HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-11/13/1997 HEARING INDEX
TRANSCRIPT OF ZBA HEARINGS
HEARINGS HELD NOVEMBER 13, 1997
Pp. 1-4 Appl. #4521 - Margaret J. Owen, Fishers Island
Pp. 4-8 Appl. #4523 - Dr. & Mrs. Patrick Coisgiuri, Mattituck
TRANSCRIPT OF PUBLIC HEARING
November 13, 1997
BOARD OF APPEALS
(Prepared by Lucy Farrell)
6:50 P.M. - Appl. No. 4521 - MARGARET J. OWEN
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Based upon the Building Inspector's
Notice of Disapproval issued July 23, 1997, applicant requests
Variances under Article III, Section 100-33B (4) for permission to
locate accessory inground pool with deck construction at a
setback of less than 20 feet from nearest property lines, and located
in an area other than the required rear yard. Location of
Property: Isabella Road, Fishers Island, N.Y.; Parcel t1000-?-6-8;
Represented by Stephen L. Ham III, Esq., and a copy of a map
produced by Richard H. Strouse dated June 9~ 299?, is the most
recent date on the map indicating the approximate placement of the
pool and a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and
surrounding properties in the area. Mr. Ham, how are you tonight?
MR. HAM: Fine. Stephen Ham, 45 Hampton Road, Southampton,
for the applicant, Owen. Affidavit of Posting, Affidavit of Mailing,
with the return receipts, and I have some other documents I'd like
to put in the record. This is an affidavit from Mr. Strouse who is
both the surveyor and a licensed engineer. He was at the property
last Thursday and this is a contour map which shows the site and
the sloping and I understand that the Board was riot able to make a
field trip over there, but, I have something, that I think would be
quite helpful and I have photographs and Mr. Strouse took them
last week~ they're right side up. I have on the map he's indicated
the vantage points for each of these photographs and they're
marked, so marked, on the rear of each photographs.
BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: How many photos are there?
MR. HAM: There are 10. And then finally, I have just to make my
presentation a little briefer, I have a Memorandum for everyone
which sought of goes through the legal basis for the application and
that will allow me maybe just make a few points here. The principal
one, as you can see from I think, primarily from photographs
numbers 2 and 3 the rear yard which would be the conforming
location, well let me backup for a second, as I've mentioned to Mrs.
Kowalski, the Legal Notice and the Notice of Disapproval
incorrectly referred to a need for a variance for a setbacks. The
only variance that's necessary- is to locate the pool and the
required, in the front yard rather than the required rear yard. We
t~age 2 - Hearing TraliScripts
November 13, 1~7 - Board of Appeals
mention a deck here and there. The deck will be a stone patio. In
fact it will not be anything, it's at grade, so the setbacks are
shown from the edge of the pool In one case to the nearest
property line at 70 feet and the other 67 feet which not only would
meet the setbacks for an accessory strueture~ they would meet the
required setbacks for a principal dwelling in this R-120 Zone
District based on the relief given by whatever section of the Code
for this size property, 80 to 119,999 SCl. ft. The main purpose,
well the application is being brought because the conforming location
which is the required rear yard as you can see from photos number
2 and 3, in particular and also from the topo information on both
the survey and the contour map is just very steep. I prepared
after speaking with Mr. Strouse, I prepared an affidavit for his
signature which is in the record now. It's also an attachment to my
Memorandum and he added that it was a 30% slope there. So, the
amount of earth movement and construction activity that would be
required to build the pool in the back yard would be enormous and
the cost would be prohibitive to the extent that he would not even
recommend that it be done. He also suspects that there may be
wetlands at the foot of the slope and so you've got a another reason
there why it's not indicated to put the pool in the rear yard.
Instead, in the front yard there's an area which is basically just
lawn now which is level, it's high up, so it would not be noticeable
from the street. If you look at photographs numbered 4, well 4
shows the posting notice, but, 5, 6 and ? show that even now, on
November 6th~ in the fall, it's barely visible. So, as far as the
neighborhood is concerned, it would not, it should not be noticeable,
and indeed if this were vacant lot you could put a house where this
particular pool is planned to be located. So, in a nut shell it's
the argument is that we can't conform in the rear yard without
severe practical difficulties to the extent that it's not even
feasible to build the pool at all~ and secondly~ the neighborhood is
not affected and weighing the benefit to the applicant against' the
detriment to the area, it would seem that the benefit far outweighs
any detrimental affect that this would have by -
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: For the record, I just want you to
know, that this Board is extremely aware of Barlow Pond, OK, and
this is not necessarily adjacent to that, but it is, you know~ I
won't say it's a wonderful stone throw~ but it's within a thousand
feet or so of it. So, we are certainly aware of that.
Mt{. HAM: And we're building on the other side of it.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes. The question I have is, any
indication that the proposed pool would ever be enclosed?
MR. HAM: No.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: No, no problem with a restriction on it?
'Page 3 - Hearing TraXxacripts
November 13, 1~'7 - Board of Appeals
MR. HAM: When you say, well enclosed, you know, covered?
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Covered, yes.
MR. HAM: No, no.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Any problem with a restriction that
either hay bales or some sought of retaining structure be placed
temporarily during the construction, so that no runoff runs on to
the neighbors property.
MR. HAM: No, I'm sure that's fine.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Alright, we'll start with Mr. Dinizio?
MEMBER DINIZIO: No~ I have no questions. I'm assuming that
the road that this private, I guess this is like a dirt road~ this is
really probably a dirt road. Does it go all the way?
MR. HAM: I have an excerpt from the tax map on my memo.
MR. DINIZIO: Yes, but I don't -
MR. HAM: It's hard to tell probably. Unfortunately, I don't have
the full tax map here. I have it back in my office. Whether it goes
all the way around. I don't think it does.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: It doesn't. No, it's dead end.
MR. DINIZIO: How high is the fence going to be?
MR. HAM: Whatever the Code is, 4 feet.
MR. DINIZIO: 4 feet.
MR. HAM:: 4 feet, yes, that a 4 foot. I spoke to Mr. Beekworth
yesterday and he told me. It's an inground gunite pool, 4 feet
high.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: What's the size of the pool?
MR. HAM: 20 x 35. I sealed it off, and then I asked him, and he
confirmed it, that's what it was.
MEMBER TORTORA: 30 x 25?
MR. HAM: No, 20 x 35. Right, it half inch by seven-eights of an
ineh.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Is that like a lap pool?
Page 4 - Hearing Trm£scripts
November 13, 1~7 - Board of Appeals
MR. HAM: No, no, 20 feet.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Normal depth. Mrs. Tortora?
MEMBER TORTORA: No.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you for your presentation. We
thank you for the pictures and we thank you for your Brief.
MR. HAM: Thank you for your time.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Is there anybody else would like to
speak in favor of this application? It is an application in Fishers
Island for a s~mming pool in the "front yard area". Anybody like
to speak against the application? Hearing no further comment, I'll
make a motion closing the hearing, reserving decision until later.
MEMBER DINIZIO: Second.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: All in favor?
BOARD MEMBERS: Aye.
7:03 - Appl. No. 4523 - DR. & MRS. PATRICK COLAGIURI
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Variance to rebuild cellar, including
garage below house, and other reconstruction which may be
necessary for this nonconforming guest cottage (second dwelling urkit
on .42+- acre lot). Building Inspector's report indicates
application is pending for Pre-Certificate of Occupancy; which has
not been issued due to existing condition of guest cottage and
request for information regarding eligibility. 2950 Park Avenue,
Mattituck. Diane Herold, Architect. We have a map indicating the
approximate placement of this house which is on Bungalow Lane
Extension or Park Avenue Extension. It's been used in a
synonymous manner which I'll refer to as Marratooka Point and
primarily where the road begins to go back to a private road. The
most recent date on the survey- is January 3, 1997 and I have a
copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and surrounding
properties in the area. Ms. Herold how are you tonight?
MS. HEROLD: Fine, thank you. I'm here before the Board
because we are attempting to get a Building Permit to make repair at
this property. The Colagiuris have owned the property since
January ]1, 1975; and previous to that, they were tenants and
renting during the summer farther down Bungalow Lane. I've just
given Linde a copy of an affidavit that the owner said that the two
houses have been used as single family dwellings since ]957 and the
Colagiuris have owned this property for a considerable amount of
time. This is just a maintenance thing. The existing foundation
under the house closes to the road is concrete block which is
Page 5 - Hearing Trai~2cripts
November 13, i~7 - Board of Appeals
starting to fail. We're proposing to keep the house exactly where it
is at the same height and put in a concrete, poured concrete
foundation. In addition to this work we're also be taking the
mechanical equipment out of basically what's the garage cellar
underneath the building and moving it upstairs because of FUMA.
The Building Inspector requested that. We don't feel it'll be any
detriment to the neighborhood. Nobody will know anything ever
happened because it is just a repair, we're not increasing the size
of the house in any way. We're not asking for any relief on side
yards. We're just keeping what we have existing. Basically it is a
unique hardship because we have two properties that are
nonconforming on the property and I'm sure the Board is aware that
kind of a property is not fairly available in the Town of Southold.
$o, it would be a severe financial hardship to my client if he were
to lose one of the houses.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I was unaware that this house was a
year round house or at least has a heating system. I thought it was
a seasonal cottage.
MS. HEROLD: Actually- the report from the Assessor's Office does
say he has oil heating.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes, I did notice that. I personally
thought that the house on the Bay had actually had the heat in this
house. It was very simply just a seasona] cottage, but.. a -
MS. HEROLD: It probably is just judging by what that heating
system looks like.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: That, that, then~ goes back to my
question. Are you seeking a Pre-CO or a year round dwelling, or
are you seeking a Pre-CO for a seasonal dwelling?
MS. HEROLD: They would only use it seasonally.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I see.
MS. HEROLD: Basically you know the status down there. The
people once they buy a house, they keep it. Colagiuri's children
are now adults, they want to keep the second house just so that it
is for family use. They did announce to me, tell me that when they
first bought it, they did rent it, but, they have not rented it in
many year. s now and it will be only for family use.
MEMBER TORTORA: The ownership of the two houses, the
Colagiuris own this house as well as the second house?
MS. HEROLD: They own both.
MEMBER TORTORA: This is all in one ownership.
Page 6 - Hearing Tra~*~Seripts
November 13, I~?? - Board of Appeals
MS. HEROLD: Yes and it was and he bought it from the Estate
George Tyrell and I understand it was all one at that time also.
MEMBER TORTORA: The existing footprint of the 1-1/2 story
has, is not' going to be expanded in any way?
MS. HEROLD: No, no expansions are proposed. We'll be keeping
a - you know, perches, you know, the basic structure of the house
will remain exactly the same. If you go past next summer after we
do the work, you wouldn't know anything has been done because
we're not changing anything.
MEMBER TORTORA: Where the screened in porch is now, because
that is a you know, the location that I'm concerned with, the
setback, is very close to the road. Are you proposing to decrease
that setback?
MS. HEROLD: No. All of the setbacks will remain exactly the
way they are.
MEMBER TORTORA: What are you going to do where the screened
porch is? Are you going to maintain the screened porch?
MS. HEROLD: Right, it's for the interior of the structure.
MEMBER TORTORA; How high are you going to elevate it?' Have
you been asked to elevate it by the Building Department?
MS. HERALD: No, we have not been asked to elevate it. They
gave me some restrictions on it. I had to keep it all open
downstairs where the garage is.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: And what were you told?
MS. HEROLD: Move the utilities, if, if they remain. They may
not even put heat back in.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: There's no insulation in the structure,
is there?
MS. HEROLD: I mean, it would require a lot to become a year
round house.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I should point out that a Mrs.
Colagiuri's father I knew personally. That was Rudolph Cart and
that I remember the time when they purchased this property. I
knew Mrs. Colagiuri's sister, indirectly and very nice people.
This was basically a family ownership area. Mr. Cart's house was
obviously seasonal.
~Page 7 - Hearing Tra~,~seripts
November J3, 1~7 - Board of Appeals
MS. HERALD: His niece is buying a house down there and basically
that's what that neighborhood is. Everybody has been there for
years and it's a basieally transferred to the next children, you
know, if possible.
MEMBER TORTORA: I know, but the only thing is, we can't
]egis]ate ownership. We can't guaranty it.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: No, we're not saying that.
MEMBER DINIZIO: No, well, I mean, certainly a person has to
buy this whole thing. We're not subdividing.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: There's no subdivision.
MEMBER DINIZIO: You can't legislate whose going to be in there.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: No, no, of course not. I'm just saying
I know the history of the people.
MEMBER DINIZIO: How would you feel about like, just turning it
a little bit? Would that be costly~ or is that just getting it away
from that -
MS. HERALD: Well, you knew~ once they start doing that, then I'm
into a whole different thing with you~. because now I'm asking for
certain setbacks. I have found when dealing with Beards it's better
to keep things the way they are.
MEMBER DINIZIO: Forget I asked. I know, I felt -
MS. HERALD: I can appreeiate what you're saying. It might be to
our advantage to do something like that.
BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: The Fire Codes too.
MS. HERALD: Yes, I'd just get myself into a whole new you know,
scenario.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: To answer that question just Jim, or to
ponder on it first, one seeond here, there are significant amount of
houses down there that are built extremely close to the road. This
just happens to have two houses on one piece of property and it
seems to have much more significant depth than a lot of the other
houses. As you go down the road apiece, toward the end of
Marratooka Point, those houses are literally built on the road
also, and of course they look more like seasonal struetures, but at
the same time this one gives you the appearance of being a seasonal
well maintained, not well msJntained in reference to its maintenance
beeause of its age and I'm sure that's what they're trying to do
Page 8 - Hearing Tra~lseripts
November 13, 1~7 - Board of Appeals
maintain in reference to its ability of being a more stately
building. So, the height isn't going to ehange, Diane? The a -
MS. HERALD: As I said, if you drive past it whenever we do the
work afterwards, once the plantings back in, you will not know that
we've been there. They are eliminating one garage door. That
would be the only change that you would notice.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: While you're standing there, will ask
the audience if there's anybody else would like to speak in behalf of
this application, Mrs. Patrick K. Colagiuri? Anybody like to speak
against it? Seeing no hands, I'll make a motion reserving decision
until later.
MEMBER DiNIZIO: Second.
CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: All in favor?
Motion Carried.