MEMBER DANTES : Do you have anything Rob?
MEMBER LEHNERT : No.
MEMBER DANTES : Pat?
MEMBER ACAMPORA : No.
MEMBER DANTES : Anyone else in the audience that would like to speak?
NANCY SAWASTYNOWICZ : Nancy Sawastynowicz, that property is only used in the summer, is
that anywhere in the application that it's just going to be a summer residence?
MEMBER DANTES : No but as of right they're allowed to build a single family dwelling for year
round use or not.
NANCY SAWASTYNOWICZ : I know but it's so big, if it's just going to be for the summer.
36
December 6, 2018 Regular Meeting
MEMBER DANTES : That's going to be an issue for the Town Board as far as the size of cause
what they're doing is conforming under our current code so I can't I don't have the authority to
make it smaller.
NANCY SAWASTYNOWICZ : Okay thank you.
MEMBER DANTES : One thing I would like I think it goes to the front yard setback for the garage
is the information Mark Schwartz the architect gave to the Building Department as far as
MIKE KIMACK : I'll get Mark yeah how he got to the averaging okay cause that's what he has on
the envelope, he's got that 16 foot when he established the envelope and he used that as a
determination that they didn't need the setback along that line was fine and he kept the
building within the proposed envelope.
MEMBER DANTES : Because if we get past the front yard and side yard non-conforming location
then we'll start looking at dimensions.
MIKE KIMACK : Okay I'll get that information for you.
BENJA SCHWARTZ : Section two of the applicant's project description new construction areas I
tried with my math to figure out how the garage dimensions were calculated and I couldn't get
the same numbers instead of 747.5 1 got 749.8 instead of 564 it came to 652 it seems that the
numbers are circumvented.
MEMBER DANTES : Which numbers are you looking at?
BANJA SCHWARTZ : The applicant's project description at the beginning of the application
section two new construction areas and I didn't try to calculate them all because I'm not sure
how they
MEMBER DANTES : What they put on the survey is proposed garage 749.1 sq. ft., existing
garage 360 sq. ft. you're referring to that one?
BENJA SCHWARTZ : From the numbers here 32.6 and 23 it comes to 749.8 and it says here
747.5 so there's just discrepancies throughout that I think should be reviewed and checked.
MEMBER DANTES : Okay.
MEMBER ACAMPORA : I just have one more question, Mike (inaudible) we're keeping that
existing garage? Will it be used to store a car in are they going to use it as a garage?
MIKE KIMACK : No, no, no it's just a storage area they want to keep it as a storage area. That's
the reason for the new garage.
37
December 6, 2018 Regular Meeting
MEMBER ACAMPORA : For the three.
MIKE KIMACK : For the three and quite frankly I don't know what the barn was used for. I
imagine that was also probably storage and they probably have to take that out and put in the
other one.
MEMBER ACAMPORA : I just noticed there were too many buildings on.
MIKE KIMACK : Yeah a lot of buildings.
MEMBER DANTES : Hearing no further questions of comments I'm going to make a decision to
close the application subject to receipt of the information about the average front yard setback.
Is there a second?
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Excuse me also clarification about lot 3 to the I guess it was to the
west I'm confused.
MEMBER DANTES : I withdraw the application to close and I'll adjourn the hearing to the
Special Meeting in which time we'll make a decision whether to close and we'll figure out the
MIKE KIMACK : And by that time I'll have the information for you from Mark.
MEMBER DANTES : the average and we'll decide whether to close or not at the Special Meeting.
The Special Meeting is two weeks from today and it is an administrative meeting, you can sit
you can watch but we don't take testimony. Is there a second?
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Second.
MEMBER DANTES : All in favor?
MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye.
MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye.
MEMBER DANTES : Aye.
(See Minutes for Resolution)
38
December 6, 2018 Regular Meeting
HEARING #7225— DEBORAH OSTROSKY
MEMBER DANTES : The next application is for Deborah Ostrosky #7225. Request for a variance
from Article III Section 280-13A and the Building Inspector's August 9, 2018 Notice of
Disapproval based on an application for a building permit to make additions and alterations to
an existing accessory building at 1) more than the code permitted one dwelling on each lot; the
proposed construction constitutes a second dwelling unit in the accessory building at 1260 Koke
Drive in Southold. Is someone here to represent the application?
MIKE KIMACK : Michael Kimack on behalf of the applicant and the owner is present in the
audience. It's a fairly straightforward request. It's an existing garage. The applicant would like
to be able to create a workshop on the second floor. It's a relatively small area. It would be
dormered basically that would be in compliance there wasn't a variance requirement for that
since you increased the dormer from 40% to 80%that fell within that range. She would dormer
it up and there would be a half a bath up there and about 215 sq. ft. of workable space in order
to have the workshop and that would be it would be finished, insulated and heated.
MEMBER DANTES : Rob do you have any questions?
MEMBER LEHNERT : Not at this time.
MEMBER DANTES : Nick.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Yes, first I'd like to better understand what the applicant intends to
use the workshop for.
DEBORAH OSTROSKY : Deborah Ostrosky the owner of 1260 Koke Drive. I recently retired and
moved out to Koke Drive. I lived in a three bedroom house previously with a basement that had
a huge workable space for woodworking for quilting, for photography; those are three of my
primary hobbies and now I don't have that in my existing house so I'd like to have that
opportunity to continue those hobbies.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : The proposal includes a half bath so can you talk a little bit about
your septic or wastewater of maybe Mike could talk about the wastewater.
MIKE KIMACK : I can, basically it's going to be connected back both the water line and the
sewer line will be extended from the existing house. It'll be a the sewer line will be a pump
situation back to the existing house which will flow through the crawl space of the basement
into the septic which is on the other side and the waterline would be extended from the house
in order to serve it and that would be if you're looking at the drawing Nick here that would be
the house is here that would go down here and come over this way. Half baths are not
391
December 6, 2018 Regular Meeting
considered from a Health Department point of view they don't count bathrooms and the
reason they don't quite frankly is they count bedrooms. They normally figure two people on a
bed and they figure fifty gallons for each and they run their calculations that way. It's that the
same person using the house would be using the workshop so if they have to go to use either
facility it's the same end result quotient that's going into the septic. So it doesn't expand the
requirement that there be any change to the septic system.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Thank you and do you mind talking a little bit about interior finishes
to the workshop.
MIKE KIMACK : I believe it's going to be insulated and sheet rocked and
DEBORAH OSTROSKY : I would like it insulated and sheet rocked. I do things such as quilting or
things with fine finish work in woodworking like finishing boxes and things like that so I want
clean surfaces not ones that would create dust which an unfinished workshop would. The need
for a bathroom includes the ability to be able to wash up since I am using some chemicals.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : And will the workshop be heated or conditioned in any way?
MIKE KIMACK : Yes it would be.
DEBORAH OSTROSKY : Yes.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Heating and cooling or just heating?
MIKE KIMACK : Heating definitely I'm not quite sure if you have
DEBORAH OSTROSKY : I was more interested in cooling because in the summertime it makes
because it's the second floor it becomes a real hot box and that's also one of the reasons of the
need for insulation.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : And where would the mechanicals be located?
MIKE KIMACK : I imagine basically the mechanicals it would be probably if Deborah is looking
for a combination of heat and A/C will most likely be accomplished by a heat pump situation
which would be probably put on the backside where the
DEBORAH OSTROSKY : What's it called a Fujitsu units or
MIKE KIMACK : Well those are the splits. If you use a split unit the Mitsubishi splits the
compressor unit would be on the back side of the property basically which would be on that
side which is where the half bath is Nick on that backside of the wall.
401
December 6, 2018 Regular Meeting
MEMBER DANTES : I need to refocus the conversation a little bit cause you're saying it's a
workshop and workshop is a permitted use. The Building Department is saying that it's a
dwelling so what you would do to get this approved (inaudible) why is this not a dwelling that's
what we need to know.
DEBORAH OSTROSKY : It never was a dwelling and there's no intent to use it as a dwelling.
MEMBER DANTES : Why are they calling it out as a dwelling that's what I need to know.
MIKE KIMACK : You know that somewhat confused me when they wrote it up as such because it
simply was a second building and I think they looked at it as an accessory building being a
second dwelling unit. They used that as a general generic term but it was never a second
dwelling unit on the building on the property. It was always a garage, unfinished second floor
but I think
DEBORAH OSTROSKY : There is a C. 0. on the
MIKE KIMACK : And there is a C. 0. for it for as a garage so I don't know I think it was a generic
term simply because it was a second structure Eric that they use.
T. A. DUFFY : They know how to write accessory structures. They allow them all the time. Your
last application was about an accessory structure.
MIKE KIMACK : I don't know why they wrote dwelling.
T. A. DUFFY : Cause what you really have to argue that the Building Department is wrong and
ask this Board to overturn it or you're asking for a use variance.
MIKE KIMACK : No the Building Department is wrong. I mean it's not a dwelling.
T. A. DUFFY : That's what I'm saying you have to convince this Board to overrule the Building
Department if their decision was wrong or you argue for a use variance one of the two. It's not
an area variance.
DEBORAH OSTROSKY : I'm misunderstanding why would they have ever called it a dwelling? I'm
new to this process so
T. A. DUFFY : We're not the Building Department. We have a Notice of Disapproval that says it's
a second dwelling and that's what we're trying to get at.
MEMBER ACAMPORA : The building permit in 1969 says build new private accessory building
garage.
41
December 6, 2018 Regular Meeting
T. A. DUFFY : The Building Department says what they're proposing converting this from a
garage into a second dwelling.
MEMBER ACAMPORA : They're not looking at their own information.
MEMBER LEHNERT : Can I ask a question here about this, Mike can you speak to the closet
layout in the proposed bathroom cause I think this is where they're going.
MIKE KIMACK : Well the closet is probably Deborah can speak to the closet use more than I can.
I mean it's probably a function of just storing some of her supplies and some
DEBORAH OSTROSKY : Absolutely I've got the closets let me just take a look I don't even know
because of the tilt of the roof I think I put the closets close to the bathroom.
MEMBER LEHNERT : The ones in the bathrooms specifically says linen closet and a closet behind
that. If I was to just quick do the math you know if those walls weren't built there could be a
tub and a shower in there.
DEBORAH OSTROSKY : I have no intent for a tub and a shower. It really to me had to do with the
pitch of the roof and the pitch of the dormer and that made more sense to have closets there
and the bathroom out a little bit so that the bathroom had a full ceiling but the closets were
under the pitch of the roof.
MEMBER DANTES : So you don't have full head height in the closet?
DEBORAH OSTROSKY : Not in that little closet. I believe not I believe it'll be partially dormered I
don't think it will be full head height. The bathroom will be though.
MEMBER LEHNERT : It shows it at full head.
DEBORAH OSTROSKY : Oh maybe it will be maybe that was because of the change in the
MEMBER LEHNERT : Look at the section you have full head height the whole way.
MIKE KIMACK : I think it's 6' 11" Bob all the way 6' 11".
MEMBER LEHNERT : Yeah it's carrying that ceiling the entire way out to the plate.
MEMBER DANTES : What's the entrance, are you going to keep the existing staircase as the
entrance?
DEBORAH OSTROSKY : That staircase is a new staircase. The reason why the staircase is being
changed is cause right now it's kind of a steep pitch going up not necessarily safe in my future
use so that was why I wanted the stairway changed.
42
December 6, 2018 Regular Meeting
MEMBER ACAMPORA : I know when I went nobody was there so I never got to see the interior.
I don't know how many saw the interior?
MEMBER LEHNERT : I didn't get into the interior.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I was in the interior.
MEMBER DANTES : Is there anything up there?
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : It's completely unfinished. There are partition walls but it's clearly a
storage perhaps workspace but I don't remember seeing anything (inaudible) more storage.
DEBORAH OSTROSKY : I tried to empty out. It's really more storage than anything. I have zero
interest in making this a dwelling. This is not a dwelling. I didn't even realize that was in the
application that way which is probably part of the confusion here.
T. A. DUFFY : It's not in your application it's the Building Department's determination. They
looked at what you proposed and determined that it's a second dwelling. That's what we're
trying to get at why they would have done that.
DEBORAH OSTROSKY : I don't know why to be honest I don't know why they would have done
that and nobody asked me about that.
T. A. DUFFY : Did you have any conversations with the Building Department about this?
MIKE KIMACK : I think when I talked to them generally I looked at it also and when I saw the
dwelling they basically I think when they signed off on the disapproval basically looked at it as
being a second building and that you know they didn't take into consideration the workshop
they just put down dwelling and it was incorrect. I apologize, I probably should have gotten
back and probably asked for them to reconsider their determination at the time but I thought
writing up because we were presenting it as a workshop cause we have the C. of 0. as Pat had
indicated it was granted as a garage the up area has always been storage. It's not big enough
for an apartment anyway. It wouldn't meet any of the code requirements for anything in that
situation and we were coming in for a workshop under an area use variance so you know as far
as that was concerned I thought that would be sufficient in order to keep it on track.
MEMBER DANTES : How many square feet is it upstairs?
MIKE KIMACK : Average area 210 sq. ft. I think you know if you want to do a rental a rental is
what 650 minimum?
MEMBER DANTES : For an apartment?
431
December 6, 2018 Regular Meeting
MIKE KIMACK : Yeah.
T. A. DUFFY : You get down to 350.
MIKE KIMACK : We're not even there Bill so it's not a big area at all. I think they misapplied the
language.
MEMBER DANTES : No I mean the fact it's a very gray area of the code as far as they list all the
uses but then there's no real definition of dwelling uses
DEBORAH OSTROSKY : I just heard that in the last hearing the definition of a workshop
MEMBER DANTES : Definition of a dwellings are also somewhere.
MIKE KIMACK : Well it's the nature of your business I mean. I mean Bill struggles with this every
day and I do struggle with it too. When I come up with an application that has a different way
to apply to the code that has not perhaps been done before I've got to go back to the definition
and try to come up with some way with which I can explain it enough so that I can apply it the
same way you would apply it so that my consideration of the interpretation would be the same
as yours and it's not easy because each of these applications that come before you have
somewhat of a different twist to them as the last three or four would suggest to you.
MEMBER DANTES : Do any of the members have any questions? Anyone in the audience who
would like to speak, please step forward.
GAIL SHIMOW : My name is Gail Shimow I live at 400 Meadow Ct. the Cove in Southold. I'm
here with my neighbor and this building
MEMBER DANTES : What's your name ma'am?
KATHLEEN MCCABE : I'm sorry my name is Kathleen McCabe.
MEMBER DANTES : And you guys wrote a letter right?
GAIL SHIMOW : No there should be a letter from the Burkes.
KATHLEEN MCCABE : There are four units that are directly behind this building.
GAIL SHIMOW : Very close.
KATHLEEN MCCABE : Very, very close. We really our concern is the use of the building and the
biggest concern is now talking about the heat and the air conditioning, those units will be
behind the building which we're practically on our deck. Secondly the size of the closets and
you know indicate there certainly could be a shower. I understand that the owner says that
December 6, 2018 Regular Meeting
she's not going to do that but there's no guarantee that that's not going to be an Air B&B or
something. That's our only concern.
GAIL SHIMOW : Yeah when we got this (inaudible) and everything the first thing that we looked
at was gee this looks like it could be you know a small little apartment for somebody and
possibly rentable in high season or low season or as an Air B&B which would obviously
negatively impact our quality of life in terms of where it's located, cars driving in. I don't know
whether anybody was on the Cove property to actually see how close this building is but we
have a limited common area behind our decks which is considered our back yards which in you
know in our bylaws and that area is literally right up against the back of that building. So that's
what our main concern was and now having it explained to us the whole workshop thing we
understand now what a workshop is because we were questioning what kind of machinery
might be in there but it's up to you to decide whether or not this might be used for rental at
some point and that was our only concern.
MEMBER DANTES : It can't be used as a rental not legally. Illegally I can't guarantee you that
but it can't be legally used as one.
GAIL SHIMOW : But your decision as to whether or not it is
MEMBER DANTES : It's not even before us (inaudible)
GAIL SHIMOW : So if it is considered a dwelling then a second dwelling which was originally
rejected when it was first put in
MEMBER DANTES : We're not going to approve a second dwelling.
GAIL SHIMOW : Okay so in essence then this would not constitute a second dwelling?
MEMBER DANTES : We're not going to approve a second dwelling. We still have to figure out
what constitutes a second dwelling.
GAIL SHIMOW : Okay then (inaudible) questions I think.
MEMBER DANTES : It won't be approved as a rental.
GAIL SHIMOW : Right but if somebody came onto the Cove property which we would welcome
just to see how close the back of this building
MEMBER DANTES : We were all there.
GAIL SHIMOW : Oh you were?
45
December 6, 2018 Regular Meeting
MEMBER DANTES : Yes.
GAIL SHIMOW : Okay thank you.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Just a point I noticed on the Suffolk County tax map there's actually a
strip of land between the Cove and the subject property how wide is that strip?
KATHLEEN MCCABE : I think it's about 5 feet.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : It's super narrow.
DEBORAH OSTROSKY : It's really (inaudible) for power lines and stuff like that.
KATHLEEN MCCABE : It's so strange because it goes from that house down
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : So it belongs to the house that's on the corner of Koke Dr.?
MEMBER DANTES : It's got a tax number.
GAIL SHIMOW : It goes from Main Bayview all the way back. Our property is at least six feet
lower than Koke Dr.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : You can see it clearly when you're at the subject property the units in
the back.
GAIL SHIMOW : So there's no way for us to even begin to measure how far away we were from
the back of the garage because of the elevation. We physically couldn't but it's pretty close so
you know I would be concerned I guess if there were a heat pump and air conditioning unit at
the back of the unit which would make a good amount of noise because I know we all have heat
pumps so we're aware of what they're like and in the summer time we're on our decks that
could be you know annoying and as I said impact our quality of life because in the summer time
all four units we're always on our decks. Thank you for listening to us we appreciate it.
MEMBER DANTES : Anyone else?
DEBORAH OSTROSKY : I just want to add that the need for heating and cooling makes it possible
for me to use that structure on an ongoing basis. If I don't have heating or cooling there I'll only
be able to use the craft room in May and September and October you know and not at other
times of the year so that's
MEMBER DANTES : Any Board members have any
MIKE KIMACK : Can I just point out one thing, if there was a concern I know it's not shown on
here but if there was a concern about putting the heat pump or an AC unit outside it can be
46
December 6, 2018 Regular Meeting
screened. It could be so that it would lessen, the newer units tend to have a fairly low decibel
range in terms of their output. Probably be forty to fifty db's at the borderline.
MEMBER DANTES : Here's what I'd like to do, you guys can go back to the Building Department
and see if there's any changes you can make where they'll say that it's not a dwelling and this
whole thing just goes away. If there are no acceptable changes give us a letter saying what the
changes they wanted and what's not acceptable and then we'll make a decision.
MIKE KIMACK : I think we can convince the Building Department that there might have been an
oversight in terms of the language that they used because it was never a dwelling to being with.
MEMBER DANTES : You're not the only application coming in front of us, there's more coming
and it's something we're going to have to make a decision on. We just need more information
on which to make it.
MIKE KIMACK : Okay I'll do that. Are you going to adjourn to the Special and we'll get that
information up to you.
MEMBER DANTES : Motion to adjourn the application to the Special Meeting in two weeks.
MEMBER ACAMPORA : Second.
MEMBER DANTES : All in favor?
MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye.
MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye.
MEMBER DANTES : Aye.
(See Minutes for Resolution)
HEARING#7219—ANDREW and LINDA TOGA
MEMBER DANTES : The next application is Andrew and Linda Toga #7219. Request for a
variance from Article XXIII Section 280-124 and the Building Inspector's May 16, 2018 Amended
August 1, 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) located less than the code
required minimum rear yard setback of 50 feet at 2425 Mill Creek Drive (adj. to Arshamomaque
Pont) in Southold. Is there anyone here to represent the application?
47
December 6, 2018 Regular Meeting
BRUCE ANDERSON : Bruce Anderson for the applicants Linda and Andrew Toga. Mr. and Mrs.
Toga intend to are proposing to demolish a sun room that's in the front of the building facing
the water which was installed as a kit back in the sixties and enlarged their home there that
space is 14.25 by 23 feet and they wish to construct a second floor addition over that space and
over the one story building. They wish to expand the garage and propose an at grade wood
deck to the west of the premises. The property is improved by the one story 39 by 38 house
inclusive of this full enclosed sun room which is a patio with a glass structure that sits on top.
The applicant will also abandon the existing cesspool and they would install an alternative
septic system behind the building towards the road. This is a waterfront lot and when you look
at the survey the water is of course where the dock is on the southerly part but also it bends
around to the west so we have water on two sides of this house. It is in an R40 zone but it
contains 18,945 sq. ft. which makes the lot pre-existing non-conforming dwelling. So the
Building Department applies the regulations set forth in 280-124 relating to non-conforming
lots and a lot that is between of this size the minimum rear yard setback is supposed to be 50
feet. However the existing house today is 41 feet back from the rear lot line and there is no
encroachment towards that rear lot line. We're simply going up in that location. The
neighborhood consists of one story and two story homes of similar size and in some cases there
are detached garages and in other cases the garages are attached as this case. We also know
that directly adjacent to the property was a property owned by Joe and Dottie Aureck and they
came before this Board in 2003 requesting a variance, I'm going to hand that variance up and
for the record these are the neighbors directly adjacent to the subject premises and the
variance decision there's a couple of interesting point which is that it recognizes the condition
of the neighborhood for many of these pre-existing non-conforming conditions. In that case
they were trying to legalize a deck that was a 16 foot deck that was built 19 feet from the rear
property line noting that house was already at 35 feet from the rear property line the southerly
property line adjacent to the water. So this property is actually set back further than the
adjacent property to the west. So we believe it's our position the variance that we request
should be granted because there would be no impact to the character to the neighborhood
because the encroachment there is no encroachment towards the rear yard. The fact that a
second story would be added to the dwelling does not impact the neighborhood because the
rear yard is actually the water so there is no adjacent property owner to the rear yard to be
impacted. A benefit cannot be achieved by any other method other than a variance because a
rear yard setback has already been established by the existing dwelling and the goal here is not
to knock down the dwelling but to utilize the dwelling that already exists on the property. We
believe the variance is not substantial in relationship to the pre-existing setbacks. The variance
relief we calculated 18% of the requirement and that the granting of a variance will not have an
adverse effect on the physical or environmental conditions of the neighborhood because we've
employed all the best management practices in the redevelopment of this property and those
4$
December 6, 2018 Regular Meeting
would include the abandonment of a cesspool and the installation of the alternative system
which is located between the house and the rear. We show drywells and full runoff control and
will comply with the town's runoff and storm water management guidelines. We will control
any erosion impacts by employment of silt fences and hay bales and the like. We do not require
any fill to be brought on the property although there will be some grading relating to the
project. I know that the project has been deemed consistent with the town's LWRP and you
have a memo in your file to that effect and the hardship of course is not self-created because
the house is already non-conforming with respect to its location relevant to the rear yard.
Therefore it's our contention that the applicant if the variance is granted would outweigh any
detriment to the public health, safety and welfare to the neighborhood and community in
which it lies. Our benefit obviously is we would enjoy the benefit of a redeveloped property
which would include a second story and an expanded garage and we submit there are no
detriments to the surrounding neighborhood or to the neighborhood that surrounds the
property. That is sort of the nuts and bolts of this application. We believe for those reasons the
variance should be granted and of course I'm here to answer any questions you may have.
MEMBER DANTES : Do you need to apply to the Trustees?
BRUCE ANDERSON : We tried to but we're unable to, we must come here first and upon I will
say this, in one of the variances we've done we've been placed on very tight time frames so if
the Board is to grant the variance I want you to understand that we're probably nine months
away from applying for a building permit and that is because after leaving here we have to go
to the Trustees and if we get passed the Trustees project we're under the Health Department
where we need Board of Review approval and the reason for that is that the septic system is
less than a hundred feet from surface waters and that process is going to take us five to six
months. So if you add all that up we would be applying for a building permit approximately nine
months from now. So please take note of that.
MEMBER DANTES : Why can't you just put the septic system on the other side of the property?
BRUCE ANDERSON : It has to go between the house and the road for access.
MEMBER DANTES : Oh I thought you said the rear yard sorry.
BRUCE ANDERSON : No the septic can't go anywhere but where it can and there's just no other
way to do it actually.
MEMBER DANTES : So what you're applying for is a second story over an existing first story?
BRUCE ANDERSON : Exactly. We are removing the sunroom which is technically a first and
second story addition.
491
December 6, 2018 Regular Meeting
MEMBER DANTES How close are you to being considered a demolition? I'm just asking
because
BRUCE ANDERSON : We don't believe we have a demolition. I tell you what I've done is I've
asked the client to consult with his architects and engineers to make sure that the structure can
support the second story. I've been assured that that's the case and I've advised the applicant
that if you know you're going to knock down more than what's shown on the plans which
consists of obviously the wall in the rear because you gotta connect the garage to the house
and obviously there has to be a change to the we have to install a beam adjacent to the
sunroom because that's going to go and we have to construct a perimeter wall system there.
The definition of demolition reads that any removal of a structure or partial thereof where the
total cost of the reconstruction of the structure or portion thereof exceeds fifty percent of the
market value of existing structure before the start of removal, that's how it reads and we're
confident we're well underneath that. But as I've explained to the client and I've explained to
this Board and I'll go through the same to the Trustees if it becomes more that that we know to
stop and come back to the Town but we don't anticipate that being the case.
MEMBER DANTES : I'm just asking because the Building Department has been sending people
back to us.
BRUCE ANDERSON : I understand that.
MEMBER DANTES : I'm sure it's a complete nightmare to the contractor and the people.
BRUCE ANDERSON : Even the present definition is not a great definition. I mean the old days we
used to be able to knock down everything but one wall. Then we used to knock down a wall and
replace it as we worked our way around the perimeter of the house and I think the reason why
that was objectionable to local regulators is because it defeated the ability to perhaps relocate
a structure away from a natural resource like a bluff, like a wetland something like here, but
even if I had to come back to you I suspect the result would be the same because for example if
you said I want you to move it further from eight feet from the rear lot line you would then be
causing me to relocated my development tighter and closer to the wetlands and we're already
like 40 feet from the wetlands. So I suspect the result would be the same even if I were to say
to you I'm demolishing all of the house. As I said I don't anticipate that to be the case but I also
don't know (inaudible) there are not alternatives available to the applicant and that's important
to note because the property narrows as you go from where the house is to where the street is
because of waters and wetlands.
MEMBER ACAMPORA : Are they going to keep that existing shower that's there?
BRUCE ANDERSON : The shower shall be removed.
so
December 6, 2018 Regular Meeting
MEMBER ACAMPORA : It' going to be removed.
BRUCE ANDERSON : Yes.
MEMBER ACAMPORA : Also the garage, upon inspecting the property I mean I see where they
want to make the garage bigger but why would you still have the garage door facing north? It's
kind of a really hard way to configure a car to get into that garage. Why wouldn't they just if
they're extending the garage just pull into the garage?
BRUCE ANDERSON : Because we don't want to drive over the septic system to get there. That's
where the septic system and all the (inaudible) is.
MEMBER ACAMPORA : I see where you have some of that but I just think
BRUCE ANDERSON : You have your distribution box, you have your digester, you have your
electronic box, you have your vents directly north of the proposed garage so you wouldn't and
you have a turning radius of 27.4 feet between the garage and the side lot line.
MEMBER ACAMPORA : I wouldn't like to be backing my big SUV out of that garage it wouldn't
happen. You have to have a smaller car or you'd be in the neighbor's side yard.
MEMBER DANTES : Can you put the alternative systems under a driveway is it possible?
BRUCE ANDERSON : It's another variance.
MEMBER DANTES : From?
BRUCE ANDERSON : Health Department.
MEMBER DANTES : Do the alternatives come with drivable lids?
BRUCE ANDERSON : Excuse me.
MEMBER DANTES : The alternative systems I don't know much about them I know some are
plastic some are they're not same as the concrete I'm asking are they engineered to be driven
on?
BRUCE ANDERSON : Are they engineered well the galley system is traffic bearing. The digester
all has to be accessible from the surface so you can't really drive over those.
MEMBER LEHNERT : Also it's plastic.
BRUCE ANDERSON : They're plastic, they have a plastic lid on them and they have to be
accessed. There's a unit that is installed on the top of it which needs servicing so you can't pave
51L
December 6, 2018 Regular Meeting
over it you can't drive over that portion of the septic system. You can over the leaching pools
because those are traffic bearing.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Leslie actually emailed me a question, she was concerned Leslie our
Chairwoman had a concern over an oak tree at the front of the house, is there any discussion as
far as disturbance to trees removal?
BRUCE ANDERSON : Cannot be saved.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : So that oak tree is going.
BRUCE ANDERSON : Has to because and it's unsafe now because it's limbs extend over the
existing house and it would be impossible to save that oak tree. We thought of that as well. We
discussed that with the client.
MEMBER LEHNERT : I think Eric covered what I was going to ask about potential demolition. It
just looks to be substantial structural work on this house and that was my question.
MEMBER DANTES : Anyone else in the audience who would like to speak? Hearing no further
question I'd like to make a motion to close the application reserve decision to a later date.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Second.
MEMBER DANTES : All in favor?
MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye.
MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye.
MEMBER DANTES : Aye.
(See Minutes for Resolution)
HEARING#7228— RICHARD and SIOBHAN HANS
MEMBER DANTES : The next application is for Richard and Siobhan Hans #7228. Request for
variances from Article XXIII Section 280-124 and the Building Inspector's August 9, 2018 Notice
of Disapproval based on an application to legalize an "as built" deck addition attached to an
existing single family dwelling at 1) located less than the code required minimum side yard
setback of 15 feet, 2) located less than the code required minimum combined side yard setback
52
December 6, 2018 Regular Meeting
of 35 feet at 2125 Pine Tree Rd. (adj. to Little Creek) in Cutchogue. Is there anyone here to
represent the applicant?
BRUCE ANDERSON : Bruce Anderson of Suffolk Environmental Consulting. I'm going to hand up
three exhibits. The first is a revised survey. We received word from Kim Fuentes who wanted
there's a second shed on the property. One of the members was down there and (inaudible) so
we amended the survey to depict that. It was shown on the previous record before the Building
Department and for some reason no one every required it to put that on the survey so I do
have that and we do not have a coverage issue. I believe the coverage calculates to about 11%.
The second thing I want to hand up is an old survey from 1995 by Robert Van Tuyl that shows
what was there way back when. This is a deck that was constructed so this will give you a little
history on it. The last think I want to hand up also is a Trustees Certificate of Compliance which
was obtained in 2014 for the deck that exists today and that has plans attached to it. It also has
a survey where they had that shed sketched in but the plan shows the deck is existing and they
went in and resurfaced it and installed handrails. What we have here is (inaudible) that can be
determined based on the survey by Van Tuyl that I handed up is that the then existing deck
contained (inaudible) a side yard setback (inaudible) today and the Board will observe that the
southern edge of the deck (inaudible) line up with the house and that the circular shape on that
Van Tuyl survey (inaudible) the same setback as the squared off deck that exists today. It was
noted previously as a porch and I don't know exactly when the porch became a deck but
obviously sometimes prior to 2014 sometime between 1995 and 2014 (inaudible) again the
Trustees they applied to the Trustees they received a Certificate of Compliance for the deck and
that is the deck that exists today. A permit to replace the decking with the railing (inaudible) to
come to this Board at the time they did not. The property sold exchanged hands and the
property owners are trying to bring up the (inaudible) the Certificate of Compliance for banking
reasons. (inaudible) square that off with the bank and that's why we are here today. For me it's
more or less it's a housekeeping type application. The current survey depicts the deck 14.4 feet
from the southerly lot line and 16.3 feet from the northerly lot line causing compliance side
yard setback of 30.7 feet where 35 feet is required. So we're asking for relief of 0.6 feet from
the southerly lot line and a reduction or relief of 4.3 feet from the total side yard. The
neighborhood is residential in character. Generally consists of similar sized lot. If you refer to
the tam map you will note that except for the one double lot that's next door all these lots
range from (inaudible) something like 68 to 71 feet so I suspect many of the homes and their
decks will (inaudible) side yard setbacks and total side yard setbacks if you go down the street
they do front on Little Creek which is a tidal wetland and they are waterfront lots and most
people having a house would want a deck facing the water obviously in that neighborhood and
probably any other neighborhood. We believe a variance should be granted because there's no
impact to the character of the neighborhood. This deck has existed for many years without any
53
December 6, 2018 Regular Meeting
complaints or any problems that we're aware of regarding this and that the deck is really
actually more distant from the side lot line than the house. In other words the house is wider
than the deck. The benefits sought cannot be achieved by any other method other than an area
variance cause the deck exists. It exists in the present form, it's framed in that fashion, it sits on
footings that are on the perimeter of the deck so it's (inaudible) for we have to remove the
deck to reduce (inaudible) We submit the variance is not substantial in relationship to the
requirement as the individual 0.6 foot setback relief constitutes 2.6% of the requirement
whereas the total side yard of 30.4 where 35 percent is required constitutes 12.3% of the
requirement and that the granting of a variance will not have an adverse effect on the physical
and environmental conditions of the neighborhood. Note that in your file you have a referral
from the LWRP and you'll see that it's exempt from LWRP review and obviously it's already
been approved by the Trustees. The hardship is not self-created from our standpoint because it
was purchased (inaudible) previous owner and we're trying to clean up the situation that has
existed (inaudible) so therefore it's our contention (inaudible) the Board to grant the variance
to allow the deck to remain as is without (inaudible) get to keep the deck without causing a
whole lot of disturbance and reconstruction for something that is (inaudible). That concludes
my
MEMBER DANTES : I'd like to make a comment. If you look at the Certificate of Occupancy
dated July 27, 1973 #5330 (inaudible) to the back it says existing porch and new porch and the
existing porch and new porch I mean I can't call this exactly the same as what you're applying
for today but there was definitely a porch. It looks like it was similar in size there in 1973 that
was C.O'd.
BRUCE ANDERSON : It think it was just slightly smaller.
MEMBER DANTES : And then you got this other survey that has this little circular thing on it
which is not on the 1973 drawing and I don't really know the definition between a porch and a
deck. That's basically all that I have, Rob?
MEMBER LEHNERT : Just a small housekeeping matter but can you just speak to the fact that
the plans and the survey portion of the deck really don't match. I mean they do overall but you
got cutoff corners on the survey, you're not showing the indentations and it's not (inaudible)
the overall numbers.
BRUCE ANDERSON : Well if you look at the plans attached to the Trustees you'll see that the
side yard setbacks plus and minus, they're hand drawn. I don't think they were done by a
design professional I don't know who did it.
MEMBER LEHNERT : The plans, they're stamped by an architect.
54
December 6, 2018 Regular Meeting
BRUCE ANDERSON : Which ones are you talking about the ones I submitted or the ones no I'm
talking about (inaudible)
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I think what Rob is talking about are Nigel's drawings.
MEMBER LEHNERT : Yeah Nigel's drawings showing something slightly I mean it doesn't affect
the numbers but it's slightly different than the survey both surveys.
MEMBER DANTES : Which one is more accurate?
BRUCE ANDERSON : I'd go by the survey.
MEMBER ACAMPORA : I mean they show a garage on the drawing here but I don't believe they
use that as a garage.
BRUCE ANDERSON : No they use it for storage. It was a garage there was an apron on it.
MEMBER ACAMPORA : Yeah but there's no you can see there's no cars going in that garage. But
they do have a hot water heater in there.
MEMBER DANTES : Is there anyone else who would like to speak, anyone in the audience? Any
other Board members have any questions?
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Yeah I think just to Pat's comments about the garage, first I'm pretty
sure that we have the new survey that (inaudible) the shed but it doesn't illustrate the outdoor
shower. I don't know if a permit is required or not, there's an outdoor shower on the end of the
garage the opposite end by the water heater so I don't know there is a permit needed for that
and then there's a question that I think somebody needs to either update the garage and get a
new permit perhaps there's a workshop or who know what it would be cause it's clearly not a
garage. Other than that I don't have anything to add.
MEMBER DANTES : What is the garage used for do you know?
BRUCE ANDERSON : I think there's a room with a television in it.
MEMBER ACAMPORA : Yeah there's like a day bed in there. It looks like there's carpeting.
MEMBER DANTES : The Building Department has to inspect the deck anyway so they can take a
look at it and whether they refer it to us is up to them.
BRUCE ANDERSON : We'll do anything (inaudible) it's not a living accommodation there's no
bath or anything like that (inaudible)
55
December 6, 2018 Regular Meeting
MEMBER DANTES : Anyone else have any questions? Hearing no further questions I'd like to
make a motion to close the application and reserve decision for a later date.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Second.
MEMBER DANTES : All in favor?
MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye.
MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye.
MEMBER DANTES : Aye.
(See Minutes for Resolution)
HEARING #7220—JANE SMERGLIA
MEMBER DANTES : The next application Jane Smerglia #7220. Request for a variance from
Article XXIII Section 280-124 and the Building Inspector's July 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) located less than the code required minimum front yard
setback of 35 feet at 225 Sigsbee Rd. in Mattituck.
MERYL KRAMER : Hi Meryl Kramer the architect and I'm representing the owner. This is a very
small lot 7,000 sq. ft. and a very small house. The reason for the request of the front porch and
therefore the front yard setback variance. It's two fold, the first is a very plain looking house
and the owner just wants to upgrade it and make it look a little bit more presentable. It's one of
the homely houses on the street that hasn't been improved. I think all of the neighbors are
actually happy about this. I was actually staking and putting up the notice and the neighbor
next door was happy to hear that we were doing something to improve the visibility of this
property. So that was the first reason and the second is that the owners the wife is has
(inaudible) disease and she's very concerned about lymes so she wants to be able to sit outside
but not be on the grass to be (inaudible) tick bites. Yeah if you're up on pavement I mean up
raised you have less vulnerability than if you were to sit in the grass. So if you have any
questions I'm here to answer. It's a very modest application it's five foot deep porch so we have
a place to put a chair and a table and for your coffee cup or something. She's trying to be a
good neighbor and face the street and make it more presentable than it is right now.
MEMBER DANTES : You're not going to demolish the house right?
56
December 6, 2018 Regular Meeting
MERYL KRAMER : No.
MEMBER DANTES : No believe me we ask the people they say no, no, no and six months later
we see them back they've demolished the house and they have to get another variance so I'm
just trying to get it out of the way.
MERYL KRAMER : It's a front porch variance I mean addition.
MEMBER DANTES : Believe me we've heard it.
MEMBER LEHNERT : We have one down the road.
MEMBER DANTES : So we just want to get it out of the way.
MERYL KRAMER : No I can't even convince her to re-shingle the entire house right now cause
they only have enough money to re-shingle two sides so they are
MEMBER DANTES : No I just wanted to get it out of the way just so we don't have to see it again
in six months.
MERLY KRAMER : I don't want to be here in six months.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Meryl would you take a minute and just discuss some other
applications where relief was granted for similar type of improvements.
MERYL KRAMER : I don't know I know we presented them to you, I don't know if I let me see if I
have them here because they were adjacent properties not adjacent but nearby properties that
also granted similar variances. I have to see if I can find it here I'm sorry. We did include them
with our variance application let me see. Okay so you can see from the location map which is
page thirteen of our application that there's a property on Marlene Lane which is behind the
subject property and over two that had a ZBA variance for a front yard setback of similar
distance that's 1000-143-2-24. You can also see the neighboring property 1000-143-2-7 from
the aerial has a similar porch on the front but they did not receive a variance and we looked so I
think that might have been done before the code was being enforced I'm not sure but it's
clearly it will be similar setback to that property.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : You had mentioned also the homeowner has an aversion to ticks I
think we all do but was there any consideration Leslie had inquired me to maybe discuss the
reduction of the porch size not the depth but instead of it running the width of the house it
would be a lesser it would still be the same setback variance but it would be a lesser I guess
intrusion visually. The porch is running the width of the house
57
December 6, 2018 Regular Meeting
MERYL KRAMER : The whole way. I think it looks simpler and cleaner that way rather than to be
more of a bump. We were trying to integrate the existing roof and not have it be kind of a
projection onto the front. We were trying to incorporate it and have it be more seamless rather
than look like
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : And is that more typical of houses in the general area to have a porch
like that?
MERYL KRAMER : I think I wouldn't want to base my design on houses in the area. I find them to
be not very attractive and CVS is right next door so we can't exactly judge that. The existing
windows also that was the other reason for making the porch the same width as the house, it
has a picture window with two flanking windows on either side so if you're coming in the porch
would kind of bisect those windows and I think that would look odd. We are replacing them
because they are extremely old and they are broken and leaking but we're replacing them in
kind and in place we're not changing the size.
MEMBER LEHNERT : I have no questions.
MEMBER ACAMPORA : No I'm good.
MEMBER DANTES : Nick? Anything else Meryl?
MERYL KRAMER : I don't know whether if the Board is requesting that we look at the design
again or it was just a we did look at making it smaller but like I said because of the way the
windows the existing windows were configured
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : You created balance.
MEMBER DANTES : I don't have an issue with it.
MERYL KRAMER : If you don't have any further questions then I have no further comments.
MEMBER DANTES : Seeing that there's no one in the audience to speak I'll make a motion to
close the hearing reserve decision to a later date.
MEMBER ACAMPORA : Second.
MEMBER DANTES : Aye.
MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye.
MEMBER DANTES : Aye.
S8
December 6, 2018 Regular Meeting
(See Minutes for Resolution)
HEARING #7221— MMC REALTY 2 FAMILY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
MEMBER DANTES : The next application is MMC Realty 2 Family Limited Partnership #7221.
Request for a variance from Article III Section 280-13A and the Building Inspector's June 12,
2018 Notice of Disapproval based on an application to legalize "as built" alterations to an
accessory building at 1) more than the code permitted one dwelling on each lot; the proposed
construction constitutes a second dwelling unit in the accessory building at 7625 Nassau Point
Rd. (adj. to Little Peconic Bay) in Cutchogue. Kim said there was an issue with the mailings.
BOARD SECRETARY : I think you missed a mailing.
PAT MOORE : Yes we very much apologize. There was one that we missed. We sent we posted
and we sent the certified mailings but one was missed so we'll have to get a new date and
resend the notice out to complete the service. We're here and my client just wanted to briefly
just apologize to the Board for our mistake. It was truly it was our clerical error and if you give
me a new date I will we're ready to proceed.
BOARD SECRETARY : The next available date is May. I'm going to try to squeeze you in if
possible.
PAT MOORE : This is going to be probably a ten minute discussion on the hearing because it's
just a storage building, pool house with storage.
BOARD SECRETARY : Let me see what I can do here. February 71n
PAT MOORE : That's fine thank you.
BOARD SECRETARY : I don't know about the time but it would be the last hearing on that day.
PAT MOORE : That's fine.
UNNAMED SPEAKER : I just want to apologize for the mix up. The person who wasn't served
was my good friend and next door neighbor who probably could have gotten an affidavit for
you today but I know some of you took the time out to come to the premises and take a look at
it. I'm sure you've seen a hundred of them over the course of your travels and if you need to
come again you're welcome please. Just let us know and we'll make the accommodations cause
you may forget what it looks like and need to see it again and some of you have not had the
chance to look at it please come look. Thank you.
59
December 6, 2018 Regular Meeting
PAT MOORE : Did you need me to re-serve the others that were previously served or just the
one that we missed?
BOARD SECRETARY : There were some concerns with the other mailings as far as getting to the
post office for some reason.
PAT MOORE : No, no they all went to the post office it's just and they were sent out. We think
that maybe some of the maybe one or two of them have forwarding addresses because we use
the post office program to put the mail address everything so everything is done just like we
always do it but now with a lot of people who are sending forward mail it takes longer for them
to get it so what we can do is send the certified letters a little earlier just to give them time.
BOARD SECRETARY : It's just very confused cause I have this tracking where Southold received
one of the mailings on December 4th after it was mailed on November 8th so it was kind of odd I
don't know.
PAT MOORE : If the post office puts it somewhere I can't tell you. We put it in the mail delivery
and after that it's out of our control.
BOARD SECRETARY : I think we should redo them again.
PAT MOORE : That's fine it's only three or four people so that's fine.
BOARD SECRETARY : It's a green card return receipt.
PAT MOORE : Oh yea we send out for green cards and we haven't gotten the green cards yet.
Partly now the mail right now with Christmas and Holidays and yesterday no mail delivery so
we didn't get anything yesterday cause federal services were closed.
MEMBER DANTES : So motion to adjourn till February.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Second.
MEMBER DANTES : All in favor?
MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye.
MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye.
MEMER DANTES : Aye.
(See Minutes for Resolution)
60
December 6, 2018 Regular Meeting
HEARING#7223—DAVID and DIANE NELSON
MEMBER DANTES : The next application is for David and Diane Nelson #7223. Request for a
variance from Article XXIII Section 280-123 and the Building Inspector's June 25, 2018 Notice of
Disapproval based on an application for a building permit to make additions and alterations to
an existing seasonal cottage at 1) a non-conforming building containing a non-conforming use
shall not be enlarged, reconstructed, structurally altered or moved unless such building is
changed to a conforming use located at 65490 Route 25 (aka Sage Boulevard Breezy Shores
Cottage #24 adj. to Shelter Island Sound) in Greenport.
FRANK UELLENDAHL : Good afternoon my name is Frank Uellendahl I'm here with my clients
Diane and David Nelson in case there are questions for them. We're talking again about Breezy
Shores. These are twenty eight seasonal cottages and the cottage in question #24 is the most
easterly one at the very end of Sage Blvd. and we are now in the process again talking about
raising the cottage because of the weather conditions in recent years. As a matter of fact when
I posted the sign and I staked the 13 sq. ft. addition I had to drive through the flooded area. It
was just two days after the rainfall and five or six cottages were basically flooded up to the
doorstep. Towards the end we have a higher elevation we're fine but this is going to happen
more and more frequently. I've been involved in six projects at Breezy Shores over the years
and all of them are now talking about raising it up to above flood level. So we are in an
elevation AE elevation 7 which means we have to raise up the cottage two feet to comply with
FEMA standards and the current finished floor is actually at 7 so we do have to raise it up at
least 24 inches. We are putting in new footings and a new floor system. The construction of
those cottages it's very flimsy, they're 2 by 4 construction, it's 4 feet on center and so we have
to improve upon this as well so this all requires because it's a non-conforming use as a seasonal
cottage a variance. This is why we have to come to your Board and by raising the cottage we at
the same time my clients would like to improve the interior layout. If you look at the current
existing floor plan it's very tight. It's one of the smallest cottages by the way, it's only 520 sq. ft.
others are up to 700, 750 up to 800 sq. ft. There is no space to really turn this into a more
functional layout but this is what we're proposing that requires a more structural change as far
as roof construction is concerned but this is what we're here to discuss with you. Any
questions?
MEMBER DANTES : Rob.
MEMBER LEHNERT : Yeah I'm going to go back to our question, if by chance you find any
construction that's failing or the house ends up being demolished?
FRANK UELLENDAHL : No we're not going to demolish the house but from my experience yes
there is always rot in particular to the floor system. All the cottages that I've been involved with
61
December 6, 2018 Regular Meeting
were constructed at least two sometimes three different entities. So it's not a continuous floor
system and of course there is always rot so we do need I mean I'm actually designing a new
elevated two feet higher floor system with 2 by 12's I mean these area sturdy a continuous
floor system that the cottage will then be raised down on but we at the same time have to
provide you know 14 inch knee wall to put the cottage down on because we don't have ceiling
height. We only have like 5 foot 9 wide high doors. I'm six foot four so if I visit my clients I have
to duck down so I mean we do need at the same time spending all this money we want to bring
at least certain parts of the construction up to code.
MEMBER LEHNERT : But you know if it is a demolition you have to come back here?
FRANK UELLENDAHL : Yes no we're not going to demolish.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Frank I know they were included in the application but would you talk
briefly about some of the other projects, different relief requested and how that fits in to the
scheme of what you're looking to achieve.
FRANK UELLENDAHL : Well I did the #25 which is right next door. It's actually landward of#24
and you know this was in five years ago and this is very similar layout but cottage #25 is larger.
It has two porches, it's 750 sq. ft. and we did basically exactly what we're proposing now. We
put in footings, we put in a new floor system, we put in the knee wall. Even though this is a
different flood zone they're very close but this is actually Zone X which does not require really
us to raise the cottage but the owner wanted to raise the cottage. Not as much as here #24 but
we raise the cottage nevertheless but it's basically the same volume or the scope of work as
what we're doing here.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : And like that one it would appear that you're looking to increase the
square footage by approximately three percent.
FRANK UELLENDAHL : Less than that I mean it's basically those that one corner facing the
bulkhead. It's not even two feet by its 13 sq. ft. The percentage is 2.42%.
MEMBER DANTES : Pat.
MEMBER ACAMPORA : Just inquiry about that tree that's in the back, do you have to take that
down?
FRANK UELLENDAHL : No I don't think so. It depends on the root system but I actually I leave it
up to the clients. I mean I do like the tree because it really hides the cottage. It's very private it
gives it more privacy. The secluded location of that cottage is special because it's not one of
those lined up along the bulkhead where you see changes much more easily so it's really
fit
December 6, 2018 Regular Meeting
hidden so as far as I'm concerned I would like to keep the tree but trees can fall. They can
something can happen to them but I would like if that were the case I would love for them to
put in a new tree.
MEMBER DANTES : So you're not enlarging the cottage you're sticking to
FRANK UELLENDAHL : No we are not (inaudible) the cottage to the maximum not even the
maximum that is allowed. I think it was determined a few years ago during the Otano project
that the cottages cannot be increased more than three percent of the existing footprint. We're
increasing this by 13 sq. ft. based on the 520 sq. ft. footprint it comes up to be 2.42% so it's
minor.
MEMBER DANTES : Anyone in the audience who wants to speak? Any Board members have any
more questions? Hearing no further questions I make a motion to close the application reserve
decision to a later date.
MEMBER ACAMPORA : Second.
MEMBER DANTES : All in favor?
MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye.
MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye.
MEMBER DANTES : Aye.
(See Minutes for Resolution)
HEARING # 7226 SE—1855 DEPOT LANE, LLC; BRUCE BROWNAWELL and ANNE MCELROY
MEMBER DANTES : The next application is 1855 Depot Lane, LLC; Bruce Brownawell and Anne
McElroy #7226SE. Applicants request a Special Exception under Article III Section 280-13B(14).
The applicants are the owners requesting authorization to establish an accessory bed and
breakfast, accessory and incidental to the residential occupancy in this single family dwelling
with three (3) bedrooms for lodging and serving of breakfast to the B&B casual transient
roomers located at 1855 Depot Lane Cutchogue.
ANNE MCELROY : Thank you. I'm Anne Mcelroy this is Bruce Brownawell my husband and we're
glad to have the opportunity to tell you about our new home and the B&B plans we have for it.
63
December 6, 2018 Regular Meeting
We purchased the home on Depot Lane in Cutchogue in June of this year. We purchased this
particular home because it was an existing bed and breakfast owned by Joyce and Bob Barry
the Farmhouse Bed and Breakfast and it was already permitted for use as such in the Town of
Southold. We didn't actually even really look at any other bed and breakfasts and our goal was
to move in, establish our residence there and reopen the bed and breakfast as soon as we could
get a permit for it realizing that the permit to operate did not transfer with title. We did
however purchase some of the assets for the bed and breakfast. Their client lent us their
website, some of their furniture, some of their linens. Prior to purchasing the property though
we researched bed and breakfasts extensively by reading up, we even took a short course and
we consulted to accountants as to the legal aspects, tax aspects of bed and breakfast operation.
One was a specialist in hospitalities in small Inns Arthur Leavy, the other was an accountant
here Ron Farmworth. Both of them strongly suggested that we should purchase the property as
an LLC for two reasons. One to protect other assets from potential liability associated with
running the bed and breakfast and the other to make tax issues more streamlined and clear cut
in the bed and breakfast. We began talking to staff at the Zoning Board of Appeals in late June
who informed us that we needed additional proof of residency beyond what we had thought
we needed based on what was posted on the website. We spent the next several weeks
acquiring that but it also came up at that time that having purchased the property as an LLC
might be an issue before the Board and they consulted the town counsel about this issue and
we were told that the Star exemption might be key in this and if we could get the Star
exemption things might be okay. So we went ahead and did that. We got all the rest of our
proof of residency and placed our formal application in early August. Since then we also
consulted Gail Wickham a local attorney about this whole LLC issue and it was in her opinion
that we conformed to Section 280-413 as persons having vested or contingent interest in the
property. She also suggested it wouldn't hurt to get letters from our abutting neighbors as well
as the accountants who had recommended the LLC purchase in the first place and I have copies
of these here if you would like them I can give them to you. The only other thing is she said and
unfortunately she could not be here because she had a previous commitment in the city but
that if you or the town counsel still had issues related to the house being held as an LLC she
suggested a remedy for that might be attaching a rider to an approval if it is given stating that
we would not change the LLC at all without prior notification to the town. Included in the
application part of the documents related to forming and operating the LLC Bruce and I co-own
it fifty, fifty we're the (inaudible) of the LLC at the moment. Also included in the packet is the
Zoning Board of Appeal for the Barry's Bed and Breakfast that was granted in 2011 as well as
now as a document changing the address of the LLC from our former address where we lived at
the time we formed it to her current address which is 1855 Depot Lane. So we'd be happy to
answer any questions you might have.
64
December 6, 2018 Regular Meeting
MEMBER DANTES : One thing is a change in the LLC would basically it would the application is
you and your husband both being residents of the house and own the LLC together as the
owners so if you change the ownership of the LLC it would void the permit.
ANNE MCELROY : Can you say that again?
MEMBER DANTES : Any changes to the LLC that changes the ownership would void the bed and
breakfast special exception. I mean honestly we've never made a decision granting an LLC, no
one has ever applied so it's a decision we have to make and what it would entail is some sort of
affidavit and then when the Building Department does their inspections they have to go look at
the articles I don't know if it's every year or every two years to recertify the LLC that it's just you
and your husband's name and no one else's.
ANNE MCELROY : We can certainly submit our tax records every year when they're submitted
showing the LLC.
BRUCE BROWNAWELL : The probability that the LLC would change from my perspective are nil.
I mean you know other investors are you know one book talks about trying to expect other
investors in it but a bed and breakfast is sort of imaginary. It's not the kind of business that
other investors would get involved in. Abigail mentioned the fact that if we tried to sell the
property as an LLC no one would be interested in taking on liability when the primary value is in
the residence of the property. I can't imagine other than should one of us die that we would
you know in terms of our children and that's one of the main motivations for the LLC is we have
two daughters that are graduating with Masters Degrees that are artists and we want to
protect our assets and you know that's much more important to me than any savings we might
get on taxes. I've grown up as we all have in an era where liability law has really changed our
society and if there's an inexpensive and legal way to protect our families assets for my children
I would hate to give that up.
ANNE MCELROY : I mean Levy the one accountant we talked to talked about just people buying
regular residences as LLC today for liability purposes so it's sort of a coming thing.
BRUCE BROWNAWELL : I don't know how coming it is. I don't think it's actually probably no I
don't I suspect it's not all that common but of the six books that I got from the library or
purchased right after I started looking at the house three of them mentioned LLC's and they all
said that this is something if one of them was written in '92 so it was new it said if it was
available (inaudible) jump on it and but one of the books spent a whole chapter on financials
and it was partly written by this Arthur Levy which is how I got his name and that was
(inaudible) the book and in his conversations with us cause you know the one thing that he
really emphasized was how important it was in terms of tax flexibility to (inaudible) only for
6,5
December 6, 2018 Regular Meeting
taxes for getting the LLC so it's something that's recommended in any book that you know
discusses it so it's you know it may not be common because it's not an industry that's you know
where you're hiring lawyers and
T. A. DUFFY : We understand the Board understands the purpose of why you're doing it and it is
fairly common practice in real estate especially when property starts getting more expensive
LLC's it's good for liability and it's also good for estate planning purposes also. The reason why
the Board has never done it before is the intent is to have this accessory to it being your home
that's it's not a business it's your home and you have the bed and breakfast as your accessory
business so the question from the Board about changing the LLC and it has to remain your
primary residence is to effectuate the purpose of the code so I think fully understands why you
want to do it and I think the proofs that they've seen I think they'll be conditions that you
would have to notify the Board if there's a change in residency or a change in the ownership in
the LLC.
ANNE MCELROY : We would be fine with that but there was nothing in the code that suggested
this was a problem and dissolving it and rebuying it
T. A. DUFFY : Well the reason why it's an issue in the code is because it says owner occupied
and a corporation can't occupy you're members of it but you're not the corporation so that's
where the issue from the town's perspective is, is that it's not whether an LLC and you being
members of the LLC is owner occupied cause a bed and breakfast has to be owner occupied.
There are other applications there have been other B&B's that changed hands and an LLC did
come in and owned the property and they hired employees to run their B&B they did not live
there themselves and that's what we're trying to avoid.
ANNE MCELROY : Right, that is clearly not our intention.
MEMBER DANTES : We're not telling you no it's just we have to decide on it we have to set the
procedure for verification so that's all.
ANNE MCELROY : Well we're happy to provide any documentation to verify residency and if
you're concerned about gaining additional documentation I would hope we could just adjourn
the hearing as opposed to rescheduling one. It's been a long time.
MEMBER DANTES : Does anyone have questions?
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I think you already sort of stated this but I'm going to ask anyway I
don't mean to be redundant just for the record and by the way your house is really lovely so
thank you for having us to see it. Hopefully you'll be operational soon but I just want to confirm
that the subject premises is in fact your residence?
661
December 6, 2018 Regular Meeting
ANNE MCELROY : Yes.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : And have you transferred your driving licenses individually to this
address?
ANNE MCELROY : We transferred all that, the driving license, the car registration the voter
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : So everything is associated with 1855
BRUCE BROWNAWELL : We voted.
ANNE MCELROY : We voted.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : You voted.
ANNE MCELROY : So the only thing that long list of residency type things we didn't provide is
the tax returns because we haven't filed for 2018 yet but we will be filing soon and we can
provide those when they're filed and we changed the address on the LLC now that we're here
and you have that.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Thank you.
ANNE MCELROY : I'll give you these letters. We also talked to two of well three really of the four
abutting neighbors, two of them are the same estate the Christmas Tree Farm people. They
said they were totally in favor of bed and breakfast and would generate business for them. One
of the letters is from the other neighbors in support. The other letter is from (inaudible)
Harrison who was a neighbor in our old town in East Setauket and lives in Peconic (inaudible)
very, very good friends and then two letters from the accountant and consultant. The fourth
abutting neighbor we sent a certified letter to them but we did not get the green card back. We
tried to hand deliver it right across the street. They apparently have been out of town for an
extended period of time so and we dropped off another copy in their mailbox but we haven't
heard from them.
MEMBER DANTES : Hearing no further questions I'd like to make a motion to close the hearing
reserve decision to a later date.
MEMBER ACAMPORA : Second.
MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye.
MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye.
fid
December 6, 2018 Regular Meeting
MEMBER DANTES : Aye.
(See Minutes for Resolution)
HEARING #7209—TRACY PECK and DAVID CORBETT
MEMBER DANTES : The next application is Tracy Peck and David Corbett # 7209 adjourned from
November 1, 2018. Request for variance from Article XXIII Section 208-124 and the Building
Inspector's June 25, 2018 amended July 20, 2018 Notice of Disapproval based on an application
for a building permit to demolish an existing single family dwelling and construct a new single
family dwelling at 1) located less than the code required minimum front yard setback of 35 feet
located at 1305 Sigsbee Rd. Mattituck.
MIKE KIMACK : Michael Kimack for the applicant. It was adjourned in order for the Board to
receive additional testimony relevant to the requirements of the justification as to the removal
of the dwelling. Mr. David Corbett is here. He's one of the owners and also the contractor.
DAVID CORBETT : This structure started out as a 20 by 40 existing building and the back of the
house had the kitchen, the bathroom and then an outdoor shower and then on the corner had
a sliding door with a concrete step. When my demolition man came and demo'd it he said there
was just nothing left, the box the floor joist and the walls of the back of the house and they just
basically came down that way. The side wall was coming out anyway and the roof just to build
you know the addition and then when we came around to the front wall the box was the box to
the house was all rotted. The wall was at 6.8 so that was also short and it just had I have a
picture of the back of the wall it was just a wall of windows which we would have had to
restricted to reframe so that's how it ended up like that unfortunately.
MEMBER DANTES : You have pictures?
DAVID CORBETT : Yes. That was the existing house you know the front wall is just all a line of
windows and then you can see the back of the house the wall really there's nothing we can use
when we're reframing it. This was an old cottage that we bought and we didn't realize till later
that the previous homeowner must have dug out the basement and there was a lot of poor
construction and the stuff you know that had to be addressed. The (inaudible) was cut in four
pieces just had lally columns all over the place so that had to be addressed and there was
extensive rot just from you know concrete steps in the front of the house the side of the house.
There was bilco door that just you know just rotted the whole structure of the back of the
house and an outdoor shower.
6$
December 6, 2018 Regular Meeting
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : So looking at the pictures this is obviously post demolition.
DAVID CORBETT : Yes.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : This one is prior. I still don't quite understand first of all what damage
could have been so extensive that would warrant to take the house down. There's nothing
visible there do you have any
DAVID CORBETT : The front of the house if you could you know I'm going to put a 48 inch
window in the front and a door that is in a different spot so a 6' 8" wall I'm basically going to
take apart there is nothing I could use out of that wall you know that it's all framed for
window, window, window.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : So again from the picture looking at it you know there's
DAVID CORBETT : I don't have a pictures of the back of the house that was that had the rot.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : So there's no photographic evidence of any testimony or letter from
an engineer or somebody that inspected it prior to demolition?
DAVID CORBETT : No.
MEMBER LEHNERT : You're the contractor?
DAVID CORBETT : It's my home yes. I'm building it yes.
MEMBER LEHNERT : So you stated that the demolition guy came and took the house down.
Were you on the site when he made the determination?
DAVID CORBETT : Later on yes.
MEMBER LEHNERT : So you were there after the fact.
DAVID CORBETT : Yes.
MEMBER LEHNERT : And you gave testimony that
DAVID CORBETT : I'm taking responsibility it's my
MEMBER LEHNERT : Okay and you gave testimony that you know nothing was really usable I
mean most of the stuff you'd be able to see in the basement before you even dug into this
project. I mean the variance you came from before was for a slight addition and
DAVID CORBETT : I was able to see the back of the house yes the corner
69
December 6, 2018 Regular Meeting
MEMBER LEHNERT : You're saying you know the basement everything down there was bad but
you still submitted an application for an addition.
DAVID CORBETT : We didn't demo the house till you know and the framers were coming that
following Monday.
MIKE KIMACK : Could I add something? The way that that house with the addition that was on
that one wall which would be the northern wall which was the exterior wall became an interior
wall that one had to come down anyway and then the back had been rotted but remember the
whole roof had to come off for the entire thing because of the reconfiguration so both the roof
was going to moved, the whole north wall was going to be removed because it became an
interior wall and that was being redesigned for the most part and then my client's testimony is
that the back is rotted. We don't have any proof of it (inaudible) his testimony. I wasn't there I
wasn't part of it but if that is the case taking it face value by the time once the roof was
removed and once that north exterior wall was taken off because once you did the addition the
addition became the new exterior wall and that was the new construction so you ended up
simply with what was remaining on the back which was from my client's testimony in pretty
bad shape and that front had to be reconfigured anyway based upon the new windows going
in. I think there was a partial wall left around the chimney or something like that on that back
side. That probably was the only wall that was remaining from the testimony would have been
in any relative shape to be remaining.The answer simply is that when you open these things up
what you find sometimes you don't realize getting into it that that's what you have to get but it
would have been and I think originally it was known when I first did the original variance that
with the addition with that ten foot addition on that one side there had to be a whole new
structure so that was coming off anyway and the interior wall was coming off so that was part
of the original application. The difference is really the back and the front walls and a portion of
that the southern wall.
MEMBER LEHNERT : You see where we are on this. I mean I wasn't there for the original
application but you made an application to do a minor addition, a minor variance to the front to
bump it out towards the road then you knocked the house down.
MIKE KIMACK : Well in order to do that addition as part of that original variance in order to do
that addition once we structured the new wall on that new addition the whole roof had to be
restructured anyways so that was coming off that was known as part of the original plan so the
original plan in terms of what had to be demolished the extent beyond that original plan ended
up to be
MEMBER LEHNERT : The whole house.
70
December 6, 2018 Regular Meeting
MIKE KIMACK : Well you know the back wall for the most part cause the other wall had to go
anyway because it became an interior wall when the roof was off so that really is what we're
looking at. When you talk about demolition it was a greater demolition that had originally been
anticipated to the extent on the front wall and back wall.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : So when the demolition occurred why didn't anyone think about hey
let's go check in with the Building Department and ask for a de minimus you've been here
before.
MIKE KIMACK : When I finish my applications and turn it over to my clients I'm not normally
involved and I have not been involved with the construction aspect. I think the thing about this
when clients get these applications unfortunately a lot of times they look at them in terms of
what is (inaudible) of their ability within those applications so that they do not exceed it so that
they fall out of compliance primarily and I would imagine based upon the situation they just
weren't aware of what they were doing was outside the bounds of that existing variance.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : But the decision clearly states in its closing paragraph any alteration
changes rendered that decision null and void. It's clearly stated on the decision.
MIKE KIMACK : Well it was obviously it was in violation because they got the violation primarily
so you're right and Mr. Corbett has to take the responsibility for that aspect of it. In the
construction aspect when they got into the building and it came down that became a violation
beyond the scope of the original variance but I wanted to point out that the difference between
what had originally been granted and what actually had taken down they may have qualified for
a de minimus but I don't know the answer to that one. It may well have qualified for a de
minimus given the fact that the original removal was probably two thirds of what ended up to
be so it wasn't as if you were going from just taking the wall down. You've taken the whole roof
that whole one side of the north side you adding the back and the front walls coming off it may
well have qualified for a de minimus. I can't answer that in its entirety but I did want to point
out that from the original
MEMBER LEHNERT : It's an argument but also you know you go out there there's a whole new
floor deck which wasn't part of the original application. I mean if you're going to do an addition
you're going to leave the existing floor deck there and that was all taken out and brand new.
MIKE KIMACK : And probably that goes to the fact of how much that beam was all cut up.
DAVID CORBETT : (inaudible) back of that deck the east side of the house is still all the original
flooring except for the back that was rotted from the sliding door area.
MIKE KIMACK : Did you have to slide a new beam in?
71
December 6, 2018 Regular Meeting
DAVID CORBETT : Yeah we had to put a new beam in. There was a 2 by 6 that had maybe an 8
foot section at one point and a 13 foot section and a 4 foot section. There was a spiral staircase
that was when we looked at the house I was there, they had to take it out for us to buy it so
that area of the floor was all cut up and you know repaired and there was another part that had
a hole in the floor that must have been a previous staircase I'm not sure or just a you know
access to the basement or crawl space.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : You know what I hear you saying sort of sounds like the house should
have been condemned from the start which when I look at the photograph that you provided
the house looks square. It doesn't look like a problem.
DAVID CORBETT : I agree with you but unfortunately my wife and I have put our life savings into
the house at that point.
MEMBER LEHNERT : You know the argument with the beam doesn't make sense either because
you're calling out a whole new girder on the proposed foundation plan. So you guys knew that
was coming out anyway.
DAVID CORBETT : So that's the new area 10 feet and then
MEMBER LEHNERT : No that's in the old house. You're showing a brand new girder.
MIKE KIMACK : That's the one that replaced the middle one.
DAVID CORBETT : Yes that's where the existing girder was in the house yes.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : It just seems strange to me I don't know how the other members of
the Board feel that we live in an electronic age but everyone sneezes and they're taking
photographs. If you had termites, damage, rotted you know structural members whatever the
framing is I can't believe that you don't have even one photograph to illustrate what the issue
was that you and your wife invested your life savings in a home that you'd think that you'd
communicate something to that point before taking a house down. I mean it's a substantial
choice to remove a home. My thought about offering relief from people who come before us as
Mike came on your behalf originally was to allow relief for an existing structure. The idea is the
streetscape the scale not that what you're proposing is any different than what you really
looked for but the goal is to offer relief for people who don't have the resources to demolish
the house and build a new home. So I think we're left in a really tough position to weigh what's
really going on here and you know this sort of conversation sadly is becoming prevalent that
people you know take a decision and just run to town and choose to do whatever they want
with it without even following what the decision stated.
72
December 6, 2018 Regular Meeting
MIKE KIMACK : I would expect that David and Tracey probably would not want to have to spend
the extra money on the demolition if they could have avoided it from the original point of view
and probably changing the beam in the basement wouldn't in and of itself I don't think you
would have been normally a building permit at best.
MEMBER LEHNERT : It's part of your original application.
MIKE KIMACK : Part of the original application.
MEMBER LEHNERT : Part of the original application right here on the foundation plan.
MIKE KIMACK : So that was part of the original well that wasn't
MEMBER LEHNERT : Part of your building permit.
MIKE KIMACK : Part of the building permit so that was something that was going to be done
anyway.
MEMBER LEHNERT : So it's kind of you know an argument that if it doesn't work (inaudible)
taking the house down.
MIKE KIMACK : Well I think the original in a sense it does work Rob because the original one is
Mark put it in on the drawings basically. They must have looked at the fact that it was
sectionalized and they had to replace it so but it wasn't something that fell within the zoning
variance requirement anyway it fell within the building code. So yes the answer is
DAVID CORBETT : I discussed that with Mark cause when Mark and I first looked at the
basement there was pieces of pine covering the whole girder going down so we didn't really
couldn't really see exactly what was going on until we actually pulled it off and he was going I
told him I was doing that and he was going to amend the plans and I was going to sister the
joists up and as far as
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : So now I'm even further confused so if Mark was there he's seen all
this
DAVID CORBETT : This was early, early
MEMER PLANAMENTO : No I understand that but you said that the house was basically you
know not fit for habitation (inaudible) Mark was there and now we're saying something other,
where was Mark during the demolition to document what happened and can Mark offer
something that would collaborate what you're saying? You've had a month to achieve that.
73
December 6, 2018 Regular Meeting
DAVID CORBETT : When this was all going on I'm working on my you know I have a job and I
come to here to work on my house and I would take pictures I would just keep working and
trying to get things done and unfortunately it came back to bite me.
MEMBER ACAMPORA : You know alright demo man comes, demo man takes down the house
but what about if now you're building a new house why not set the house back further so you
wouldn't need that front yard variance?
DAVID CORBETT : Well this all happened after the foundation was in.
MEMBER ACAMPORA : Yeah but first he demo'd the house before the foundation went in
correct?
DAVID CORBETT : No.
MEMBER ACAMPORA : No?
DAVID CORBETT : No the foundation was in early January and he came to demo in April.
MEMBER ACAMPORA : But still couldn't you have cut back some of that and added it on to the
back?
DAVID CORBETT : I'm not looking for you know for that added expense. We were just looking
you know for a home to live in.
MIKE KIMACK : David I think they we're here because we asked for a variance of about 3 feet
from the front yard if I remember the numbers correctly primarily. If we didn't have that 3 feet
we wouldn't be talking about any of this we'd be dealing with the Building Department.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : And we had actually asked a question at the time of the application
that I don't have the testimony in front of me but we were discussing well why couldn't you
reconfigure the house in such a way that you wouldn't need a variance and the answer was well
we have the house that we're just putting a modest addition on.
DAVID CORBETT : Yeah that was our plans.
MIKE KIMACK : Yeah you're right in a sense we did extend and the original variance was granted
because the neighborhood in many respects represented a lot of activity that was within the
(inaudible) of the front yard. As a matter of fact I think the last variance even was quoted the
guy across the street was 23 feet and he had built a new deck or a new house and he was
granted at 23 feet away. So that's the basis upon which the original variance was granted
basically. Now we're here because it was demo'd
74
December 6, 2018 Regular Meeting
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : And now basically in a sense it's new construction
MIKE KIMACK : It's new construction.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : It is new construction.
MIKE KIMACK : Well will the argument be any different if I came before you asking for new
construction not wanting to go back any further and asking for the extra three feet would you
look at it the same way?
T. A. DUFFY : You wouldn't because one of the reasons for granting it is that the house is
already there and you're just adding on to it so if you're tearing down the house then they
would say make it more conforming so it is one of the criteria that the Board considered in
granting the variance.
MIKE KIMACK : And (inaudible) is he's got a poured foundation that represents that three foot
(inaudible) in that particular site so he's halfway there in terms of having the foundation in the
ground and basically (inaudible) over at this particular point. So we're really asking for
consideration for that 3 feet again without the building on top of it that's the way to look at it.
T. A. DUFFY : Can you get a letter from an architect liked stamped that he inspected the house
prior to construction and it was his opinion that you relied on that it wouldn't have to be a total
tear down and this was a surprise to him.
MIKE KIMACK : I think we can get that from Mark. I'll go see Mark and get that to you for your
Special Meeting.
T. A. DUFFY : I don't know how the Board is going to rule but that may as an attorney that might
be helpful.
MIKE KIMACK : It wouldn't be a bad thing to have, I think it would be good for the record in
terms of because Mark obviously looked at the house in terms of making the determination for
the beam and whatever else he might have seen at that particular time. In essence once the
walls are closed you really can't see much in terms of damage but if everything is plywooded
over but
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : But this was a basement and it wasn't finished living space I mean I
would expect (inaudible)
MIKE KIMACK : They knew the beam I mean the beam was part of the original
DAVID CORBETT : No it was finished basement.
75
December 6, 2018 Regular Meeting
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Finished basement.
DAVID CORBETT : It was a finished basement.
MEMBER LEHNERT : Yeah but even if you do a demo you're tearing the rock off first and then
you're going to see what's behind it. You're not coming in with a bucket and just taking the
whole house down.
DAVID CORBETT : No and that wasn't our intention either.
MIKE KIMACK : If it's the Board's recommendation I'll ask Mark for a letter that I would submit
in two weeks at your Special. It may help.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : And this letter would indicate that Mark felt that the house was
structurally sound.
MIKE KIMACK : Well I think it would give you background in terms of what Mark saw when he
went to the house in terms of when he made the recommendations for the beam or whatever
else he might have determined for the addition and what he saw in the house that led him to
believe that the house wasn't a demo. I think that's basically what you're asking for.
T. A. DUFFY : That and maybe a letter from the whoever did the demo as to what he saw and
why he did what he did.
MIKE KIMACK : That's a good point too cause he would have looked at the degree as he's
carrying it away dead termites and all if they were there.
MEMBER LEHNERT : Mark would never stamp a set of plans for renovation knowing it was going
to fall down on top of it.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : That's the part I don't understand.
MEMBER DANTES : Maybe he made a mistake.
MIKE KIMACK : I think the letter would be helpful from both parties.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : But then it also implies (inaudible) stability I mean there's a big
question mark as far as what his skill is.
DAVID CORBETT : The house only had four walls and a kitchen wall where or the bathroom wall
so it really wasn't there was no structure in the middle of the house you know that was holding
up (inaudible) big dip in the floor.
76
December 6, 2018 Regular Meeting
MIKE KIMACK : It was a clear (inaudible) side to side it wasn't any structured walls. The beam
basically was to carry the floor, the beam was to carry the live load on the new
DAVID CORBETT : On the new construction.
MIKE KIMACK : But we will get those two letters and hopefully that would help you in your
determination.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Look through your phone for photographs. I mean I still can't believe
that somebody doesn't have a photograph to illustrate termite damage or dry rot or any that
would make this house virtually inhabitable.
MIKE KIMACK : Well I think the only thing we can do is the letter from the demo guy in terms of
what he saw when he took it down at that particular time what they saw. That would be the
only confirmation visual as it may be without photos but at least it would be something in
writing for your record. It would appear that that would be the best that we can do at the
present time from Mark and the demo guy.
MEMBER DANTES : Does anyone have any further questions or comments?
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : No the only thought is I mean we've already held this open a month
and I'm just wondering the letters definitely have to be here by the Special or sooner I mean.
MIKE KIMACK : I'm sure I can get Mark's here. The demo guy David if we can guarantee that we
can get them here for you.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Do you think a week is sufficient time?
MIKE KIMACK : Well you've got what's the Special in two weeks right?
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Exactly.
MIKE KIMACK : You want to hold it open in the event that the letters don't come and if the
letters come then you can close it basically that would be fine. I don't think I have a problem
with Mark's letter I just don't know the other gentleman.
DAVID CORBETT : That's not a problem.
MEMBER DANTES : I mean either way it's mostly just semantics I mean we'll just adjourn to the
Special at which time we can decide to close and see if we need anything else.
MIKE KIMACK : Thank you for your consideration.
MEMBER DANTES : Motion to adjourn the hearing to the Special Meeting.
77
December 6, 2018 Regular Meeting
MEMBER LEHNERT : Second.
MEMBER DANTES : All in favor?
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye.
MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye.
MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye.
MEMBER DANTES : Aye.
(See Minutes for Resolution)
7$
December 6, 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
Elizabeth Sakarellos
DATE : December 17, 2018
79