Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-07/10/1997 HEARING TRANSCRIPT OF HEARINGS SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS JULY 10, 1997 Prepared by Lucy FarrelI (from tapes) 6:50 P.M. - Appl. No. 4494 - ANTONIO PIRAINO CHAIRMAN: This application is based upon the Building Inspector's June 1997 Action of Disapproval, for a Variance under- Article III, Section 100-32, Bu}k Schedule, permission to place new dwelling with insufficient front yard setback from right-of-way which passes through center of applicant's property, and reduced rear yard setback. Location of Property: 3637 Right-of-Way off the west side of Cox Neck Road, Mattituck; 1000-113-3-2,3. Zone: R-80. I have a copy of a survey produced by Anthony W. Lewandowski, the mosl recent date on the survey is May 29, 1997, if anyone in the audience has not seen this survey we'd be very happy to recess be£ore we close the hearing and show it to them, and~I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and surrounding properties in the area. Would somebody like to be heard? Anybody here? Yes, are you the applicant? MR. PIRA[NO: Ikn the applicant. My name is Antonio Piraino. We've tried to set the house on the property that is the best for the land and for the surrounding area. We had a few meetings with the Town Trustees and the spot that was finally decided on was the best for tile property and for the wetlan~t area. I'm also going to do everything I can to leave the land as natural as possible when the house is built. CHAIRMAN: Whst is the appro×/mate size of the house? MR. PIRAINO: 2300 sq. ft. CHAIRMAN: That's two stories right? MR. PiRAINO: Yes. I have, I don't know if you would like to MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes, we would, thank you. OK, what else would you like to tell us? MR. PIRAINO: When we originally purchased tile property, it required, I bought the land right next to it. I spoke to the~'town, the person I spoke to is retired, so that's wily speak, 'and he gave me a paper wl~ich didn't have a, there was no concern with the right-of-way. It wasn't until after we had purchased the l~,d, that tile builder, that's when the 50 foot of the right-of-way came Page 2 - Hearing T~ansc[~ipts July 10, 1997 - Board of Appeals about. The thing about the right-of-way, is it's more really a common driveway. Its myself and my one neighbor who goes through there to get to his property, that's all that involved with. CHAIRMAN: And the first house. MR. PIRAINO: Well, the first house, he comes in, that's his property. He comes in and he goes right up and then we saw him going and then the third person comes in. Where the house is going ~o be it is not going to affect that person get~ing in and out of his property. CHAIRMAN: OK, we'll start with I think with Mrs~ Ostermann. Mrs. Ostermann, do you have any questions? MEMBER OSTERMANN: Yes, you were in the other day and indieated that the drive would be on the other side of the house on the right side. The plans were ehanged accordingly so the garage now is on the north side. MR. PIRAINO: Yes, it's on the righ. t, the goes right underneath. MEMBER OSTERMANN: Would you be able to submit, you know an accurate of that? MR. PIRAINO: Yes, I can have that redrawn. MEMBER OSTERMANN: Hm, fine. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Dinizio. MEMBER DINIZIO: No, nothing. CHAIRMAN: Mrs. Tortora. MEMBER TORTORA: Is that a private right-of-way? MR.. PIRAINO: You mean as far as, yes, I maintain it. MMEMBER TORTORA: Its not a common right-of-way? MR. PIRAINO: No. You see, my actual plot is 2-1/2 acres and that actually splits me right in half, so that's why it's really more like a common driveway. It's just the two of us going in and out and we maintain it. CHAIRMAN: There's no doubt, its an interesting piece of property. MR. PIRAINO: Yes, and it's also very beautiful. Page 3 - tIearing Tr~tnscripts July 10, 1997 - Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN: Yes, it is beautiful. Mr. Doyen. MEMBER DOYEN: No. questions. CHAIRMAN: OK, we'll see what develops throughout the hearing and then we may recess for a second. Is there anybody would like to speak in favor or against the application? Lets start with the favor first. Anybody like to speak in favor? Anybody, like to speak against? MR. SLEDJESKI: No, I'm in lot ill6 which is a CtIAIRMAN: Just state your name for the record. MR. SLEDJESKI: Leo Sledjeski, lot #16, we're behind them. I have several concerns. One, their building right irt the wetlands area -which is prime wetlands and also where they're building floods. On many times, o~ many occasions, that whole area floods and I have many neighbors, I wish I had taken pictures but can't. I don't know why they would want to ever build there because that whole area is swamplands. Basically, you con see when they started to drill for water, they hit water sand beach, a couple of feet down and they're not even going to get water from that area because they have to brirlg it in from the town, and their sewer system is going right into a, basically, our well, you see where our well is located in lot 16, goes down about 20 feet which is probably about even with the sewer there, a sewer system that they're proposing. I don't know how you can put a sewer system into a swa.mpland, it's confusing to me, I wouldn't allow this. CHAIRMAN: Did you speak to the Trustees at all, Mr. Sledjeski? MR. SLEDJESKI: I wrote a letter. CHAIRMAN: Did they respond to your letter? MR. SLEDJESKI: Well they were coming to take a look at it, I guess in the future and I haven't heard anymore from that, then I heard of this. The other, thing is where they're going to cut into that bank. Basically, by taking up trees and stuff there's going to be a complete mud slide unless they're going to put a bulkhead, but basically there's no Way that cliff will, I have put a lot of trees in, ivy g~'owing there just to maintain that bulk part, because whenever it rains the dirt just slides right down there and so a I believe it -will just a, it's goner flood and if it rains down that step, that if they take away trees, you can see they're only 20 foot away from the top of the cliff from one edge of their house. CHAIRMAN: Would you have any objection to my walking on your rear yard and looking at this? · ~ Page 4 - Hearing Tra~seripts , July 10, i997 - Board of Appeals MR. SLEDJESKI: No, no objection. CHAIRMAN: OK, and what house number are you on? MR. SLEDJESKI: Number 16, lot 16. CHAIRMAN: Your on lot 16, but what is the house number. MR. SLEDJESKI: 950. MEMBER TORTORA: I'd like to go with you. Can I ask a question? When you say building in the wetland area, - MR. SLEDJESKI: Well, you can look right there and see marsh. MEMBER TORTORA: As the road goes in, he's building on the incline and you're back to him on Rosewood Estates, correct? MR. SLEDJESKI: Correct. MEMBER TORTORA: When you say he won't be able to get water there, has there been a problem with your well there? MR. SLEDJESKI: Yes, we have actually aldicarb, al - CtIAIRMAN: Temik MR. SLEDJESKI: Temik, thank you. We have water system, in fact, all of the houses on that road in the Rosewood Estates have that, have a systems that in order to take that chemical out of the system because the water is a con[aminated with temik. MEMBER TORTORA: Are you all hooked up to public water? MR. SLEDJESKI: No. We have a private well. You can see the well located right there on lot 16. MR. TORTORA: Is there another loeation on his property, because he has quite a large piece of property that you would have less objections to, or you would feel that's more environmentally safe for you? MR. SLEDJESKI: Yeah, well, I really don't know, that whole area there, that road there floods. I saw a car a couple of winters ago where the water was up to the window and I thought actually I had to go down and rescue somebody because I thought they were stuck in the car and they actually left the car there. CHAIRMAN: On the right-of-way? Page 5 - ttearing Traflscripts July 10, 1997 - Board of Appeals MR. SLEDJESKI: On that right-of-way that was flooded totally up to the ear window, so I don~t know how you would ever buy a piece of property there because it's really marshland. It's really, you know people use it for access but they eouldn*t get through during those raining seasons. MEMBER TORTORA: His a, the elevation map, have you seen the file on this? MR. SLEDJESKI: I'm not sure what you mean about - MEMBER TORTORA: The application, his application, his map? Maybe we could take a recess and look at it. CHAIRMAN: He has one. MR. SLEDJESKI: You mean this map here? Yes, I have one. MEMBER TORTORA: Yes, OK, on the map the right-of-way, according to this, he would be roughly 20 feet above the right-of-way, the elevation - MR. SLEDJESKI: The eenter of the house. MEMBER TORTORA: Between~ yes the center of tile house, so it would be - MR. SLEDJESKi: You see where his cliff is cutting in at the 30 foot line here? CHAIRMAN: Right. MR. SLEDJESKI: And he's basically taking the entire cliff. CHAIRMAN: He's sharing it. MR, SLEDJESKI: Sharing it. CHAIRMAN: Well that's basically what the first house did. MR. SLEDJESKI: And that's basically all of the trees are in that area and almost up to the point where you know'. MEMBER TORTORA: The question I have is when you said that it was flooded up to the car window - MR. SLEDJESKI: Yes. MEMBER TORTORA: That's the right-of way at 10 feet where this MR. SLEDJESKI: Right. - Tra.nscrlpts Page 6 Hearing .... July 10, 1997 - Board of Appeals MEMBER TORTORA: The corner of his house is showing an elevation of 10 feet you're saying the road is flooded. MR. SLEDJESKI: Right, right at that corner there, right there, was flooded up to the window of the car. CHAIRMAN: OK, while we have you there, next Saturday I believe is, not this coming Saturday, the following Saturday is, can't do it the following Saturday, - MEMBER TORTORA: Saturday afternoon, Sunday. CHAIRMAN: OK, we'll get back to you, alright, maybe Saturday afternoon of the 19th ~ think it is. MR. SLEDJESKI: Sure. CHAIRMAN: Does anybody else have ally questions of Mr'.Sledjeski? (MEMBERS had no questions.) CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Anybody else like to speak against the application? MR. PONZIO: My name is ttarold Ponzio. My wife and I own lot #14 which adjoins Mr, Sledjeski's property. My objections to this application was stated in the letter to the Board. Briefly, let me say this, when the leafs are down in the fall and winter, my wife and I have seen the marsh directly below our property fill up to such an extent that water makes tile right-of-way impassable. The institution from the · yard setback from right-of-way, would make applicant's proposed property also impassable. The said right-of-way, passes right through the center of applicant's property. The reduced main lot setback if cleared would take bushes and trees which Mr. Sledjeski mentioned which now hold the soil. In the rear of our property this would create more water to run off not to mention wet slides into tile applicant's proposed property. Respectfully then, I ask the Board to deny this application, CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Any questions of this gentleman, anybody? I just wonder if anybody has any questions. No, OK, anybody else like to speak against? No, OK, you can reserve your right. OK, Sir, you want to say something in rebut? Just state your name again for the record. MR. PIRAINO: Antonio Piraino. I'm sorry I'm meeting my neighbors for the first time under these conditions. First let me just say, that this right-of-way, this, on the driveway, the families that live at the end bere are year round residence that use this road everyday come in and out. If this road floods out as it's being Page 7 - Hearing Trgriseripts July 10, 1997 - Board of Appeals stated, they would be locked into their property and this has not happened. I spoke to them about this. I talked to the Town Trustees. So, this right-of-way flood is marshed to be flooded, Cox Neck Road would have to be flooded. That was one of the reasons that they approved my permit. The part of the fact that the trees, I understand his concern about that. What I'm proposing to do is when the house is built, I'm going to plant trees across the back of it, the back is going to be left woods and ground, its not going to be grass, its not going to be deck. If you notice on the print I gave you, you see the slope of the land comes right to the foundation of the house and that's going to stay the same. My yard is the yard that's there already. The grass that's on the side, that's where my family wouId be. The back and the side which goes towards house #840 is going to remain the way it is. That's what my family and I'd like to do, we want it to remain naturally. There's a lot of animals in there and we don't want to destroy that because the animals are there. CHAIRMAN: Why did you choose this location fop the house? MR. PIRAINO: This location here, is tile best for the property. To move the house down towards 40 or the next one 700, we would · have to take and level that hill. You have to just go in and just you have to create a path so that you could build a house on to it. MEMBER TORTORA: This is to the north, your saying - MEMBER OSTERMANN: No, south. MR. PIRAINO: Back towards Cox Neck. MEMBER TORTOIIA: Oh! to the south. MR. PIRAINO: Yeah~ back over this way. MEMBER TORTORA: What about to the north? MR. PIRAINO: This is as far to the north as the Town Trustees would want the house to go because of the water. The situation with this, my drinking water, I'm bringing in city water. I'm not driving a well. The cesspools are where the Suffolk County Health Department, they're 100 feet from all wells and ali water. That's the requirement and that's where they're going. MEMBER TORTORA: Have you talked to Suffolk County Water about this being upgraded and you got their OK to do so. MR. PIRAINO: I'm running on an 1-1/2 plastic main down the right-of-way. My utilities have to come in that way also and they're all underground. Page 8 - Hearing Traflseripts July 10, 1997 - Board of Appeals CttAIRMAN: OK, are there any other questions of the applicant? MEMBER OSTERMANN: No questions. CHAIRMAN: OK, thank you. Mr. Sledjeski you have something you want to say? MR. SLEDJESKI: I mean it states it right there just what he said. tte ean*t move where he's building. He has to stay there because that's the highest point, if he moves anywhere else, he's goner to be in the swamps. If he moves to the east, this is all flooded. Now what they told him, the neighbors told him, they must have lied, because you can't pass that building when it rains, you can't, you know, maybe they wanted to sell it to him or what, but it's impassable. CHAIRMAN: I think he~s saying Mr. Creato who lives at the end of the right-of-way and uniquely he is the old Sledjeski Estate, Some distant relative of yours? MR. SLEDJESKI: Fve seen some abandoned ears there. You knew, just sitting there on the road. You can't get through. CHAIRMAN: Fm just saying that Mr. Creato has indicated to me, now Mr. Creato does have four wheel drive vehicles, but he has also indicated to me, and he is a fellow Lions Member with me that he did not have a particular problem, but I believe he actually plows the road~ in the winter time, but, Fll have another discussion with him, atright. MR. SLEDJESKI: I wish I had taken pictures at that time. CHAIRMAN: Do you want to show us those sometime? MR. SLEDJESKI: No, I wish I had taken pietures. CHAIRMAN: Oh, you haven't taken pictures. So, what we're going to do is another field inspection and we're going to do it - Mg. SLEDJESKI: You're doing it a.t the prime time when everything is dry. It hasn't rained, for how many days. CHAIRMAN: Well, we can carry this on until it does rain. I mean that's not a problem, alright. We don't necessarily do that, OK, but- MR. SLEDJESKI: Come in October., November, and you'll see a big difference. CHAIi~MAN; We'll cai1 you when we're going to eome if it's all right with you. Page 9 - Hearing Tree, scripts July 10, 1997 - Board of Appeals MR. SLEDJESKI: Well also, I want to know why he's taking water from the town and not from his own well if the water is ao good. There must be a reason. You can't drill a well. Why he's taking from the town I'm confused. And also, the sewer system can be allowed to be put in for 3-1/2 feet. They hit water when they did a test hole right where he was. They hit water in a sand gravel mixture, how can you build a sewer system in that and how you're allowed to. CHAIRMAN: Did you discuss that with the Health Department at ail? MR. SLEDJESKI: No, I would assume that they would refuse him, you cant' put a sewer. If there was a sewer system, yes, they could allow to bring in a sewer system from the town, whatever. You know that would be more acceptable, but I'm just worried also about the cutback. He said he's going to leave it natural, but you're cutting in so far into that cliff. If you look 20 feet down basically you're removing most of the cliff. You're basically goner have a wall which is the water is going to run right down. He's definitely going to have to p , if he doesn't put p , then it's basically just come down right into his house. CHAIRMAN: OK, so we're going to recess this and we'll come over and see you. Do you have anything else, Sir? MR, PIRiANO: Just a comment on the water. That was my decision, CHAIRMAN: Do you have a stamp from the Health Department on this ? MR. PIRIANO: No, but the paperwork is into the Health Department. I just went to see them. Where the cesspool is noted on the survey, is where they told me it has to go. It's at the 20 foot level if you look at the elevation. They've taken the ground water and how far above it I have to be from the cesspool. That's why it's a two pool system. The city water, that was my decision to bring city water in because I'm going to spend money to bring it in now instead of driving a well, have to replace a well ten years from now, I'm going to put the money up front and bring the main. I have to open a trench to b~ing my electric in, so I'm going to bring my water in at the same time. That's why. CHAIRMAN: Question about the Health Department. How long ago did you make application to them? MR. PIRIANO: Probably 3, 4 weeks ago. The problem is, they're holding off waiting for your decision. I told them there was a variance, that I was going for a variance. CHAIRMAN: Why, did they say why? Page 10 - Hearing Transcripts July 10, 1997 - Board of Appeals MR. PIRIANO: Because they want to see the outcome of the variance. If you turn me down~ then~ they're just not going to give it back to me. Without your approval I get build then. CHAIRMAN: It doesn't make sense to me. Who are you dealing with there, Charlie Brigham? Can you call us and let us know who you're dealing with so I can speak to him, thank you. I will make a motion recessing this hearing to August 14th, if it's alright with the Board because I don~t ~hink we can get it in before the next hearing and if that's alright with everybody. Are you familiar with what we're doing now? We're going to do a site inspection. My question to you, has the foundation actually been staked? MEMBER TORTORA: It was staked when I was there. CHAIRMAN: Al~d the stakes are still in? MR. PIRIANO: I don't know. I'm going to cheek them. CHAIi~MAN: Alright, we're going to do a field inspection, then we'll get back to you. In the interim I'm going to speak to the Health Department. MR. PIR1ANO: I would also like the opportunity, if my neighbors are going to be there, I would like the opportunity to be there at the same time. CHAIRMAN: Well, we're going to have a meeting with them by just physical inspection, then we'll come around and discuss it with you, so we'll let you know when we're going to be there because we're going to look on top first, and then we'll come around back over, I~m extremely familiar with tt~e property. The Sledjeski Estate is an estate which now belongs to David and Mariann Creato. There's a piece of property that belonged to my wife's family for some seventy years and I assume is a distant relative of Mr. Sledjeski too, right, is that correct? MR. SLEDJESKI: Yeah. CHAIRMAN: I'm familiar with the property and they do not own it now, they have not own it for about 18 years, so we'll do that, if that's alright with you. Sir? MR. PIRIANO: I just want to say, Fve own the property for four years now and in the four years my wife and my family, we've traveled out here at ali different times of the years, and I've never been, not able to pass down the road to get to my property. CHAIRMAN: And for the reeord, I belong to the Mattituck Fire Department for 29 years, and I have not had a problem getting down the read. ttowever, as I mentioned to you, I believe Mr. Creato Page 11 - Hearing Transcripts July 10, 1997 - Board of Appeals does plow the road and he does maintain the road to his site and Mr. Creato is a very articulate individual. He's very particular about what he does and he's done a reasonably good job in doing so and I can say that as both a friend and a fellow member of our club with him. ttearing no further comment, I'll make a motion recessing the hearing to August 14th, pending the inspection with Mr. & Mrs. Sledjeski and then a meeting with you and we'll go back over the sJting then. MEMBER DINiZIO: Second Carried. Prepared by Lucia Farreli from tape recording. Page 12 - Hearing Ti-m-nscriptS July 10, 1997 - Board of Appeals 7:15 P.M. - Appl. No. 4/193 - ANDREW LETTIERI CHAIRMAN: This application is based upon the Building Inspector's June 2, 1997 Action of Disapproval, for a Variance under Article III-A, Section 100-30A.3 of the Bulk Schedule, for permission to place new dwelling with an insufficient rear yard setback. Zone: R-40 Zone. Location of Property: 1720 Arrowhead Lane (west side), Pecordc; 1000-98-2-12.1. I have a copy of the survey from Roderick Van Tuyl, P.C. dated May 12~ 1997, maintaining a rear property line of 38 ft. 4 inches and I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and surrounding properties in the area. Mr. Liso, I think you're representing the applicant. Is there something you'd like to say fox' the record. MR. LISO: Well I think everything more or less is on the survey. I'm encroaching about 11 ft. 8 inches. In t~'ying to change to it of course, it changes the look. CHAIRMAN: This house is approximately 55 ft. 6 inches high. No, it's actually more than that. CHAIRMAN: 71.8. MR. LISO: There's so much room on each side, the remaining two ft., the sideyards. It only encroaches at that one wing, that 12 foot wing, you can see it sticks out, that's where it is - the rest of the house is within the rear yard setback. CHAIRMAN: That wing is the master bath? MR. LISO: That's the master bath. CHAIRMAN: Alright, we'll start with Mr. Doyen? MEMBER DOYEN: No questions. CHAIRMAN: Mrs. Tortora? MEMBER TORTORA: No questions. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Dinizio. MEMBER DINIZIO: No, I have no questions. CftAIRMAN: Mrs. Ostermann. MEMBER OSTERMANN: Is that the north wing within 50 ft.? Page 13 - Hearing T~anscripts July 10, 1997 - Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN: No, the north wing is the one that's encroaching. MEMBER OSTERMANN: I know, that's the southwest wing. The northwest wing, is that 50 ft. from the rear yard setback? MR. LISO: It's about, it's encroaching about 2 ft. Exactly to that little wing it's about 2 foot. MEMBER OSTERMANN: So it's about 47 ft. Do you have the exact measurement on that? MR. LISO: He didn't put it on the survey? It's probably about, I don't knew, on the scale you*d get (inaudible). MEMBER OSTERMANN: Yes. The other is 38 ft. 4 inches? MR. LISO: 38 ft. 4 inches, yes. MEMBER OSTERMANN:: Now, that abuts a vineyard? MR. LISO: Yes. MEMBER OSTERMANN: Is there any buffer zone between - MR. LISO: Well, right now it's all buffer. It was ail heavily wooded and then the vineyard starts. Yes, that's vineyard property which I believe is farm preservation where it can't be subdivided. MEMBER OSTERMANN: Do they have a buffer zone? I think I saw a fence, and they have two rows of trees on the vineyard side. MR. LISO: All the way back there on that area. Yes. MEMBER OSTERMANN: No further questions. CHAIRMAN: Thank you Mr. Liso. Is there anybody else would like to speak in favor of this application? Anybody like to speak against the application? Any further questions from any Board Member? (none) CiiAIRMAN: Hearing no further questions, I'll make a motion closing the hearing reserving decision until later. MEMBER TORTORA: Second. Motion carried. CHAIRMAN: Hope to have a decision for you, Mr. Liso, if you would like to give us a call tomorrow. Thank you. Prepared by Lucia Farrell from tape recording. Page I4 - Hearing T}'anscripts July 10, 1997 - Board of Appeals 8:49 P.M. APPL. NO. 4495 & FL ~16 All of which are incorporated in one - ARTO KHRIMIAN CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Applications for variance relief, based upon the April 28, 1997 Action of Disapproval of the Building Inspector in which applicant was denied a building permil to continue construction for the followi~g reasons: (a) Article XXIV, Section 100-242B(]): a nonconforming building containing a conforming use which has been damaged by fire or other causes to the extent of more than fifty (50%) percent of its fair value shall not be repaired or rebuilt unless such building is made substantially to conform to the height and yard requirements of the Bulk Schedule (see Section ]00-244B Nonconforming Lot - Bulk Schedule). (b) Chapter 46, Section 46-18A: new construction and substantial improvements shall be elevated on pilings, columns or shear walls such that the bottom of the lowest horizontal structural members supporting the lowest elevated floor is elevated to or above the level of the base flood so as not to impede the flow of water. Note: Building Permit No. 22965 dated August 24, ]995 authorized applicant "... to renovate and alter an existing single-family dwelling as applied for..." Location of Property: 58365 C.R. 48, Greenport, New York; ]000-44-2~13. Total lot size; ~1~5 sq. ft. How are you tonight Sir? The applicant is representing himself. MR. KHRIMIAN: My name is Atto Khrimian. May I approach the bench and ~ive you the affidavit? CHAIRMAN: Sure, thank you, I was going to ask you for that. MEMBER DINIZIO: What's that, a survey? CHAIRMAN: No, the affidavit qf mailing and posting~ MR. KHRIMIAN: I have a very unusual piece of property and it's on Long Island Sound. The previous owner who we took it from had floods and storms has come up with an idea of having the property to be protected by concrete bulkhead with a slab, it's a ]50 structure and within that structure lies the existing foundation and with the permission of several authorities we wanted to renovate the building first and throughout the process we realized that it wasn't possible to keep the 50% of the structure and with the consent of the Building Department we took the entire structure down. First we had the permit to go ahead and reconstruct the entire building and then some obstacles came up, one of them was that we were about 3-]/2 feet into the' of Route 45. We tried to resolve with the Page 15 - Hearing T~_~,~sdripts July 10, 1997 - Boar~i of Appeals Public Works and we found out that it was going to look to take many, many years to wait for them to surplus and said they'd get to us and we decided to that we would cut back on our figures for the foundation by 3-1/2 feet and further discussions revealed that we had to cut it back another 6 inches for a setback and for that I wrote to the Public Works and I got their recent consent saying that 6 inches of the setbacks was not objectionable by them. CHAIRMAN: How much does that cut the house by? MR. KHRIMIAN: 4 feet for the time being. CHAIRMAN: OK, thank you. MR. KttRIMIAN: Now, there are 3 main problems, one of them is the elevation of the new structure. As it stands we are very close to the minimum limits of the elevation which is 13 feet and we are about 12.10. CltAIRMAN: Now, that could be achieved by putting in another cement block on top of the foundation, is that correct? MR. KHRIMIAN: We can bring it up to the 13 feet if you want us to. That can be achieved, yes. The second question was the setback which is probably resolved. I don't know how you were goner to rule on that, but, as far as the Public Works they are not objecting to it and the main problem is and the reason why actually we were sent in front of you this evening was that we are in the B Zone and the building before was in constraint with the DEC's flood program. They have decided that you were the only authority to give us a variance from using pilings, strictly pilings, because they could not make that decision. Now, as I said, our problem is that our foundation and footprint is about 16 feet by 30-31 feet. MEMBER. TORTORA: That is the existing? MR. KHRIMIAN: Existing. Maybe it's going to be 16 by approximately 30 and it is surrounded by about 4-1/2 x 5-1/2 feet of concrete walkway. Again, this is attached; it's a ~nonolithie, the bulkhead~ eouerete bulkhead and under the concrete bulkhead we also have an existing sanitary system which we want to use because we have no alternative to it. As far as putting the pilings are eoneerned~ it is a physieaI impossibility for us to comply with that. CHAIRMAN: The day you met with us this applieant had requested a meeting~ it wasn't really a meeting,, we had two board members there so it wasn't a meeting, and we had suggested to you of putting a hand dug pilings on each four corners of the existing foundation because the inside of the foundation is sand and you told, actually your engineer at that time said that he didn't see that that was a particular problem. ~Page 16 - Hearing Tf~anscripts July 10, 1997 - Board of Appeals MR. KHRIMIAN: I further discussed this with the architect and he's hero as well, may I invite him over? CttAIRMAN:: Sure. Hello Mr. Talgat, how are you tonight Sir? MR. TALGAT: Good, how are you? Ural Talgat. There are some discussions about the pilings? CHAIRMAN: Right, in four corners. MR. TALGAT: In four corners and in terms of driving the pilings down that would not be possible because it would destroy the structural integrity of the concrete bulkhead and would be possible, yes in four corners, yes. But also, one thing that's interesting in the Town Code is that according to the Town Code, we can build the building because that foundation has been made into a shear wall and the town could allow that building to be put on that foundation because of that reason. CHAIRMAN: OK, then give me an idea while you're in front of us if it's a shear wall. MR. TALGAT: Because the Building Department is not accepting it as a shear wall. CHAIRMAN: So, that was the same discussion we had back in May. So, uniquely if you put pilings in the four corners - MR. TALGAT: Yes, and concrete pilings. CHAIRMAN: I don't care if they're concrete or - MR. TALGAT: Timber'. CHAIRMAN: Timber, OK. That may change the entire situation from the Building Department point of view. So, let's try and eliminate two of these situations. There's no problem with raising from 12.10 to 13 feet. Either by putting a cement cap on top of the existing. MR. TALGAT: Correct. CHAIRMAN: Right, which is 4 inches. MR. TALGAT: Correct. CHAIRMAN: You don't have to go one whole cement block which is 8 inches plus the ground. OK, so there's no problem with that. There's no problem hand digging as I said these four corners. MR. TALGAT: Absolutely not. Page 17 - Hearing Transcripts July 10, 1997 - Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN: So that only leaves us then the issue of the setback. MR. TALGAT: The setback from the road? CHAIRiVIAN: Yeah, well no, the entire setback which is now 6 inches of inside the property. MR. TALGAT: Correct. MEMBER TORTORA: Dig the hole, that's one of the things that the - nonconforming - 50% - CHAIRMAN: Yes, and the nonconforming 50% - which is one issue that was not brought up by the applicant tonight. The fact that the building had been, you had had a permit to destroy the building, OK. MR. TALGAT: A permit to recons[ruct the building. CHAIRMAN: Well, you first had to destroy, OK, reconstruct. MEMBER DINIZIO: No, to renovate and alter. CHAIRMAN: To renovate and alter. You have to excuse me. - We had so many of these over the years that ended up in ground zero and then there was no permD to reconstruct, OK, so I apologize for the terminology problem. What's really before us then, is those three issues that we have and you're raising -- go ahead, go ahead. MEMBER TORTORA: A couple of things. What is the original sqnare footage to the house? MR. TALGAT.: Square footage. 16 x 30 correct? MR. KHRIMIAN: No, ~6 x 35.4 CHAIRMAN: ~6 x 35.4. MEMBER TORTORA: You had said before it was 16 x 3~. You were cutting it back to 16 x 31. MR. KHRIMIAN: I misstated that. MR. TALGAT: I think what you're leading up to may be that on the original application, the original Building Permit that was issned~ the buildable square footage according to town requirements was under the town requirements of 850 sq. ft. for. a single family dwelling. CHAIRMAN: One story. Page 18 - Hearing T~'anseripts July 10, 1997 - Board of Appeals MR. TALGAT: One story. MEMBER TORTORA: Do you know what it was? MR. KHRIMIAN: The length was 35 feet 2 inches. MR. TALGAT: By 16 feet. CHAIRMAN:: By 16 feet even? MR. KHRIMIAN: Yes. MR. TALGAT: Whatever that works out to be, which was definitely under the requirements. CHAIRMAN: So it was nonconforming as to size for one story structure in the Town of Southold. MR. TALGAT: Now we were required after all of this to increase it to the minimum which was 850 .sq. ft. and that was not possible on one floor because you had to go up to the second floor to do that. MEMBER TORTORA: The original cost of the house and property was $70,000, is that correct? MR. tfHRIMIAN: Yes. MEMBER TORTORA: What is the cost of the new construction? MR. KHRIMIAN: I don't know at this point because there are some additions or subtractions, I really don't know but the original estimate was around $30,000. MEMBER TORTORA: For this new structure? MR. KHRIMIAN: Yes new structure. CHAIRMAN: Less the foundation. MR. TALGAT: Less the foundation. MEMBER TORTORA: So, the new, new, can you give us anything in writing that would substantiate that? MR. TALGAT: Such as a MEMBER TORTORA: Estimate MR. TALGAT: From an estimate from a contractor. Page 19 - Hearing Transcripts July 10, 1997 - Board of Appeals MEMBER TORTORA: Estimate, a builder's estimate, a contractor's estimate. CHAIRMAN: Is that a contractor's price or is that just the cost of materials? MR. KHRIMIAN: Contractor's price. MEMBER TORTORA: Could you give us a written estimate with that. MR. KHRIMIAN: Yes, I'll ask for it. MEMBER, TORTORA: All that's around $30,000, OK. Lets discuss hardship. If you couldn't rebuild this, what would that mean to you? MR. KHRIMIAN: Well, we own this property with my brother who is out of the country at the moment and my wife so it's three of us and if we don't build it which means first of all let me tell you that I don't have a winter home, I don't own a home and whatever I had I invested in this property just to get away from the hustle and bussle of the city and find an amicable environment for my wife and my 8 year old daughter. So, that means a lot to me because this is where I get recharged to get ready again for the hustle and bussle of the city. We love this area and we were not born here, we're here by choice with other people we love the environment. This environment recharges us and this is our life savings. We are not rich people. Again, the size of the property tells you a lot. If we could'ye afforded a larger property we wouldn't be in front of you tonight and that brings me to another point which is I'm sure you're going to use your wisdom, your knowledge and your experience to rule on this but I will also ask you to take a humanitarian approach to this and put yourselves in our position and then decide. I don't know whether this is a response to your question but., this is how I feel. MEMBER TORTORA: It is a response. CHAIRMAN: I want to capitalize on that one second, OK. In the reconstruction of this property, the renovation of this property, there came a time when the pictures that you showed us along with your architect that it no longer became feasible to utilize the structure that you were going to, that you thought you could utilize when you purchased the property, is that correet? MR. KHRIMIAN: That's correct. Mr. Chairman, may I just explain that a little bit. Now, there are circumstances when you make major mistakes and you get penalized for it and you take it because it's your mistake. Bht, here, I can clearly tell you that we have not made any mistakes. We haven't taken any single steps without first getting an authorization for' a permit from a given Page 20 - Hearing Tk~hnscripts July 10, 1997 - Board of. Appeals authority, be it the DEC or the Town of the Board of Trustees. We haven't done anything without getting their permission. In soale eases you hear that the application is still with the DEC or with the Trustees. It was not our case. First we asked for guidance, advice and then permit and that's how we approached to this delicate situation and today we are left homeless. CHAIRMAN: OK~ lets start with a, there are three people on this Board that did not have the luxury of discussin~ this with you so we'll start with Mrs. Ostermann. MEMBER OSTERiVIANN: I have no questions. MEMBER DINIZIO: I have absolutely no questions. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Dinizio. MEMBER DINIZIO: No, nothing. CHAIRMAN: Mrs. Tortora, you've already asked some questions. Would you like to continue? MEMBER TORTORA: No. CHAIRMAN: OK, Mr. Doyen? MEMBER DOYEN: No. CHAIRMAN: In the audience while the applicant is standing, is there anybody would like to speak in favor of this application other than the applicant? Yes. MRS. MOORE: Pat Moore, I don't know him, I wish you great luck. One case that I think would be in support of this application is the McCarthy case that Bill Moore applied for this type of variance and it was actually the language in the cede talks about value. If he bought the property for 70, 50% of the value is $35,000, his construction costs less than 50% of the value. He should not even be here. MEMBER TORTORA: That's why I asked for an estimate Pat. MRS. MOORE: Yes and when you said that and you asked those questions I said, binge, you know, so I think that certainly I would hate to see him be bounced around by the Building Department because of the fact that there is a precedence by the Zoning Board with an interpretation of what in fact the 50% means. It's not what people perceive it to be which is 50% of the construction cost or. whatever., it's value and that's way the code reads. So, 1 really feel sammy for him. You know if I had known this I certainly give Page 21 - Hearing Transcripts July 10, 1997 - Board of Appeals my two cents anytime anybody asks, so, I really wish them luck and I think the Board should be cognizant of about this. CHAIRMAN: While you're standing, I just want to mention to you, I was a little floored in reference to the value of reconstruction and I realize that it is exclusive of the foundation area and the sanitary system and of conrac this gentleman, and his brother and his wife have town water there. However, if the cost of almost $4 for a 2 x 4 today and if they choose to go 2 x 4 and then meet the R-factors for that, actually it may go 2 x 6, I can't believe it's $30,000 because everything is just so inflated in reference to these costs and that's the reason why I asked the question in very inquisitively because I mean you can spend $45,000 and still end up with a garage. You just told us that a garage - MRS. MOORE: I did tell you that I spent 15 to 30 for a garage. That's true, but this house doesn't sound like it's more than a large garage, so. CHAIRMAN: Yes, but it's two story. That's why I'm not questioning your values but I'm just saying that I can't believe it can be constructed for $30,000. Thank you Mrs. Moore. Mr. Doyen? MEMBER DOYEN: No questions. CHAIRMAN: We thank you and we'll see what else develops. Anybody else 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. Would you please give us that estimate aa soon as you eau. We will address these issues and we'll address this application on the 24th of July. Thank you. Page 22 - Hearing Transcripts July 10, 1997 - Board of Appeals 7:35 P.M. - Appl. No. 4492 - WALTER KLEIN CHAIRMAN: This application is based upon tile Building Inspector's May 28, 1997 Action of Disapproval, for building permits in the "as built" construction of accessory garage in an area other than the required rear yard and deck addition with an insufficient front yard setback from private right-of-way (easterly property line) and excessive lot coverage, at 3235 Manhasset Avenue, Greenport, N.Y.; 1000-43-1-8. Zone: R-40. Property size: 6821 sq. ft. I have one letter in the file, 2 letters in the file and I have a copy of a survey indicating the woodframe garage in its present location at 2.4 feet or 2 feet 4 inches rather from the property at its closest point and I have a copy of the hatched in area of the deck at its closest point is 8 feet 3 inches and we've been asked for a postponement and Ms. Moore how are you today? MRS. MOORE: Good, thank you. I have an affidavit of posting. CHAIRMAN: Good~ thank you. MRS. MOORE: I do understand that you have received a request for a postponement. I spoke to my clients. Unfortunately, next month when you meet they will be out of the state, so I ask that the hearing be open and if need be left open for any comments that you might have. CHAIRMAN: OK, what would you like to tell us? MRS. MOORE: Well, yes, thank you. I'd like to start with, this is probably one of the most interesting applications that I've been involved in a long time. I'll give a brief history of this property to bring us to a certain point and then the variance as it's necessary. To begin with that, Angelo Angona and you have from the Building Inspector' a ZBA decision that gave permission to cons ~ruct a house with an insufficient setback to a private right-of-way. That decision which is dated June 12, I975, 4i2045, placed a condition which stated that the house should be located, the principal residence should be located 35 feet from Manhasset Avenue, ]0 feet from the west property line and 15 feet from the easterly property line. In 1980 Mr. D'Aquisto of applied for a Buildlng Permit for the garage and apparently the survey he had was Van Tuyl survey didn't indicate that the Pell property to the east was a right-of-way. A Stop Work Order was issued, the Building Permit was revoked, and he applied for a variance from this Board, some of the Members probably still remember because I know that some of you are the still the same from way back when. The front yard setback to the right-of-way was the issue then as it is today~ The size of the garage had apparently been 24 x 26. Mr. D'Aquisto reduced the size of the garage to its present size of approximately 24 x 24, so he did cut away part of the garage at that time. There was also noted in the decision that the plumbing Page 23 - Hearing Trgnscripts July 10, 1997 - Board of Appeals facilities were being added and that again that was also removed and there are no plumbing facilities in the garage presently. In 1981, the variance was denied. The Board also noted that there was a deck without a Building Permit, that the result of the structure exceeded the 20% line coverage. So, many of the same issues are present today. In that period of time 15 years have gone by, the structures remain, and in the meantime during those 15 years Mr. D'Aquisto became a very famous guitar maker. He is world renown as a guitar maker. There is a hook written about him which I have tonight and I'd like to submit for the record but, we would like it back since it is a real precious book for the family. According to this book the town I guess gave him a hard time originally' so you're noted in the in this book but, the town informally allowed him to occupy the garage as a studio where he built these guitars. So, in posterity you were, the town allowed him to continue his work there and in fact many of the photographs that appear in this book are of the inside of the garage. Again, very interesting. Unfortunately, Mr. D'Aquisto died in his fifties, in the peak of his career and if you can see from the letters that came from Gruhn Guitars and some of the other guitar makers of stores which was not solicited by me but just heard through I think my understanding is it went through the network, the computer net, and you got these unsolicited letters, so he is quite a very, quite a famous guitar player. The Kleins purchased this property from the D~Aquisto Estate in November of 96. I placed in your file a letter which eame from Pelletreau & Pelletreau, Mr. Hart. I w~s involved with it at that time because Mr. Caminiti was representing the Kleins on the purchase and they came to me for some discussion about zoning and we talked about the different issues and the problems thst we were going to face and Mr. Hart from Pelletreau & Pelletreau sent me a very nasty letter which I incorporated into the file which said "we had no right to make any inquiries any applications". I mean, if we caused any trouble there would be criminal, not eriminal~ excuse me, civil action, OK, so, I place that on the record because one of the issues on an .area variance is self-imposed hardship. It doesn't preclude again that the law has changed so there is no preclusion even you determine that it was a self-imposed hardship from giving a variance. So, you know the Kleins had already spent a great deal of time and money and effort and discovered these problems and they ehose to take you know, obviously they're here and they took this property works and all so here we are at this time. At this point I'd like to place on the record some of the standards that we have to address or you have to address. The first issue that comes up is that there is no undesirable change which w/ii be produced in the character of the neighborhood or detriment to nearby properties if the variance is granted. I have asked of Robert Sealia, whom I'm sure all of you know very well to come before you and place on the record as an expert with regard, to financial issues on real estate. To place on the record whether or not there is any detriment to the community Page 24 ~ Hearing T~nscripts July 10~ 1997 ~ Board of Appeals or where there is any adverse affect on property values because of this garage deck, the structures that have been on the property for 15 years. So, at this point, I would ask if you'd like to swear him in, that's fine, but. I'll have to come before you and place information on the record. CHAIRMAN: We'll ask the Board, just hold on one second. Would yqu like me to swear him in? MEMBERS: No. CHAIRMAN: No, it's not necessary? OK. MR. SCALIA: Good evening, my name is Robert Scalia. I'm a License New York State Real Estate Broker, the owner of Century 21, Albertson. We have two offices, one in Southold and one in 8amesport and we have 28 active Licensed Real Estate Agents. I've been involved in Southold Town, I've lived here for 40 years, I've been involved in real estate a lot of times both commercial and residential for 30 some odd years and active in Southold Town since 1992. We were the agency that sold the D'Aquisto property to the Kleins and we became somewhat familiar with the zoning matters during the transaction, so Mrs. Moore asked me to come down and give my opinion on what impact if any, this would have on the neighborhood if the variance was granted. MRS. MOORE: Thanks, Bob, just for the record, I have a set of very simplistic questions, but just going one by one. The garage and deck, are you familiar with the garage and deck that have been built? MR. SCALIA: Yes, I am. MRS. MOORE: OK, and your fsmiliar with the fact that they have been there since 817 MR. SCALIA: Yes, I am. MRS. MOORE: OK. Have the property values in the neighborhood been affected by the structures as built? MR. SCALIA: No, no, in my opinion not at all. MRS. MOORE: OK, and there's been some activity- MR. SCALIA: There's been activity in the neighborhood that has been homes sold in the neighborhood at market prices. MRS. MOORE: Right, OI(. Has there been any change to the character of the community due to these structures? ,Page 25 -tfearing Transcripts July 10, 1997 - Board of Appeals MR. SCALIA: No, none that I can comment on that. MRS. MOORE: Are you familiar with Mr. D'Aquisto's fame? MR. SCALIA: We became familiar with it once we went into his garage. We weren't permitted into the garage for the first six months that we had the listing because of veneers and woods that they had in there for the manufacture of the guitars and subsequent to the transaction at the beginning we found out, that it was considered a stroutavarious of guitar makers, world famous. We saw articles from ail over, the world and 1 know nothing about guitars whatsoever. I didn't even like Elvis Presley, but, evidently the man is world renowned and I was there at one point wtmn a young manufaeturer of guitars was there and he was in awe and was looking at the woods and wanted to purchase some of the veneers and some of the materials of machinery from the estate. I don't know whether he ever did or not, but, he was the first one that told us and we heard more and more about it. MRS. MOORE: This is kind of a subjective question, but is there any value to the structure because Qf the eultural significance? MR. SCALIA: I guess there could be, certainly we talk about landmarks and we talk about historical buildings and I guess if your a guitar' perfection or if one was to have a museum of guitar artifacts and that this man was truly one of the top guita~ makers in the world, I would assume that .it would have some potential historical value. I couldn't tell you what it would be or what the value would be or whether someone would want it, or the Southold Historical Society would want to put it on their grounds or something, but eertainly I guess there could be a possibility for it. Thank you. MRS. MOORE: Do you have any questions for him? CHAIRMAN: The present use of the building is what to your knowledge? MR. SCALIA: Since the closing I have no idea. I haven't been on to the property since. CHAIRiVlAN: What was in the building at the time that you were allowed entry to the building? MR. SCALIA: There was his woodworking machinery, there were raeks with pine veneers on it, all materials that you would use for manufacturing guitars, I guess. CHAIRMAN: There were some sought of heating system that you reckon? Page 26 - Hearing Transcripts July 10, 1997 - Board of Appeals MR. SCALIA: I don't remember, but I would have to think that there would be something because when you're working with woods you have to keep the temperature at a reasonable level. CHAIRMAN: OK, does anybody have any- questions of this gentleman? MEMBER OSTERMANN: No, not of Bob. CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much. MRS. MOORE: Just as a note, I was in the Kleins' home ayld I was sitting in that greenhouse, that little patio that sticks out and in fact the floor is made out of guitar veneer, so he was quite an artisan but used whatever materials he had and used it as flooring so it's quite, it's a very interesting house and a very interesting garage. You asked what the use was. It will be used as a garage for the Klein family but not habitable space, it's just storage, typical garage use. The key is that the structure a, maybe some day-, and I think Bob touched on it, there was some discretion at the closing about the Japanese that were very, they were just in awe of the D~Aguisto and there was some rumblings of about taking this whole structure and relocating it to whatever tnuseum or whatever facility they had in Japan. Nothing ever came about it, but you never know. Just like the Pollock House in East Hampton there are many studios that artist that may not, in this case we have a very recognized artist, but it's something that does give cultural significance to the Town of Southold and removing it which is really the only- choice if this variance is not granted would be such a loss to the town. Certainly a financial loss to the Kleins because they need a garage, but a cultural loss to the town because this could be quite a landmark for the music world. CHAIRMAN: At the time of the closing the only thing that was produced was the CO for the house? MRS. MOORE: Right, CHAIRMAN: Is that correct? MRS. MOORE: Well the CO for the house and the greenhouse had a CO separate. CftAIRMAN: The deck didn't have a permit at all? MRS. MOORE: The deck didn't have a CO and the garage. CHAIRMAN: This was picked up at the title report? MRS. MOORE: I don't know exactly how this - Page 27 - Hearing Trhnscripts July 10, ]997 - Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN: OK, to the best, yeah, OK. Presently in the garage there's still electric heating elements, is that correct? MRS. MOORE: No. CHAIRMAN: No, there taken out. There is no sanitary facilities. MRS. MOORE: No, no plumbing whatsoever. Right, no plumbing? CHAIRMAN: Sorry, I just want to straighten out on that issue. MRS. MOORE: Practically, I want to stress that there will be no change to the character of this community or to the adjacent properties. I have two photographs which Mr. Klein helped me with my Polaroid. Actually we start off with the survey, it's easier. If you refer back, I think all of you have the survey as part of your file, but you will notice that the Ingegno Survey does show a utility pole. That is approximately I guess 4 feet from the corner of the garage. So, there is a physical obstruction to that right-of-way and for those of you who seem to have inspected the property probably noticed the vegetation and the garage again has been there for ]5 years and the vegetation has grown around it, so there is no impact to anyone by this garage. There's also a utility pole that is at the entrance of the a what is known a Gull Pond Road, a private road, and the utility wires that go along the leugth. Again~ there's not much you can do with this property or impact on the right-of-way, that property owner. CHAIRMAN: Mrs. Moore, do you know how many houses service this right-of-way? MRS. MOORE: To our' knowledge only one. The house to the back, Marian Reinfurt, which since you raise a, raise her, I'll explain that a, I will swear' under penalty of perjury and unfortunately I couldn't get beyond that today, Mrs. Reinfurt called me yesterday, had intended to come and speak in favor of the application for' the Kleins and said that she wished them luck and had no opposition to the variance. She would be the most affected property owner. My understanding from the Kleins is that the right-of-way actually is blocked off with vegetatio~r. You can't go much further up than the Reinfurt property. So, the ether property that could have use of the right-of-way, the Durka family which is the one that sent the letter has had no access by way of vegetation. Its been blocked off and really never been used. I have photographs here, photographs I identify as 1 and photograph 2 and there a little dark but you can see on photograph 2 the utility pole and the distance of the garage from the utility pole and then photograph ] shows you the area that would be considered the right-of-way and the grassy area which is the Kleins property. To note, the Kleins have used this property and the D'Aquistos, I believe everybody has used this property. In fact, there are sprinklers underground which water. Page 28 - Hearing T~gnscripts July 10, 1997 - Board of Appeals the right-of-way are actually within the right-of-way, I believe outside of your property line real close. The sprinkler is right by the telephone pole, so, what I did, on my survey I highlighted in blue the 15 foot ZBA decision as setback and then the 35 foot setback that the code requires from the right-of-way and you'll notice which I'll submit for the record, the 15 foot setback cuts right through the garage and part of the deck. The 35 foot setback eliminates the garage altogether because you probably noticed that the rear property line is only 35.8 feet so this property is uniquely shaped, it is very small, under 20,000 sq. ft. and practically no garage can be placed here ~vithout a variance. So whether or not the applicant can rightfully put up a garage and left it there and you had a decision the laws have changed with regard to town law and the area variance criteria, but even more so there is no practical way of putting a garage on this property without a variance. CHAIRMAN: A hypothetical statement, are the Kleins intending to open the doors of this buildin~ so as to utilize it for automobile storage? MRS. MOORE: I think they'd like to. MR. KLEIN: Right now, it's just storage room. CHAIRMAN: You knorr there definitely will be a concern in reference to the backing in and the placement of cars ~-ithin the right-of-way area so as to allow people to gain access to the rear. MRS. MOORE: Yeah, there's really never been a problem with regard to the neighbor to the back, one neighbor in the back. Obviously the law on right-of-ways is that you can't block the right-of-way. So, if a garage is used for a car its to put the car in and keep it out of the elements. MEMBER TORTORA: How would they get a car into the garage? MRS. MOORE: Put it through the door! There's plenty of room for a turn in. MEMBER TORTORA: No, I mean they come down the right-of-way? MRS. MOORE: Yeah, you go down the right-of-way and you turn in. MEMBER TORTORA: You would replace the existing doors on the a- MRS. MOORE: They would have to. Are the doors there already? MR. KLEIN: Yeah, there's a door there. Page 29 - Hearing T~nscripts July 10, 1997 - Board of Appeals MEMBER TORTORA: When I visited the property it didn't look like you could get a car in. MR. KLEIN: Yeah, you can go in right here. You can go right in there, right through the door here, that's a working door. In fact, our kids take their bicycles in and out, out of the garage. MEMBER OSTERMANN: Is that wide enough? Is the garage doors wide? I know we looked at it. We weren't sure whether that width would take a you know. MR. KLEIN: No, it would take a car, absolutely. In fact, the equipment that they had moved out, his equipment, they had to put a truck in there and put the equipment inside the truck. He had heavy duty equipment to make the guitars. MEMBER TORTORA: Mrs. Moore, there is a piece of property behind the Reinfurt on the real property tax map, is that property also served by this right-of-way? MRS. MOORE: Probably, let me pull out, since you're asking me these questions, hop, skip and jump around. CHAIRMAN: Are you talking about the piece in back of the Durka piece? MEMBER TORTORA: No, not the back of the Durka, back of the Reinfurt. MRS. MOORE: Oh! I see what you're saying, OK. Just so you know what I'm putting on the record here, I pulled out from the January 13, 1955 subdivision survey of Sunrise Estates and this subdivision is what originally, this map, is the original subdivision of the, this area and the Durka family purchased from Pell, or purchased Pell's property and my understanding is that Pell acquired the properties what is designated here as lot 42, 43, 44, the right-of-way area that would typically service that area which would have been an extension of Meadow Lane and Gull Pond Lane. It looks like the property that is, yeah, that is north of Reinfurt main facts, and I don't know this to be sure, I haven't checked the assessor's records, I can do that before the next hearing, but, looks like it may be an owner of the Angler's Road of the Angler's Road house. The assessor's office had used this map for notes and it looks like they a MEMBER TORTORA: I don't have a match line on this a tie line. I saw the Reinfurt house, I just didn't know what MRS. MOORE: Right, are there any other houses improved in that area lots that you can tell? Page 30 - Hearing ~snseripts July 10, 1997 - Board of Appeals MEMBER TORTORA: There is a lot behind Reinfurt. The question is MRS. MOORE: Yeah, I know but, is it a separate lot or a - MEMBER TORTORA: Is that also using this right-of way? MR. KLEIN: No. MRS. MOORE: It would seem to me, well, I would - MR. KLEIN: No, the right-of-way, does look like, like a, I went back there with my boys yesterday for the first time they had passed Mrs. Reinfurt' property and it just stops right there. It's eompletely grown with vegetation, you can't go any farther. MEMBER TORTORA: But there is a lot there. MR. KLEIN: That I don't know. MRS. MOORE: You can't really tell from visual inspection and the map a does the tax map look like it's part of the rear property of a piece on Angler's Road because a lot of the properties were put together? MEMBER TORTORA: No, no its not. Where is Mr. Klein and Mrs. Reinfurt in reference to the lot? In other words, lot 107 MI~.S MOORE: Oh! I'm sorry, I was looking at that one. I honestly don't know. I can check the property cards. MR. KLEIN: Lot 10~ appears to be Mrs. Reinfurt's property. MRS. MOORE: No~ that's 10 from that lot subdivision map, who I can check the assessor's records if Kiewra (?) owns it. I don't know it would seem to me that anybody that was that had that has a lot would that developed under Sunrise Estates would have a right to use Gull Pond Road just as Mr'. Klein would have a right2 but whether or not they've used it or that its merged with Angler's Road a property that fronts on Angler's Road, I can't tell you without some investigation. CHAIRMAN: We're talking tax map lot #10, is that correct? MEMBER TORTORA: Yes. MRS. MOORE: She's talking tax lot #10, I'm saying that based on this subdivision map everybody would have a right to use access these roads. CHAIRMAN: Where does Durka live? Page 31 - Hearing Transcripts July 10, 1997 - Board of Appeals MRS. MOORE: Durka bought Pell's piece, if you look at that subdivision map there's a hatch mark, its a long strip and then in the back a larger piece. CHAIRMAN: Oh! this piece. So they own 2.1. MRS. MOORE: Yeah, they own, I don't know what number it is, lot 42, 43 and 44 on that subdivision map and they also own in part ownership with somebody else in the family a property to the east of them. CHAIRMAN: OK, I misunderstood you. I thought 10 was owned by Durka. The one that is in question. MEMBER TORTORA: Its across the right-of-way. CHAIRMAN: Its across the right-of-way, its on the, the MRS. MOORE: Its on the same side of the road as this one. MEMBER TORTORA: What is the width of the right-of-way now? MRS. MOORE: 55 feet 90, that's what this one says. MEMBER TORTORA: And its a private right-of-way? MRS. MOORE: Its a private road. MEMBER TORTORA: A historic value. You had discussed historic value. MRS. MOORE: Yes, cultural significance is my ne×t issue, OK. MEMBER TORTORA: Are you going to, are the Kleins going to be using this as a historical, offer some kind of tours, or anything that would give significance to this? MR. KLEIN: No. MRS. MOORE: Well, you can go in front of a structure that was used as a studio and it can have a little plague on it and that is the extent of it. I mean they need a garage, they need it for their storage, fox' ail their summer gear, their childrens' gear, everything, they want a garage. There's cultural significance to retain this garage in its place and whether, the door is there, everything is in its place. If someday in the future who knows whether or not the town may feel that this is such a significance that it needs to be lifted out and taken to the historical society. In fact, Scalia mentioned that. That's a good point. Who know 100 years from now whether or not that's something that the town would want to do. ~Page 32 - Hearing Transcripts July 10, 1997 - Board of Appeals MEMBER TORTORA: No, I really understand what you're saying, I'm thinking myself that there is of such a significance, do the Kleins recognize this? You know your using this as part of your discussion of obtaining this. Are the Kleins going to put some sought of restrictions on this to make sure that the kids in fact maintain their perpetuity. MRS. MOORE: If somebody comes and says we want to acquire this fox' $100,000, and take it to Japan and rebuild it lumber by lumber I think they might consider you know maybe for that kind of money they can replace the garage with another garage, OK. I think it has, the choice of the Zoning Board is, either granting the variance or denying the variance in which case our choice at that point becomes tearing it down. and I don't believe that it would be in the best interest of the town as well as the financial interest of the applicants to have that alternative. MEMBER TORTORA: I'm just saying that if it is of such significance then and it is, it has quite a history as you know, it was built despite the fact that this Board turned it down in many ways - MRS. MOORE: Yep, he was an artist. MEMBER TORTORA: This is a rehearing of an issue that was decided many years ago and the new kink is of course that he is a world, was a world famous guitar maker. MRS. MOORE: And the standards on an area variance have been I believed clarified since the eighties, OK, so the burdens have chal~ged and - MEMBER TORTORA: In other words, I would hate this to a approve this and then come back in a year from now and see that the whole thing has been decked or renovated or- MRS. MOORE: Oh! I can talk to them about, I would certainly be speaking out of turn. MEMBER TORTORA: I mean, you can't have it both Ways. You can't say it's a wonderful thing, it should be preserved here and then we approve it, or whatever, walk out of here and - MRS. MOORE: So long as you dontt prohibit their using it as a garage and a storage I'm not sure that there's, you know- keeping it the way it is, you're not planning on putting siding or (unknown voice, It's charming just the way it is). It's charming just like it is. The house is a rustic house and the garage is very rustic. CHAIRMAN: Yes, but the other issue is, that if they did sell it, we certainly would want to be a part any other future. ~Page 33 - Hearing Transcripts July 10, 1997 - Board of Appeals MRS. MOORE: Oh! Absolutely. CHAIRMAN: The placement of a storage building, a garage, you know, in that area. MRS. MOORE: OK, you can put that condition on. CHAIRMAN: In that area, OK. MRS. MOORE: Absolutely, I would advise you that that's probably a reasonable condition that if it was taken out because of the Japanese want it, that you can't use that footprint to put another garage exactly where it is. That they would want an opportunity to locate the garage more appropriately on the property. I think that's a reasonable request. CHAIRMAN: OK. MEMBER TORTORA: No, these are just some of the thoughts that Also, just to make sure that it was used for dead storage and we will have to render a decision after the hearing. MRS. MOORE: Alright, I'm not done yet, don't rush me! CHAIRMAN: We haven't even asked if anybody else would like to speak. MRS. MOORE: I have here the book which I referred to earlier. It's a book acquired by the Angels, the tiles and works of master guitar makers John D'Angelico who was the original guitar maker and James. L. D'Aquisto who was the predecessor in title. D'Aquisto was D'Angelico's apprentice and ultimately became even more famous and better, guitar maker than the master. So, here's the book and I just put it on the record if again, we'd like it back. I put a little tab where they start talking about him. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. MRS. MOORE: I also want to deal with the financial hardship element of even though again, the law has changed there is still some discussion of financial hardship. I asked Attic Foster who actually had talked to Mr. Klein about what would be the cost of removing this structure and he gave me a written estimate for $10,000 for removal of the garage, but he states 5i1 a note that due to the fact that the building is on the line and the property is small that there's no room fox' heavy equipment, the demolition equipment and that the job must be done by hand so it's going to be an expensive job. He also notes that landfill invoice for the concrete would be a separate cost. Landfill cost are $70 a ton and I got a, nobody could pin me down, it all depends on the weight of the concrete but, it could range from $3 to $5,000 for a cost of Page 34 - Hearing Transcripts July 10, 1997 - Board of Appeals removal of this foundation so it is a significant expense and financial hardship. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. This may top a you know, the Nassau point situation with a - MRS. MOORE: Well, we had to do our' homework. This is a tough case for ali of us. CHAIRMAN: I don't mean, I mean in reference to time, I'm sorry. No, no, I meant in reference to a, you know, interest in overall. MRS. MOORE: OK, alright. With regard to the law and how its changed since the eighties and when you originally a this application came before you, I point out some sections of the code that I find interesting because a it good give a little bit of a relief to the Zoning Board in the grant of a variance. In 1994 the Town Code at 100-230f created an exception for accessory buildings. If their connected to a garage that the garage setback becomes the setback of the principal residence. It use to be that you connect with the breezeway you connect with some kind of structure and now the garage residence ends as a separate accessory structure becomes a part of the principal structure and there was a decision from 75 which set forth the setbacks of 15 feet for the principal structure of the house was interpreted by the Building Department to mean that any structure that's a principal structure must have a 15 foot setback. So we're not dealing with a garage that has a, needs a variance from 35 feet you could interpret this to be that assuming you would allow the lot coverage to connect the two we could do that with decking or whatever you connect the two becomes a principal structure and therefore the 15 foot setback would be applicable. So that's a possible interpretation here. MEMBER TORTORA: This would all be one principal structure? MRS. MOORE: It's a one of those, yeah, it would be a, you would have to put the two structures together but, you know, if I had somebody that was looking for loopholes certainly that's one. The Kleins are not of that type. We're here before the Board with you know, open application but a, but if we were real close and we were 15 feet back I think that we could connect the two assuming the lot coverage wasn't a problem. Connect the two and you've got a principal structure. Also, in 97, nonconforming lots under 20,000 feet were, there was some relief that was attempted and a sideyards became 10 and 15. We still have the problem that it's adjacent to a right-of-way, so you have a 35 foot setback typically on a 20,000 square foot lot. I know this Board has had lots of applications because of corner lots and the practical problems that come about where the 20, a lot that's 20,000 feet or less it's almost impossible to put a house or any- accessory struetures that don't violate setback. With regard to the deck, I have a, the decking if Page 35 - Hearing Transcripts July 10, 1997 - Board of Appeals you notice when you went to the property, the front of the property is on grade. It's more of a flat of walkway and the property slopes down towards the garage and the decking becomes 1-1/2 feet above grade. The Kleins have told me and I don't think I'm out of tutu that if, we don't want to lose the garage by all means tllat's very important to them. The declaring is not in great condition. He's got to fix it up, we can do some modifications, he still needs to get out of his greenhouse, so the decking is important in that area but, we can work with the Board if you feel that the decking has to be cut back a little bit, we can I think when I was looking at the property coming up with angles that create, that don't create a dangerous curve there around the corner, but, there amenable. They would prefer to keep the decking and replace and keep it because it's useable but in the back if they put slate they would have the same purpose. So, decking because it's a wood structure requires a building permit. You had asked a question at one point and asked for a diagram of the garage which I had Mr. Klein prepare, prepare for the Board and it shows the height of the garage and we hope this will suffice for the Building Department when the need comes for a building permit but it, you can incorporate it into your file and it shows the dimensions of the structure and a elevations of the garage. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Before we close, I just want to discuss the lot coverage. Why don't you betweezl now and the time that we reconvene give us a figure in reference to what you can live with in reference to the abridging or the cutting of a deck and you know maybe we can modify that lot coverage down a little bit in reference to a percentage, alright. MRS. MOORE: That's fine. I just want to put on the record at this point because I don't know what the Durkas are going to raise as an issue and I don't want it to be confrontational at the next hearing. There was some, there was a communication, I sent them a neighbor notice, Mr. Durka, a neighbor notice and as a result of that neighbor, notice, he called me and said I'd be willing to sell the area in front of the Kleins' property, he was asking $5,000 for it. It wouldn't change the fact that we'd still need a variance because the right-of-way would not be extinguish as to ali the other's that have rights over that. So it wouldn't make no impact, we, we eouldn't mitigate or obviate the need for a variance by acquisition of this area. I did some research and I found that subdivision map which I think and based on hearing that from 75 some testimony that was taken that everybody that has owned this property always believed they had a right to use that right-of-way. So, he was kind of selling ice to the Eskimos. We don't really need it, we were willing to talk to him about it, $5,000 was an unreasonably high number for something we didn't need. MEMBER TORTORA: Which land was he willing to sell? Page 36 - Hearing T~anscripts July 10, 1997 - Board of Appeals MRS. MOORE: If you take the right-of-way, 50 foot width by the length of the property, so essentially he would if I remember correctly he never put it in writing or anything but he would release his any rights that he may have to that portion of the right-of-way, and you know from the testimony that he hasn't used it in all this time and there are shrubs that block it, so you know, he's not selling anything that he*s been using. In fact, when' Mr. Klein said, well whose maintained this? You know rosily didn't know~ hadn't maintained it, and didn't even know who had maintained it in ali of tiffs time. We knew, we knew it was the property owner, D~Aquisto and the prior predecessors in title, so it's kind of a loaded question, but we knew this. So, it's something that could come up the next hearing, I want you to be aware of it beoause for the record we don't want false issues to interfere with the decision that possibly you have, we were certainly willing to listen to him, ii: was an exorbitant figure that he approached Mr. Klein with for really something he, wouldn't change anything here. MEMBER TORTORA: Would it improve your lot coverage? MRS. MOORE: No, well, maybe, but we're only 200 some square feet over so, the cost of 200 square feet is not $5,000. MEMBER TORTORA: It probably would be an alternative as far as to that issue. It wouldn't change the sideyard? MRS. MOORE: It wouldn't change the sideyard variance Which is really the significant variance and the lot coverages because of the structures that are there that and we are already willing to talk to the Board about how to cut back the deck so it's still a usable deck but lessens the area coverage. MEMBER TORTORA: OK. MRS. MOORE: Any questions you might have of me, my clients? CHAIRMAN: Starting with Mrs. Ostermam~. MEMBER OSTERMANN: No questions. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Dinizio. MEMBER DINIZIO: No, no questions. CHAIRMAN: Mrs. Tortora. MEMBER TORTORA: No. CHAIRMAN: No, OK. MRS. MOORE: Thank you. Page 37 - Hearing T~anscripts July 10, 1997 - Board of Appeals CHAiRIVIAN: Thank you. I'm keeping your subdivision map of Sunrise Estate, would you like tllis back? MRS. MOORE: No, I gave that to you. CHAIRMAN: Is there anybody else would like to speak in favor of the application? Anybody like to speak against the application? We'll make a motion recessing this hearing until August 14th. Can I have a second. MEMBER OSTERMANN: Second. CHAIRMAN: All in favor. MEMBERS: Aye. ,Page 38 - Hearing T~anscripts July 10, 1997 - Board of Appeals 8:00 P.M. - Appl. No. 4490 - NICKHART REALTY (Carryover) MR. SAMBAcH: (Tape blank) feet by 90.18 feet into two lots, 193.88 feet frontage on County Road 48 with a depth of 90.18 feet for the construction of two one family residences. The construction of the residence will not be a detriment to the health, safety and general welfare of the neighborhood or community as there were approvals for construction of three one family residences in 1961 when the property was zoned a residential. The subdivision into two lots will consist of 17,484 sq. ft. which would be the largest lot size in the community according to the tax map. There wilI not be any undesirabie changes produced in the character of the neighborhood or detriment to nearby properties as there are one and two story residence as well as two and one-half residence on smalIer size lots than those proposed. The property is located across the road from the town beach on Route 48, and has a parking lot located on the west side of the adjoining motel for the adjoining motel. The existing trees located on the property on the east side are to remain and any other trees not affected by the location of the residence are to remain. All overgrown weeds, sl~rubs, rambles and brush are to be removed. The construction of the two residences will have a slight affect oil the impact on the physical or environmental conditions of the neighborhood or district as any new construction would have and it will remove an overgrown eyesore on the north road. The alleged difficulty was not seif created because when the zone was changed from A to R-40 consideration w as not given to the property being of insufficient size. Pictures submitted with the application show the condition of the property which I don't think we'll have to go into description. We respectfully request consideration be given to the granting of the variance as the residence will occupy only 8.2% of the property which is much less than the 20% permitted. The sideyards are more than required and I thank you for your consideration. MR. CHAIRMAN: While you're still there, we'll start with Mrs. Ostermann. Any questions of this gentleman? MEMBER OSTERMANN: No questions. MEMBER DINIZIO: No. CHAIRMAN: Mrs. Tortora? MEMBER TORTORA: I'm sure you're aware that we've received a letter from the Planning Board stating that they're not in favor of this subdivision and the reasons why, specifically because of the size of the parcels and also because it's within 300 feet of Long Island Sound and 100 feet of Hashamomuck Creek which has been designated as the ZBA. They further state that they're concerned about deterioration as a result of this subdivision. So, I would Page 39 - Hearing Transcripts July 10, 1997 - Board of Appeals like As I said I know that you're aware of this, I'd like you to address their concerns, if you would. MR. SAMBACH: What was that? MEMBER TORTORA: I would like it if you could address their concerns, the concerns that they stated in this letter, if you could. MR. SAMBACH: Well, I think I have answered part of it. The houses are on their property right now that are closer to Hashamomuck Pond. Had the property been developed years ago you would have three houses there instead of the two proposed. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Doyen? MEMBER DOYEN: No. CHAIRMAN: Thank you Mr. Sambach. MR. SAMBACH: There's some objections. CHAIRMAN: Yes, right, we're just going to see if auybody else. Is there anybody else would like to speak in favor? OK, then you're up. MRS. PAETZ: My name is Gloria Paetz aud I'm the adjacent property owner on the east side of the Beverly Road. I've been there for 24 years and I don't mind having 2 individual houses there, I'm just concerned about the height of them. We have almost two twin towers in back of us at the moment and I would like hopefully that this doesn't happen again. Also, I would like to see as many trees as possible remain. To have them ail stripped would be a sin. They had taken so many beautiful trees down there that had survived all hurricanes and 75 foot tall and ii was a crime to see. It use to be the most beautiful spot on Long Island on the North Fork. Also, there is an easement there or on the corner of Beverly and North Road there, there are water pipes that feed to the three houses that are on Hashamomuck Pond. Now, I would like to know how- far that easement goes back from the North Road in that corner all the way to Old Cove Road, loitering on Beverly Road there and how many feet it would go west of Beverly Road because there is a shed there that Mr. Hass when he owned it let me use and I could put my bicycles in there and it's very handy since I don't have a garage. Now, if the easement is say 20 feet from Beverly Road and it goes back from North Road to Old Cove Road, are they allowed to build on an easement? CHAIRMAN: Build over an easement? MS. PAETZ: I don't where the easement ends and begins is what I would like to know because I know they always go there, those Page 40 - Hearing Transcripts July 10, 1997 - Board of Appeals pipes that are on the exact corner, there's a box there, they're buried in the ground, I don't have a problem with the water, I'm on the Main Road, I have city water so it doesn't affect me, but, have planted bushes there, Montauk Daisies, and also there are Tiger Lilies planted along there on Beverly Road on the east side right by the road from the North Road to Old Cove Road and I would like to see if they can stay. I think it would take only 10 feet or 15 feet and I would like to know what's going to happen with that and hour far that easement goes back. Can anybody tell me that? CHAIRMAN: Do you want the engineer to tell you, to show you? MR. SAMBACH: The water main is on the proposed, is on the existing property. It is not in the easement. MS. PAETZ: Where does the property go? This is what I'm looking at, Beveryly and here's the corner. MR. SAMBACH: The water main goes ali the way back to the Feder property and the main property. It is on their property. MS. PAETZ: Now are you allowed to build where these pipes are? MR. SAMBACH: No, we're not building anywhere near them. MS. PAETZ: How far does this go down to Old Cove Road from this point? MR. PAETZ: Hm, hm. MS. PAETZ: Now will these remain here? Will that shack remain there? MR. SAMBACH: No, I think that's - MS. PAETZ: Well that would be within this 10 feet or 15 feet area, Oil the easement area. MR. SAMBACH: No, the shack is not on the easement area. CHAIRMAN: Its on the property. MR. SAMBACH: Its on the property. MS. PAETZ: You just saying its going down here. 3/~R. SAMBACH: The shack is on the property. MS. PAETZ: Yeah, but wait, tell me where the easement is? .Page 41 - Hearing T~canscripts July 10, 1997 - Bosrd of Appeals MR. SAMBACH: Here's the 20 feet. This is in front of your property. MS. PAETZ: Here's the property. MR. SAMBACH: Its 20 feet easement. MS. PAETZ: That's the road, MR. SAMBACH: Right! MS. PAETZ: Beverly Road, I'm talking about inside here. MR. SAMBACH: There's no easement in here. MS. PAETZ: This is where your pipes are. MR. SAMBACH: It's on our property. MS. PAETZ: The pipes are on your property, yeah. MR. SAMBACH: Right. MS. PAETZ: Are you going to build on it? MR. SAMBACH: No, where not going to build on the pipes. MS. PAETZ: Oh!, you're going to take the shed down and you're going to take the bushes down? MR. SAMBACH: No, we're leaving everything up. MS. PAETZ: Well, why can't you leave the shed up? Its all covered with vines and you don't even see it. Mit. SAMBACH: Well, its up to the owner. MS. PAETZ: It's been there for so many years, he doesn't use it for 24 years, you know, it just keeps two bicycles in there. MR. SAMBACH: How come he's letting you use it? MS. PAETZ: He was very nice. He happened to be a nice gentleman. MR. SAMBACH: 'It will probably remain unless the Board tells us if they give us the variance they might tell us to take it down, I don't know. IRIS, PAETZ: Could you put it in writing to at least keep some of the trees, most of the trees, S0% of the trees, or 70% or something. Page 42 - Hearing Ti~ai~scripts July 10, 1997 - Board of Appeals MR. SAMBACH: All of the trees on the east side are to remain. MS. PETZ: That's nice, and the bushes too? MR. SAMBACH: Yes. MS. PAETZ: And instead of leaving the shed, you're going to go digging up in there, find the shed and take it down. MR. SAMBACH: No, we're not going to go digging in there. MS. PAETZ: Yes you would have to. MR. SAMBACH: No, we're going to be, we'll be 30 feet away from the water main. MS. PAETZ: OK, and how high are these buildings going to be? MR. SAMBACH: We're allowed 35 feet but they're not going to be that high, they're only 92 feet. Some of the buildings there are higher than what we -- MS. PAETZ: You better believe they are. There's three stories there. CHAIRMAN: These appear to be High Ranches is that correct? High Ranch? MR. SAMBACH: Yes. CttAIRMAN: Yes, These are - MS. PAETZ: 5~ou see what happens, once you permit, then the other neighbors say, I can't see anything, you're taking my view, so they go up another two stories. So, what use to be an area where there were only one story little rooms -- CHAIRMAN: Now, just remember Ms. Paetz, you have to basically address the Board. We allowed that this course to go, OK, because we know you so well and we know the engineer, so well, OK, but this course is really a discussion between the Board and yourself, OK. Has the engineer explained to you what, except for the - MS. PAETZ: Well, not really, but he plans on leaving the trees which is nice to hear. I don't quite understand how wide this assessment goes and if it does go from the north road to Old Cove he hasn't been made clear to me. CHAIRMAN: I'm sure that he lives in Gardners Bay Estates which I know. I'm sure he would meet with you at the site and further explain to you, if you want him to. Wouldn't you Sir? *Page 43 - Hearing Ti'ahscripts July 10, 1997 - Board of Appeals MR. SAMBACH: I agree. CHAIRMAN: So, why don't we have that situation occur, OK and call Mr. Sambach or have him you know-, w-hatever way you want to deal with it. I'm sure he'll ~ive you his telephone number. He goes by there everyday when he goes to the office so I mean I'm sure he can stop there. I'm .not trying to put him in an awkward position but we've know Mr. Sambach for some 20 years and he's a very cooperative individual. MS. PAETZ: I think you know me 24 years. CHAIRMAN: Yes, we do, probably. Not me, I've only been on the Board 17, OK, but we do remember the 1990 discussions that we had with you which were delightful as the 1997 discussions, OK. I was just telling Mr. Doyen that this is like 7 years later. MS. PAETZ: It's going to be nice to have it cleaned up and two houses I feel is fine, but, you know- just leave it rural, lets keep it like Southold should be. CltAIRMAN: OK, what we would like to do, is have you meet with him. If you still have a further concern, then we'll deal with that at another hearing, OK, that's entirely up to you. We'll see if we can close it tonight and you meet with him and if you have any concerns you let us know. As to the issue of the storage shed, its been there, I don't know if this Board is going to ask for it to be removed, I noticed its being slated as being removed. Is there anything else before? IRIS. PAETZ: No. The trees are really it. CHAIRMAN: The trees are of great concern. MS. PAETZ: It makes a buffer for the sounds of the roads and its awful pretty and that I would like. CHAIRMAN: OK, is there anything else before. MS. PAETZ. No. CHAIRMAN: Yes, Sir, would you state your name for the record please. MR. FEDER: My name is Irving Fedep, my wife and I, my wife, Virginia Feder and I have lived there, have owned the house there for 30 years. CHAIRMAN: Where is your house? ~Page 44 - Heaping T~'ahseripts July 10, 1997 - Board of Appeals MR. FEDER: My house is directly across south of the land of the developed, I'm the parcel just about in the middle. It's my understanding that the purpose of changing of Zoning Laws is to increase the protection of the land and to avoid the abuses that have taken place in the past. Now, if you were to look at this map and see what has happened to this property in the, most of it happened in 30, there are more than 30 years ago. It has been parcelled into 30 pieces, 30 x 60, 30 × 100. Both sides of the Cove have been subdivided to a point where people can't park there cars there, practically gun battles every weekend, people jacking their cars. There are two motels bordering on it. Further back you have the two other summer colonies or what they formally were summer colonies. Now, this is the only piece over there that is still open and originally when I first moved there it was zoned as commercial and Dutch Hass was contemplated of putting in Miniature Golf. Fortunately, the Zoning Board said, we're not going to let this happen anymore, so they cha~ged it and they, was zoned for three houses. But, even that they realized was unsatisfactory, that was going to further ruin the property area. So, they said, wait, one house. When Nickhari bought it, he knew what he was getting. I heard comments made about the foliage growing, the, I mean when Dutch Hass owned that property, I have to give him credit, it was like a park. There was no vines, no overgrowth, it was beautiful. I mean I may not have liked the idea that he had in mind to do, but, he did maintain this beautiful piece of land. That for the last 20 years has totally degenerated, so that it's totally unseemly at this point. Another point that where are the curb cuts going to be? Are they going to come in off the Main Road? I mean people do 50, 60, 70 miles an hour. Now, I mean I think we should have a direct line to the East Long Island Hospital~ if that's going through, and if he's going to go in by the motel, I don't even know who maintains it. I've maintained the road in front of me, the total of it, over 200 feet for the last 15 years because I wouldn't get any cooperation from my adjacent land owner. So, I think that reason dictates tbat the change that was made was made for a good purpose and that that purpose shouldn't be distorted and so that we have another series of houses over there. I think we have to keep something green. Now, the reason that my property and Mr. Philleppides' property are bigger, there was suppose to be a lot between the two of us over there. I bought that lot and then I subdivided it with Mr. Philleppides predecessor, Mr. Madis so that we kept it open and one less house was put there. Now, I don't feel that it's fair to us, we gave up a lot of money to buy that piece of land but, we wanted to keep it opened, everything else was jammed and now we're going to get jammed in again. So, I really feel that under the circumstances the request for a change should be denied. Thank you. CHAIRMAN: Thank you Sir. Yes, Mr. Sambach. ~Page 45 - Hearing T~.ahscripts July 10, 1997 - Board of Appeals MR. SAMBACH: Number 1, the property was never zoned commercial. It was zoned A. Number 2, the gentleman said over 200 feet he's maintaining the road. His property is only 121 feet. MR. FEDER: That's right, I'm maintaining the other part too. IVIR. SAMBACH: Well, that!s fine, you're maintaining the other people's property. The curb cuts will be on the Main Road, he has it, the houses will have garages, the setbacks from County Road 48 is 32 feet to the building so there will be plenty of room for people to back out or pull out and watch the traffic and wait for an opening to pull out to the County Road. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. OK, anybody else like to speak? Hearing no further comment I'll make a motion closing the hearing. MEMBER OSTERMANN: Second. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, and pending any discussions that Ms. Paetz may have either by letter or you know, OK. Aii in favor. BOARD MEMBERS: Aye. MEMBER DINIZIO: We're closing the hearing? CHAIRMAN: Closing the hearing. Yes. ~Page 46 - Hearing TW. aflscripts July 10, 1997 - Board of Appeals 8:27 P.M. - Appl. No. 4490 - RICHARD AND THERESA SIRIANO CHAIRMAN: This application is based upon the April 19~ 1997 Action of Disapproval issued by the Building Inspector, for a Variance under Article XXIV, Section 100-244C and Section 100-33 for permission to locate an accessory garage building in a front yard to less than the required 40 ft. front yard setback provided by Article III~ Section 100-33C and Article XXIV, Section ]00-244B pertaining to waterfront lots of less than 40,000 sq. ft. in size. Zone: R-40. Location of Property 600 Beebe Drive, Cutehog~ue, N.Y.; County Parcel 1000-97-?-5; a/k/a Lot #29, Moose Cove Subdivision Map. I have a copy of the survey, most recent date is March 26, 1997 indicating the proposed garage at approximately 28 feet from Beebe Drive and I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating and surrounding properties in the area. Mrs. Moore. MRS. MOORE: Yes, thank you. Mr. Siriano told me that some of you I guess when you went out to see the property may have had the old survey with you so I just want to make sure that you're aware that the setback has actually been reduced. We pushed back, Mr. Siriano after stating tile property at the original proposed variance location noticed that it didn't really look that good and he was able to squeeze some feet further back and still maintain a 15 foot separation between the corner of the house and just that the tough part is getting around the property because he has boat trailers and just access, getting access to the back of the property, so we've been, he's staked the, I guess he's comfortable with the proposal now which is 28 feet from the easterly side or on the - CHAIRMAN: Say Beebe Drive. MRS. MOORE: Beebe Drive. The northerly part of Beebe Drive is 28 feet and that it angles down on the southerly part of Beebe Drive just 32 feet. CHAIt{MAN: OK. IVIRS. MOORE: OK, so, our application I put in writing, an amendment to the application and a - CHAIRMAN: But we're still 5 feet off the property line at its closest point? MRS. MOORE: Yes, correct. CHAIRMAN: OK. So, it's going to be greater on the portion closer to Beebe Drive the way he's angled the garage? MRS. MOORE: Yes, correct. Page 47 - Hearing T}'ahseripts July 10~ 1997 - Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN: OK, what would you like to tell us? MRS. MOORE: Well, to start with the house was constructed, I think you have quite a extensive record that I, written record that I gave you. The house was constructed with a garage under the house and the elevation that you saw- from your own observations and the survey that the elevations of the garage and the driveway go below the 8 foot elevation. It's actually in the flood plane. Sure enough on December 11, of 92 there was a very severe storm and it essentially destroyed everything that was down in his basement. I have photographs for your file which show- the property as its flooded, shows the canal tile way it flooded and there was extensive damage. He also shows a photograph of the water level in the basement and all of his personal effects that were damaged in the basement and then the final photograph is one that shows all of his stuff from the garage outside to be thrown away. So, this damage, this flooding really prompted him to do something he had really thought about for a long time which is the need to enclose the basement so that you prevent the flood damage that occurs periodically in storm tides and essentially replace the basement which is the garage underneath the house to an accessory garage. CHAIRMAN: So he basically is going to fill in tile garage? MRS. MOORE: He's going to fill in the garage, we have an application pending to the DEC for everything. There's an application pending right now- with the Trustees because we want to, he's having cave-in of the boat ramp but, that has nothing to do with this Board, but you did see it all along the survey which we'll discuss with the Trustees what we're going to do and different construction methods are being considered. Mr. Siriano has shown me and proved to be the type of guy he wants to see the methods that the Trustees are proposing before he agrees to build anything. Nonetheless, the garage is going to be located in the front yard as the code allows. However, the setback again, has to be situated in such a way that it continues the access to the back and it's a very tight squeeze that he's been able to accomplish this. What I did, Mr. Siriano and I~ went around the neighborhood to try and figure out were there any other garages, any other structures that were encroaching on the 40 foot setback and this neighborhood has been pretty good. The houses were all built many years ago when you could build closer to the wetlands or closer to the canal and therefore you had plenty of room to setback your house and most people with water['ro~xt houses want to be close to the water., so this issue never really came up with other applications. Most of the houses were built in the seventies, waterfront houses. In fact, the one property is a client of mine. To the north is Angus and he is building you saw the property that's cleared. He's going through the permit process to build a house and the DEC is pushing us away f~om the canal and fortunately he has been able to meet variance you know the zoning setbacks, but again, everything is closer to the Page 48 - Hearing Transcmpts July 10, 1997 - Board of Appeals road because of the canal. What I did is I, when we were out there trying to figure out who if any garages were in fact closer to the road. We stood at the garage of the point where the garage was staked and we looked over to the south, the house right next door axed it looks like the location of the house and the garage is in fact of the same level of what we propose, but it's actually a visual, it was a visual observation. What we noticed is that because Beebe Drive angles visually the location of the garage and the house for the adjacent property will be at the exact location that Mr. Siriano has proposed and what I did is I did, the next time you're out there if you choose to go out again, on the survey I drew a visual line straight out from where the garage is being proposed and in fact, the house is setback 40 feet. It does create a 40 foot setback for the adjacent piece so it won't affect the character' of the community. You'll notice, I think in your application pack, I did supply to the Board the grading plan or at least showing that he's going to be filling in that ares so the retaining wall will be removed so that won't impact the location of the garage and the grade of the property will be at approximately the street elevation. CHAIRMAN: There's no anticipation of any basement in this garage for storage purposes right? MRS. MOORE: Well, tle'll continue his basement, but he has to cement block the garage doer. CHAIRMAN: No, no, I meant the basement. There's no basement proposed in the garage? MRS. MOORE: Oh! No, its a foundation. CHAIRMAN: Its a regular monolithic - MRS. MOORE: You know I can write to you and let you know one way or another. I'm not sure. It's kind of a duplex you know as you go further out the foundation will be - CHAIRMAN: Well, that's what lead me to that question. MRS. MOORE: But, he's filling in, so, he's filling in that whole area. I'm not quite sure honestly because I don't know- structurally whether or not you can compact the soil sufficiently to build a garsge without a foundation that will crack. I'm not sure if he's not, he doesn't, he's not obligated to go to the level that is presently there and build up in order to have a stable foundation so, I honestly don't know. Any other questions? CIIAIRMAN: No, we'll start with Mrs. Ostermann. MEMBER OSTERMANN: No questions. Page 49 - Hearing Ti. anscripts July 10, 1997 - Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN: Mr. Dinizio. MEMBER DINIZIO: He's obligated to go 3 feet below grade in order to beat the frost. MRS. MOORE: Oh! for foundation. MEMBER DINIZIO: Yes, so I mean depending on the grade of the property that's how high the back is probably going to be. MRS. MOORE: Yeah, I mesh, if there's access crawl space under there maybe, I don't think he wants the same problem. MEMBER DINIZIO: Yes, I think with the garage I would doubt very much. CItAIRMAN: Well, there's a substantial amount of underpinning you have to do when you put a garage, when you put a basement in a garage because if you want to support a car, you know you're talking a two ton vehicle, now you're talking a four ton vehicle, two vehicles. I'm just saying tilat because you have an access of elevation - MRS. MOORE: Oh! that's true, maybe you can't put crawl space under it. CHAIRMAN: You can do anything if you want to - MRS. MOORE Well, it depends on how much you want to pay. I think when he gave me quotes, in fact, I asked him about for the previous application what does a garage run? He said, anywhere from $1,500 to $30,000. CHAIRMAN: Well, the $30,000 would be the one with the - MRS. MOORE: Would be the one with the basement underneath, yeah. Knowing Mr. Siriano, I think he's inclined to go with $1,500. That's not a discouraging remark its how he fees. CHAIRMAN: Mrs. Tortora. MEMBER TORTORA: No, its just that a its almost like an illusion because the two houses to the north appear to be as close where this line is. MRS. MOORE: Exactly. We had such a hard time that we actually in fact I may even have a survey here but it is a 40 foot setback, so, from the neighbor the one right to the south if my bearings are right. The one next door that is built out, it is a 40 foot setback. I should have given you a copy, I apologize. We were trying to figure out what the dimensions were because it really was Page 50 - Hearing TJeanscripts July 10, 1997 - Board of Appeals deceiving and he gave us a survey and it was in fact, 40 foot s~tback. Visually- though, it won't impact and I was really happy that he setback the garage further back because that helps. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Doyen. MEMBER DOYEN: No questions. CHAIRMAN: The garage that he's anticipating is the copy that I've just looked at in the file here. It's 17.3 in height and it's 24 x 26. MRS. MOORE: Right. CHAIRMAN: And it will contain only utility of electricity. MRS. MOORE: That's right. Yes, I can't imagine anything, he has asked for any, it*s not habitable space, no plumbing, so CHAIRMAN: And the doors will face forward toward the road. MRS. MOORE: Correct. CHAIRMAN: Alright, is there anybody else would like to speak in favor of this application? Anybody like to speak against the application? Hearing no further comment, I'll make a motion closing the hearing reserving decision until later. MEMBER OSTERMANN: Second. Carried. Transcript prepared by Lucia Farrell from tape recording. RECEIVED AND FILED BY TIlE SOUTH©LD TOWN CLERK Tc)wn Clezk, Town of Sou~old