Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-12/11/1997 HEARING TRANSCRIPT OF PUBLIC HEARINGS December 11, 1997 SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS -(Prepared by,Lucy Farrell from Tape Recording) 7:20 P.M. - Appl. No. 4528 - ANNE J. MAZZELLA CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: (Read legal notice as follows). Based upon the Building Inspector's Notice of Disapproval issued August 20, 1997, applicant requests a Variance under Article III, Section 100-33 for approval of proposed location of accessory garage on this waterfront parcel. Front yard does not conform with 40 ft. setback requirement. Location of Property: 3895 Paradise Point Road, Southold, N.Y.; Parcel #1000-81-1-8. I have a copy of the survey produced by Anthony Lewandowski, the most recent date is August 16, t997, indicating a proposed garage in the front yard area approximately 25 feet from Robinson Road and approximately 20 feet from which appears to be the easterly property Hne. I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax map indicating this and surrounding properties in the area and actual structural plans for the garage. I have letters in the file, one letter from the public and two letters, actually medical letters from the applicant's doctors. Mr. Perricone, I understand you'd like to be' heard. How are you tonight Sir? Would you just state your name for the record. MR. PERRICONE: My name is Stephen Perricone, 3935 Paradise Point Road, Southold~ N.Y. The first thing I'd like to do, Mr. Chairman, is submit a new set of plans that have been redone by the architect showing the new size of the garage which is 24 x 24, eliminating the 26 foot garage. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: That's why I didn't read it because I knew that was changed. MR. PERRICONE: OK, so this is going to be 24 feet giving us an extra 2 feet in th~ front which is 27 and on the side we have a setback of 38 feet. MEMBER TORTORA: That's for the 24 feet, Mr. Perrieone, once you've reduced that? MR. PERRICONE: Yes. First of ali, I'd like to point out the hardship that we face here which Mrs. Mazzella faces with this property. Number 1, Paradise Point Association has a convenant and restriction, restricting any building closer than 20 feet in the side line. Or, actually not side line but any property line. I have a letter here that Mrs. Mazzella did submit a Page 2 - Hearing Tr~anscripts December 1t, 1997 - Board of Appeals letter to the Paradise Point Building Committee asking for an exception at point B and they denied it. I have a letter here from them, if you'd like to see that. CHAIR~N GOEHRINGER: Sure, thank you. MR. PERRICONE: Second of all, I'd like to point out, that we tried to position the garage on the east side of the house, but because of the 20 foot setback restrietion by the Association we couldn't do that, and the only place that we could position the garage after the denial from the Association's Building Committee, was the position that the garage is in now. We could of made the garage shorter which would have given us a larger setback at 30 feet if we could have put the doors, the garage doors facing Paradise Point Road, which by the way is really Robinson Road on the Hastrom. That would have given us an extra three feet which would have set us back 30 feet. Paradise Point also has a, not a restriction but a want that no garage doors face the road. So, in that case we wanted to appease the people of Paradise Point. So, we put the garage doors oil the west side of the garage. Consequently, we have to make the garage 24 feet bringing it closer to the front property line. Also, we are on the water but we're set back, the back of the garage is set back from the bulkhead, on the property 90 feet, so we don't come into any Trustee jurisdiction. I checked on that. Also, you notice that we asked for 27 feet on one corner of the garage and actually 38 feet on the other corner of the garage, and in reality, the house, the westerly corner of the house is 27.5 feet from the front property line. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I'll just ask this question now, Mr. Perricone. Is there any real reason why the garage couldn't be incorporated on that north easterly side of the house? Meaning attached to? I mean, I realize there's a porch there; I realize there's a brick walk going down and I realize there's topographical problem where you'd actually be hanging the garage off a certain portion of the bank, which would require more of a substantial foundation. MR. PERRICONE: In answer to your question, yes there is. Again~ the restriction of the Paradise Point Association, they require a 20-foot setback from the side line or any property line and we ask for a setback of actually 15 feet and they've denied us. But we can't do that, and they just won't give us permission to do that. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: So you think that this is a lesser of two evils? MR. PERRICONE: This is definitely lesser of two evils. Actually, the garage is going to be a little lower than the Page 3 - Hearing Transcripts December Il, 1997 - Board of Appeals house, so it's not going to be that obtrusive looking. It's going to be nice looking and we designed the front with a round, half round top window, and two windows in the front to match the house and the shingles. It's going to look nice. Actually, it's going to conform to the rest of the neighborhood. In one, at the end of Paradise Point Road, on the west side Mr. Cummings' property, he has a garage in his front yard and it looks fine, and it was conformed to this garage to look the same. Fortunately, he did get, evidently he did get a 8 foot setback from the property line from the Association because the garage, the back of the garage is 8 feet from the side property line. As far as another house on Basin Road, owned by Mr. Curcuru, his garage also, is in the front yard. His garage doors are, of course, facing the side yard, but it's no different than the garage we're putting up. If you look at the map, we have a hardship as far as the property is concerned because of the curve in the road. The curve in the road makes the garage or even the front of the house come closer to the property line. And it's impossible to position this garage in any other position to get it further away from the property line because of the curve in the road. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I did notice that you lessened the depth of the garage which is really the width of the garage. MR. PERRICONE: That's correct. CH2~iRMAN GOEHRINGER: I mean the way we're looking at it, to 24 feet. Is there any possibility of moving it any closer to the house itself so it actually looks like it's attached to the hause? I mean, you know, I mean Steve, actually exhuming it into that area but still allowing a doorway enough to get between the garage and the house. MR. PERRICONE: Well we tried to do that, Mr. Chairman but the house if you took at the survey, the porch, there is a 2 foot overhang on the house, and we're going to have a one foot overhang on the back of the garage so these two overhangs are goin~ to be about a foot and a half apart. So, we really can't move it back any further unless we're allowed to put the garage doors in the front of the garage, then we can get another 2 or 3 feet back on that one - well actually on both of them. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Because it'd look a reversed gable then, I mean, a reverse gambrel. Reversed gable. MR. PERRICONE: Yes, right, yes. We could that, but again, we don't want to get anybody upset in Paradise Point and put the garage doors facing the road. We'd like to put them to the side. I went around the neighborhood and the measurements of Cummings' house, there's also which has nothing to do with a Page 4 - Hearing Tr~Hscripts December 11, 1997 - Board of Appeals garage, but, we also have on the corner of Basin Road, and Paradise Point Road, a 62 x 122 foot sunken tennis court with seven-foot walls which is positioned 20 feet from the front property line on Paradise Point Road with a 4 foot fence above the railroad tie wall that make up the ? foot depth. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We are aware of that. MR. PERRICONE: I'm trying to point out different houses and different situations in the area and the neighborhood that really this garage can conform to. Also, I'd like to go on and point out quite a few more. On North Bayview, about 1,000 feet from the entrance of Paradise Point Association, there is a house on the east side of the road with a detached garage which is 25 feet from the front p~operty line on North Bayview. There's also a house just south of that on North Bayview on the east side which is positioned 26 feet from the front property line. On the west side of North Bayview, there's also a house in between these two houses that is situated 20 feet from the front property line. I want around about a mile. There's a house right across the street from General Wayne Inn that has a garage that is 15 feet from the front property line on Bayview. There's a house on the corner of Paradise Point Road and Bayview that is eatercornered to the curve in the road with both eorners of the house is situated 20 feet from the property line on Bayview Road and Paradise Point Road. If you go down to the west side of Bayview approximately 200 feet from Sunset and Paradise Point Road, there's a house that is 25 feet with a detached garage 25 feet from the front property line. The last house on Bayview adjacent to the beaeh on the east side of Bayview has a garage in the front yard approximately 26 feet - I measured all these from the property line which is also a detached garage. The first house on the left side which is the south side of Sunset Way, the extension of Paradise Point Road is 20 feet from the front property line. Mr. Crowley's (spelling?) house on Sunset Way on the west side of Sunset Way is 15 feet from the front property line. There are two houses on the other side of the road from Mr. Crowley's house, a 24 feet from the front property line. A house on Seawood and north Bayview has a garage with the doors facing north Bayview that's 25 feet from the front property line. So, what I'm pointing out here is that we're not setting a precedent or anything. If you want to talk about precedence they are already set, and I think we're going to conform to the whole neighborhood by putting this garage where we have it positioned Page 5 - Hearing Trna,scripts December 1I, 1997 - Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Alright, we'll start with Member Dinizio. Any questions, Mr. Dinizio? MEMBER DINIZIO: No, no questions. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Ms. Collins? MEMBER COLLINS: You mentioned that the Paradise Point covenants entail a 20 foot setback from a property line and then you said something about the Paradise Point view regarding garage doors facing the road, and I didn't quite pick up on that. Is that actually a covenant or a preferred practice? MR. PERRICONE: No, it says 'whenever possible'. MEMBER COLLINS: Whenever possible. MR. PERRICONE: "...Whenever possible that the Paradise Point Association would tike to have the garage doors facing away from the road..." not facing the road, although there are two houses in Paradise Point Association area that do have two garages with the garage doors facing the road because they couldn't really put it any other way. MEMBER COLLINS: And with the garage as you have proposed it, there is room for a drive to get in from Robinson Road and around and into the front of the garage? MR. PERRICONE: Yes there is. MEMBER COLLINS: It looked rather narrow. MR. PERRICONE: Yeah, well you're talking about property line and then distance from property line to the road which is about another 10 - 15 feet. So, we do have room on that particular piece of property to do this. If you look at your survey, we would come in from the west where the road curves and come right into the side of the garage. So, we have about, I'd say about an 80 foot driveway coming into the property. MEMBER COLLINS: I see. MR. PERR~ONE: Right at that turn, instead of making a turn as long as it's straight into the property. We have one other situation like that. This is and it's Mrs. Boyd's house across the street from my house, where the road turns but the driveway goes straight. In fact, some people even go right up the driveway and you can go right up - it's a very easy access. MEMBER COLLINS: No, I understand. One brief question. Have you seriously considered a one-car garage? Page 6 - Hearing Transcripts December 11, 1997 - Hoard of Appeals MR. PERRICONE: We considered it, but since the Mazzellas have four cars, I think they'd rather have a two-car garage. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Are you giving us an option, Mr. Perricone to allow us to deal with either the garage doors facing the front or the side, thereby being able to push the building back farther? MR. PERRICONE: Well, I can give the Board that option, but I don't know if I can give the option in consideration with what the Building Committee at Paradise Point would like and the Association itself. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK. Thank you. Mrs. Tortora? MEMBER TORTORA: Following along that line of thinking, if you were to turn the garage around, you would be gaining two feet on the variance so that the variance would now you would be at 29 feet. However, a person looking at it, I'm not sure that type of trade-off would benefit people who are concerned about the visual impact of it, of the garage. MR. PERRICONE: Another thing is you'd be backing into the road also. If it was on both sides, you'd have blind spots on the sides too. So, it might not be a great idea, but it might be an option. MEMBER TORTORA: That's number 1. Of all of the properties that you listed that had setbacks for garages and the tennis court, etc., how many of those properties are within 300 feet of this site on the same side of the street? MR. PERRICONE: None. MEMBER TORTORA: Thank you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mr. Homing? MEMBER HORNING: I have no questions at this time. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. We'll see what develops throughout the hearing, and I'm sure we'll have you back. Thank you, Mr. Perricone - nice presentation. Is there anybody else like to speak in favor of the application? Yes, Mrs. Mazzella, how are you? I didn't ask Mr. Perricone but I'll ask you. The utility that you'd be putting in the garage would be the only utility of electricity? MRS. MAZZELLA: Yes. Page 7 - Hearing Transcripts December 1], 1997 - Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. What would you like to say? MRS. MAZZELLA: Good evening, I'm Mrs. Mazzelia. I would sincerely like to have these garages because I would really love to put my car inside a garage plus it would be much easier for me to get out. I'm a post-or patient with back surgery and I do have a deficit on my left ( ). It is sometimes very difficult especially if it's bad weather to walk from my parking area all through the front lawn. If I could have at least a garage to pull into, and I'm only- l0 feet then from the door to get into the house. It's much easier that way instead of, you know, walking across my front lawn and not having it, you know, keeping my garages under cover. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I have to be honest with you. This whole idea of running the fine line between the Zoning Code and the individual Association, whether they be covenants or restrictions or past practices or whatever they'd be, is something that we have dealt with many, many times throughout this Zoning Board for the period of time that I have been on the Zoning Board, and it is a give and take situation and we will do the best we possibly can to assist you. MRS. MAZZELLA: I appreciate that because I do live in Paradise Point. I do know that most of my neighbors would really appreciate you skipping with all of the covenants and restrictions that are there. You know to keep the neighborhood to serve my appeal. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: There's no doubt, it's a gorgeous area. I mean it's an absolute beautiful area. MRS. MAZZELLA: I want, you know, to stick within their covenants and restrictions that are there. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGEt{: Thank you. MRS. MAZZELLA: OK, thanks very much. Anybody have any questions from me? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Any questions of the applicant? MEMBER DINIZIO: No. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. Anybody else like to speak against the application or any concerns regarding the application? Mr. Boyd, how are you tonight, Sir? MR. BOYD: Just fine Mr. Chairman, thank you. Page S - Hearing T~;a,iscripts December ]]~ 1997 - Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: State your name for the record, if you would. MR. BOYD: Edward Boyd, Southold, representing myself, Hazel K. Boyd and Jessica Bernard, adjoining property owners. I have been on Paradise Point now since June of 1958, that's 39+ years. I've seen a lot of changes in that time and some of that have certainly been for the better, some are for the worse for the area. The proposed garage that we have here is one that we deemed would certainly be for the worse for the area. We heard a presentation that explained a number of garages, buildings, structures and so forth in the lower Hog Neck were closer to the road. We're not dealing with Paradise Point there. If the people on Paradise Point wanted to Hve in such close proximity to their neighbor and such close proximity to the road, they- would move to those areas. On Paradise Point, we don't have violations such as that. We don't have variances such as that. Our buildings are set back the appropriate distance. Forty feet is not a terribly long distance to set back from the road and we would like to see the 40 foot setback maintained. Unfortunately, there are some lots that get so chittered with out-buildings, recreational facilities, such as pools and so forth, that you just reach a point where you can't build anymore on the property and that may be what has happened here. That this particular lot is developed as far as it can be. But certainly, I urge this Board to maintain the 40 foot setback as it says in the Code. Thank you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Before you sit down, do you recommend any other way that this could be worked out for the applicant to go back to the Association and try and work out some other method prior to us closing this hearing? MR. BOYD: I am not truly in a position to speak for the Association. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I'm not asking you to, just as an elder member of the Paradise Point. MR. BOYD: Yes, I can think of several ways that the garage could be positioned and could be built. It would lessen this problem dramatically, but I wasn't asked. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I see. MR. BOYD: If I had been asked, I would of been happy to assist but, I wasn't. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, thank you, Mr. Boyd. Good evening Sir, how are you? Could you state your name for the record. Page 9 - Hearing Transcripts December Il, 1997 - Board of Appeals PETER COOPER: Good evening, my name is Peter Cooper. I live at 4800 Paradise Point Road which is in Paradise Point area. I'm a member of the Board of Directors of Paradise Point Association and I'm here to convey the opposition of the Board, the unanimous opposition to the application for this variance. The basic rational is to put a garage of this location would tend to change the character of the neighborhood and that would, we think, negatively impact the values of our properties. As Judge Boyd said the developers of Paradise Point put great reliance on the fact that neighbors are not going to be sitting on top of neighbors, and that's why we have the 20 foot setback from the side property lines in the covenants. Interestingly enough there is no covenant dealing with the front yard setback. Just the 20 foot on each side and the Association seems to be cast here is the head. Maybe that's why they asked me to come and represent them. But in any event, these are covenants that run with the land. There's no discretion on the part of the Association to say, well, you can go I8 feet, you can go 27 feet or anything like that. I mean the 20 foot there is to protect the character of the neighborhood as we know. I have owned property on the other side of the road on the water and my house didn't have a garage either when I bought it five years ago and I put up a big garage in the front yard with all of the required setbacks recognized, and it works fine. And it doesn't face the street either. But, if I put in a swimming pool, I wouldn't have room to put in a garage. The garage Covenants, the garage door covenants lies on the land on the east side of Paradise Point Road, the ones that are on the water facing Noyack Bay. When the other side of the road which is where the Mazzel]as live was developed under a subdivision. In 1963 they modified the covenant a little bit and took that garage door requirement out of it. They also took out a requirement that you couldn't cut the trees. When I built my garage I had to go to the Association Building Committee to get permission jtlst to cut down the trees. The other owners don't seem to have that same affinity. The other thing that I would emphasize ~ that the house is on the outside of a curve. So, when you put any st~ucture in the front yard, the yard was already ~here. As you come down the road from either side and you're looking right into the front yard, so, the additional structure would be even more intrusive than it would be if the road were straight, and it's the character of the neighborhood that we're attempting to reserve here. I'm also authorize to say that Mrs. Elfrich who owns the property immediately to the north is also opposedto this application and has asked me to convey that to you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER; Mr. Cooper, the same question that we asked Judge Boyd, is there any anticipation that this could be constructed to conform to the normal requirements? Page 10 - Hearing T~scripts December 1], 1997 - Board of Appeals MR. COOPER: It's hard for me to see how you're going to put it in the front yard and get a 44 foot setback when a corner of the buildi~g is already 37-1/2 feet from the road. I mean they've already violated the setback to begin with. I don't know how that happened in 1966 when I remember the building was built. I really don't know. I'm a new kid on the block. Maybe that's another reason why they asked me to come here because this is very delicate. I mean, we know the Mazzellas, I like the Mazzeltas, but, you know, we do want to keep Paradise Point the way it is. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGEI{: From a symmetrical point of view, it goes back to my short discourse on saying that we run this fine line. I do want to say that and I do have to say, but I don't wsnt to say it in a way that it's not something that i really want you to take back to the Association, but we are not necessarily bound by your covenants and restrictions. However, we would like to abide by them to the best of our ability. I'm not speaking for the entire Board, I'm speaking for myself. There are times when sometimes a foot or two may have to be altered in order to accommodate an applicant. But, we don't normally in that discretion, we don't go overboard. MR. COOPER: I would point out that the covenants actually on my property predated the Zoning Code and the other covenants, the ones that the Mazzellas are dealing with here are in 1963, and so the Zoning Code and the covenants kind of grew up at the same time. They are particularly restricted when you consider the fact that our of 31 lots, there's only five lots that are tess than six-tenths of an acre. The Mazzellas happen to have one. There are three or four houses for sale in the Paradise Point right now and if they care to buy one of those I'm sure that they would have plenty of room for a garage. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. Anybody else would like to speak - again, go ahead, Mr. Perricone. MR. PERRICONE: Yes, I'm a little confused by Mr. Cooper's understanding of the Paradise Point Association Board Members. Mrs. Mazzella has been told by the President of the Board that as long as she keeps the 20 foot setback in the side yard, he gives her his blessing to build this garage along with Mr. Gus (Pre- ), Mr. Steve Gottlieb and a Mr. Dick Baggle (sp.?). So, I'm a little confused as to Mr. Cooper's testimony saying that he was sent here by the Board of Directors of the Paradise Point Association. Do you have anything in writing, Mr. Cooper, that says that they want you to represent them? MR. COOPER: I'm a Member of the Board. I'm not representing the Board. Page 11 - Hearing T~anscripts December 11, 1997 - Board of Appeals MR. PERRICONE: But you said you were representing the Board. MR. COOPER: Yes as a Member of the Board. MR. PERRICONE: That's not what I understood. Anyway, I just want to make sure you understand that four Members of the Board say that it's OK to build a garage for Mrs. Mazzella. They don't mind it at all, as long as she keeps a 20 foot setback in the side line. Thank you. MR. COOPER: Mr; Chairman I think I can clear up that problem. The names of the people that Mr. Perricone mentioned are the ones that are on the Building Committee. The Building Committee obviously works for the Board. We have Board Members scattered all over the country at this point of time. So, what we did is we had a round and round discussions. We didn't have a Board Meeting as such, but we all talked to each other over the phone over the period of several days, and we all determined that we wanted the Board as a group to oppose the application. Now, we don't have any jurisdiction or authority as an orgsnization to ge'ant a variance of the sought that you're considering here now. So, whether or not we were for or against it, when it came to the Building Committee, ail we did was look at what the Building Committee jurisdiction was and that dealt with a 20 foot setback and that's where it stops right there as far as the Building Committee is concerned. Then, When we noticed that the application for variance had been filed, then, the Board discussed it and decided that the Board of the Association would oppose to the granting of a variance. So, it's a continuance. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Alright. We had a over an application that was brought down on the other side of the Basin gained great knowledge of how your organization works. MR. COOPER: We had a little fire fight here a couple of years ago I remember. I just moved in the area at that time. I really wondered whether had done the right thing at that time. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: The reason why I bring that up is, is there any reason for you to go back to your Board at this point and discuss this matter with the Building Committee, or do you think that this is etched in stone based upon your being here ? MR. COOPER: The Building Committee has no jurisdiction once the 20 foot setbacks are complied with. I guess if the 20 foot setback wasn't there, then the Building Committee has no discretion to say, well we'll settle for 18 feet. The only way you can change the covenant is if all of the Members of the Page 12 - Hearing T~anscripts December 11, 1997 - Board of Appeals Association agree to it. The minute somebody objects, then the hands of the Building Committee are tied. There's not a lot of discretion here as far as the covenants are concerned. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I thought the Building Committee made a recommendation to the Board of Directors. In this particular case they did and when they saw 20 feet they said it was fine is what you're saying to me until the variance was filed. MR. COOPER: No, no, I don't think the subject ever came to the Board of Directors. The Mazzellas went as they should have to the Building Committee, and the Building Committee said, as long as you comply with the 20 foot setback, then we have no further jurisdiction over the matter. Then, you go for the Building Permit, if it's turned down and they applied for the variance and now we have a separate proceeding, a new p~oeeeding which is for the variance and then the Board focused on that. It had nothing to do with the conduct of the Building Committee. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Alright, thank you. MR. COOPER: Again, this is delicate because you're dealing here with neighbors. We don't really deal with anything unless it's squarely before us. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. Is there anybody else would like to speak? Any questions from Board Members? Any recommendations from Board Members in reference to where we should Ko? Should we close this hearing, or should we ask for any modifications of the present footprint, or should we ask for discretion of the present footprint? MEMBER DINIZIO: Yes, we should ask for discretion. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Well no, we only have discretion to turn the building so the doors face front. MEMBER DINIZIO: Right. MEMBER TORTORA: What do you mean, Jim, on discretion? MEMBER DINIZIO: Well, I think we have a little more discretion than that. We can grant a variance and pretty much let it go but I think we ought to work you know, one car, two car or a ear and a half. MEMBER TORTORA: I'd like to ask, Mr. Perricone some other questions. Page 13 - Hearing T~nscripts December 11, 1997 - Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Alright. Did you hear that Steve - Come on up here. MEMBER 'fORTORA: Yes. I have a few questions. What is the distance between the outside perimeter of the porch and the garage? MR. PERRICONE: The foundation to foundation? MEMBER TORTORA: The foundation to foundation without the overhead. MR. PERRICONE: It's approximately 3-1/2 feet, MEMBER TORTORA: What are you estimating for a one-car garage? The size, the space requirement? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: They're not building a one-car garage. MEMBER TORTORA: I know. You're estimating that 22 x 24 would be for a two car garage? So, are you figuring 1~ x 127 MR. PERRICONE: Yes, but that would be with the ~arage doors facing the road. If we go to a single-car garage, let's say an 8 foot door, we would probably approximately cutoff that 27 feet that you see now, I would just estimate and say another 2 feet or 3 feet. From the garage, the west side of the garage, over another 8 feet. MEMBER TORTORA: And there are four cars currently being parked? I think that's what you said before. MR. PERRICONE: Not at one time. They do have four cars. They have another little driveway adjacent to the pool area where they can park two cars and right now they have a driveway on the east side which you can see into the road. In the road area it is capable of parking two cars side by side also. And, Paradise Point Road is of course very narrow, so you can't really park on the road. MEMBER TORTORA: We don't want you to. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Well, you really don't know if you're parking on the road or on somebody else's property. That's the tough part. MR. PERRICONE: Yes, I know~ it's a little touchy. MEMBER TORTORA: Ok, that's the question I had. Thank you. Page ]4 - Hearing T?~nscripts December 11, 1997 - Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: So, we're going to go with discretion I assume. MEMBER DINIZIO: I think we'll discuss it, certainly. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: I just want to ask you, will they accept alternative relief? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Well, that's the question, w~ll you accept alternative relief, if we attempt to lessen the size of the garage? MR. PERRICONE: If it's within reason and we can really get a two car garage we would. There's no reason why we wouldn't. We're trying to get along with everybody here and do whatever we can and you see, we started off with a larger garage~ closer to the road, we cut it down~ we did everything we possibly could. We didn't change the design. So, within reason yes, we can. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Alright, any other questions from anyone? Hearing no further questions, I'll make a motion closing hearing, reserving decision until later. Motion carried. See Minutes for Resolution. RECEIVED AND FILED BY I TF~E SOUTHOLD TO%V!~ C DATE~ -/o -Yf HOU Page 15 Hearing Transeripts December 11, 1997 - Board of Appeals 8:00 P.M. - Continuation of HAY HARBOR CLUB, INC., Fishers Island Applications described as follows: Appl. No. 4503 Special Exception under Article III, Sections 100-31B(7), subsections (a) through (d), to construct proposed new building for existing golf course and related golf uses. Appl. No. 4514 - This is an application based upon the July 22, 1997, Notice of Disapproval by the Building Inspector in which a permit to demolish and reeonstrue~ a golf clubhouse and employ~ housing were disapproved on the following grounds: "...Bein~ located in an R-t20 District this non-conforming building~1 with a non-conforming use, permitted only by Special Exception (under Section 100-3lB) shall not be enlarged, reconstructed or struetur~aily altered or moved unless the use of such building is changed to a conforming use, Article XXIV, Secllon 100-243A,..." for approval by Variance and/or Interpretation that golf club may have accessory employee housing. Location of Property: Fishers Island, Town of Souihold, N.Y. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Ms. Moore, this nice gentleman here with the very colorful tie said that he would like to try and make the Ferry. Is there anything that he would like to say before, to allow him to do so? MS. MOORE: OK. Actually I don't, only if you have questions of him. So, that's why, in fact, thank you. I'm glad you pointed that out because I was going to suggest that if any of the Board Members, [ wanz to also welcome the new Board Members, I don't like to be rude and not not welcome you all and thank you for the opportunity here. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We don't have any specific questions except thai those questions that are going to continue that are - well, let me just there are specific questions. Parking is still a specific question. And there are other areas that we will discuss with you throughout the continuation of this hearing. But parking is a particular problem. MS. MOORE: Well, let me say this that he, if you can't think of a question right off the top of your head and as I go through and if you do come ~o a I would say management type question, which is operational, housing, thai type of issue, then just szop~ interrupt me and we'll address it, and then when you start looking at your watch and you have to leave, you know, please just, excuse him and he'll leave quietly and we'll just continue. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Do you want to introduce the three members? I know that Sandy is a Member ~oo. Page 16 - Hearing Transcripts December ll, 1997 - Board of Appeals BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Can I have the names again for the record? Thank you. MS. MOORE: Yes, I'd like to do that. First I'll introduce myself. Patrieia Moore, 315 Westphalia Road, Mattituck. I have with me this evening Chris Di Bonavantu~m, who is the President of the Hay Harbor Club, CHAIRMAN: He sat on the end the last time. MS. MOORE: Yes, he did. Last time 1 had five board members, six. CHAIRMAN: SE-<, right. MS. MOORE: We've windled it down. Dick Duggan is the Manager of the Club, and Sandy Esser is designer of the project, but also Vice-President of the Hay Harbor Club. If I can start, and then again, please interrupt me at any point. What I did for you and I hope it wi]~ be helpful. Please don't rely on it exclusively'. I would like everyone to review the transcripT. I'm sure you ~li, as well as what we discuss today. What I tried to do fs prepare an outline of aH the points that or many of the points that I raised and it's done in outline form. Sometimes a little more verbose than it should be but I was hoping it would be helpful for the new Members so that we could kJ~d of identify some of the issues and the facts with regard to this case. So I hope that will be helpful. learned from teachers that you never give your audience, your students, something To look at while you're trying ~o make a presentation because they'll never pay attention. So I'll give it to you at the end, ff ~!~at's all right. To be~_a with, we lmve - ~o bring the new board a~embers up to speed, the property is zoned R-120 which would be three-acre zoning there. In the section of the code that deals with the R-120 zoning, a golf course is a use that is permitted by special permit, special use permit. That, if the board reaches the decision that a special permit should be granted in this case, then the use becomes a permitted use, and it should be considered as a permitted use with whatever variances that may be necessary or adclltior, ai issues particularly -erith the housing thereafter. So, that's something to look a~ this, even for the old members of the board. If you look at this as if we didn't plan to make any changes to the building, we could come in to the Board and say, "We would like to bless this use because we don't know what the use is goi~.g to be 10 )-ears from now, what the zoning is going to be ten years from now, and we would U. ke to bless it now with a special permit." That way it would make it easier for small modifications, even if the Page t? - Hearing Transcripts December ll, 1997 - Board of Appeals Building Department - jUst to get a window changed, we would have an easier time because it would be a use that would listed as a permitted use. So, what we have today is a special use permit as well to legitimize. I want to say legitimize the use that's there. We have an exfisting golf course. It has been an existing golf course. The course the g~eens have been there since t890s. The building, the structure, was constructed in 1929. Yes. That's correct, beeause I'm going by memory at this point. So we have a structure that, based on the testimony we provided for you before, we believe: (1) it's a use that's there. So, even if we were to do nothing to the building, we would hope that you would bless it as a use that would be authorized in that zone. The Legislatora~ the Boards have decided that in residential zones, an R120 is a three-acre residential zone, that golf courses should be encouraged because it's open space. It's not passive open space. If I played golf it would be because it would get very little use out of it, but generally it's an active open space. But it is a use that would be encouraged in that zoning district. So that's something so keep in mind as you'r~ - if not news -- the forest through the trees type of thing - took back, step back and say, "OK the town said golf courses belong or given the right circumstances, belong in residential zoning." In this particular case, our difficulty is that in 1929, it must have been appropriate or it was the right thing to do to locate in a 34 acre parcel for the golf course, we're going to put the building over here. Because we would have more beautiful greens. It's all waterfront. It's an open space. (Side A of tape ended). We're going to tuck the building into the corner here, and w,hich is what happened, in 1929 and the structure hasn't been significantly altered - would you say, Sandy, since 19297 MRS. ESSERS (Architect): Repaired after the 1939 Hurricane, but that's about it. MRS. MOORE: It survived hurricanes. But the building is essentially in the same condition, it certainly is the same place since 1929. The placement of this building and I again for the benefit of the new Board and maybe to refresh the recollection of those that are there. Could we have the picture? While Sandy is pulling out the picture, the design (I don't want to exclude you but I think that Ms. Collins probably would benefit from the Page 18 -Hearing Transcripts December 11, 1997 - Board of Appeals photograph.) This is the golf course right here. This is looking at it from the putting green. This is the structure there on the road. This is the starz of the hill, to remind you also, the building is tucked in to the Hill and you can see that the, well it's almost a 45 degree slope and the elevation from grade or from flooding actually to the ~op of. the h~H is approximately 60 feet. We guessed it was over 55 feet, so closer to 60. I'll leave these, these photographs can stay. These will be photographs for your record so that you can look at it as you're deliberating. This is a photograph of the colored rendering that was prepared by Sandy. Do you have the colored one here too? (Sandy responded no). OK, well, the color one is much rficer. As you can se~, we have retained the windows. I believe that some of these windows that are in the present structure are going to be relocated and installed and the architectural features will be retained. This area here, under here, is the covered porch; and as you can see there'l] be a nice sturdy foundation with an access, is that an access doom · in the basement? (Sandy responded, an access door for hand-pull carts, porch). I just learned something because they were talking about I think thai some of the correspondence going back and forth was questioning where were the carts going to be held, you know those types of issues and they'll open it up and the carts wil] be stored under the building. Presently the structure- presently the golf course, you roll up the carts and you take up alt of the space on the first floor. The design is when you accommodate golfers t th~nk better. What I did is very quickly dealt with the special permit use. There was an awful lot of testimony last time, and in my outline I tried zo incorporate as much as I could from the testimony. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Let's have Dick come up one more time because you're going to leave soon- I know within ~ve minutes. MS. MOORE: Sure. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Just /eH us why it is imperative put the amount of people in this building that you were about before, you know, with the changes that are going to be done, because I don~t want you to miss the ferry- ag the same time, I want to give you lead time to get there. MRS. MOORE: Thank you. I appreciate your doing ~hat. CHAIRMAN: And I don't mean ~o cut you off. Page 19 - Hearing Transcripts December 11, 1997 - Board of Appeals MRS. MOORE: No, no, I asked you to do that, it's perfect. In fact, we're going to add to that what he tells you with financial data and Mr. Di Bonavantura will provide you with that. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: As you know, we saw' you last summer. We saw the place. We were upstairs. We toured the pro's quarters and those sleeping quarters at the end of the buiJding, which are going to be substantially changed in the new building. Tell us why they're being substantially changed in your opinion? MR. DUC-GAN: Presently, we have two people housed there. We have a shortage of housing. Without that additional housing, I am now renting four additional housing to house senior staff. We will put in there the golf pro, tennis pro, assistant manager. There would be an older assistant golf pro in there. There would be adults in that housing and it would save us $50,000 to $80,000 this summer. Some of the members, some of the people in the area expressed a fear of becoming a party center. I've been out at Hay Harbor now for three summers. They know the staff has been kept under control. I'm hiring older people, i'm also hiring much moro responsible people. I don't keep people that cause problems. The number of children in our club has increased tremendously-. I've had to increase our life guard staff alone to seven life guards, and in order to properly- serve the members and to teach the kids, they need housing. And for a golf pro and tennis pro I need something that's nice and for an assistant manager, ! need somet~Hng that's nice. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Are there any questions of this gentleman? Yes, Lore. MEMBER COLLINS: Just to follow up on that because I know of the former hearing only- from having read the transcript. In the building as it exists now, there are two apartments so-called, I gather. It's a 70 year old building so they're probably - CHAIRMAN: : Right, one up and one down. MEMBER COLLINS: So they're probably nothing very great but there are two apartments for your golf and tennis pros, Are there facilities for other staff to sleep in the building now? MR. DUGGAN: In that building? MEMBERS COLLINS: Yes. MR. DUGGAN: No. MEMBER COLLINS: No. OK. So, the proposal which entails in the new building two apartments, presumably better, and also Page 20 - Hearing Transcripts December 11, 1997 - Board of Appeals I see four pure sleeping rooms. That is a net increase then in the building in this spot? MR. DUGGAN: That's correct. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: The new proposed building? MEMBER COLLINS: Yes, there would be a net increase of four staff members who would be living there. OK, I just had to be clear on that. MR. DUGGAN: Yes. MRS. MOORE: Yes, the feeding occurs, why don't you tell him of feeding and daily operations. MR. DUGGAN: The golf pro, well presently only the golf pro _eat and his wife would eat at the golf house. The tennis pro has cooking facilities downstairs. We only plan on the golf pro and tennis pro ha~ng cooking facilities there. Any additional staff staying there would be fed with the remednder of the staff in The staff dining room which is au Hay Harbor. So, that part would not change. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: And that's in a different area? MEMBER COLLINS: Yes, I understand. CHAIRMAN GOEHR!NGER: Anybody else have any questions of Dick before he leaves? Yes, George. MEMBER HORNING: Perhaps not of Dick, but, you were mentioning additional bedrooms. The existing square, livable square foot of the bni!ding. Can you give that? MR. DUGGAN: [ don't have that. MS. MOORE: Sandy- will provide that later. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Ok. Welt, Sandy will give you lhat. OK, we thank you so much and we ~sh you a Happy Holiday. Please go and get the Ferry. You do have two board members here. MR. DUGGAN: Thank you very much. MS. MOORE: I don't want to miss the one point that I do wan~ %o stress. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you for bringing Dick tonight. That was very nice of you to do so. Page 21 - Hearing Transcripts December 11, 1997 - Board of Appeals MRS. MOORE: He did it on his own. With respect to the residential use, because one, I point out in an affidavit that I, that you have in the file from an unrelated golf manager with respect to what housing, tyloically the expectations of housing for the staff for a club of that nature, and that's already been put on the record. What I want you to keep in mind also is that with an R-120 Zoning, if this were not a golf club, this could be turned into !0 three-acre parcels with at minimum 3,000 sq. ft. homes with al! of the activity that a house generates. So, one thing we have to keep in mind is that these additional four bedrooms which is, again, we're going to point out that the 'financial need for this. It's so crucial that it ~eally jeopardizes the whole application if we can't get these four bedrooms because of the cost factor that they considered when they were thinking about what they're going to do with this building and renovating this building. Keep in mhld that the alternative, you've got, these bedrooms are residential uses, OK. Residence is a permitted use. It's a Residential Zone. You have a singie person at most. Right, single maybe a married couple in one room? No, single person. SANDY ESSERS: No, just one person. MS. MOORE: Just single-person occupancy- in one individual room and that's something to keep in mind, that it is not an increase in the actual density. It is not an intensity of the use that's presently- there. It's a continuation of a residential use. No difference. Again, looking at it in prospective, if you have a 34, 36-acre parcel, it's a golf club where the house - the one unit, the one person is in this, this one additional person is in this facility. That's quite different than if this were just a standard residential property. You could generate a great deal more activity. So, the intensity of the use is very minimal compared to what the intensity of the use would be if this was a residential, just what it is, a residential parcel. I don't know if I'm clear enough on this or I've made the point clearly enough I apologize, but, that's the point I want to make is that this one additional person would not be an increase in the intensity of this use. I'll go straight to the area variance at this point because I don't want to be cut off and run out of time. CHAIRMAN: Now, would we do that to you? (-Jokingly) MRS. MOORE: Never again. Page 22 - Hearing Transcripts December 11, 1997 - Board of Appeals To s~ar~ with an area variance: The first criteria is that no undesirable change would be produced in the eharaeter of the neighborhood or detriment To the nearby properties, if the variance is granted. As I said, the existing club contains the two apartments, the staff rooms. We've pointed out from the previous affidavit and the information that you have for the special permit is certainly applicable to the area variances and will be overlapping to a great extent. The staffing is customary and incidental To the golf club. From the outside of the building you can see the design and the photocopy is no~ as good, but the outside of the building will not change. It appear the same, size and design, whether you have four bedrooms upstairs, or ten bedrooms upstairs. You have the limited square footage of the foundation of the building, and then you have essentially the second floor, which is the dormitory area. They're not expanding the buildinG in order to accommodate the dormitory. The building is essentially in the same footprint that it is today. We are squaring off the building if you remember. For some of you, others I'm sorry you haven't seen the building, but there is a like a bite taken out of the building from the years in which it was constructed. They've left a bite ouT. They're squaring it off and then there is 4 additional feet which is towards the north, which is the side into the hill. So, it is noT, visually you probably wouldn't be able To tell, but 4 feet is the difference between the original footprint and the new construction. The second point under area variance. What. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mr. Horsing has a question. MS. MOORE: Yes, you have a question? MEMBER HORNiNG: I'm curious. Are you sa.~ing, that the overall height of the proposed building is the same as the existing building? SANDY ESSERS: Not the height, no we're talking about the footprint. MEMBER HORNING: I understand that, but she was saying that it was not going to took anything different. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Her roof line will be different. SANDY ESSERS: No, I tJahlk what she was saying, is that if we don't build; we don't have the four additional sleeping rooms. We'd still like to build the same building. We won't build a different building because we need to have ~hat space in order to accommodate code related issues, double stairwells for example for fire egress which we don't have now, handicapped Page 23 - Hearing Transcripts December 11, 1997 - Board of Appeals availability, things like that, that are required by New York State. MEMBER HORNING: Thank you. MS. MOORE: The second issue that we have to deal with an area variance is that the benefit sought by the applicant cannot be achieved by some method feasible for the applicant to pursue other than a variance. I apologize I'm just reading the standards to you becat~se k'll hopefully make more sense as you read the transcript and my notes. As I pointed out before the existing club was built in 1890s and as you saw from the transcript we have flooding problems, we have leaks and the property has really deteriorated over time. The building does not conform to the Handicap Accessibility Code or the New York State Fire Prevention and Building Code. So, right now, you can't really do anything with the building vfithou~ properly, and our proposal is to tear it down in order to build a new eonforming State Code Structure. What we did, is there was a question Mr. Goehringer posed to Sandy which was, "Tell us what the eost would be if we were to say, listen, use the existing building as let's say a frame for the new building." There is, and you'll have it in your packet, B and D Remodelin~ and Restoration. A gentleman, David Beck~t,-ith, submitted a letter to Sandy, and Sandy, why don't you describe it for them. SANDY ESSERS: Well what you had asked us to do was to look at the existing building, the foundation of which is in very- poor condition and is actualiy only- about half way under the building. Jack the building up ~ take out that foundation, rebuild the foundation, pu~ the building back down, take off the super structure, and use the existing structure as the basic structure for the new building, and Mr. Beckwith's proposal has accounted for that. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Can that be done? SANDY ESSER: I think with ~reat difficulty because the building is really built in pieces that are not at the same, but, the floor plates are different points. But, he gives us a total figure for That. If we deduct the amount for building a new foundation, a new super structure from the original eslaimate, his estimate for the increase in the price is about $500,000. CHAIRMAN GOEHRtNGER: Ok. Do you know why I asked for that Sandy? Page 24 - Hearing Transcripts December ll, 1997 - Board of Appeals SANDY ESSER: Well, because I think if we kept the original foundation, we'd be permitted by code zo build the building within that footprint. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Alright, we still are Toying with the entire problem of what e~-fists. The lack of parking, and so on and so forth and for the new Board Members, I know George you probably know Sandy. I'm not trying to grill this race lady. She is an extremely astute lady hi her field. There's no doubt about it. Thank you, thank you very much. Ok, we're sorry To make you jump around here. MRS. MOORE: t can't remember which standard I was on now. MEMBER TORTORA: Alternative. MRS. MOORE: [t cannot be achieved by some other method, yes. We'll have as Sandy points out, it is an additional cost to the club of at least $500,000. He identifies the different parts of the construction and the shoring up of the existing building to allow for the demolition would be $150,000. To demolish the existing foundation and provide new footings and foundation, would be $85,000. To reframe the existing structure to allow for the new configurations would be $480,000. So, adding up all those numbers together and then deducting the cost of what a foundation would be taking it all out and starting over. CHAIRM_AN GOEHRINGER: So, instead of $800,000 we're at a Miilion Three ($1,300,000). MRS. MOORE: Oh, it's quite a significant increase. CHAIR~iN GOEHRINGER: Thank you for doing that. SANDY ESSER: You're welcome. MRS. MOORE: That the third standard is that the area variance is not substantial weighing the benefit to the applicant versus the detriment to the commuuity. As I've said before, the location of the building is presently there. It's wooded from behind and it's, the homes that are surrounded are elevated at least 50 feet from the grade. The road is a secondary road, not to insult Fishers Island, but they don't even put names on the roads. So, it is an island and there's limited vehicular traffic that's generally - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Well, it's a dead end street, right? MS. MOORE: Yes, it's not dead end, but it's pretty much at the end. Page 25 - Hearing Transcripts December 11, 1997 - Board of Appeals SANDY ESSER: It's not rea]iy. It goes down to the ocean and then it hangs right. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGEt{: Oh, does it. SANDY ESSERS: But there's very little. That's really- a very unrealized road there. MS. MOORE: The building right now does not need any of the Fire Prevention and BtLilding Codes. The new building will. It will meet handicap accessibility requirements. Those things are issues that we should keep in mind that it's going to be a building that will meet all State Codes. What you have there today is really a dilapidated building. The building cannot be moved back, it's in the hill. The purling green is to the south. I'm used to Long Island, at least there's landmarks for east, west, north, south. The putting green itself would be about $200,000. That's the cost of a putting green. If it were even possible to relocate a putthlg green which there is no other area on this golf course thai we could relocate it plus it's nobody would ever accept - SANDY ESSERS: It's over 100 years old. MS. MOORE: Right, it has a historic significance To it. MEMBER TORTORA: Can I stop you? And ask some questions on the putting green? MRS. MOORE: Yes. MEMBER TORTORA: So to reconstruct that structure. MRS. MOORE: What, the putting green? MEMBER TORTORA: The structure. To move it up To the first two, for example, hypothetieat. That would just to get this clear that would create the need To put a new putting green at a cost of $200,000? MRS. MOORE: No, no. Yourve got the putting green that's right next to the building right now. The first tee is actually the elevated up high. MEMBER TORTORA: Yes. MRS. MOORE: OK, there's, well (unfinished). SANDY ESSERS: That's directly- to the easL The road is the boundary To the west, the putting green to the south, the first Page 26 - Hearing Transcripts December 11, 1997 - Board of Appeals tee to the east, and the hill to the north. So, we're right there in a little pocket where the building is now. MEMBER TORTORA: In other words what I was trying to determine is the $200,000. I wondered if you had looked at, because this had been discussed at the last hearing, at alternative locations on the property that would trove conforming setbacks and negate the need for an area variance? MS. MOORE: Yes, well, the first tee there (unfinished). SANDY ESSER: The first tee has been there forever. MS. MOORE: Yes, this golf course - again, it was designed, it was created in 1888. So, you're going to have - if you fbiuk that construction is controversial, eliminating a golf - it's not a course, is it a tee? OK, that would cause absolute havoc. The tees have been established. The putting ga~een is - that's really the area where the children practice and the putting green itself is a significant cost of the $200,000 price tag on it. MEMBER TORTORA: Do you have any estimate of how much [t would cost? I mean hypothetically I'm just trying to look at all of the alternatives. MRS. MOORE: Yes, alternatives, right. SANDY ESSER: B/ell the property is really maxed out and there are houses encroaching on the north boundary of the golf course and a road to the west, government property to the south, I'm sorry, to the north east there's a road - (took out map). MRS. MOORE: Do you have a survey or somethf~g? You see it's really tucked in there so that's why the alternatives are nonexistent. SANDY ESSER: [ could describe for you. MS. MOORE: Yes, if you look at the site plan there's a little circle. SANDY ESSER: A tiny diagram on the lower right - MRS. MOORE: Yes, that helps that's actually gets better. MEMBER TORTORA: Yes. B/eH, we also have the putting green and the map of the proposed septic system. MRS. MOORE: Right. Page 27 - Hearing Transcripts December ll, 1997 - Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Well, are you basically asking - MEMBER TORTORA: I'm asking ir there are alternative locations on the site where the clubhouse could be built that would not require a setback variance? MRS. MOORE: No. There are no - well I - all throughout the testimony has been that we are tucked into the hill, so topographically you are tucked in there. That's why it's on the road. You have the first tee which is up high on the second level, let's say second layer of the golf course and then you does the road go by there? There's a house, Hobson's house is right there. SANDY ESSERS: Hobson's house is right behind us, then the ninth green, then the Pagnotta house, the Meddler house, the Fogert house and then the road, then there's Navy Federal Government property and then the ocean on the south, and then the road on the west. MEMBER TORTORA: Do you want to pursue that? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes, well what would be the negative impact on the club? Let's not even talk conforming location of taking a portion of the putting green? SANDY ESSERS: Negative impact? I'd have to move off the island. That would be the first one. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: No, no, I didn't say the whole putting green. I said a portion of the putting green. Why would you have to move off the island? MRS. MOORE: Because they would be .lynched. MRS. ESSERS: I'm already attached to this project more than I want to be (joking). MRS. MOORE: They had obviously when they came to this Board, they had considered alternatives. As a Board, they had considered alternative sites. The cost factor was significant. But, secondly practically there is no other location other than the existing site which is most likely why in 1929 they located the building here, because the golf course was designed and laid out in 1890. So, this is the area that we have left. Do you have a question (to Member Tortora)? MEMBER TORTORA: Yes, I understand the politics of the Club as it were, but, quite frankly that's not really a consideration under 267. Page 28 - Hearing Transcripts December ]1, ]997 - Board of Appeals MS. MOORE: But it is, financial is. MEMBER TORTORA: Yes, and that's what I'm looking for. MRS. MOORE: Yes, welt financial - MEMBER TORTORA: If you have, in other words when the Club first decided where to, you know, how to handle this, let's go all the way back to when you decided, "yes, you're going to reconstruct it here" and you looked at other alternatives presumably during that. Perhaps you have some figures. You know, hard cord numbers as to (interrupted). MRS. MOORE: Well, Sandy, you actually are the one who considered the putting green, costs. SANDY ESSERS: Yes, to build a normal green - MRS. MOORE: Would you just stand up and just go on the record and if you want to swear her in, we can swear her in. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Wasn't she sworn in the last time? MEMBER TORTORA: I think that was Pachman and all. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: No, I don't think so. That was a different hearing. MS. MOORE: Yes, why don't you swear her in. SANDY ESSERS: I could do it again. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Do you solemnly swear the information you are about to give us is the truth to the best of your knowledge? SANDY ESSERS: I do. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Alright. MEMBER TORTORA: I would like any financial information that you can provide for us when you were looking at alternative locations and any cost associated with other locations, if you have that? SANDY ESSERS: The other locations - we did investigate at one point trying to purchase property from the Navy which is adjacent to our golf course. They're very uninterested in selling that property. We had at a former Board Member who was an Annapolis classmate of the current Commander of the East Coast Property for the Navy, and he investigated that. They're Page 29 - Hearing Transcripts December 11, 1997 - Board of Appeals very uninterested in selling that property even though they don't really utilize it too mueh. It's still theirs and we can't encroach upon it. The topography is actually one of the issues. If you're familiar with this sought of very hilly nature of Fishers Islsnd. In a way, this part of Fishers Island is more like Connecticut than it is like Long Island. It's very hilly and there's a big gulch sought of off the road on the east side of the property and there's also a tee there, and in from the tee there's another hole which comes towards that and there's a drop-off to,yards the ocean and that's all wetland. So, the whole south side of the property is wetland, which goes right into the ocean. As I said the west side is all the road and all along the west side immediately adjacent to the west side, which is the road, is the first fairway. The putting green, the only financial ix~formation I can give you, is that the standard rate to build a standard green for a golf course from scratch is about $85,000, for a standard green. Now, this is a putting green with nine holes. So, it's about 2-]/2 times the size of a standard green which is about $200,000. If we were to try to move the building, I guess the nonconforming part is the proximity to the road. If we were to move the building to the west, we would obstruct the first tee, which is we've said before. In fact, we gave you a photograph the last time. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGEIt: We have it in the office. SANDY ESSERS: Right. Of what that tee looked like in 1888 with a golfer there looking out over the rest of the course. So, from our viewpoint protecting that view and that, I mean we couldn't use that if the green if we put, I mean as a tee, if we were to put the building there cause you couldn't drive golf balls over the building in order to move the building to the east. MEMBER TORTORA: So if I'm hearing it correct, you're saying that part of this is not only financial but to a preserve the historic value. SANDY ESSERS: Of the cost. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: It's tradition. MRS. MOORE: You have three aspects here. You have practical difficulty of the topography and really the only location is the existing location. The financial impact which would be, there really are no alternatives without either eliminating a tee or putting green and that's a very expensive proposition. Page 30 - Hearing Transcripts December ll, 1997 - Board of Appeals Third, is the historic I890s Is one of the first golf courses or the first golf courses? MRS. ESSERS: One of the first golf courses. There's a little incontention there whether it was the first or the second. MRS. MOORE: One of the first golf courses so it has great significance, I guess really all of Fishers Island but particularly to the club and the golfers. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: This is the first golf course in Fishers Island? SANDY ESSERS: No, no, but it's one of the first in the Country. MRS. MOORE: In the Country. Yes. MEMBER TORTORA: I remember that from the prior hearing. MRS. MOORE: Right. So, they are constrained, and they meet all the standards that you have to consider for area variance. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Ok. Proceed. MRS. MOORE: Thank you Sandy. With regard to the apartments. The apartments, the two apartments that are being reconfigured, one there, it is part and parcel of the golf club operations. Secondly, it is a residential use and as a residential use we're in a Residential Zone and the use is consistent. The apartments will conform to State Code. They will be safer. They are right now traps, fire traps. They're quite cute. I think that all of us went in there and from the outside it really looks horrible but at least on the inside they did a nice job in maintaining it. It's charming, but it certainly doesn't do the trick for any of the State Code requirements and the Fire Codes. Those issues. The four additional rooms and I pointed out earlier are crucial to the operations of this Club and Mr. di Bonaventure I think you're going to testify to the financial aspects of the four rooms and why it's so important. Are you ready? MRS. MOORE: Do you want to swear him in? CHAIRMAN GoEHRINGER: Will you raise your right hand? The information you're about to give us is the truth to the best of your knowledge? Page 31 - Hearing Transcripts December 1], 1997 - Board of Appeals MR. di BONAVANTURA: Yes it is. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. MR. di BONAVANTURA: In our two years of deliberations on this project, one of the things that we looked at were the demographics of our Club Membership. I addressed this a little bit with the Board last time we were here. We have been seeing as in the recent past some of our elder members resigning in greater numbers, and of course the folks that we would like to have in the club and who we invited to the club are generally young .families with young children, usually more than one and often more than two. The impact of that is that we are bursting at the seams in terms of our programs. The only way that we can continue to replece the resigning members ~Sth new members, in the same numbers, and therefore have the same amount of initiation fees which are very important to our budget, and the same amount of dues each year which is very important to our budget, is to have more staff to handle what Dick said, the teaching of those increased numbers of kids. This year just a point of fact, we've basically come to realization that though we have lost somewhere between 13 and 15, I can't remember the number now, 13 and 15 members who resigned from the club last year, we're really only going to be able to accept 9 or 10 this year. So, we're going to begin to see the impact of that this year in our budget where our dues revenues are going to go down, and our initiation fees will go down from the prior year. And that's a trend that we anticipate is going to continue. Surprisingly for a club that has a lot of interest from people who join it, our membership is likely to decline in the coming years. So, the additional housing is very important to us. In order to try and alleviate the burden of higher dues our members going forward, we Would like to accept into the club more young families than we're currently going to be able to. And the key component to that aside from the facilities, which also constrained ultimately the size of the membership that we can have, is the number of staff people that we can have and can afford. In some of the things, some alternatives we've investigated, really everything other than housing the additional staff here on our property in golf house, entailed a tax consequence to the Club. Not a tax consequence but, an economic consequence 'driven by tax law. If we house our staff off-campus, any housing that we rent for them or any housing that we provide for them, the imputed value of that housing must be grossed up because they are going to have to include that amount or that Page 32 - Hearing Transcripts December 11, 1997 - Board of Appeals value for that rental or that value on the W2. So, we were very, very cognizant of that. Dick said, our estimated rental cost, were going to be $50,000 to $60,000. He must be speaking from his recent review of the market because last year I think our actual grossed up rental cost, including the tax, was about $40,000. I've heard that the rental market is tighter or seems to be tighter, I don't know if that's the ease, but he's been actively trying to find a place for staff for next summer. We looked at that scenario continuing to rent over a 30 year period. We think it's appropriaie to look at it over that, the building and this project and ally rentals for our staff over a 30 year period and looked at the present value cost of those rentals, assuming static rental rates and static tax rates. And the present value of that $40,000 number assuming that it doesn't go up tax rates don't go up, is somewhere north of $600,000, in today's dollars, discounting back all those 30 years of $40,000 rental fees. Another alternative that - well when we add that to redoing this building, which we feel we really do have to do because it doesn't have much longer before it ~11 be unsafe and will serve no use to the membership at all given this condition. The cost would be adding that $600,000 in present value rentals, about $400,000 more than the cost of this project. We also looked at buying other properties. MRS. MOORE: Do you understand all this? Ok, good. MR. di BONAVANTURA: We also looked at buying other properties. Some scenarios based on the properties that were available at that time to purchase in pure dollar terms would have reduced that differential to somewhere in the range of $250,000 to $300,000. Prior to the tax gross up for that value on an annual basis for 30 years. If you add that tax consequence again to the number it would have raised it further. I haven't done the math. MS. MOORE: Just explain. Tax gross up, what happens as an employee, you get a certain salary. The salary has to be, let's assume $30,000, but if it costs the club an additional $10,000 to cover the taxes of your housing, off-campus housing, they have to absorb that cost. So, it's not, it's your salary, but the employee ~ets an 'x' amount of money. They don't want to hear about the fact that because its off campus housing, they have to pay an additional tax. That's not the way it works. The club has to absorb that so that they take that into account as well. It's very different if its on-campus housing, there is no tax consequence. Off-campus housing there is. So, that's when you talk about gross up. Page 33 - Hearing Transcripts December ]1, ]997 - Board of Appeals MR. di BONAVANTURA: That's exactly right. Again, so we also looked at purchasing rental properties and the additional cost of that. We also looked at the concept of buying a house. There's a whole host of other issues that are readily apparent to everybody. When we got done with the process, again Sandy led this process for over 1500 hours of free time on this project, this was by far the most cost effective way for us to achieve the two major goals that we were trying to achieve as a Board and the first goal was to ensure that we could continue to have a healthy vibrant membership and that we could continue to meet the demand of the families who are members of the club and two, thai we could handle our facility problems which we saw becoming very serious. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. MRS. MOORE: There was always a, there was an off ( ) from the last meeting that this housing is for senior staff. They could certainly agree to any condition that limits them to that because that is the intention that there will be no rental of the rooms, it is not income-producing, it is for senior staff, it's, w l~ka t else? MR. di Bonavantura: Maybe it's worth my just saying that who the senior staff is, and Dick went through it to some extent, but he left out a couple. We include in that group, not only the golf pro and the tennis pro, both of whom are 30 years old or thereabouts. Both probably will have families shortly. We have also, an assistant club manager who is a person of around 50 years old, a very, very mature and capable person who will probably end up having that second apartment only because he has a family today. In addition, we have a chef for our restaurant which on an annual basis seems to be generating for the club about $]0,000 in net revenue, net profits for us, which is very important for us as well. We're looking for those kind of opportunities. He is a senior guy. A 30-year old person whe wilt manage a staff of three cooks. A cook for the staff, a cook for the restaurant, a cook for the snack bar, etc. We also share with the Yacht Club on the island a Sailing Master; he or she performs Sailing Master role for the Yacht Club for us the head of our sailing program. This person also is a very mature older person. So, in that space of, I think in just those five people you have five very senior, older peop]e~ older staff people who are different than we had been used to at the club for many years. We Used to have college kids, who were, you know, who were sophomore to juniors in college running all of our programs. Well, we're at the point now, that we can't do that. We need the responsible people in those roles and I would expect that very soon we will have an assistant Page 34 - Hearing Transcripts December 11, 1997 - Board of Appeals cook, or, we'll have another staff member who, or another tennis pro who we need to bring on who will also be older in age and will not be willing to live in a place like the lower apartment, like the lower apartment is now at the old clubhouse. Or at the bunkhouse for that matter. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: But, this is just a side. But, why impact tkis location and not impact the other location with that? MR. di BONAVANTURA: I need to defer to Sandy because Sandy looked carefully at that. MRS. ESSERS: I'm glad you asked that, because I asked the same question. (Brief interruption to change tape.) SANDY ESSERS: We did look into that actually and what we discovered was that our main property is built now to the max. We have a lot of wetlands on the property, CHAIRIVlAN GOEHRINGER: We didn't see that by the way. SANDY ESSERS: No, actually some of your members did but you did not. I think the guy from the Health Department came over to talk to us. We also looked at perhaps expanding the base building on the existing footprint. However, in order to do that, we would be doing enough construction to force us to bring that whole building up to code and although we don't think the building is dangerous, because we've closed off certain parts of it, and we've added fire protection and ail kinds of devices to make it safe. If we were to do construction to add this additional area for sleeping, you know, living rooms for these people, we would have to bring the building up to code, which we really can't do which would be another financial hardship. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. MRS. MOORE: The next consideration the Board should make is that the variance will have no adverse effect on the impact on the physical or environmental conditions of the neighborhood or district. In fact, it's quite the opposite. We're going to be making the building safer, Eliminate health hazards with the flooding that they've experienced from the basement from the roof. The building is leaking from top to bottom and is a health Page 35 - Hearing Transcripts December 11, 1997 - Board of Appeals hazard, a fire hazard as well. The new building will provide for drainage. They're going to install french drains. They're going to install a whole new sanitary system. So, the environmental affects of this new building will actually lessen. They'll be less of an impact than the existing building because your going to have everything that is going to be to code. In particular the health, the sanitary system. In addition, the design of the building is going to be in keeping with the neighborhood. We discussed the design before. The architectural design is in keeping with many of the magnificent homes on Fishers Island and the building will be 3,000 perimeter-wise 3,000 sq. ft. So, it will in fact, be somewhat smaller than some of the adjacent properties that I believe are in the range of 5 to 7,000 sq. ft. in perimeter. So, we're not talking height or second story. It's the main structure. The difficulty was not, is not self created. The structure was constructed in 1929. It is a golf club with residential uses prior to zoning and it's continued since zoning to the present. So, and again we've gone over ail the alternatives, so, really this is the one and only location. The final criteria is that the variance requested is minimal variance practical given the personal benefits anticipated by the applicant. Again, we've gone over each of the financial consideration that they undertook. They really - as an entire Board they looked at this project from all angles and all alternatives because if they didn't have to be here, they wouldn't be here. And they came to the conclusion that this application was necessary~. I believe that's all the standards. We may have answered ail of your questions before, but let me very briefly, the parking plan, the sketch of the parking plan for the existing club, should be on the plans. Is it on the plans? SANDY ESSERS: I think we did one, yes. MS. MOORE: Yes, we provided a plan for you. Across the street, I know you're going to get to this, the property has been used for the parking, the access parking fox. the past 20 years. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: There's no contact with Mrs. Husband? MS. MOORE: They've tried. MR. di BONAVANTURA: We've tried. She is in Arizona. We've been unable to reach her. I sent her a letter recently hoping for a return. Page 36 - Hearing Transcripts December 11, 1997 - Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Ok. MS. MOORE: And in fact, her letters never really addressed any objections to the parking. That was not one of the objections. Her concern was the residential use which, we think we've addressed as far as this is not going to be a college hangout or partying. It's going to be senior staff and if you look throughout the code, when it talks even about residential BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Excuse me, we're trying to find where the other parcel is on this map. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: It's not on the map. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Alright. MS. MOORE: No, it wouldn't be. It's about how many miles? It's a mile away. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Is it a mite away? SANDY ESSERS: Oh, the other parcel from the club? BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: For the parking? SANDY ESSER: Yes, it's about a mile away. MS. MOORE: Yes, about a mile away.. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: No, not for the parking. The parking is across the street on Mrs. Husband's property. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Is it across the street? MEMBER COLLINS: Clarification time here. OK. What I'm looking at, is in fact the drawing of the sanitary, prepared for the sanitary system. But, it is a complete drawing of the project with the - MS. MOORE: Yes, you should have it in your file. In fact I MEMBER COLLINS: Yes, and the parking is across the street. I understand that. I just wanted to make sure that we're all on the - SANDY ESSER: I had done a sketch which I gave the Board in the last package of where it was. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We'll look in there. Page 37 - Hearing Transcripts December 11, 1997 - Board of Appeals MEMBER COLLINS: That I have never seen. MS. MOORE: I don't even have that. SANDY ESSER: I don't have a copy of it. Do you have it on the plan that you have? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: You're referring to the parking, the on-site parking where you're niching it into the hill? SANDY ESSER: On site parking. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: That's right. MEMBER COLLINS: Yes, we can see that on this drawing. Proposed gravel parking, and it's clear that it's pushed into a hill and it's about three times the size of something marked 'existing parking area.' SANDY ESSER: Correct. MEMBER COLLINS: And this is at the north side of the club and the remainder of the parking now and in the future is this along the streeI parking across the road. MS. MOORE: There is - you haven't had the benefit cf seeing it, but, across the road is a - there's about 15-20 feet depth, it's a hill - MEMBER COLLINS: I've seen the photos. MS. MOORE: Oh, OK, alright, well sometimes it's not quite as clear. 7 feet? MR. DI BONAVANTURA: ? - 8 feet - MS. MOORE: Well it looks bigger. Well you go across the street, and then you have - SANDY ESSERS: It's enough for a whole ear. MS. MOORE: Yes, a whole car so it got to be - SANDY ESSERS: It's got to be 16 feet. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Well then, you diagonally park it, so, it's a little less. SANDY ESSERS: Straight in. Sometimes it's diagonal. Page 38 - Hearing Transcripts December ll, 1997 - Board of Appeals MEMBER COLLINS: No, ~I read in the testimony or some I have read the entire record, that it was on the order of 18 to 20 cars could park on the space across the street? SANDY ESSERS: Yes. MEMBER COLLINS: Right, OK. MS. MOORE: In fact, there is a barn there as well. SANDY ESSERS: Yes, there is a little a - on the outside it was against the little part that Mrs. Husband also owns that's down the hill which shows actually a corner of it shows in one of the photographs. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: That's the parking plan we don't have on the map, the 18 to 20 cars. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Well, they don't own the property. BOARD SECRETARY: No, they don't own the property, but I just wanted to mention it. MRS. ESSERS: -drew a plan on one of the maps that were submitted to the Board. (Inaudible discussion between attorney Moore and Ms. Essers about a sketch). MRS. MOORE: I didn't realize that we had one. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I don't remember seeing it. MRS. MOORE: Why- don't you look in their file and identify it? MRS. ESSERS: A smaller plan perhaps. Not on a large plan. Itwas with, like red magic marker. BOARD SECRETARY: Do you want to look at the file (Chairman holding file). MRS. ESSERS: Yes. It would be helpful. MEMBER COLLINS: This is all I have. I really must say -just because I wanted to be brought up to speed on this, I went page through page the file in the office, and I didn't see a drawn sketch. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We'll take approximately a five minute recess anyway, Sandy. We're going to have another meeting in the next 18 days or so. Page 39 - Hearing Transcripts December 11, 1997 - Board of Appeals MRS. ESSERS: OK. Good night (Club Member leaving meeting). CHAIRMAN: I need a motion, ladies and gentlemen? MEMBER TORTORA: So moved (to recess for a few minutes). CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Motion carried. Hearing reconvened and continued as follows: CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I need a motion (to reconvene). MEMBER DINIZIO: So moved. Motion was carried. (During the break Mrs. Essers was able to draw a parking plan on the map that was in the board file showing the parking plan off-site on property of Mrs. Husband.) MRS. MOORE: I have put in front of you during the break the outline so you'd have it for reference, and I tried to point out all of the standards identified. I've done five of them and point out some of the facts that apply. That together with the transcript should be helpful. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Ok. Before we get to the actual Board Members, it somewhat appears to me that from the dialogue that we had during the break, that we may have future questions. So, in order to not close the record, we do have a hearing scheduled for January 15th, so we may just conclude ~quickly with you at that particular point. I don't know if it is particularly necessary for you to bring these nice people from their far places, OK and if there are any questions that - I'm not telling you not to tell them to come, I'm just saying to you, that you know, it is winter time; and you know, if there are a~y questions that you can't answer, we certainly will give you time to reduce it to writing, but we'll see how that goes. MRS. MOORE: OK, maybe if we can address all your questions now, we'll try. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mr. Homing, do you have any questions of these nice people? MEMBER HORNING: I have a couple of questions. I would like to know what the existing square footage of the golf building is, living space that is, first floor, second floor? SANDY ESSERS: Well all of it - MS. MOORE: Go ahead, yes you'rer the keeper - Page 40 - Hearing Transcripts December 11, 1997 - Board of Appeals SANDY ESSERS: George, have you been in that building? MEMBER HORNING: Yes I have. SANDY ESSERS: So, you know all of it is not living space? MEMBER HORNING: That's right. Well, useable space, let me put it that way. SANDY ESSERS: OK, useable space, that's a litti~ different. The footprint is about right now is 56 x 51 (2856) which computes to something over 2500 sq. ft. at grade and then another I'd say 1500 up above which brings a total up to about 4,000. So, we're adding about - we're going to 56 x 56 (3136), which is 2500 plus, so, we're going to a little over 5,000, maybe 5500. MEMBER HORNING: You don't have exact figures on that? MS. MOORE: On the plans does it show the sq. footage? SANDY ESSERS: No, it just has the square footage of the footprint. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, just let me reduce this for him. Just give us in your estimation of the total second floor apartment, front to back, meaning when I say front I mean road front to back and then the lower apartment the first floor apartment - SANDY ESSERS: Just the apartment? He was asking - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: That's what you want, right? MEMBER HORNING: No, I was wondering how much bigger square foot is the new building? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Oh, the new building itself. I thought you're talking apartment to apartment. MEMBER HORNING: No. SANDY ESSERS: No, I'd say the new building is maybe 1500 sq. ft. bigger, but the footprint isn't that much bigger. MEMBER HORNING: I understand that. SANDY ESSERS: It's just that we've built out, you know, the footprint on both levels. MS. MOORE: You've used the architectural style of the - Page 41 - Hearing Transcripts December 11, 1997 - Board of Appeals SANDY ESSERS: The double gable roof. MS. MOORE: The double gable roof. MEMBER HORNING: How much taller will the new building be? SANDY ESSERS: It's actually only about 6 feet taliar. MEMBER HORNING: About 6. Do you have an exact figure? SANDY ESSERS: We do have it on an elevation. I'll look it up for you. MEMBER HORNING: I thought it was about 8? SANDY ESSERS: It's been a while since I looked at that particular one. Yes, not including the chimney. MEtviBER HORNING: Right. SANDY ESSER: It's about seven (7). MEMBER HORNING: OK. MS. MOORE: There's a peak it would be where the 72.6? SANDY ESSER: Yes. MS. MOORE: The height of the roof line is 72.6. SANDY ESSER: Right and the existing building is about 65. MEMBEt{ HORNING: The peak? SANDY ESSER: Of the existing building, yes. As you know from the site, it doesn't obstruct anything. If you know the house behind it, the Hobson house, it's quite a bit higher. In fact, I think we have photo of that some place. MEMBER HORNING: Well the roof line right now in my mind, level with the grade of the Hobson house. SANDY ESSERS: It's just a little bit lower. MEMBER HORNING: So, the roof line of the proposed building will be 5 - 6 feet taller than the grade. SANDY ESSERS: But they have a hedge up to theirs. MEMBER HORNING: Yes, they do have a hedge. Page 42 - Hearing Transcripts December ll, 1997 - Board of Appeals SANDY ESSERS: Also, if you look out from any of their windows, you will not see this building. MEMBER HORNING: Well - SANDY ESSERS: Because their building faces a different direction. MEMBER HORNING: Right and there are trees there but, this time of year the leaves are gone. SANDY ESSER: Right, but they have no windows that face over this building. MS. MOORE: And if you saw - you should have gotten in the mail from the Hobsons, all of the Hobsons. I think every single one of them, heirs and the property is in a Trust, so they had everybody sign off, and they are very much in favor of this project and their support; and they're really the most - the most affected because the building is close to us. MEMBER HORNING: I want to ask a question on the parking problem there. If you folks had approached - Mrs. Husband's name has come for example. Couldn't you approach her and get a 100 year, 200 year lease or something, or a swap of land that could be utilized for parking? MRS. MOORE: Yes, you didn't benefit from the last hearing. Why don't you talk about the conversation you had with the Husbands? MR. di BONAVANTURA: Sure. Mr. Homing we as I mentioned last time we were here made a pretty significant effort to talk to all the neighbors that we could find throughout the island. I think the only immediate neighbor of the club that we didn't talk to was Pagnatta who I haven't seen in the years I've been going to the island. I know exists, that's all I know but, we spent about 1 hour and 15 minutes to an 1-1/2 hours with each of the neighbors, including Mrs. Husband and her two sons. We had a very~ we went through the plans in detail. This was sought of midsummer. Went through the plans in detail, top to bottom, answered any questions they had, made ourselves available, made sure they understood, that if they had any problems or any concerns with the project that they could call us and should call us. It was myself and two other Board Members, Mr. Anthony, who was here the last time and Mrs. Parsons who unfortunately couldn't get down from Providence for this meeting tonight. She hoped to be able to do that. We had a very nice conversation with the entire family. I think that if I had the foresight to have a letter in hand that would have said, 'we like Page 43 - Hearing Transcripts December 11, 1997 - Board of Appeals this project, and we're very comfortable with the project,' that all three of them would have signed it right there on the spot. I continued to be a little surprised that given my privy to Mrs. Husband except that she is a little bit of an elderly woman, that I didn't hear anything from them before this letter came in. As I mentioned the last time, I did speak to her son and read the letter to him, that he is convinced that his mother didn't write the letter, she certainly signed it, it seems, but he's. convinced that she didn't write it. So, I'm kind of in a vacuum about it. Ail I can say is that when we left her house after going through the plans with her in detail, all three of us felt very comfortable that we had the entire family for support for the project. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: You understand why that's such a key issue. MR. di BONAVANTURA: Probably as not as deeply as I should. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Well, off site parking which we're - I mean we're talking on-site parking of three cars here, or whatever the proposed amount is. Basically that's ADA's standards anyway and you might stick another car in on a good day. Please that's not a sarcastic statement. It's very difficult to have the amount of acreage that you have and not have on-site parking. All your parking is off site and you don't have a parking agreement with this lady. Now, we realize that you in time and years to come, and I'm not wishing that the lady passes on, but if she does pass on, it appears that you do have a dialogue with her two sons who will probably bequeath the property. So, there is that anticipation that you might have an agreement with them as Mr. Homing had mentioned. However, at this time there is no agreement. She could very simply extinguish that at any time by putting up a cord and cording off that entire area. MRS. MOORE: I don't believe that legally she would be able to do that. And I don't want to - in fact the Gazette read the transcript and said, oh, you're going to bring an adverse possession. I said, no, no, no, and I very careful that we don't get into too much of whether who's going to do what and anticipate what the reaction of the effect is going to be. They have used this area for 20 years. SANDY ESSERs: More than. MS. MOORE: More than 20 years. Adverse possession goes ' after 10 years. All right. So, there is clearly, they have used it, it has been open and notorious, and all of the aspects of an adverse possession claim, they've been using this property. Page 44 - Hearing Transcripts December ll, 1997 - Board of Appeals The reality is that the golf course is presently there. The testimony has, that Chris has given you is, is that the size of the club is dictated by the membership and the membership from last meeting is actualiy limited not so much by this building, but by the pool and other facilities at the main building. So that, right now, you have a membership with the use of this facility. I can understand the reluctance or the concern, the overwhelming concern if we were taiking about a vacant piece of property, and we were trying to locate for the first time the golf club right here on this site. But, what we have here, is a presently existing building where it has been located. I think even if we had a vacant parcel we'd meet all the standards, ali the burdens to be able to locate it here because we've established financiai hardship in being able to locate it anywhere else. But, we're dealing with the same parking, the same activity that presently exists. So to make that such an obstacle, I don't believe it's founded. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: It's not an obstacle, we're just trying to, we're - MS. MOORE: I wish we could. If we had it in our power to give you something to make you be able to be more comfortable, believe me, all of us would certainly provide that. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Well, no, ~hris asked the question, that's why I attempted to answer it, not only for the three existing Board Members, but for the two new Board Members. MS. MOORE: Oh, yes. No, this is an issue that has to be addressed. SANDY ESSERS: The other thing you have to remember is this is only a 9-hole golf course. We never have 9 foursomes on that course. I think George would attest to that. There's one clay a year when we do, and that's when we have the Hog, for the Waish Park open and that's when we have you know, shotguns start and we have teams of six going off and there's a charity event and stuff like and people basically park at the beach. It's a 9 hole course. You never have to get a tee time. People walk out there when they get there. They walk out on the golf course and they play golf. They're usually two people at a time on each hole. It's a very under-utilized facility. It's not like we have 200 people coming to play golf ail at one time. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Right. OK. MR. di BONAVANTURA: Just if I can respond to your comment, your question, Mr. Homing. The club is always as long as I've been there had a very good relationship with its neighbors. I know from the standpoint of the Boards that I have been on now Page 45 - Hearing Transcripts December ll, 1997 - Board of Appeals for five years that every time the neighbor has a comment or a suggestion or question we take that very seriously and we act on it. And tImt goes to parking in front of their homes, thai goes to closing off a parking area next to our upper tennis courts at the Main Club because it was causing inconvenience for neighbor. We try and respond very aggressively and Dick would say the same thing were he here to be good neighbors. We try very hard to do that. I think that I have to talk to my Board, but we may now have to go and ask Mrs. Husband, just to ensure that we are going to not have any altercation with she and her family for something like that. An agreement for the right-of-way, whatever ii would happen to be. I loathe to do it because this has always been a trusting relationship between club and all of the neighbors. This letter which I find very unfortunate because in no way is reflective of the spirit of the conversation that we had with her. MRS. MOORE: In fact, it-doesn't address the parking at all. Even thai letter she doesn't say I don't want their parking. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: You know, you talk about the heartbeat of the President and the Vice President. In a heartbeat, you know, the Vice President becomes the President. It's the same situation here. The drawing of a deed, now enters you into a Bar Claim Action to gel an Adverse Possession Claim for this piece of property if she just decides to sell her property, and it's the same situation. MS. MOORE: It may be, but, this property has actually been in the family for generations. But, keep that in mind, and you have a woman' who, honestly I've never met her, but from what I understand she's elderly and her faculties may be a little more affected and her sons are truly the ones that are going to be stepping into this property. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Well, that's what I said, but I mean - MR. di B@NAVENATURA: What you're saying as a matter of prudence. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes, that's what I'm saying because rea!.Iy quite honestly, you know, I mean she could decide to give the property to a foundation. I mean, who knows? MS. MOORE: That's true, but, that would not prevent us from bringing an action at thai time. I mean we have, there has been a right established by the use of that area. It has been cooperative. It has not, no-one needed to bring an action to compel the use of it. Page 46 - Hearing Transcripts December 11, 1997 - Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: But, it's not one person. It's several members of the club at certain times have parked on the property. You know what I'm saying? It's not like just one family using a driveway. You know what I'm saying? MRS. MOORE: No, I understand, but the club as a group, as an organization has used that - just like the club as a corporate entity. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I think it more difficult to bring that action when you're dealing with it on that basis. MEMBER COLLINS: Yes, I would have thought that the fact that it's myriad individual people who were doing the parking, not the club, not the club saying this is our lot and you can park here~ but rather simply that the property owner tolerated the golfer's parking. It wou]d just make it much harder to make that k/nd of claim. That was my reaction. MS. MOORE: It may or may not. I don't know I have never researched the question whether or not we could bring such an action. It's not it hasn't been necessary, it may never be necessary. In fact, the topography of that parcel I think they've got 3.5 acres, something like that and they are really barricaded from site . CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: It appears so. MS. MOORE: By that huge hill and in fact, the barn is there, it's really - I'm surprised that the town didn't come through and acfuaily aeqnire that area because I think that the Highway Department-do they use it for the truck or something in the barn? SANDY ESSERS: The mosquito girls. MS. MOORE: Oh, the mosq- what? The mosquito girls? SANDY ESSER: The mosquito girls. Mr. Di BONAVANTURA: It's worth explaining Sandy. SANDY ESSER: Don't ask. MR. di BONAVANTURA: In 30 seconds. MS. MOORE: Yes, tell us. SANDY ESSER: We have I think, part of our tax dollars go to Mosquito Control? Page 47 - Hearing Transcripts December 11, 1997 - Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: That's correct. SANDY ESSER: And we have two young women who usually help contain mosquitoes by spreading stuff around on the Island and, they actually live in the barn and park their truck there. Well, that's what it is used for. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK. George? MR. HORNING: I'd like to address another issue here also. Concerning the usage of the premises there. You go to great length it seems in a lot of this Hterature to present historic usage. You have this first tee, that it's been there's since day one. You have tiffs putting green that's somewhat historic nature and financially wonid impact you if you did anything with it. The building itself historic use as a golf clubhouse, and yet you seem to be proposing to completely change the usage of the premises by having these apartments for people who are not working at the golf course. MRS. MOORE: No. MR. HORNING: Yes. SANDY ESSER: They work at the chib. The apartments have never been particularly designated for golf use. They've always been apartments that were avaliable for club staff. It's never been necessarily for golf use only. MEMBER HORNING: But, you want to change that and make it the tennis pro, the cook? SANDY ESSER: No, it's always been that way. MEMBER HORNING: No, it has not. MR. di BONAVANTURA: It's had the golf pro in there for a number of years now. MR. HORNING: Yes, right. MR. di BONAVANTURA: For the last 15, 16, 17 years. MEMBER HORNING: Well, since I was a youngster, when Rowland Oswell was the golf pro and they lived there. MR. DI BONAVANTURA: For a long period of time. MEMBER HORNING: Yes, years, 50 years maybe. Page 48 - Hearing Transcripts December 11, 1997 - Board of Appeals MR. di BONAVANTURA: The other apartment has always had someone non, not related to golf. Has always had someone who has been in recent years as far back as I can remember, has been the tennis pro. MEMBER HORNING: And now you want to increase this usage by club people who don't work at the golf course. MS. MOORE: Well, keep in mind, that the club consists of the golf club and the swim club. That's Hay Harbor Club, Inc., correct? MS. ESSER & MR. di BONAVANTURA: Yes, Right. MS. MOORE: OK, so, Hay Harbor Club, Inc. consists of two main outbuildings. The four rooms, for four senior staff are for the employees of Hay Harbor Club, Inc., and it would be for the chef, the manager, the assistant chef and the sailing master, or any - SANDY ESSER: Whoever the most senior people. MS. MOORE: It would be the staff. The senior staff of Hay Harbor Club, Inc. So, we're not proposing to bring somebody from the liquor store to come in and rent from Hay Harbor Club one of the rooms. In fact, we've Said, absohitely not. That is not something that we're proposing we would covenant what you can do it as a condition of an approval or we would certainly agree in our own testimony. We have already that it is for staff only. So, with respect to the use it's an accessory incidental, it's all part of running a club, a recreational facility and under the Zoning Code, it could be a swim club, it's a golf club, it's you tist ali of them, I don't belong to club, but there are various types of clubs, and it's this housing for senior staff that is crucial to the operations of a clubhouse. They can't afford to bring out, to rent and house people. It's part of their salary structure, it's part of their expectations when they bring people in from wherever, these pros or professionals, they come from all over the country and they have to be attracted to this facility and one of the things that is almost, is mandatory, is to provide them housing and adequate housing. MEMBER HORNING: I understand that. I'm just trying to make this clear in my mind what the club is trying to do. I'm reading here from material that you submitted, Sandy Esser says 'there would be four bedrooms on the second floor at the front of the building for 8 staff.' Now, this in addition to the two apartments. So, you're talking about - SANDY ESSER: No, it's not going to be 8 staffer, for - Page 49 - Hearing Transcripts December 11, 1997 - Board of Appeals MEMBER HORNING: This is what this statement says. SANDY ESSER: Oh, I was mistaken. I've told you, it's just for 4. MS. MOORE: Which statement, my statement? MEMBER HORNING: July 19, 1997, meeting between the Members of the Board of Directors of the Hay Harbor Club and the Golfing Members of the Club. MS. MOORE: Oh, you're reading the, what is it, the Minutes of the Meeting, or something like that? SANDY ESSER: No, that wasn't a hearing that we had here. MEMBER HORNING: I'm not saying that it was a hearing. I'm saying it's information that you submitted. MR. di BONAVANTURA: What was the date of that, July 19, 19977 MEMBER HORNING: Yes. So, I'm reading here, there would be four bedrooms on the second floor, the front of the building for eight staff. That's in addition to the g~lf pro and the tennis pro which you're accommodating in two separate apartments. MR. di BONAVANTURA: No, it's intended to be, it was intended to be four staff. SANDY ESSER: Four staff. MS. MOORE: Four staff, yes, keep in ~find that the transcript is the relevant information~ that letter - MEMBER HORNING: The transcript doesn't mention numbers of people. It mentions numbers of bedrooms. SANDY ESSER: No, we've talked many times about 4 people. I think Dick Duggan mentioned 4 people. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: 4 people and 4 bedrooms. SANDY ESSER: 4 people and 4 bedrooms. MEMBER TORTORA: Five staff people in my notes. MR. di BONAVANTURA: In keeping with the notion that we will only be putting senior staff in there for whom it would be inappropriate to have a roommate. Page 50 - Hearing Transcripts December 11, 1997 - Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Right. MEMBER TORTORA: I just want to get this correct because I did make notes on this before and if my notes are incorrect - MS. MOORE: Yes, please. MEMBER TORTORA: I thought you did mention 5 staff people before. MR. di BONAVANTURA: In addition to the golf pro would be in there. MS. MOORE: Why don't you clarify who is going to be in there. MR. di BONAVANTURA: We have two big apartments and then we have 4 bedrooms upstairs. The golf pro will take one of the big apartments. My guess is that the assistant club manager because he is most senior and is with family also will take the second apartment. MEMBER TORTORA: Yes, you had said that. MR. di BONAVANTURA: And then, we have the head chef. MEMBER TORTORA: The chef, the sailing master and possibly the assistant. MR. di BONAVANTURA: Anal the tennis pro as well. MEMBER TORTORA: So the total is? MR. di BONAVANTURA: 6 people all together. 4 singles and 2 apartments, maybe families. MEMBER TORTORA: OK. I think we've got it. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Anything else, George? MEMBER HORNING: Yes, I want to pursue this too because of the context of, it's important how many people staff are there because it might increase parking considerations. MRS. MOORE: Oh, we should point out, yes, that the parking, go ahead you talk about the facility. MR. di Bonavantura: Yes, one of the thi~lgs Dick mentioned, I think at the last meeting, Mr. Homing, was that the plan will be for none of the staff living at that building other than the golf pro. Page 51 - Hearing Transcripts December 11, 1997 - Board of Appeals SANDY ESSERS: Other than the two apartment owners because there are two parking spaces for those two apartments in addition to the handicap space that we own. MR. di BONAVANTURA: To have their cars at that site. MEMBER HORNING. The only two people will be the people in the apartment of course. MR] DiBONAVENTURA and MRS. MOORE: Right. MR. DiBONAVENTURA: The other four will have their cars at the main clubhouse and will either be driven back and forth by truck or will have bicycles and travel in that way which is for the employees. MEMBER HORNING: OK. And my other question would be I'm interested in an overail picture of what the Club is trying to accomplish because I understand from what you said and my own knowledge of being in the Fire Department, the Main Clubhouse its:elf has condemned areas in the building that if they were not condemned could be housing these people. Possibly, that you want to house off site. Do you have any long term intentions to do anything with the Main Clubhouse, which may be in as bad shape as the golf building? ME. di BONAVANTURA: Let Sandy respond to that. SANDY ESSERS: Luckily, the main clubhouse has been attended to over time much better than the golf building and it's not as nearly in bad condition as the golf building and as Mr. Homing mentioned, the third floor of the main clubhouse, has been condemned because of the fire egress situation and we've been told by the Building Inspector that we cannot bring that up to code, no way can we ever open that third floor up for housing. I'm sorry. What was the other part of your question? MEMBER HORNING: Well, I mean unless you rebuild that bui~ ding. SANDY ESSER: We would have to tear it down and build it again. MEMBER HORNING: Have you been thinking about doing that at all? SANDY ESSER: No. We can't afford that. MEMBER HORNING: OK, and one final question then for Mr. di Bonaventure. I'm curious in the transcript of the hearing that occurred already, you mentioned having a policy of having 440 PaKe 52 - Hearing Transcripts December 11, 1997 - Board of Appeals memberships which are families. You mentioned that you currently have a total of 410. You'd Hke to increase it. That would be 30 more families. MR. di BONAVENTURA: We can't. MEMBER HORNING: And yet if I may quote you, it says, "the impact of that is the impact of your current membership is that the pool, the swimming areas, the sailing programs, the tennis courts have been maxed out. In terms of capacity those are the facilities that are controlling the level of our membership." MR. di BONAVANTURA: Correct. MEMBER HORNING: So, why are you trying to increase your membership by 30 more families? Wouldn't that create more of a parking impact than what you already have? MR. di BONAVANTURA: I think it's a - it would if that were the case. I think the way we run our club is to make sure that the club is user friendly as we can make it for the membership. One characteristic of that is that is not so overly crowded that everybody has a terrible time and doesn't want to go there anymore. So, even though a long time ago, way before my time, there was an arbitrary number of 440 members a set. That is not what is going to govern the number of members we had. If we had, however, if we had 30 older members who came once every two or three weeks to play tennis on the tennis court, we could accommodate that and have 30 more members in the club today. The realities of life are we are losing those members and have an interest from young families with more children, and so that 410 members that we had at the end of last year will probably go down to 404, 405 this year, or the subsequent sum. MEMBER HORNING: OK and one final question or comment then. Since everybody has agreed that I've seen thai the building suffers from drastic neglect and the main building does also to maybe a slightly lesser degree, but has portions that are condemned, what assurance would anybody have that going into the future, you wouldn't neglect your new building? MR. di BONAVANTURA: We've seen the results of the non, neglect in this - in having to do this project. We struggled a long time as a Board; and number 1, incurring for the members of the club this kind of additional cost. Many of us, on the Board, initially wanted to avoid that as much as we possibly could. Page 53 - Hearing Transcripts December 11, 1997 - Board of Appeals Number 2, we didn't want Sandy to have or anybody on the Board to have to spend the amount of time that was necessary to develop the project to the state that it's in today. I think we are at a point where the record is so clear, that the result of the neglect of the deferred maintenance that we practiced on this golf clubhouse has been so severe for the membership of the club that that won't ever happen again and we had in the last 7, 8 years under Sandy's direction and tile direction of the two past Presidents of the Club and myself made sure that part of our budget every year is a substantial enough capital budget to make sure that our facilities are maintained in as good working order as we can possibly make them, and that goes for the Main Clubhouse as well. The Main Clubhouse we have put a lot of money into making sure that those portions which are not condemned are in as top quality shape as we can make them. And none of our Planning Committee discussions have included over the last three years or two years since I've been President, three years before that, have included any discussion about doing anything significant with the Main Clubhouse. We've view that clubhouse aside from the condemned portions, as being in very, very, good shape, able to meet the requirements of our membership. MEMBER HORNING: OK. Thank you very much. Thank you, Jerry. SANDY ESSER: Can I just say one thing? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Surely. SANDY ESSERS: I'd also have to say the condemnation of our third floor has nothing to do with neglect. There was nothing about neglect on the third floor. It has to do with the turns and the stairs and the egress problem, It has nothing to do with neglect. MR. di BONAVANTURA: Or deferred maintenance. SANDY ESSER: Or deferred maintenance. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I just want to say, apart from what Mr. Homing asked, it's the impact to this site that we're talking about tonight, that has caused you to impact and bring this application before us. And that's where we're delving into those aspects of that; and of course not ever having seen the other site, this is not a sarcastic, this a straight pragmatic statement, OK, as generic as it can be, that we're not here to evaluate the other one, we're only saying that your coming in and you're building additional staffing here, which is something that we are addressing as a matter of this application. Page 54 - Hearing Transcripts December ]1, 1997 - Board of Appeals SANDY ESSERS: Well, if I can say just one more thing. I think the question, how can you be sure that we won't allow 'this new building to experience neglect? That's kind of a political question. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: No, not really. MRS. ESSERS: I don't think that relates a lot to our application. CHAIRMAN: It does in some respects because if you were to eome, we tnay not, any of us may not be on this Board, and quite honestly, it could be your children that could be back here in ten years and say, listen the building is neglected, we now want to build 4 more rooms. SANDY ESSER: This building is 70 years old. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: No, no, I understand that. We're just, we're just giving you some impact. So don't take it personal. MRS. ESSER: I won't be here next time. MR. di BONAVANTURA: But you're still going to be an ad hoe member of the faeility (joking). MRS. ESSER: Never. MR. DiBONAVENTURA: What I wanted to say basically was, that you know I think our, our, what we suffered in a - probably the 20 years prior to the last ten years was a membership that really did not want to pay for the maintenance of the club. It was very purely that, and that included at that time the Members of the Board. Since that time, over the last ten years, you will see if you came with us~ a pattern of increased dues, increasing dues and inereasing initiation fees, so that we could insure that we number 1, covered our annual maintenance budget and our annual capital expenditure budget which we're very careful about doing today; and 2, built up what we eall this rainy day fund, which is a fund thet we basically are reserved for catastrophes and for unexpected capital requirements. The way the club is being managed today financially is a new legacy for the future. It's a ten-year legacy already in place. Very different from the prior 20 and 30 years which was no-pay legacy. We know that we have a tremendous asset here. The Board knows that our children will have a tremendous asset here if we take eare of it, and we've been very financially eareful to insure that we make those needed repairs .and those needed commitments for capital dollars each and every year, and if we find out that in our budget process Page 55 - Hearing Transcripts December 1I, 1997 - Board of Appeals we're not going to have the money, we're going to raise the dues. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK. Mrs. Tortora? MEMBER TORTORA: I've expressed my concern. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Ms. Collins? MEMBER COLLINS: I don't think I have anything further at this time. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mr. Dinizio? MEMBER DINIZIO: Yes, more of a comment than anything else. Certainly I think the additional four feet that you're putting on this building is more a function of safety and a new stairwell, a new thing like that as opposed to aesthetics or even increasing the volume sought of speak of the building. I would dare say, that neglect of that building I didn't see it. I didn't really see neglect. I saw maybe 70 years ago a building a house into a hill probably was something you want to do, but, I mean at this time, you know, you probably wouldn't do that and certainly you would do it a lot differently and I would say, that if you were to try stop the leaking from the foundation, certainly you would probably trigger what you're here now for. If you were to go and replace that foundation, I feel it would be just entirely too much to spend. The Building Inspector would say, no, you can't do that, you have to come for a variance, etc., it would be the whole same thing. I can't see in my opinion why anybody wouldn't want to make the situation upstairs better. I mean, if we have Fire Codes and they're 1997 Fire Codes, that building doesn't cut it in anyway. In my opinion anything you can do to make that a safer place is going to be helpful. Certainly comparing it to any other club, that other clubhouse, I've never seen it, but I can just tell you that I don't know of any building that could possibly be built with three stories in Southold Town. I don't believe that you can do it and I believe that's the reason why it's condemned. You utilized it, I'm assuming you utilized at some point in time and someone said, someone with a little common sense said, wait, it's a fire trap, it's condemned just as the building we're talking about right now in my opinion should be. In my mind, I mean, the Hobsons they sum it all up. Again, a new clubhouse does not present any change in the current situation which is perfectly acceptable and perfectly " acceptable is I see probably no increase in use here. Certainly the parking situations are questioned, but if the place remained the way it was, the questioll would still be, where are you going Page 56 - Hearing Transcripts December ll, 1997 - Board of Appeals to park the cars? The only reason why we're talking about parking at this particular situation at this time is because you want a place that's going to meet current codes. That's the only reason why we're talking about parking. We wouldn't be talking about parking if as you are perfectly allowed to do right now, have people living in there and basically an unsafe structure and have the parking the way it is currently. You could live like that for 100 years from now. You could still have the same thing. Patch the roof, put a pump in the basement, you know, I mean so to my mind I think you presented the case very well; and I'm hoping that people will see the light that parking is not particular to this application in my opinion, and that you're not asking to increase anything. I don't believe you are. If you are, correct me, but, it seems to me, that you're just asking to improve on the condition of safety. That's basically ail I have. I think you did a marvelous job presenting it. I read your little thing while you talked to me and this wi]] be helpful. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Final question to Sandy. Heating and air conditioning of the new building? SANDY ESSER: Yes, both. The golf pro is there actually from May to October. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: So he needs a substantial amount, he or she. SANDY ESSER: Right. He will have both heating and air conditioning. The four sleeping rooms in the front, upstairs, will not have air conditioning because they have good ventilation. But, the golf pro because of the length of time he's there, because he's the most senior, he'll have heating and air conditioning. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK. MRS. MOORE: Just for your records, during the break, we took the diagram and we identified 260 linear feet in front of the building. It was the area that's been used as parking. We estimate, really it's wider than code, but 10 feet width so you have 26 parking spaces that are available there; and that's what has been used during the past. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I can't think of anything else. Shall we close the hearing pending any further communication with these nice people? MEMBER DINIZIO: Well, I'm concerned about I guess the people who have the parking and that particular person. Is there Page 57 - Hearing Transcripts December 11, 1997 - Board of Appeals anything that you think that you could possible could give us that would. MS..MOORE: We tried and in all this time we've been trying and the problem is, as I see it, well first the mother is living in Arizona, so the distance is difficult. MEMBER DINIZIO: Well, would another month help you? I mean in other words, do you know what I mean? MS. MOORE: The problem is that if we don't come up with anything in a month. I mean, if we eome up with anything we'll send it to you and we hope you'll incorporate it. MR. di BONAVANTURA: We'll keep trying. MS. MOORE: Yes, .we'll keep trying. You could leave it open for purposes of any correspondence that we get from the Husband family. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We'll close it to verbatim then and we'll leave it open until January 15th. MS. MOORE: All right. We'll keep trying but really it's very sensitive. She's elderly. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Is that alright? MEMBER DINIZIO: Oh, yes. I'm just concerned that they have every opportunity at least. MS. MOORE: Oh, yes, we'll keep trying. SANDY ESSER: I think it's probably more likely that we might be able to do that when we can have a face to face conversation with her in the summer. I'm not saying, we're going to continue this problem. We're going to have a meeting with her face to face. She's, we can talk to her. MS. MOORE: It would be advantageous for them to have something in writing, an easement, certainly something legal for future, from now to the future. MEMBER TORTORA: I'd like to say something you may consider inappropriate but my sense of the concern is that this is a key factor in the Board's determination; and I would urge you to treat it that way. MRS~ MOORE: We have taken it very seriously. I also what to caution the Board that this golf course, and Mr. Dinizio really pointed out very distinctly that the golf club has been used and Page 58 - Hearing Transcripts December 11, ]997 - Board of Appeals the residential use, the two have been used since the 1900s, and it will be continue to be used, so if we could provide the Board with something in writing we would. To deny this application based on the fact that we have to rely on off site parking, I think would be inappropriate given the fact that we have an existing condition that is not going to be intensified, It is what it is. We have it, we can continue it, and what we want to do, is bring everything up to code. We will keep trying. Keep in mind that she is elderly. Mr. di Bonaventure has spoken to her and the sons, and the sons really kind of monitor what she does and take care of her; and at that time there is no problem~ and again the son really felt that that was not a letter that she would have drafted. Whether she knew exactly what she was doing when she sighted it, there's no way of telling and we'll keep trying, but certainly because I won't have a chance to come before you to explain it away if we are unable to get anything in writing that should not be a reason for a denial. MEMBER DINIZIO: Well, that's my concern, that you won't have the opportunity to, you know, come face to face with us also. I mean, if I'm looking into the future, I"m looking into maybe somehow parking being incorporated into the decision as some type of stipulation. MRS. MOORE: Well then we would seek it some time in the future. That's admirable, but I think it takes two people to agree to getting something like an easement, a permanent easement, or even an acquisition and that would be wonderful and I think the (club) board would, it would be in your best interest to so something like that. SANDY ESSERS: That's what they want to do. MS. MOORE: 'Yes, but I don't think - you haven't offered to buy it perhaps to my knowledge? SANDY ESSER: No. MS. MOORE: It's been such a cooperative venture and everybody has been the same, all the people, ail the parties have been the same. That, that issue hasn't had to be pursued. You know, it's a gentlemanly island and woman, but, everybody is cordial, gentle person, and there's no need for aggressive action by anyone. I think that's certainly as a club you don't go after your neighbors and the Husband Family based on prior conversations and interactions~ there has been no reason to believe that they would change their mind or change their attitude about this parking. Page 59 - Hearing Transcripts December ]1, ]997 - Board of Appeals MR. di Bonavantura: I also would like to mention that we in our conversations with Mrs. Husband and her sons, we did not go into the financial details of why we wanted to do this particular project versus something else. So, we didn't talk about the impact of something else. A thousand dollars per family for 400 families on the island, I mean, she is unaware of any of that information. When she signed this letter, you know, we have some idea of who prepared it and asked her to sign it. She was given none of that information either, and I would venture to say that she did not have at her fingertips the information that we had shared with her when we went to speak with her. But, my feeling is that when we get a chance to, when I get a chance with my board to sit with her, and speak with her and explain everything to her and explain the impact on the members of the club, individually, the 400 members, financially, and on the club as a whole as an organization, that I think given that she is a lovely lady, that she will have a different reaction than her letter seems to. suggest to the project as a whole. But, I don't think we're going to have that opportunity unless ] get on a plane and go to Arizona. MS. MOORE: And even that's not appropriate without her sons ~::,~ ..... being present. MR. di BONAVANTURA: The logististics of that are difficult. We probably won't have that opportunity until June. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Sandy, the actual increase in square footage between the old footprint and the new footprint is what? SANDY ESSERS: 56 x 4 which is 200 (224) and then that jump that's 10 x 10, so it's 300 sq. ft. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: At two story, so that's 600? SANDY ESSER: Six hundred, but you know, the original building has all these setbacks so it's very hard to determine. I'd say overall it's about ]500. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: 1500 sq. ft. SANDY ESSER: Yes, because you know, if you look at the pictures of the building, the back of the building is really sought of single-story and dug out below kind of, so, I'd say about 1500 more. i BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Larger. "~ CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes, and then the actual size of the . footprint of the living areas, in your opinion, between what Page 60 - Hearing Transcripts December 11, 1997 - Board of Appeals existed or what exists now. I mean, lot's be honest, the existing apartment on the second story is a large apartment? SANDY ESSER: Yes. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I mean that's big. It r~ms the whole distance and includes the gable end. SANDY ESSER: Well the whole second floor is residential. The first floor, actually only about one-third of it is residential at the back. I guess the stairway is hard to calculate but I'd say the actual living space and the rest of it is common area, bathrooms and a common room and the pro shop and back storage. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Any guess on what the second story is in square footage? SANDY ESSER: 25 × 25. It's the same footprint. Well, there are also setbacks. You know there's that little in the front, that little served porch. So, it's 2500, probably 2200. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I think it's less than that. SANDY ESSER: Maybe. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: You know why, because it's pretty narrow upstairs once you get up there. Under the eaves. MRS. MOORE: It's narrow unusable space. SANDY ESSER: Yes, parts of it are closets because of the gable. So, I don't know what you consider usable. I think closets are really useable. MEMBER DINIZ10: By today's standards~ all upstairs is not usable. SANDY ESSER: It's not, OK. MEMBER DINIZIO: At this point. I mean at this point. MRS. MOORE: You mean State Code? MEMBER DINIZIO: Right. MRS. MOORE: Well, that's something else. I mean you're talking layman's term of usable you know, is usable. Page 61 - Hearing Transcripts December 11, 1997 - Board of Appeals MEMBER DINIZIO: What you're using and what you can continue to use, in perpetuity as opposed to what's usable which we'll discuss are two different things in my opiriion, and you know start counting closets you know, what's a three-foot door? You know, a cioset. SANDY ESSER: I'm just talking footprint. I mean I don't really know what the distinction is. Obviously there's been circulation issues and there's stairways and hallways and so on and I guess you don't consider those as Hying area. Do you want a really specific calculation? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes, it would be nice. *SANDY ESSERi I'll do that. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: If you don't mind doing that. SANDY ESSER: I don't mind. I'll do it for the next hearing, for the record or whatever. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes, you can give it to us by January 15th. We don't want Io impact your Christmas here. Any further comment on your part? MRS. MOORE: I don't think so. No. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Any further comment on the Board's part? MEMBER TORTORA: Yes, do you want to close the hearing? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: No, we're only closing it as to verbatim, and it will be closed permanently unless we hear that you have some inkling of an agreement somewhere then we can change that by January 15th. MEMBER TORTORA: What's the, I mean then what's the (unfinished). CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: It's to close the hearing and then the 62 days start. MEMBER TORTORA: Is there a purpose that we're not closing it tonight ? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes. MEMBER DINIZIO: Welt I'd like to see if they can have, if they can give us anything to that point. Page 62 - Hearing Transcripts December 11, ~997 - Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: And Sandy is going to give us the information that I just asked for. MEMBER DINIZIO: I'm kind of wondering why are we closing it to verbatim too? Why? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Well, we don't have to close it. to verbatim. But, I mean, I can't see any reason to continue - MRS. MOORE: Put it this way. I won't plan to come in to continue a presentation because they're really the ones who can answer the detail questions. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: And there really is no reason to continue the presentation quite honestly to be honest with you, Jim. MS. MOORE: Right. I think you've heard everything you want to hear. MEMBER DINIZIO: Well with the exception of, you know, anything that might come up between then. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Then we can reopen it. That's the point. What we're saying, we're reducing it to writing at this point. If there is anything that changes that requires it to be reopened. MS. MOORE: I just request (unfinished). CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Either it be a letter on either persons part and we'll do it, and it may not be a mutual date on the 15th because you may not come, you may not be able to come, whatever, we might have to make it at a different date. MRS. MOORE: That's if we need testimony, if we don't need it then on January 15, it will close. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: If we need testimony, right. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: The written portion will close? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes, the written portion. Everything will close. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: No wait, you're saying two things. MRS. MOORE: No, he's saying let's leave, since it's staying until January 15, let's leave it open and carry it over. Page 63 - Hearing Transcripts December ll, 1997 - Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Well, my original request was close it to verbal. No, my first was to close it. Now, it's close it to verbal. MRS. MOORE: Right. BOARD SECRETARY: Close it to verbal, Pat, extend the written to January 15th~ that was his offer. OK? MRS. MOORE: Ok and? BOARD SECRETARY: And then respond in writing if you get something, send it in writing, and if the Board wants to ask questions, or if you want to add anything verbally the Board can make a motion to readvertise it and reopen the hearing. It would (in that case) be for another date other than January 15th. MS. MOORE: What I'm trying to do is move this along. The 15th, if we're going to make all the correspondence until the 15th, then, let's just leave it open until the 15th. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: If you leave it open, then the Board has 62 days from then to make a decision so it goes into the end of March. MRS. MOORE: Right. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: That's fine, too. Let's do that. MRS. MOORE: Yes because hopefully if the Board grants the approval, then they can start building in March which is a practical time. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Well you may not hav*e a decision until March that's what I'm saying. MS. MOORE: Right. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Building Permit takes several weeks after. MS. MOORE: Well maybe not. Maybe by then we'll get it within twe days. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, then we'll make a motion continuing the hearing until January 15th at which point we will close the hearing. MEMBER DINIZIO: Second. Page 64 - Hearing Transcripts December 11, 1997 - Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: And this will be a normal, natural closure, with not specifically the anticipation of any specific testimony. MS. MOORE: Correct. I don~t intend to continue the testimony unless necessarily. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Unless necessarily. I'll offer that as a resolution. MEMBER DINIZIO: I'll second it. Motion carried. See Minutes for Resolution. CHAIRMAN: On a side note, we thank you for all your testimony. End of Transcript.