Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-05/19/1997 HEARING TRANSCRIPT OF PUBLIC HEARINGS May 19, 1997 SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS (Prepared by Lucy Farrell from tape recordings) 6:48 P.M. - Apr1. No. 4475 - MARY FISCHETTI CHAIRMAN: Request for a Variance under Article XXIV, ~eetion 100-244B, based upon the February 21, 1997 Action of Disapproval issued by the Building Inspector for permission to locate an addition to existing dwelling which will have a reduced side yard setback at less than the required 10 feet. Location of Property: 3760 Minnehaha Boulevard, Southold, N.Y.; County Parcel ID #1000-87-3-4. This parcel contains a total area of 9,874 sq.ft. Zone: R-40 Residential. I have a eopy of the survey dated (can't read the date) from Roderick Van Tuyl P.C. with a penned in area of an addition indicating a 9 foot setback to the existing one story to the proposed addition to the one story barn. It's a proposed addition to the one story and a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and the surrounding properties in the area. Does somebody like to be heard? Mr. Fischetti who is repr'esenting his sister is not going to be here tonight. He is ill, he has asked for a recess to the next regularly scheduled meeting. However, I do know that there are at least two people who would like to speak in behalf or one person would like to speak either for or against. Is thence anybody else would like to speak for? Anybody like to speak against? Yes Ma'am. MRS. SHALVEY: In speaking, we have a letter that - CHAIRMAN: Yes, I have the letter right in front of me. Is there anything else you would like to add to that? The only thing I can suggest to you is that you might want to come back at the next meeting if you have any other further consideration, we have accepted your letter as part of the file. We are aware of your letter and we will take that into consideration when deliberating upon this. Is there any other question you have of me? The next meeting will be June 19th. I'm sorry about this it kind of happened at the eleventh hour. Personally we just open the hearing and recess it anyway. Is there anybody else would like to speak against this application? Seeing no hands I'll make a motion closing the hearing recessing the hearing until June 19th. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: June 17th at 6:45. : Page 2 - Hearing TranScripts May ]9~ 1997 - Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN: 6:45 MEMBER OSTERMANN: Second BOARD OF SECRETARY: Ail in favor. MEMBERS: Aye. 6:5] - Appl. No. 4476 - MARY BULIS CHAIRMAN: Request for a Variance under Article XXIV, Section 100-244B, based upon the March il, 1997 Action of Disapproval issued by the Building Inspector for permission to locate a deck addition to existing dwelling which will have a reduced front yard setback at less than the minimum of 40 feet, or closer minimum when using an average (if available) of the established nonconforming front yard setbacks within 300 feet, on the same side of the street, (same block). Location of Property: 490 Aciuaview Avenue, East Marion, NY; County Parcel ID #]000-2~-3-5. This parcel contains a total area of approximately 21,000 sq.ft. I have a copy of the survey from Roderiek Van Tuyl, dated August 28, ~974, indicating the present location of the house which is approximately 23 feet from Aquaview Avenue and I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and surrounding properties in the area and I do not have an actual location of the proposed deck as it proceeds (It's on the other one, not on mine, I don't think I had it when I went out there to look at it.) In any case, is there somebody who would like to be heard? Yes, How are you tonight? Would you state your name for the record, Sir. MR. DZENKOWSKI: My name is Kin Dzenkowski. If we go ahead with this project I'll be the contractor on this project. I do have some sketches here showing the existing properties and there setbacks. Some are estimated, I only have one on the survey plus my own. CHAIRMAN: That 23 feet is to the front property line as it exists right now to the house? MR, DZENKOWSKI: Yes, it only locates one corner of the house. That's why the existing deck out there has a -- on ihe side. CHAIRMAN: Right. Is there any reason why they haven't thought about putting a ground level deck in? You know, cement slab, or something or - MR. DZENKOWSKI: No I don't. She said there was one previously. She tried to find old photographs of it, she couldn't find any old photographs. I don't know. She simply wants to extend the deck that's on the side around the front. The same Page 3 - Hearing Treh~scripts May ]9, 1997 - Board of Appeals height will remain and there will be no major railings or anything to that affect at all. CHAIRMAN: How big is that deck? I mean the deck proposed? It's a variable? MR. DZENKOWSKI: Well, it is a variable. I think we're under 500 sq.ft. From my original plan she amended it to cut off a corner of the rounded step. It'll be the same design deck with smaller seat type things in the front. MEMBER TORTORA: This will be 36 inches off the ground? MR. DZENKOWSKI: No, it'll be less than l0 inches off the ground. MEMBER TORTORA: Alright. We're going to need a variance because I'm looking at this which is 36 inches. MR. DZENKOWSKI: Well, that would be the seats. [Fhat will be the highest they will be. I expect they're going to 16 inches. She had regulated , the existing ones on the east side. MEMBER TORT©RA: I looked at quite a few of the houses in the neighborhood and the setback that you're requesting would place the deck considerably closer to anything else in the neighborhood quite frankly. MR. DZENKOWSKI: No, actually by that sketch I just gave you, it's a few feet closer definitely, there's no question about that. MEMBER TORTORA: Quite a few feet. CHAIRMAN: Well 14 we're talking 9. MR. DZENKOWSKI: Right. Both houses to the east of Bulls 300 feet are closer than her 23 feet to the property line now. The house that is extremely to the west, the house is outside the 300 feet but the property is, that's a relatively new house within 20 years. All of these houses on that side of the road have been there well before I remember and I've lived in that neighborhood for years. MEMBER TORTORA: It's a very large piece of property. I mean she's got considerable room on either side, on the east side or the wes~ side. MR. DZENKOWSKI: But, she doesn't have any view of the sound. She owns a small piece across the way that she maintains to a low height and she simply wants a view of the sound in the summertime. MEMBER TORTORA: We were on the easterly deck and we could see the sound quite well from the easterly deck. Page 4 - Hearing Transcripts May 19, 1997 - Board of Appeals MR. DZENKOWSKI: The piece that she has in the front isn't. She wants to go around the front, sit around the front, like she use to do. CHAIRMAN: Let me ask you a question Klm. Assuming that the figures that you gave us and I'm not doubting those figures, assuming those figures are correct, are you looking for an alternate situation? In other words, if we don't agree with 14 are you looking MR. DZENKOWSKI: She will accept something less and I really don't know what. Its been suggested to me which I don't think she would ever go with it. We don't have to do this, we can simply put a second story deck on the east side, she can get all the view she wants. I don't believe she would ever do that. It certainly doesn't fit within the character of the neighborhood. CHAIRMAN: So, if there's some alternate relief you don't particularly disagree with that. MR. DZENKOWSKI: No, I'm sure she would go for some, how much I really couldn't give you a deal, I really don't know. CHAIRMAN: OK. Welt, it would be up to us to make that determination. I'll go back out and measure those two houses that you had mentioned on that one side. MR. DZENKOWSKI: Yeah, as it is most of the roads in that neighborhood, I live around the block, the road is substantially offset from the property line. If they were to cut that road back to the 50 feet which I don't expect them to ever do because they have to regrade everybody's property. One house to the east you can see that happened a long time ago and now have steps to get to the front yard. But it's property line, it's still within CHAIRMAN: What do you say the setback is from the property, the road itself? MR. DZENKOWSKI: From the road we are about 4-6 feet. There's a lot of earth there that should be road~ it isn't. The property line on the opposite side of the road, the telephone polls are within 4 feet of the road and the property line is 4 feet on the other side of the telephone polls. CHAIRMAN: So you're saying the road is skewed closer to the sound than it is closer to the - MR. DZENSKOWSKI: Substantial. My front yard is the same exact way. CHAIRMAN: Alright, let's start with Jim. ~ Page 5 - Hearing Tremscripts · '. · May 19, 1997 - Board of Appeals MEMBER DINIZIO: No, I don't have any questions. CHAIRMAN: Mrs. Ostermann. MEMBER OSTERMANN: Would the new deck be the same height as the existing deck when you bring it around across the front? MR. DZENKOWSKI: It'll be exactly the same height and style as the deck. No change at all. MEMBER OSTERMANN: And then a stop down from the front door onto the deck? MR. DZENKOWSKI: Right, that is what was on the east side previously. CHAIRMAN: Lydia, anything else? MEMBER TORTORA: No~ other than the fact that there are quite a few houses in the area that are setback much further. MR. DZENKOWSKI: There's actually none in that time period that MEMBER TORTORA: I don't mean that time period. I mean what's existing now. MR. DZENSKOWSKI: Most of those are on the sound side and they're ali skewed to view the sound. CHAIRMAN: Just so we take this into consideration, we're not interested in, I shouldn't say this, this is a non sarcastic statement in saying that we're not interested in somebody gaining a view if they can get a view based upon an average. MR. DZENKOWSKI: I understand. CHAIRMAN: We deal with that all the time you know, that somebody building on the sound side and they're blocking somebody's view across the street. MR. DZENSKOWSKI: I can only request what the owner wants to do. That's all I can request CHAIRMAN: Thank you. I'll go out and remeasure it. Again, I'm not doubting your figures. MR. DZENKOWSKI: You saw the stakes in for the deck and height and the ones with. the flags on them are the survey marks as close as I can locate them and I simply can't get surveys on the two existing properties for these, they don't have them. Page 6 - Hearing Tra~scripts May 19, ]997 - Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN: OK, thank you. Is there anybody else in the audience would like to speak in favor? Anybody like to speak against? Any further questions? Hearing no further questions, I'll make a motion closing the hearing reserving decision until later. MEMBER TORTORA: Second. CHAIRMAN: All in favor. MEMBERS: Aye. 7:02 P.M. - Appl. No. 4477 - ARTIE and CAROL SIRICO CHAIRMAN: Request for a Variance under Article XXIV, Section 100-244B, based upon the April 17, 1997 Action of Disapproval issued by the Building Inspector for permission to remove an existing deck, and rep]ace with an addition, which will exceed the 20% lot coverage limitation. Location of Property: 105 Private Road ~31, Southold, N.Y.; County Parcel 1000-77-3-25. (Tape went dead) based upon our calculation to the applicant is 266 feet or approximate 1-3/4% over the 20. I have a copy of the survey from Roderick Van Tuyl P.C., the original date was August 29, 1979 showing the existing deck as it stands and I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and surrounding properties in the area. Is there somebody like to be heard? How are you tonight, Sir? MR. SIRICO: I just like to state that it is possible that I can build smaller and not have a variance, but I wanted to not make it look like an extension and to make it part of the house. CHAIRMAN: When you described this to me Mr. Sirico, the existing deck you're showing here is 16 x 24? MR. SIRICO: Yes. CHAIRMAN: What is the actual addition toial? MR. SIRICO: 14 x 36. CHAIRMAN: 14 x 36. We'll start with Mrs. Tortora. MEMBER TORTORA: No. CHAIRMAN: Mrs. Ostermann. Page 7 - Hearing Tra~scripts May 19, ]997 - Board of Appeals MEMBER OSTERMANN: Was there any other alternate method that you could have looked into? MR. SIRICO: Not make it look like an extension? I'm trying to make it look like, not like its added on. CHAIRMAN: He's changing an entire roof line. Did you explain that? MR. SIRICO: Yes. MEMBER OSTERMANN: Yes, and we were out to see the area. You were not at home unfortunately but we did take a look at it. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Dinizio. MEMBER DINIZIO: Nothing at all. CHAIRMAN: While you're standing there. Is there anybody else in the audience would like to speak in favor? Anybody like to speak against? The figure of 1-3/4% over is a figure that you developed is that correct? MR. SIRICO: Could be. CHAIRMAN: It looks like your handwriting. It's not a Building Department sketch or anything in that nature. I have no further questions. We'll close the hearing, we'll make a decision in the very near future and we'll get back to you with a decision. MR. SIRICO: Thank you. CHAIRMAN: Hearing no further comment, I'll make a motion closing the hearing reserving decision until later. MEMBER OSTERMANN: Second. CHAIRMAN: All in favor. MEMBERS: Aye. 7:05 - Appl. No. 4478 - LEO and GERALDINE OLSEN CHAIRMAN: Request to reverse decision of the Building Inspector, and in the alternative, a Variance under Article XXiV, Section ]00-243, based upon the April 15, 1997 Action of Disapproval issued by the Building Inspector, in applicant's repair and new roof, and proposed overhead door, for an existing accessory shed. Location of Page 8 - Hearing Tra~iSeripts May 19, 1997 - Board of Appeals Property: 3590 Main Road and Gui1 Pond Lane, Greenport, N.Y.; County Parcel ~1000-35-4-28.12. I have a copy of the survey dated September 22, 1972 by Roderick Van Tuyl P.C., indicating our lot number 8 of the original subdivision and a 12 x 14 foot existing storage building which is partially raised at the time of the inspection and I have a copy of the SUffolk County Tax Map indicating this and surrounding properties in the area. Mr. Olsen would you like to be heard, Sir? MR. OLSEN: Yes. I have some documents I'd like to show to the Board. CHAIRMAN: Do you have a CO on that building? MR. OLSEN: Yes, I have copies for all the Members. This is the Notice of Mailing which is completed. I have all the green cards, all except a couple of the green cards. This is the application for the Building Permit and approval and CO, there's enough for the Board Members. CHAIRMAN: I was lucky enough to catch you down there and you were doing a little clearing at the time or whatever and we had quite a conversation. You want to give us the abridge version of that. MR. OLSEN: Sure, we had just purchased the property and took possession on January 10, 1997. At the time the existing shed, the roof was caving in so I felt I should repair it before somebody got hurt and I was notified that we needed a Building Permit and I did apply for it. It was denied as a nonconforming use. The way I found out by going through some of the Town's Zoning of both the old and the new revised, latest revised. My property has two uses, one is a possible one family dwelling which it has not, it's a vacant lot and the other use is a boat mooring, as has been the use since the property was developed I believe in the late fifties. So, the building is not nonconforming, it is accessory to the boat and the boat dock. SO, any structures that might pertain to mooring beyond those boats of this property, would be I think, by reading your Codes as much as I can undex'stand it, would be permitted. I'm simply asking that the Building Inspector's Decision be reversed and the Building Permit be granted so I can complete the work and I simply want to make it look nice. We bought the property, we're kind of over zealous in trying to get it cleaned up right away, it was quite run down and just want to make it look real good. CHAIRMAN: Based upon my discussions with you, you indicated, that you wanted to put sanitary facilities or, I'll refer to them. You want to put a toilet and a shower in the, we'll refer to it, the existing proposed 12 x 14 foot storage building. MR. OLSEN: There has been a shower, a hot water heater in this building since probably when it was built, so it has been used for Page 9 - Hearing Tra,,Scripts · May 19, ]997 - Board of Appeals shower. It's ealled the utility storage and my understanding and reading the dietionary, utility means plumbing and storage is storage and that's what it was used for all these years and I just want to continue the use. I want to put a small garden tractor in there and I'd like to keep my tools and have a workbench so I can keep supplies and gardening tools and stuff safe. CHAIRMAN: You also told me independently that you were going to go to Suffolk County Department of Health Services and ask for a, I'll refer to it as a full fledged sanitary system so that you don't have to worry about it when you're ready to put the house on the sanitary system will be in. MR. OLSEN: Yes. The reason why we want to apply now, is we want to do all the site work and get the driveways in and we won't have to dig up the ground anymore. It'll all be in. CHAIRMAN: You have town water there, right? MR. OLSEN: Yes I do, Greenport. This is the oniy thing lacking. We're going before the Trustees next week for the balance of this land work. They gave me permission to clear. I want to remove some trees and fix the dock and there's a retaining wall that's giving way and I'd like to repair that. I'm trying to ap'proach this through the correct channels. I just want to get on with our work. As far as the septic system it's not that imperative that I have it, but it would just make it convenient so that we don't have to tear up the ground anymore once I landscape it. CHAIRMAN: Because if you don't have it, what would you actually place the sanitary stuff in from the - MR. OLSEN: I'll have to use a portable potty. I'm using that now. It's a job, but, potty at home and dumping it. It'll be a low volume. It'll be the minimum sanitation system but at least it would be a legal plant sewage, where sewage belongs. CHAIRMAN: I just wanted you to be aware of that and that the Board may place a restriction on it that when you build a one family house that would have to be removed. MR. OLSEN: What the shed? CHAIRMAN: No, the toilet facilities. MR. OLSEN: Oh, in the shed? CHAIRMAN: Yes, in the shed. We're not really attuned to putting all of these utilities into a storage building, just so you're aware of that. The other issue is the trailer. Could you explain to the Board, what the purpose of the trailer is. Page 10 - Hearing Tr.~xscripts May 19, 1997 - Board of Appeals MR. OLSEN: I called the Building Department and asked if there was any restrictions on parking a small travel trailer on the property and they told me there were no restrictions provided you don't live in it. Obviously, I'm not going' to live in it. I'm living and we're using that as a lunch room and a changing room and there's a small refrigerator in there and the portable potty is in there now. I can't use the shed. Basically a comfort station. There is no intent to live in it at all. CHAIRMAN: Now, what happens when. the doer is finished or completed and the 47 foot boat which you told me you had comes in? MR. OLSEN: That will be in from I'd say June through November and then it's back to Freeport with the boat and the land it sits. That's it for the use. We all have a 24 foot boat in case we want to come out on a Saturday afternoon, late winter or something~ go for a ride, but I also will be hauled out of the water and I hope to place that on the property on the trailer or on blocks, you know~ continue to use as a boating facility. CHAIRMAN: The question I have is, how long will the trailer be there? MR. OLSEN: I didn't have any idea that I would have to remove it, but, if you say I do, I will. CHAIRMAN: No, I'm only asking a hypothetical question. MR. OLSEN: The trailer would go right to the Town Dump. You know, it's no big deal. I need right now the eomfort station. CHAIRMAN: Alright, we'll start with Mrs. Tortora. MEMBER TORTORA: I've noticed that there was electric in the utility in the trailer. MR. OLSEN: Yes, that's for heat and there's a refrigerator. MEMBER TORTORA: Have you been submitted an application by the Department of Health for the sanitary system yet? MR. OLSEN: No I did not. I have the applications and I'm going to have to get a local architect to draw an absolute plan. It's an involved plan that the3r want. There was a sanitary system approved for this property. However, it's since gone stale. It's 1974, it was a septic. I have the approval but, after a certain amount of years you can't use that anymore so I know it's possible. MEMBER TORTORA: I guess you know, I had some of the same concerns Jerry was discussing as far as the trailer not being a livable trailer and also as far as the utility storage room. It's Page 1] - Hearing Tr~lscripts May 19, 1997 - Board of Appeals an accessory storage room and you know, my own thought right off the bat is I would actually prefer to wait and see what the comments are from the Department of Health and the Trustees which really would have a lot more expertise in the area of wetlands and some of the concerns that I might have before I like to make a decision. MR. OLSEN: I didn't apply to the Board of Health Department yet on the septic. I'm simply looking at this time to be able to finish the repair to the shed. Whether or not we're allowed to put a toilet facility in this building is some kind of confusion. MEMBER TORTORA: Well, even the~ you know, the other aspects like the toilet, the shower and the portable potty that you're using now. What do you think Jerry? CHAIRMAN: Well the question is, where are you putting the, you know, if the shower works, where is the water going? MR. OLSEN: There's a drywell somewhere on the property. That was there, I don't know how far it goes. CHAIRMAN: I kind a like the idea of your going the whole route because you were then talking about using the sanitary facilities as a pumping station for the boat so on and so forth. So, I kind a like that idea and I don't think from the point of view I very rarely get into financial aspects but I think it makes sense to put the sa:nitary system in since you have town water and you know that's not going to change. Once they approve it they're going to - it may only be good for 13 months or ~4 months and you may not build a :house within that period of time but you can always renew it again because they gave you the approval and you put it in. MR. OLSEN: The reason for the boat is that the boat is large and it's very difficult if you're not staying at a mariner to pull in to use the sanitary dump station. If I had my own, I-could have a portable tank that we could pump the boat into a tank and then b~ing it to the toilet facility and I would have a proper hookup. They do make connections that it won't leak and we would be able to service the beat that way. That would be probably once a week or twice a week the most, cause we'll go out weekends cruising if we're away with the boat we'll pump out before we come back because we'll be: staying at a mariner. In most cases it would be very convenient for us. There aren't that many mariners out here that could take my boat. I have to go over to Stifling or to and if they can accommodate my pumpout situation. These little guys that drive around in the Bay are willing to take away your sewage and I can't stay out there and look for one. CHAIRMAN: Mrs. Ostermann. Page 12 - Hearing Ti~.~scripts May 19, 1997 - Board of Appeals MEMBER OSTERMANN: I just have a question. Where would the overhead garage door go? When we were out there and looked at the shed to- -. MR. OLSEN: It would be on the back facing the west. MEMBER OSTERMANN: The west side. MR. OLSEN: It's an on bearing wall. Actualiy, the wall can be taken out completely and the building will stand; A friend of mine gave me a door. That's an afterthought so I said, let me ask. Small lawn tractor, something to cut the grass. MEMBER OSTERMANN: Thank you. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Dinizio. MEMBER DINIZIO: As I see, you're just here now to reverse the Building Inspector's decision, not necessarily put a toilet facility or MR. OLSEN: No. MEMBER DINIZIO: You just want to cover the shed that is existing. MR. OLSEN: The shed as existing and accessory to the dock, which is the primary use of the property. MEMBER OLSEN: So you're not looking for the toilet facility now? MR. OLSEN: No, not at this time. MEMBER DINIZIO: You just hope sometime in the future to make the applications to do that? MR. OLSEN: Within the next couple of months. I have other applications that have to be made. The property needs to be dredged. The DEC gave me a permit to put my boat almost in the middle of the creek because I couldn't get to either side and they will allow me to dredge and I spoke to the Town Trustees. They all visited the site and they're aware of my problems. The property is quite run down. The doctor passed away I believe in 1992 and prior to that he was siek a few years. MEMBER DINIZIO: I just want to make sure the nature of this application is not what you've been discussing most of the night. The nature of the application is just that you want to get a roof back on this utility. MR. OLSEN: The roof is on. Page 13 - Hearing Tl~iscripts May 19, 1997 - Board of Appeals MEMBER DINIZIO: Yes, I know, I know that, and all you want us to do is if we decide that we agree with you, is to overturn this. MR. OLSEN: That's correct. MEMBER DINIZIO: OK, and the rest of it you'll take care of, you may be back before us at some point in time and I mean, that's OK, I'm assuming. MR. OLSEN: Yes, we'll make application. The other question was the trailer and I did ask the Building Department and the Co-Enforcement Officer said, "yes, you can park it there, don't live in it." MEMBER DINIZIO: But you haven't been denied for that, you haven't been cited for that and you're not before us for that trailer? MR. CHAIRMAN: No, I was merely giving Mr. Olsen's historical and future opinions of what he intends to do with this property. That's basically it, OK. MEMBER DINIZIO: It's just my concern that we not hold him up. CHAIRMAN: I apologize, I thought that you were going or you were anticipating putting the shower and the toilet facilities in the storage building. MR. OLSEN: Yes, I'd Hke to~ but, I haven't got to that stage. We only got the property in January and between then and now we sold the house in the mountains and I tell you it's been a run for the roses in spite of myself trying to get everything together, getting the DEC Permits and the Trustee Permits and its been a busy time so we kind of put the back burner on the subject before applying in the Fall and hopefully next Spring I could put it in. CHAIRMAN: OK, so, if we just grant you the reconstruction of the storage building that's all you're interested at this point and then you will come back for any future utility changes that are in that building? MR. OLSEN: Yes. CHAIRMAN: Except for electricity. MR. OLSEN: Instead of using the shower room in the shed, I'll use the boat. CHAIRMAN: Except for electricity. Page 14 - Hearing Tz~,~scripts May 19, 1997 - Board of Appeals MR. OLSEN: The electricity in the shed. There's 50 amp service in that shed. It was done probably right. I mean it was built properly. CHAIRMAN: You'll have to go back to the Building Department and then they'll redeny you if you want to put utilities in and that's what my concern is. MR. OLSEN: Yeah, well I have to go for the toilet facilities. I would get deny and after I get their Health Department OK, then, I'll be back before you. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Well, he's talking about a different kind of denial. He's saying that if the Zoning Board adds a condition saying you can't have it, then it would be denied and come back to the Zoning Board. CHAIRMAN: See, that's where the problem lies. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: You had one there right, preexisting right, the shower? CHAIRMAN: The shower was. MR. OLSEN: And they used portable potties. I threw all the portable potties they had away. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: But, it's possible that the Building Department might not deny you for that, right? MR. OLSEN: It's possible. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Yes, OK. CHAIRMAN: OK, good, now we got it down. Thank you for your future opinion on what you intend to do. MR. OLSEN: We can leave? CHAIRMAN: Yes. MR. OLSEN: Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN: You might to see if there's anybody else while where here. Is there anybody else would like to speak in favor? Anybody like to speak against? Hearing no further comment I'll make a motion closing the hearing reserving decision until later. MEMBER OSTERMANN: Second. CHAIRMAN: All in favor. Page 15 - Hearing T~.-,lseripts May 19, 1997 - Board of Appeals MEMBERS: Aye. 7:44 - Appl. No. 4479 - JOHN and ELSIE NIEDERAUER CHAIRMAN: Request for a Variance under Article III, Section 100-33C based upon the March 18, 1997 Action of Disapproval by the Building Inspector for permission to construct an accessory garage in the front yard at less than the required 40 feet for a pareel containing 24,000+ sq. ft. in area. Loeation of Property: 1745 Bayshore Road, Greenport, N.Y.; County Parcel #t000-53-4-7. R-40 Residential Zone. I have a copy of the site plan indicating the approximate location of the existing house and the proposed garage at approximately 20 feet from Bayshore Road and approximately 11 feet from the I'll refer to it as the northwesterly property line and a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and surrounding properties in the area. Is there somebody that would like to be heard? Good evening Sir, would you state your name for the record please. MR. ARM: My name is Craig Arm, I'm representing Niederauer. CHAIRMAN: You did this nice little site plan for us? MR. ARM: Yes, I did. Mr. & Mrs. Niederauer wish to construct a garage because skewed to the size of the property and the proximity currently to the water. Then, if we were to move the garage further back towards the water, they're the only order they have right now is on the side of that house behind where the garage is. So, the further we push it back they're really limited anything they can do later on. Also, with hopes, that sometime in the future possibly expand the house. If we were to come forward since we still can't go backwards and we really want to try and maintain the side yard as their only real use of the yard, thee only distance we can really add on to the house is to (inaudible-eoughing) as well to the road. So, if we were to put the garage right in front of the house somehow there really is no yard left or' any other place to put it. It would still also because it is alon~ a waterfront piece of property that you can't have a full foundation for storage. They have a small shed now which we're actually ~oing behind the entire distinct structure we wish to go the structure behind. CHAIRMAN: Is this one story? MR. ARM: Yes, it is. Page 16 - Hearing Tl~tscripts May 19, 1997 - Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN: My question to you is, did you count the amount of garages that are in the front yard area that are on that side of Bayshore Road? MR. ARM: Not actually but I did try walking down the street, yes. CHAIRMAN: How many would you think there would be? MR. ARM: Ail of them. CHAIRMAN: I guess I'm OK on this, Mr. Dinizio. MEMBER DINIZIO: No, I don't have any questions. You're going to remove that shed, right? MR. ARM: Yes. CHAIRMAN: Mrs. Ostermann. MEMBER OSTERMANN: Not at the moment. CliAIRMAN: Mrs. Tortora. MEMBER TORTORA: The proposed garage, I also looked at the number of the garages in the area and your neighbor to the north, this garage would be at least 15 feet closer to the road than the other neighbor and it's quite a bit closer than the established setbacks and my obvious question to you is, it is a fairly large piece of property- and where the existing house is on the lot you have sufficient room to move the garage back another 15-20 feet and still enlarge the house. You have a lot of alternative locations that would not require a variance. MR. ARM: The main thing was just really an appealing towards trying to maintain the place, side yard and everything else. It's not like a built Hke a tunnel affect. That they could maintain a mice size yard and also not knowing exaetly what we're looking to do with the house at some point if we were to build it directly in front of the house we could maintain some sought of a yard. If we knew exactly what we wanted to do with the alternate that goes with the house other than knowing that we don't want to build out off that side there's really not much else. CHAIRMAN: Not making a decision tonight, would you consider alternate relief and that is if we find a place other than and of course I'm not talking about adjacent to the house. I'm talking about some place else in the yard would you consider alternate relief? I'm not expecting an answer from you tonight Craig. Maybe you might want to go back to your applicants and ask them that questiol~. Page ]7 - Hearing Ti~iscripts May 19, 1997 - Board of Appeals MR. ARM: I estimate they'll be depending on what was proposed that obviously they'll be something we have to to sit down and discuss. CHAIRMAN: OK, sorry Lydia. MEMBER TORTORA: That's all, its just that the various considerable amount of room on the property for you to enjoy the property at the same time meet the setback. I understand that you want to maintain that northerly side of the property as open. On the other hand the required setback is 40 feet and you're requesting 50% variance for no real apparent reason. CHAIRMAN: So, do you want to get back to us on that question of alternate relief? Do you want to speak to them and just mention it? Oh, you're here. How are you? It's an interesting situation. If we say no, OK, then you have to come back with an alternate application. I can't tell you that we have not deliberated upon this. Therefore, I don't know what agreement you know, I don't know what everybody's feelings are concerning the exact place from the 20 feet. We've done several things. We've gone out and measured ail of the garages on that side of Bayshore Road and taken an average. We've a, that are in the front yard area. Not the ones that are attached to the houses. As you know, your lot looks real large based upon some of them as you go down that road. So, I can't tell you at this point. We're also missing a Board Member tonight. Alright, and it takes three votes to come up with a unified figure. MR. NIEDERAUER. My dilemma is the house being so close to water and offset to one side the only way to get good use of that whole property is to relocate the whole house which I don't want to do. That's why I want to push the garage forward as far forward as possible to the road. There are garages on that road that are right on - CHAIRMAN: That is correct. The old time garages. Some of them are pretty close within 5 feet probably. MR. NIEDERAUER: The more I push that garage back and if I do decide to bring my house somewhat larger I'm going to close it right in one to the other and I'm going to have a little tiny breezeway between my garage and my house. CHAIRMAN: I was merely suggesting something like ~0 feet additional. MR. NIEDERAUER: I'm pushing it too far back. I mean, I'll be too close to the house. If I bring the house up 10 feet then I have virtually no room between the garage and the house. Page ]$ - Hearing Ti~nscripts May 19, 1997 - Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN: Well, let me do this. I'll go out and remeasure as I, you probably heard from the other hearing. I have to go to Aquaview so I'll go back down here and I'll measure the garages. I'll take an average and my question is, if it's ]ess than 10 feet are you willing to go along with alternate relief? MR. NIEDERAUER: I don't understand. CHAIRMAN: Well, lets assume that we have unanimity for three votes at 25 feet from a - MR. NIEDERAURER: What are we running from? CHAIRMAN: 20 feet. MR. NIEDERAUER: That's pretty much what I'm asking for, 20 feet. CHAIRMAN: So you want it to fly at 20 and if it doesn't fly it's a rejection or what do you want to do? MEMBER TORTORA: You will have to start all over again if you don't accept alternative. MR. NIEDERAUER: I understand. CHAIRMAN: I'm just trying to save you some money. MR. NIEDERAUER: I don't even want 20, I told him to put it for 10. CHAIRMAN: Which side of the garage door is going to open? MR. NIEDERAUER: They're going to open to the south. I'm going to keep that hedge row, if any of them go we'll reenforce them with new hedges conceal look the doors would be to the south. The driveway we'll be maintained where it is and just the ga~'age. CHAIRMAN: So, you want to stay at 20? MR. NIEDERAUER: Yes. CHAIRMAN: OK, Thank you very much, the both of you. For the record that was John speaking. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Mr. Niederauer. CHAIRMAN: Yes. Page 19 - Hearing T~nscripts May 19, 1997 - Board of Appeals MR. IRION: My name is Bill Irion. I'm an attorney, Smithtown, N.Y. and I'm representing the people who are directly across the street, Bordinko and Laskowski. First of all I want to welcome them to the neighborhood and if I could just take a second to trace back their routes because on one side there is a dwelling and on the other side what appears to be a vacant lot. When they purchased the property, the current owners purchased the property in the early sixties and they purchased the property interesting enough from my mother and father who bought the property in the early nineteen fifties. The reason why they bought the property in the early nineteen fifties is because my mother's sister owned the house four doors down from the petitioner's house. So, you might say we've officially and unofficially vacationing there since 1941. We now come to the situation of the garage. I have a question. I don't know how tall the garage is going to be number 1, I know the town limit is 18 feet. Is that what you're considering to start from? CHAIRMAN: Excuse me Sir, you have to ask the question of the Board. Normally I'll let Craig answer the question in a second, but, normally a one story garage is no higher than 12 feet. MR. IRION: OK. The concerns that I have are regarding a couple of things. There are a number of preexisting nonconforming garages on Bayshore Drive that are very close to the street. CHAIRMAN: That is correct. MR. IRION: But, if you notice, Bayshore Drive circumscribes. It goes and it just goes and goes. Now, none of the garages in this particular section of Bayshore Drive approach the street. In other words you have two distinct characters of Bayshore Drive. One on the northern portion of Bayshore Drive which is where petitioner's property is located and as I will refer to it as the L & B property is located and then the further south you go I imagine it was settled earlier on that part it was more nonconforming at that end. I've taken the liberty of taking a couple of photographs and having them enlarged just if I may to aid in your consideration. This shows the nature and the character of the street where the property is. While I compliment Mr. Arm on the eoncept, the problem is going to be if you have the, in other words, the existing driveway is now going to be moved approximately 50 feet, 40 to 50 feet. The net result of this is the family's property will now not have any possibility of being waterview. None, because if you look at the petitioner's schematic the footprint you'll notice that the entire waterfront is cutoff from the property directly across the street. Simple laws of physics, the closer you get to an object the larger it becomes. At 20 feet that garage is going to be peculiar in size. 24 x 24 is no small object and as you approach the southern end of Bayshore Drive you'll see the garages were then constructed for the automobiles of the thirties and forties and they were very sma]]. Generally one car garages. This is a very large structure. Now, Page 20 - Hearing TI~seripts May 19, 1997 - Board of Appeals from the stand point of the town it's interesting because if this property is no longer waterfront it could not be able to be assessed as waterfront. It is a consideration for the town in that respect. When this property, when the schematic came from Mr. Arm I was surprised because I thought this was one of my aunt's request for plans to build then. At this moment there has been active plans in the family percolating for the development of the property. My main concern here is twofold. One, it would prevent, in other words, because the driveway is going to be moved from behind the house where it really is now to adjacent to the house that winds up directly with the center point of the L & D property which means it is now impossible to design any structure to be near the water. The second thing and I don't want to sound like a humanitarian but from the standpoint of the northern part of Bayshore Road driving around as you can see in the photographs it is a beautiful bucolic drive. If a structure is put at that particular point, that close to the road it will effectively cutoff all of the beautiful natural surroundings, the trees, the shrubs, that have been cultivated over the years. These are the concerns that I have at this point. I wasn't sure if there was a second floor. I'm glad to hear there's only one floor but still at 12 feet I think you can understand the .... concern as far as the view and the overall image of the two properties, in relationship to the two properties. Certainly, I'd be · happy to sit down with the petitioner and see if something could be worked out. But, with respect to 20 feet it would be I think not only on my clients a burden but also on the street and I think Mrs. Tortora was correct in saying I think there are other ways that this would be worked out where it would enhance not only the petitioner's property but the L & B property and the block and that fair for all the highest and best use is sought of what the Board is all about. Those are my remarks, thank you very much. CHAIRMAN: Can I ask Craig a question back there first Mr. Irion? How high is the building, Sir? MR. ARM: The actual building we have it at, I can't show you the exact design based on depending on what we were going to go through based on (?), when the question arises we can't do it, at this time an exact design but eertainly that'll be pending the approvals and won't go beyond any requirements and different setbacks. The driveway is staying exactly where it is. We're not removing any of the hedges or the shrubs. They're all staying. CHAIRMAN: We need you to come up here, Craig, because we've taken this down and the applicant. Go ahead, I'm sorry. MR. ARM: The hedges are going to remain exactly as they are. The driveway entrance is remaining exactly where it is. The entrance to the garage will be from the property, so actually the garage doors will face south so you pull into the exact same spot so as far as the overall height and the view really won't be disturbing anything Page 21 - Hearing Ti.nscripts May 19, 1997 - Board of Appeals based on the fact the hedges are still there and they are very tall hedges with the trees also that are over 20 feet which will be much taller than what we're going to do with anything with the garage. I don't feel that that's really an issue. CHAIRMAN: OK, thank you. Mr. Irion you had a question? MR. IRION: Is it possible to see the photograph? CHAIRMAN: Sure. MEMBER TORTORA: Mr. Arm, in the Building Department application you have the dimensions of the, the structure would be 22 x 22 and a height of 16-1/2 feet, are you amending that? MR. ARM: As far as the size? It was increased to 24 x 24. The overall height that was even just a plus or minus - CHAIRMAN: The height is taken as an average between the roof lines. So, if the roof line is like this it's taken on an average between. So, when I'm saying 12 feet it could vary 12 to 14 based upon that height, so the 18 is not really truly an 18. It's to the column beam sought of speak. MR. ARM: OK, as far as the exact height I'm looking for, we don't really know. I just know that we will obviously maintain something that is acceptable. We haven't spent time on the actual design only based on the fact that we don't know depending on where we're allowed to put it .... CHAIRMAN: Yes, I'm aware of that Mr. Niederauer. That is very simply a picture of the street. MR. NIEDERAUER: Of the road. CHAIRMAN: Of the road, yes, you're absolutely correct. Is there anything further from anyone? MR. IRION: Just me, just to restate. If the building is basically perpendicular or actually a perpendicular street~ no it's horizontal to the street, parallel, very good, thank you, it's parallel to the street then the roof line if it's 16 or 18 feet whatever it is, which really seems to be more of a two story structure than a one story structure, but at any rate, is going to block the view of that entire way as opposed to a structure facing the street with the peak being the long way. That would effectively in other words I realize what you're saying about bushes, but unlike bushes, buildings are almost forever out there and it's for that reason 18 feet again, the property of my clients would be impossible to enjoy any of the potential view of the water even though they're across the street and that does have an impact on the town. I don't believe that this Page 22 - Hearing T~,z~scripts May ]9, 1997 - Board of Appeals necessarily has to be placed at this point requesting a variance and that's why my clients oppose it. Thank you. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Yes, Mr. Niederauer. MR. NIEDERAUER: Again, the trees and the bushes brought up, if I may mentioned that the trees will maintain and be maintained and properly at the house, those trees if they do fail to live, they will be replaced and that's my intention on the property. They are as high as high-tension wires which are over 25 feet tail. That's it. CHAIRMAN: OK. Hearing no further comment I'll make a motion closing the hearing reserving decision until later. MEMBER OSTERMANN: Second. CHAIRMAN: All in favor. MEMBERS: Aye. 7:45 P.M. Appl. No. 448] -HUGH DANGLER and CHRISTINE McCABE CHAIRMAN: This is a request for a Variance under Article III; Section 100-33 (R-S0 Zone) based upon the May 5, 1997 Action of Disapproval issued by the Building Inspector, whereby applicants have applied for permission to locate an accessory gazebo structure in an area other than the required rear yard at premises known as 855 Old Harbor Road, New Suffolk, Town of Southold, N.Y.; County Parcel #1000-117-3-7. I have a copy of a site plan indicating the placement of the gazebo at approximately 56 feet, west of the house, the main dwelling and it appears to be 45 feet from Old Harbor Road and the middle of the road and the requested size is 8 x 14 and I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and surrounding properties in the area. Is there somebody that would like to be heard? Good evening Sir. Would you state your name for the record. MR. DANGLER: Hugh Dangler. CHAIRMAN: How are you? Tell us why you would like this location Mr. Dangler. MR. DANGLER: Our house is situated on the back of a triangle and it's a wonderful location because we have a lot of land but, we have no place to develope our garden with a gazebo with the house set so Page 23 - Hearing Tr~.iscripts May 19, 1997 - Board of Appeals far back. I believe you have the plot plan which shows the We have a garden already there. We had a windmill before, the place had a windmill before we bought it which blew down in a hurricane and we're proposing to put a gazebo with a garden around it where the old windmill went up and we feel that it won't interfere with the neighborhood in any way because it will be hidden by an $ foot thick pivot hedge which is also set 2 feet above the Old Harbor Road and so it's a very private garden with a private structure which will be open and I talked with the Building Department and they approve of what we're doing. We're putting hurricane braces so that the hurricane won't get underneath the roof and li~t it over and we're bolting it to the ground with 3 foot deep of concrete hinge and we feel that it will add not only to the value of the house but to the beauty of the neighborhood. CHAIRMAN: Is this actually a gazebo or is it a reetangular type of building? Is it six sided? MR. DANGLER: No, in the sense it's really a tea house but to explain a tea house to people is a little difficult. It's simply a roof structure where we would go and enjoy the garden and .... probably have tea and we wouldn't see the road or the cars and the people and they wouldn't see us. CHAIRMAN: What's the approximate height of it, Sir, do you know? MR. DANGLER: Well we measured it. We had the architects there and we figured it's about 10 feet from the floor and I expect that would be another 2 or 3 inches from the earth depending upon how the structure falls on the ground. CHAIRMAN: This structure contains no utility, right? No electricity? MR. DANGLER: No, nothing. No electricity, nothing. It's simply a place to and garden. CHAIRMAN: OK, can you tell us why it was important for us to get this on tonight for you? MR. DANGLER: We've rented the house to wonderful people for the summer again and we have to have that constructed certainly before they move in and we've been offered an opportunity to have the structure paid for by a magazine because they say the setting is beautiful and the structure would be something that people all over the country wo.uld like to see and perhaps build, so there is urgency, believe me. CHAIRMAN: OK, starting with Mr. Dinizio. MEMBER DINIZIO: No, 1 have no questions. Page 24 - Hearing T}~,lscripts May 19, 1997 - Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN: Mrs. Ostermann. MEMBER OSTERMANN: No questions. CHAIRMAN: Mrs. Tortora. MEMBER TORTORA: No. 'CHAIRMAN: OK. While you're standing there, we'll see if anybody in the audience would like to speak. Is there anybody that would like to speak in favor? Anybody like to speak against? Hearing no further questions I'll make a motion closing the hearing reserving decision until later. MEMBER OSTERMANN: Second. CHAIRMAN: All in favor. MEMBERS-: Aye. 7:50 P.M. - Appl. No. 4469 - RAYMOND FEDYNAK CHAIRMAN: This is a earryover from the last two seheduled meetings. Is there anybody here, Fedynak? I'll make a motion carry it to the 19th which is the aetual regularly seheduled meeting. MEMBER OSTERMANN: Second. CHAIRMAN: All in favor. MEMBERS: Aye 8:00 P.M. - Appl. No. 4465 - BARRY and CAROL ASNESS MEMBER DINIZIO: Continued hearing. (Previously postponed for additional information). We received some additional information concerning weights. I personally have a few questions about it and I'd like to see maybe we can get them straightened out. Concerning the actual total weight for what you're excavating and I see you have what the pool weighs but, we have no definitive number to subtract from that in the numbers that you gave us and I'm wondering if you could - Page 25 - Hearing Tr~iscripts May 19, ]997 - Board of Appeals MR. ASNESS: We've two sets of figures that you said were given to you by- the pool company and then there's one that was done up by the engineer. MEMBER DINIZIO: -ties, by one, Sambach. I have the pool company which is very clear. MR. ASNESS: And Sambach uses the same figures but he uses it in mathematical terms here and if you go a quarter of the way down he has the weight of the earth being 475. MEMBER DINIZIO: What is that 475, pounds? MR. ASNESS: I think that's tons. MEMBER DINIZIO: 475 tons? MR. ASNESS: Right, and this is, his calculations for the weight of the pool and water. Those figures are all up above here and this figure comes out rather close to the same numbers that the pool company had but they have, I think they've got 325 or something like that. MEMBER DINIZIO: Yes, 328. MEMBER TORTORA: Could you read into the record for us the calculations based on new information. MR. ASNESS: Per total pool company, we have a sheet here from John Rachel that's signed, that gives the weight for the water displacement at 186,459 pounds, the stone coping installed around the perimeter on top at 4,000 pounds, the cement, 40 cubic yards of cement at 138,000 pounds, the total weight of the pool is 328,459 pounds. Warren Sambach, Engineer, Cutchogue, who was here to testify the week before tonight. His own calculations he went overboard on the concrete, making the walls as thick as ]2 inches. His figures come out for the pool weighing 368,500 pounds, pool water slab concrete and he has the amount of earth displaced at 475,000 pounds. Over 100,000 pounds lighter. He shows all of his calculations above it. We don't have exact calculations, we have the results from the pool company. He also has a sketch that he added on the back to your drawing. It shows that actually by placing the pool here, not only is the pool lighter, but any thrust downward is to be lowered by the depth of the pool because of course, the pool lighter foundation of the house does not expand at the top. All of the weight is ~ontained, so its been lowered from the top of the g~ound level there, or at the top of this bluff by one end 4-1/2 feet · lower and the other end 5-1/2 feet lower. So, that thrust, that weight which is ]ess now has also been reduced to a lower level and contained. Page 26 - Hearing Ti~nseripts May 19, 1997 - Board of Appeals MEMBER DINIZIO: OK, so I have approximately 24 tons OK, and that's for the difference? I suppose that this 475,000 pounds total that comes out to about 24 tons and the pool itself weighs approximately 16 tons. A little bit easier for me to understand. Also, then how do you intend to, you know, what are you going to do about digging this, you know, the equipment that's going to be on there? MR. ASNESS: The equipment is relatively small scale. You have to keep in mind that a gunite pool is not poured concrete like you come up to a hole when you pour a foundation where you have to get your equipment up on top. It's sprayed through a hose. So of course the heavy concrete trucks can park right where the fuel trucks do in the driveway or right down where the caps presently park and that hose is brought up on the side and you spray this gunite inside the pool. What makes the gunite pool work is that you don't go in and dig a huge hole like you do for a house and then fill the dirt in later on, you sculpture out just the sides of the area for the pool and then you put your re , your reenforcing. So, it is very gently excavated. It's not in there where your knocking things down and moving quickly. You're as carefully as possible cutting a hole in the ground so that the thiekness of your wall when you're shaping a pool is designed by that hole that you put in there. So, it is done very carefully depending on the particular situation, either with a backhoe or a bucket or a very small bulldozer and I'm sure in this ease it does concern a bulldozer even on a small size and scale of the distance that it is we could work this out so that this equipment had rubber tires on it. MEMBER TORTORA: Just a question on the new survey that you submitted. I just want to reiterate the variance request would be this is the final bearing request here would be for 55 feet on the westerly side of the proposed nearest edge of the westerly side, correct? MR. ASNESS: Yes, as it is sketched here to what the surveyor has is top affect. MEMBER TORTORA: And 65 feet on the eastern side? MR. ASNESS: Yes, those are the closest points he could find in the arc. MEMBER TORTORA: What is the 88 feet. What does that mark mean? MR. ASNESS: I believe the 88 feet is the other end of the wooden platform that they have there. Page 27 - Hearing Tl~,~scripts May 19, 1997 - Board of Appeals MEMBER TORTORA: I don't know, I couldn't figure it out. That's why I'm asking. If its not relevant then don't need to know, but I just wondered what it meant. MR. ASNESS: Oh, no, actually what we're doing is there are two lines there. The 88 feet from the top of the bank and then we also were requested at one of the earlier meetings to show the coastal erosion hazard line. So, from the coastal erosion hazard line, that's the line that starts on the western side of the property and then slowly moves down across the bank towards the neighbors to the east and gets further and further from the houses that line is 65 feet, from that line it's $8 feet from the top of bank line. So, he's using the same radius to show you where it intersects the hazard line. MEMBER TORTORA: So the 65 feet is to the coastal erosion hazard line, is that correct? MR. AiNESS: Right. 88 feet is to tho top of bank line and then because they change there to some degree he hasn't used the same radius he~s used different radius again to show you the closest .... point, and the hazard line is 38 on the ether side and 55 on Shannon's side. We also show the existing wooden deck here to both lines to, so each of the locations are the front yard top of bank and they both are hazards. WeWe added on that same survey other request for the drywell and a line showing the plumbing will go to that. I believe you have a gallon that came from the pool company as well, the size of the and again this is a low chemical treatment system and very low back wash is being done, it's all below grade. MEMBER TORTORA: OK, I don't have any more questions. MEMBER DINIZIO: Noreen. MEMBER OSTERMANN: No. MEMBER DINIZIO: Is there anybody else that would like to speak in favor? BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Could we have your name please? MRS. ASNESS: My name is Carol Asness. Good evening to the Zoning Board of Appeals and I'd like to say good evening to everyone as well. I have a copy of what I'm going to. I've lived on the North Fork for the last 11 years of my 53 years. Just had a birthday last week and it's, I feel real good about it. My husband Barry and I lived in Peconic just 5 houses off the Bay and by living · hero we learn to love and respect the North Fork. We also learn about the fragile nature of our environment that we all live in. Our dream was to live on the water and it was fulfilled last September. We sold the house in Peconic and bought a house on a high bluff in Page 28 - Hearing T~scripts May 19, 1997 - Beard of Appeals Mattituck overlooking the Long Island Sound. My work takes me to many places in the United States and often I go out of the country. I commute somewhat almost every week of my life. Either I go to New York City or I fly somewhere off to work but no matter where I go I'm always anxious to return to the beauty and tranquility that I find here on the North Fork. Unfortunately, this tranquility has been marred. Our mediate neighbors to the west Warren and Met Brady have ardently objected to our variance application for a pool. As to this I must note a clear pattern. They have also stated that they objected to the initial building of our house on our lot, some 20 years ago. The Shannons, our neighbors to the east told us that they gave their builders a hard time when they built their home, also about 20 years ago and of course you're aware of the Psyllos's tennis court situation. The score card as to our close neighbors is as follows. Our mediate neighbors to the east, the Shannons as I mentioned have no objection to the pool. They wish us well and express that their only eoncern in all of this is our unpleasant welcome to the Mattituck area. The neighbors east of the Shannors, the Sledjeskis have raised no objection. I haven't heard of any objections from the Burns, west of the Bradys, and certainly, I have no objeetion but from Duck Cooper who spoke clearly at the last hearing that our pool is not the problem. He's attended the last two Zoning Board Appeals meeting and demonstrated his support and I'm grateful to him for that. The Psyllos's are contiguous neighbors to the south have also wished us well. Additionally, and just for the record, the people who have objected to our pool other than the Bradys do not live contiguous to us or to the Bradys or to the Shannons. I'd like to move to some of the more relative concepts though. Is there erosion on the bluffs. Is weight on top of the bluffs the cause of the erosion and does a p0ol weigh more or less than the dirt that's removed and ultimately can a small pool built close to our house cause erosion of the bluff upon which it sits. First I'd like to look at other bluffs eroding. Of course there are other erosion on the bluffs. It's sad to walk along the soul~d beaches in Mattituck. There's a lot of erosion. You can see the cliff sheared and flight of steps in various stages of decay. Unfortunately, none of it is caused by what's on top of the bluffs. If it was, it would be easier to fix. It's all caused by what's happening down below, the winds, the tides, the jetties and the forces of nature at work. Again, back to my question, is the weight on the top of the bluffs the cause of the erosion? Unequivocally, the answer is really, no. I spent hours in the last two weeks on the internet reading about beach and soil erosion and beach erosion control. Nowhere did anyone discuss the cause or relationship between the weight on top and the erosion of any other shoreline. When you read reports on erosion from Hawaii to Caiifornia to New York, erosion was always discussed in relation to the water and the tides. Never as to the weight added to bluffs or land. Nor did I ever find the term fault in any of the relative literature on erosion. But just to allay any fears the weight of the proposed pool ~ill be less than the dirt removed. We've even been Page 29 - Hearing Tick,scripts May 19, 1997 - Board of Appeals advised by a structural engineer that we should really compare the weight of the pool to the weight of wetter not dry since soil gets heavier when it rains. If you look at it that way, then the pool really weighs much less than the existing dirt. In fact, by building the pool, we're actually in essence lighting up the weight on the bluff, not that that reaiiy matters. But, back to the issue, what we're asking for is permission to build our pool close to our house well within the setback of our two adjacent neighbors. I ask you to grant our permission. The issues seem here clear and direct and I hope that the Zoning Board of Appeals can make the right decision and we can ail move on and I thank you for hearing this. MEMBER DINIZIOr Thank you very much. Is there anybody else would like to speak in favor? MR. COOPER: Ben Cooper, I have two regrets here tonight. One is that I'm not as articulate as Mrs. Asness, I have to totally agree with her. What she says but she says it much nicer. She is totally accurate and correct in all statements. My other regret is that the focus of all this confrontation is on the swimming pool. It's totally misdirected. It should be at curing the problems. If the neighbors could work together to solve the problems we'd all benefit instead of fighting over a humanness swimming pool. Thank you. MEMBER DINIZIO: Anybody else for? Anybody against like to speak? MR. BRADY: I'm Warren Brady of Mattituek Hills, 31 year resident here. Well, first 1 direct your attention to Warren Sambach's drawings here and where he shews a section of the pool, he shows that we have 18 foot from the pool to the crest of the bluff. There's a fault line there where the steps had to keep being added on each year or two because that part is sinking, sliding down because the stairway to the beach of course has to be repaired every couple of years. Said collapse is due to the shifting. Now, I don't think that all of these plot plans that keep getting revised and everything, we're using a computer generated line to work against which is not practical. The actual crest is shown where the crest is breaking away and they have to add steps to get up and it also of course covers the faults. That's where the land fault is and you have some detailed drawing that we submitted before showing where the crest fault is. So far as the, lets see, we're now talking about ]8 feet and we should be 100 feet back. So, we're asking to be relieved of 82 foot. Of course it wasn't until I got out there myself and took real measurements to find out exactly how close that pool was going to be to the crest. My showed up here as 18 feet and that's pretty close. MEMBER TORTORA: I don't have anything that shows 18 feet. Oh, there we are, OK. Is that accurate, Mr. Stoutenburgh? Page 30 - Hearing T}~.~scripts May 19, 1997 - Board of Appeals MR. STOUTENBURGH: Itm not sure, he seems to be judging from a survey and an engineer's drawing to show you the direction of the bluff. I don't know if the engineer's playing trivia there. I think he's trying to show you that the weight of the figures are down at the lower level than it was originally prepared. I did not ask him to survey the property or show this hypothetical fault line right here which I don't have anybody who comes up with that. MR. BRADY: Excuse me, at the last hearing I gave you some dimensions from the edge of their wooden platforms to that fault line that runs on top of the steps and you came up w~ith around 34 feet if you recall, 33 feet. Those were actual to your measurements, not computer generated and I've been measuring for 40 years in business, so, I'm fairly accurate although the tolerance on these measurements plus or minus an inch doesn't really matter. You're talking what thirty, he admits here by his drawings, it's designed 18 foot clearance here. So, you've got to juggle that and think about how that may be. See where the fault line is very critical on this. You may of been using the line that's 10 feet down where the lower platform is but that's not the true crest. The crest is at the highest point where it's (inaudible). MEMBER DINIZIO: Well, let me ask you this question Mr. Brady. What are your thoughts on the fact that saying it's going to 8 tons less weight. MR. BRADY: Yes, using common and empirical formulas I came up, it's going to be a few- tons less with the water in there and the gunite. In fact, I spoke with Mr. Tortelio on the phone and we discussed the thing. That was I guess Saturday, so we, after he did all of this. MEMBER DINIZIO: I'm asking you, I mean in the scheme of things wouldn't that be better? Wouldn't less weight be better. I just think that what you're saying is that this is a ongoing natural process that you know has probably been there for some time and - MR. BRADY: Well you know, since they graded it flat. See, in 79 when he submitted the first plot plan it showed everything perfectly level. Yeah, well now you notice the steps there. Well, that's all and this is continuous thing. Now, if we get tremendously heavy rain fall and get through the sand into clay, lubricate the clay and then it was ever claimed balances and forces then it will increase the movement that time. MEMBER DINIZIO: I understand that. What I'm asking you, you know, maybe you can't answer it, I don't know, but that there will be less weight there now if this would be granted. MR. BRADY: Well, yes, but I think that's offset by the fact that you're going to have equipped may be disturb that natural Page 31 - Hearing Tz~-.iseripts May 19, 1997 - Board of Appeals cohesiveness of the compacted soil. So~ there is some~ you know a, you know cohesion there, if that's a good expression. I haven't been engineering for a while. MEMBER DINIZIO: No, no, I think I understand what you're saying. MR. BRADY: Once you dig everything away then things will loosen up and if something happens in the pool it cracks then the water will run out, depends on how much big the crack is and you know, I think there's a lot of elements here that have to be thought about. I certainly want the people you know to have a pool and have a nice time and enjoy life but I don't want to lie awake and have the bedroom or cliff erode away while I'm sleeping. MEMBER DINIZIO: I don't think anybody wants that Mr. Brady. Anything else? MR. BRADY: Just one other question that's for Mr. Stoutenburg. On this new. plot plan we show a drywell to drain the pool. Now, I'm not an expert in pool maintenance by any means, I've never owned a pool but we're talking roughly 23,000 gallons of water and going into a 3 by 5 drywell and where this drywell by the way is located is upgrade from my property so if it overflows this chemically treated water is going to run in because it's only going to be about 12 feet from my boundary line where its shown and it will be running down there and probably killing all my expensive evergreens. So, now, what had to be relocated where it's not upgrade from where my fence is on my property. In other words you're not allowed to run water off your property on to someone else's house. We ~have been fortunate in that we've had people back us up from the North Fork Environmental Council. They actually came to the site and showed the mark fault, showed where it connects with the Asness's fault and they in their wisdom would come out against this. So, I want you to keep that in mind when you're making deliberations. Thank you for your time. CHAIRMAN PRO TEN DINIZIO: Thank you very much Mr. Brady. Is there anybody else who wish to speak against? Sir. MR. WILLS: Good evening, my name is Frank Wills. I'm also a resident of Mattituck on the bluff to the east of the properties that we're talking about. I'd like to make a few points and basically go back in history a bit. When I put my house up 1963 there were no regulations as to where I could put it. I like the view obviously to be near the edge of the bluff, so, I said to get so close as I could get, why not. Being a careful type though I said alright lets find out what the previous erosion has been. The records go back 70 years and the average was i to 2 per year. I took the worst case. Since the beach was ~92 foot wide I said I'm not going to worry about it, ~ won't be here in 90 years. Of course the longevity Page 32 - Hearing T~scripts · May 19, 1997 - Board of Appeals changed all that and in 78 I had to move my house because there was no beach left. My recollection is thai around 1980 new rules and regulations, the zoning regulations were instituted,, mandating a 100 foot setback for any structure on the bluff overlooking presumably Long Island Sound. I do not know, don't remember why this came about, why the town was so concerned to institute such a rule, but, I think it was a smart one. But, the idea of now saying, well we can forget this its probably going back to what it use to be called the good old days which if we're honest about it really weren't so good, we ignored what ever was there, we did what we wanted and went ahead and built wherever we felt like it, how high, whatever it is until zohing rules and building rules came in, most of which I think were sensible. To now say, that well the pool is only you know a lighter structure than the thing and it really won't affect the erosion of the cliff, probably is correct. The fact that the pool is a moving thing, water moves, could setup some vibrations, who knows, it's not a static thing. The major erosion is coming from below. The last time I was up here, I mentioned the new rock that has shown up in the last 4 years where Cooper's rock is, except this rock was in the cliff and 4 years ago we didn't know it was there. It is now free standing and that rock is taller than this building, this room, and from the wall until about here, there it stands, all in the last 4 years. What I'm getting at is the erosion has accelerated and if it keeps going at this rate, nobody knows whether it will or not, but its done pretty well so far. The cliff where this property is will be started to be chewed away at the b~ttom and anything close to the edge will go. If that is the way of how we do things nowadays that we say, well lets forget about what's goner happen, this is what I want, I've got the money to do it, it's my property, so be it. But I think, the town set some rules and regulations after some careful thought and I think they ought to be adhere to. So, I'm not in favor or against putting the pool up, to me actually the idea of putting the pool when you live on the water, is a, I won't comment on that, I mean you can walk down the cliff and you can go swimming, but, that's their own business, it's their property, so, I'm suggesting that the rules and regulations that were put in with a lot of thought be enforced. Thank you. CHAIRMAN PRO TEM DINIZIO: Thank you very much. Is there anybody else that wishes to speak on this application? No, OK, any Board Members, any comments? MEMBER OSTERMANN: No comment. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: No, OK, I guess we're going to close this hearing now. MEMBER TORTORA: I think we ought to close reserve decision. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: OK, Maureen you second that? Page 33 - Hearing T~.~iseripts : ~"~" May 19, 1997 - Board of Appeals MEMBER OSTERMANN: I will seeond. CHAIRMAN DINIZIO: All in favor. BOARD MEMBERS: Aye. RECEIVED AND FILED BY THE SOUTHOLD TO¥~N CLERK DATE 7/~2//~? HOUR/~ ~r ?~ t Town Clerk Town o-~ Souihold