Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-01/15/1998 HEARING Transcript of Public Hearings January 15, 1998 Southold Town Board of Appeals (Prepared by Lucy Farrell from Tape Recordings) 6:45 P.M. '- Appl. No. 4527 - DONALD AND MAUREEN SACKER CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Based upon the Building Inspector's Notice of Disapproval dated October 24, 1997, applicants are requesting a Variance under Article VII, Section 100-72 for approval in the change of proposed size of Lot 1000-141-4-39 for a reduction of 877+- sq. ft. By this proposed exchange of property, the remaining Lot 1000-141-4-38 will be larger by 877+- sq. ft. Location of the Subject Properties: 11875 and 11805 Main Road, Mattituck, N.Y. Zone District: Residential Office. I have a copy of a survey dated July 15, 1997, indicating the change on these parcels. Both parcels have existing dwellings on them and a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and surrounding properties in the area. Would you like to be heard? You don't want to say anything? (Unidentified speaker) Mr. SACKER (?) Not really. Our main reason for doing this, is to straighten that property line to make it a little easier when we're going to use the yard. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, you are Mr. Sacker, right? MR. SACKER: Yes, I am. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: And Mrs. Saeker? MR. SACKER: Right. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: If we have any questions, we'll pose them to you as we go through, OK? MR. SACKER: Yes. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We'll start with Mr. Dinizio. questions on this Mr. Dinizio? Any MEMBER DINIZIO: No, no questions. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes, Mrs. Collins? MEMBER COLLINS: Just a question about parking. single driveway between the two house lots now. There's the MR. SACKER: At the present, yes. ~age 2 - Hearing Transcripts January 15, 1998 - Board of ApPeals MEMBER COLLINS: Is that used by both houses? MR. SACKER: It is at the present. It won't be in the future. MEMBER COLLINS: Because it lies entirely except for the upper end, it lies entirely on your land. MR. SACKER: Absolutely yes. MEMBER COLLINS: So, the adjacent house now uses that and they park on some hard top in the back of their house? MR. SACKER: Right. They're both family homes. MEMBER COLLINS: Yes. After this lot line is cleaned up, and the driveway is entirely on your land, what are they going to do with their cars? What's their parking situation? MR. SACKER: Well, their driveway was on the opposite side of the house previously. MEMBER COLLINS: On the west side? MR. SACKER: Right. And, it will be placed back there again. MEMBER COLLINS: Alright. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mrs. Tortora? MEMBER TORTORA: No questions. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Alright. MEMBER HORNING: No questions. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Alright. I don't have any specific questions on this. I understand what you're doing and so therefore, I'll ask if there's anybody in the audience would like to speak in favor? Anybody else of course? Anybody like to speak against? Seeing no hands, I'll make a motion closing the hearing reserving decision until later. MEMBER TORTORA: Second. Motion Carried. See Minutes for Resolution. page 3 - Hearing T~anSeripts January 15, 1998 - Board of Appeals 6:50 P.M. - Appl. No. 4531 - DUANE PASCALE CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Based upon the Notices of Disapproval dated November 10, 1997, revised 12/15/97, and Disapproval dated November 17, 1997, applicant is proposing to build a new deck addition and requests Variances under Article IIIA, Section 100-30A.3, Article XXIV, Sections 100-244B and 100-239.4B, for increase of lot coverage over 20%, reduction in setback from the front property line, and reduction in setback from bulkhead. Location of Property: 3520 Minnehaha Boulevard, Southold; Parcel No. 1000-87-3-8. We have a copy of a survey with revisions dated December 4, 1997, and we have a Schedule of the total lot coverage confirmed by the applicant as noted December 22, 1997 and we have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and surrounding properties in the area. Who would like to be heard? Sir? MR. PASCALE: I don't really know. Am I suppose to say something? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: while here. Sure. We like to grill you for a little MR. PASCALE: I did want to clarify one thing first. On the survey that you have, there's a right-of-way right next door to the house that according to the deed, our property goes to the center line of the right-of way. So, I don't want there to be confusion you know, later or now, about, you know, the boundary lines. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: feet ? Are you saying the road is actually 20 MR. PASCALE: Yes, the right-of-way. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: And you own to the center so that's why the survey shows you're - Laura? MEMBER COLLINS: I was going to say I did read the deed with that in mind and it seem to me that the deed says, that you have a right, a right to that land, but that you don't own it. MR. PASCALE: That is what is going on right now with the attorneys and I don't know, but, if I can just step up and show you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: that road? Right-of-way? Sure. Is the boat actually parked on MR. PASCALE: Yes. Well no, it's half a, partially. January 15, 1998 - Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Partially. MR. PASCALE: There's a variance of some sought of an ordinance that was given to the other owners that it could be used for parking and things like that. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Is that a boat access? MR. PASCALE: No, it's not allowed to be used for that. But, anyway, this is Schedule A of the deed and is that the same spot you're looking at? It says a, "together with the right, title and interest of the party of the first part, if any, in and to land lying within the bounds of Minnihaha Boulevard and Owaissa Avenue adjacent to said premises to the center line thereof." And that's the dispute and what's going on. A different setting. MEMBER COLLINS: Yes, I, Oh, I see, it's going on and the setting other than this meeting. MR. PASCALE: Right, right. I just wanted to bring that out but - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Just let me ask the question then. So, the calculations that you have given us, are exclusive of either one of these two 10 foot parcels?' MR. PASCALE: I have a, let's see. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: It includes it. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: It includes it? BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: It includes it. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: It includes the first 10 feet? BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Yes. MR. PASCALE: Right. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: It includes the first 10 feet? MR. PASCALE: Right. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: over that 10 feet? Alright. Who else has the right-of way MR. PASCALE: Stiber. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Stiber. ~age 5 - Hearing Transcripts January 15, 1998 - Board of Appeals MR. PASCALE: Anyway, regardless of that, I'm not sure what the lot that says is nonconforming. I don't know if they meant from the sides of the house, or, just from the bulkhead back. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: what they're saying. Well, the lot is substandard. That's BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: The size. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: The size of the lot is substandard. Based upon present day zoning. MR. PASCALE: So, is there a problem with the depth on either side to the right-of-waY area and to the other, or just from the water? MEMBER DINIZIO: No, no, just the water. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Just the water and lot coverage. MEMBER DINIZIO: And lot coverage. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: And the right-of-way. MEMBER COLLINS: Well, there is the front yard setback which is - MR. PASCALE: Well, I would like to just say that I know there's a 75 foot rule. I mean that's one of the problems and a - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Well, that's really significant in that sense there's no question about it. MR. PASCALE: Well being that the whole house is within 75 feet. I just have a very odd lot and the shape of my lot, is really, you know, st;cange I guess. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: This is not unique to the Laughing Water's area because those lots tend to be a little bit smaller. But, let me just, I don't mean to ponder upon this, it is Mr. Pascale, right? MR. PASCALE: Right. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: The percentage of 12,007 sq. ft., includes the right-of-way. That 10 feet? MR. PASCALE: Correct. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Alright. Continue, I'm sorry. P~age 6 - Hearing TransCripts January 15, 1998 - Board of Appeals MR. PASCALE: OK. Well, just I ask to keep in mind that you know, it's not living space, it's just going to be a deck and the majority of the deck is only 18 inches off the ground. I know that that rule that's within 75 feet, I don't know, but, I think it might be really mostly meant to be what it was intended for, buildings, or cesspools and things like that, not to be close-up to the water. And, underneath there is conerete walkways now which we're going to remove and put the deck which of course will a -. So, as far as the drainage problem, I don't really think that that may be anything. I'm not, you know. I also have enclosed the medical note in that package. I have arthritis in my ankles due to severe straining and cracked bones in them and although I can get around without it, it's a very big help for me to have a flat surface in back there. If it helps also, I would agree you know, to some sought of however you do it, not to putting in hot tubs or not to enciose it ever, or put a roof over it, or anything like that if that would make any help in granting me this waiver. I don't have any objections from any of the neighbors. I don't feel it's a decorative adversity effect, you know, anybody, any person or the environment. I just think it would be kind of an upgrade to the neighborhood to do something like this. That's really all I have to say. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Before you sit down, I don't know about the use of the 10 feet as being construed as lot coverage and that may be an issue that we may have to do some recalculations on. We may ask you to recalculate that. MR. PASCALE: I have recalculations for you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, good, so you ean submit those. MR. PASCALE: It's 9.6% over instead of 7.3% over the - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: you can give to us. Do you have that in a written form that MR. PASCALE: copy of it. I have it here. I wrote it. If you want to make a CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Sure. And the other issue is, would you be willing to deal with alternate relief if we cannot extend the deck to the size that you are requesting. MR. PASCALE: What do you mean by that? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We will a, if we, if through the deliberation process, we cannot agree that the c~eck be the size that you are requesting. That we grant alternate relief and reference to the maximum size that we can through unanimity of deliberation. P~age 7 - Hearing TranScripts January ]5, 1998 - Board of Appeals MR. PASCALE: I would prefer to, you know, to have it the way that it is. If you really feel that it's excessive, I mean, I would, you know - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I have to be honest with you Mr. Pascale, you're a very nice man, but, in general, I don't think we have ever granted anything 9 feet to a bulkhead. MEMBER TORTOi~A: 8 or is it - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I have 9 on this one. MEMBER TORTORA: 9 feet. MR. PASCALE: Well, it's the old survey. MEMBER COLLINS: I have a December 4th survey. corner of the deck. It says 9 at the MEMBER TORTORA: And to kind of backup what Mr. Goehringer is s~ying. You are in an existing lot coverage of 23 a, 129 sq. ft. and you're proposing to go 3979 - MR. PASCALE: 3279. MEMBER COLLINS: 32. MEMBER TORTORA: Which is a 33-1/3% increase over the limited lot coverage and quite frankly as long as I've been on this Board, I don?t recall that the Board has ever granted that type of increase in lot coverage. MR. PASCALE: don't- But when it's a deck and not a living space you MEMBER TORTORA: It doesn't matter. It really doesn't matter. The provisions of the Code were put in place not only to protect your rights, but, the property rights of all of Southold Town owners. You have a very small lot. We're looking at a lot that is 12,000 sq. ft. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Actually less. MEMBER GOEHRINGER: Less than 12,000 sq. ft. and you're interested in covering it with what eould amount to 29% lot coverage. The reason it's not permitted over the Code is to for the general health, safety, welfare of the entire town. As far as the setbaek to the bulkhead, that's tremendous increase and there again those laws were put into effect to protect the creek and to protect the waters of the creek and so, yes, it does make a difference if Rage 8 - Hearing Transcripts January 15, 1998 - Board of Appeals you are 9 feet from the creek, when the existing setback rule is 75 feet that is a substantial request. MR. PASCALE: Just for clarification for myself, what does it do to the creek? What is the adverse affects that it does? It is a non structure. MEMBER TORTORA: Well, you're putting a structure within 9 feet of the creek. That's what you're asking us to grant you permission to do. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Well, it's even a little bit more than that Lydia and the main thrust of it is, the fact that we have a precedence rule that in the major instance is, that you cannot basically close up, one, your side yards and two, your entire rear yard area, OK, so as not to allow machinery to get around in that area for the purposes of working on the property itself. And, the type of machinery that may be required in years to come, maybe not by you, but, maybe subsequent owners. Certainly, it's going to take a minimum of 12 feet to get around, and I'm talking back hose, or any other heavy machinery that may be required to be utilization again or any future individuals. That's just an estimate on my part. I'm not speaking for the Board, I'm speaking for myself at that point. So, at that point of 9 feet, it's not viable in my opinion. As I said to you, that's the reason for my question. That's been expanded to some decree by Mrs. Tortora. MR. PASCALE: Can I ask you something about that? There's a rule that the back land line of the house, it was explained to me, that if you take your pencil and draw along the back of the house, to the end of the other house, that that is supposedly could be used for a house, you know, housing structure, no matter what, is that not true? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I have no knowledge of that. I can tell you this. That if we were to grant something, there would be a restriction that the deck remain open. MR. PASCALE: I wouldn't have a problem with that at all. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: But, it is still lot coverage as Mrs. Tortora says and so lot coverage is still something that we are extremely concerned about. MR. PASCALE: You know, that there's a lot of concrete walks there. You can see it on the survey whieh is kind of being replaced by deck. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I understand that. P~age 9 - Hearing TranScripts January 15, 1998 - Board of Appeals MR. PASCALE: As well as that boat shed too. And there's also a big concrete patio that I want to get rid of and put dirt back in so, whatever those factors do to compensate, you know, hopefully. You don't, you never heard of this back land line of the house since it's in line along with the house? BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: That's only if there's no lot coverage involved. You have a lot coverage variance involved. So, you couldn't build one foot - MR. PASCALE: Oh, well that, has to do with the other thing, the setback thing then? BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: a setback problem. No, lot coverage is different from MR. PASCALE: Oh, OK. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: What you're talking about would be you maintain the same setback that the existing building has. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I never heard of a rear yard setback. only heard of a front yard setback. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Well there it says rear yard and front yard. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I never heard of a rear yard setback. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Yes, it's the same thing. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: No, no, I'm talking about, I'm not saying, I'm saying that an established rear yard setback. I've heard of established front yard setback, but, in an established rear yard setback. You know, in the community I'm referring to. This is a community that is 90% built. I think that, I mean I kind of got the impression that was the question he was asking. MEMBER TORTORA: Just to kind of clarify. If you could go over on the survey, some of the existing setbacks of the house to the bulkhead as it existed. MR- PASCALE: Right now? MEMBER TORTORA: Yes. MR. PASCALE: I do have a, I don't know if I submitted it to you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We have an old map, yes. Pvage 10 - Hearing Transcripts January 15, 1998 - Board of Appeals MR. PASCALE: OK. So then the recent one, it says to the house is 28 feet right now. MEMBER TORTORA: From the bulkhead? MR. PASCALE: From the bulkhead, yes. MEMBER TORTORA: correct? And its furthest point, it is 32 feet? Is that MR. PASCALE: At its furthest point? seems to be 32, yes. That side of the house it MEMBER TORTORA: just 32. So, the closest is at currently 28 and 1/3 is CHAIP~MAN GOEHRINGER: It's actually closer than that Lydia when we get to this ( ) house storage building. I don't have a scale here with me, but, I would say, it's about 25. MEMBER TORTORA: So right now - MEMBER COLLINS: the deck on it? Are you looking at this one which does not have CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: That is correct. MEMBER COLLINS: And you can read the setbacks clearly. (Discussing amongst themselves). CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: You know what you can do Mr. Pascale. We can move on to the remaining hearings. You can think about this and then we'll just come back to you before we actually close the hearing, and at the same token, if you feel that you don't want the hearing closed tonight and you want to think about it, we can always put you on for another meeting and this way you can do some measurements and so on and so forth. MR. PASCALE: I don't understand really what I have a choice in. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Your choice is, that if we go with what we have and we don't have unanimity, to your existing footprint, alright, of the removal of the one little shed and the construction of this deck, then we're going to deny the application, assuming that is the case. If you allow us alternate relief we're going to give you a square footage with a minimum setback from the bulkhead. MR. PASCALE: Well, I would prefer that, rather than a denial, I can tell you that. P~age 11 - Hearing Transcripts January 15, 1998 - Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Good. That was my question. Please, I'm sorry if I said it too quickly so you didn't understand it. I apologize. Let's start with Mr. Homing. Do you have any questions of this gentleman? MEMBER HORNING: Not at this time. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mrs. Tortora? MEMBER TORTORA: No. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: No further questions. Mrs. Collins? MEMBER COLLINS: I just wanted to add to Mrs. Tortora's comment about lot coverage. I think there are as you know, three separate elements in the Zoning Code that are raised as issues here. One is that 75 feet setback from the bulkhead, one is the distance from Owaissa Avenue which is a front yard, even if it doesn't look like one, and. then there's the third issue which is lot coverage and I must say, that lot coverage to me is the key to this and that if the deek is somewhat smaller than what is proposed, it will also deal probably with the Owaissa Avenue setback issue with either side of 75 feet. MR. PASCALE: Can I just respond to the Owaissa Avenue setback issue? I was under the impression that according to a certain section number that you need to have 25 feet combined from either side of your neighbor and one side has to be at least 10 feet. I mean that right-of-way is a full 20 feet plus my - so, I'm 28 feet from the neighbor's line. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: But, you don't have ? MEMBER COLLINS: Unless you have two front yards. MR. PASCALE: No, it doesn't. MEMBER COLLINS: You do. Owaissa Avenue, even though it hasn't been paved is reaped as a street and you do have two front yards. You have under the Zoning Code a corner lot and I can see this is not news that you were looking for at the hearing. And therefore, you have under the letter of the law, an obligation to observe front yard setback on the Owaissa Avenue side because it is a front yard. So is Minnehaha Boulevard. So, you have two front yards and basically you have one side yard and one baekyard. It's a technical point, but it's real enough in the law. MR. PASCALE: If it means anything. Well, you see there was another right-of-way, seven houses up and it was the same property deeded from Wickham in the old days totally, illegally done. It went through the whole thing. It was approved, it's been reclaimed. P~age 12 - Hearing Transcripts January 15, [[998 - Board of Appeals We're just going through the motions. It's going to be exchanged but, it's not going to be probably for about six months to a year. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mr. Dinizio? ME~BER DINIZIO: Well, it'll still only leave you with only 29 feet front yard, so, you're still talking front yard. MR. PASCALE: What is he allowed on the front yard? MEMBER DINIZIO: I think it's 35 in that Zone. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: 35, yes. MEMBER DINIZIO: I mean we're still going to deal with that. But, you know, if the Chairman is kind enough to give you time to think about you know, alternate, if you can deal with something more, you know, I feel that it's incumbent upon me, to express to you, that you should take that time and see what you can live with, before we ash it out and make a decision that you know, you may be able to convince us to give you a little more than what I have in mind. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: too. I need that new calculation that you have MR. PASCALE: So, you're saying to ask for a decision here and - MEMBER DINIZIO: Well whatever the Chairman, you know - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER-: We don't have to do it tonight. You can come 'back to us. We can recess the hearing and we can give you another time. We'll copy this and give it back to you. Can we send it back to you? MR. PASCALE: Yes. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Is that alright? BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Yes. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: But, it would be my suggestion that you do the calculations in reference to what you can live with rather than letting us do the calculations. MEMBER DINIZIO: You've got to keep in mind the front yard of Owaissa. You know that's the, you might have to find the sticking point. That's 9 foot setback on the bulkhead, it's a front yard, I mean, I think of all the people that we've turned down were a lot less than that, that would be the area that I would concentrate on if I were you. P~age 13 - Hearing Transcripts January 15, 1998 - Board of Appeals MR. PASCALE: See, I can't even look into that legally too. Maybe you guys already know it, but I mean, even though it's grass, it's llot a road and those rules about a road that's never been used for 10 years. MEMBER DINIZIO: No, even if it were not a road. Even if it were a side yard. It would still be a problem that, you know you should just try to work on it, if you can. I mean if you can bring yourself to it, if you can't, lay your cards on the table. MR. PASCALE: Do you have any ideas what I could require for that right-of-way? I mean there's really nothing I can do except to a, and I guess it's not timely to wait another 6 months or a year until the other proceedings stop, you know, addressing that right-of-way. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Well does this mean that you're going to get fee title to the entire piece of property? When I say the right, I'm talking both 10 foot parcels? MR, PASCALE: I'm paying to bring this whole thing up and then I'm going to purchase the other portion from the ( ). CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I see. But, someone will still have the right-of-way over the first 10 feet? MR. PASCALE: No. The neighbor is l0 feet in, I'm 10 feet here to the dead center which means the two of us we own. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes, but your neighbor still has right-of-way over your piece. MR. PASCALE: No, not after this is over. MEMBER COLLINS: Now. GERALD GOEHRINGER: Now, but no, you will have sole fee title to this parcel of property? MR. PASCALE: Yes, but it's like I said, no more than a year or two. I don't when it's going to finish. GERALD GOEHRINGER: Well, I can tell you this, that going back to what Mrs. Tortora said, the max that I have granted is 28. in my expertise on this Board, is 28.3% on a 7500 sq. ft. lot. MR. PASCALE: Maximum over, over- MEMBER TORTORA: Coverage. GERALD GOEHRINGER: Coverage, 8% over on 7500.' P~age 14 - Hearing TranScripts January 15, 1998 - Board of Appeals MEMBER DINIZIO: I don't think we're going to that far. MEMBER TORTORA: Since I've been on the Board it's 22. GERALD GOEHRINGER: ft. Sigsbee Road, Mattituck, 28.3% on 7500 sq. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: But that's different circumstances that were involved. GERALD GOEHRINGER: No question about it. I'm just telling you that that's the precedence we generally make. So, why don't you go back and do some calculations and come back to us and then we will address it at that point and if you intend to wait, we can recess it without a date and then you can bring this whole situation that you want to bring up to a head and then - MR. PASCALE: Would it make a point to bring to you all the legal stuff that we've done to date, regarding that, because you can't make a decision on that, right? GERALD GOEHRINGER: Probably not. No, no, we have to have the title, the deed in our name, and then we have fee, and then we know what we have. MR. PASCALE: No? And the title insurance is that enough to show it? GERALD GOEHRINGER: Deed. MR. PASCALE: It's just a matter of the way the deed is interpreted? GERALD GOEHRINGER: Yes, well we can - MR. PASCALE: Because it states that our, the crux of our case is, it states, we own to the center line thereof. I understand what you want. I would take you up on a recess. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: I just wanted to ask. want a week, or a month, or two months? Or just 2 minutes, I mean, 20 minutes, 20 minutes? Do you MR. PASCALE: No, no, a week, is that alright? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Well we can't readvertise. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALS KI: No, you don't have to readvertise. If you recess with a date and a time, then we don't have to readvertise. MR. PASCALE: OK. P~age 15 - Hearing Transcripts January 15, 1998 - Board of Appeals MEMBER' TORTORA: hearing? Are we going to have room on next week's BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: We have room for one more. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes. you want to go into February? Do you want to go a week, or do MR. PASCALE: I think I'll just take the week. Thank you. you going to tell me now the time, or should I call? Are GERALD GOEHRINGER: We'll give you the time in a minute. While we have you standing up there, is there anybody else in the audience would like to speak in favor that may not be here on the next meeting? Anybody like to speak against? Seeing no hands. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: 7:45 P.M. MR. PASCALE: Next Thursday? BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Yes. GERALD GOEHRINGER: Thank you. Hearing no further comment, I'll make a motion recessing the hearing to the next regular scheduled meeting which is January 22. MEMBER DINIZIO: Second. MotiOn carried. See Minutes for Resolution. P~age 16 - Hearing Transcripts January 15, 1998 - Board of Appeals 7:15 P.M. Appl. No. 4501 - ELEANOR NAGY GERALD GOEHRINGER: Hearing carryover from September 25, 1997. Applicant is requesting a Waiver under Article II, Section 100-26 based upon the July 7, 1997, Notice of Disapproval of the Building Inspector which states: (1) under Article II, Section 100-24A.(1) land area identified as 1000-27-4-2 and 1000-27-4-3 were created by deed in 1965 and do not meet the minimum lot requirements (12,500 sf) and (2) under Article II, Section 100-25A, total land area merger exists for 1000-27-4-1, 2 and 3 having been held in common ownership after July 1, 1983,: Location of Property: Harbor Road, Orient, N.Y. Mrs. Moore would you like to speak? MRS. MOORE: Yes, thank you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: How are you tonight? MRS. MOORE: Fine, thank you very much. Just to very brief recap for the new Board Members who are now getting older, I'm sure by the day. Mrs. Nagy owned, Mr. & Mrs. Nagy had purchased three separate parcels. There's a survey, and both surveys, in the seventies, through the seventies, 70 and 71. In 1992, the properties were placed into a trust for family reasons and at that time nothing was done with the property other than Estate Planning and putting these properties into a trust. When Mrs. Nagy got ready to sell the properties about a year ago, it was discovered that due to the merger it was clear then, that through the merger law that the parcels had merged. So, we made an application for a waiver of merger. We had an extensive hearing. There's plenty of testimony on the record and then during one of our recesses, where I wasn't present and Mrs. Nagy, I guess that was the day you were i11, we weren't here. One of the neighbors whose a water front property owner on the other east of the right-of-way, who is not bulkheaded, claimed that this parcel was not buildable. Due to that claim, which is an unsubstantiated claim, at best, we then obtained a letter from Joe Fischetti, Professional Engineer, and submitted it to the Board, that clearly states that the property is buildable, that he sees know impediment to it being built on. So now that we have before the Board, is a parcel that is a combination of two parcels; If you recall in the seventies, she bought, she and her family bought three. They combined one, and so that we are requesting a waiver of the merger of the parcel, the waterfront parcel on Orient Bay, Orient Harbor, excuse me, the parcel is her residence from the vacant land parcel that's right next door. That is the application that you have before you and we're here to answer any questions you might have and ask the Board to please certainly grant the waiver and we would certainly ask that it be done as soon as possible. P~age 17 - Hearing Transcripts January 15, 1998 - Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: The speeifie question that t have, was that.based upon the A7 Elevation 10 foot Zone, it probably looks like the, any, and I realize it's not probably this lady or her family that's going to building on it. It would maybe a subsequent purchaser or so on and so forth. Appears that they're going to be required to build at the lowest elevation of 10 feet and so therefore they're either going to have to go with pilings or breakaway foundation. MRS. MOORE: Yes, my understanding with, well the houses that were built right on the adjacent to this piece, well adjacent to the right-of-way, and Joe Fischetti mentions that, that it would be six feet above general elevation of the building envelope designing a garage at grade level at level a home with the first floor at elevation 10 is not out of the ordinary, which is truly why it has been built along the waterfront here. The homes have the garage that you want that you come into and that the mechanicals are all above the flood elevation and the house is actually what would be a second floor in my branch. So, that's standard construction for waterfront homes, particularly in this area. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: And no utilities lower than that. MRS. MOORE: The utilities would have to be elevated, so. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Right, OK. We'll start with Mr. Dinizio. Mr. Dinizio? MEMBER DINIZIO: No, I don't have any questions. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Ms. Collins? MEMBER COLLINS: Mrs. Moore, I of course wasn't here for the hearings last summer. MRS. MOORE: Right. MEMBER COLLINS: And the transcripts involved some faulty tape and some other problems. It was therefore kind of hard to track what people were saying at the hearing. MRS. MOORE: Oh, I'm sorry. I'd be happy to paraphrase what I - MS. COLLINS: No, no, the record of the property is clear enough. My question simply goes to the input from neighbors. MRS. MOORE: Yes. MS. COLLINS: Two neighbors appeared 'back in the summer and as far as I could tell from the transcripts, the neighbors were very vocal about what they perceived as flooding problems in their Rage 18 - Hearing Transcripts January 15, 1998 - Board of Appeals neighborhood and on Harbor Road. But, am I correct, they didn't assert that making this a buildable lot which is the purpose of this petition, would hurt them from a flooding point of view. They didn't claim that it - MRS. MOORE: Right, it had nothing to do. because of the Harbor Road, is it? The flooding occurs MRS. NAGY: Yes. MRS. MOORE: It's Harbor Road and most of the, they brought in these very, very - MEMBER COLLINS: Yes, dramatic, dramatic photos, yes. MRS. MOORE: Very damaging photographs which were all during the hurricane. So, we were not here during that hearing and/or at least their opportunity to put these things on the record. So, when we reviewed the files we saw the same thing you did, which were these horrible pictures and Mrs. Nagy and I went through all of them and identified all those dates were either the October storm of 94. MS. COLLINS: I guess the only question I was getting at, was to confirm for me really, because I wasn't there, that the neighbors input, was not input saying that if this were done, it would hurt them. It was rather the neighbors input was this is a flooded area and buyer beware, and nobody should buy land here, and that sought of thing. But, that's not the point of your petition. MRS. MOORE: Well, I don't really know what they said. I don't remember the transcript. If I read the transcript, it's too long now, so I don't want to say what exactly they said. But, the gist of their testimony, or their statements were that as you say, buyer beware and in fact, the one neighbor interfered in a contract that we' were actually very aggressive to, there were two separate buyers who were bid, there was a bidding war for this piece of property. The one person who ultimately won out the bid, which was going to be a cash deal of $235,000. I mean that, not insubstantial amount of money, was contact or when he was on the property was told these horror stories and he withdrew his offer. Then, the second guy, was so angry that he had lost the bidding war, and he made a low ball offer. MR. NAGY: too. He wondered why the other guy had dropped the offer MRS. MOORE: Right, right, so that in a sense, the entire deal, or both deals fell through due to the interference by the one neighbor. P~age 19 - Hearing Transcripts January 15, 1998 - Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mr. Nagy has something he wants to say. MR. NAGy: I don't know if this is entirely kosher, but maybe this will shed some light on the neighbor's attempt to torpedo in some time ago° Some 10-15 years ago, when he was building a lot. He wanted to put a well on our property because there was no fresh water on his. My father said no. That he wanted to put a waterline through our property up to the next lot to .get water. My father said no. And things of theirs weren't set quite right since and that's where most of this comes from. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. Ms. Collins, anything else? MEMBER COLLINS: No. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mrs. Tortora? MEMBER TORTORA: I went back to the Notice of Disapproval. I just want to get one thing clarified. The Notice of Disapproval discussed the lots 1, 2 and 3, were not recognized because they did meet the minimum lot requirement at the time. MRS. MOORE: That was the old law. MEMBER TORTORA: Exactly. So, that's what I want to get clarified. MRS. MOORE: Yes, in faet, I think this is probably one of the examples of how the law was flawed. MEMBER TORTORA: That the Code has since been revised. It was revised when they ( ) that section of the Code is no longer applicable to this application. Therefore, we're going to and there's a couple of ways this can be ( ). This is my file and I'm going to go through these. One, you had said, you're asking really for a waiver of merger to separate lots 1, 2 and 3. MRS. MOORE: Correct. MEMBER TORTORA: Which means that you accept the Building Department's assertion that lots 2 and 3 are in fact merged and that's along with what you're intending to do on the second combined lots. Is that accurate? MRS. MOORE: Yes, Mrs. Nagy, will accept the merger of lot 1 and MEMBER TORTORA: Of 2 and 3. MRS. MOORE: 2 and 3, thank you, I have it backwards. 2 and 3. In part because of the width of the parcel, the value of the parcel, somebody coming with a $250,000 to buy a $250,000 lot will want to Rage 20 - Hearing Transcripts January 15, 1998 - Board of Appeals put a nice size house there. So, Mrs. Nagy I think and her Real Estate advisors as brokers, that have shown, advised her that this piece of property is a nice property. They're not trying to you know, make a killing, and so, squeeze out another maybe 60 or $70,000. If you were able to split it up into a, this would create two reasonable size parcels. Well, I'm thinking that if you were to sell this, you kind of laugh at that $60,000 but, if you were to make two separate lots that are quite narrow, it decreases the value of each lot individually. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: No question about it. Do you have a question in the baek, Sir? Can you just use this mike, over here? Thank you. Just state your name for the record, again, if you don't mind. MR. RIEGER: My name is Hans Rieger. I have a question. Is it a perquisite to have potable water on the property to be able to work? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Any decision from this Board, if it was favorable, would be subject to certain approvals from certain agencies. MR. RIEGER: Because I'm the neighbor who asked Mr. Nagy for permission to get potable water from down the street. Not on his property, but on the street. But, I had to ask the neighbors if they wouldn't object to have a water line running in the street and they wouldn't object to have it or to bring potable water into my property, this is adjacent and my water was not potable and I could not, I had to figure at the time to have CO. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Which lot do you live on Sir? MR. RIEGER: I live on the second lot from the - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: From King Street? MR. RIEGER: Corner of Narrow River Road. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, thank you. We go back now to Mr. Homing. Mr. Homing, any questions on this? MEMBER HORNING: No Sir. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Alright, what else would you like to say? MRS. MOORE: That's all. We were just a - it's been a long wait to go through this process and Mrs. Nagy has to think about selling and you know proceed. So, I would ask that the Board take that into consideration. P~age 21 - Hearing TranScripts January 15, 1998 - Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Since the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation has jurisdiction in this area, we're certainly going to make if there was a favorable decision on this waiver, we certainly would make it subject to. MRS. MOORE: Well, I don't, it's the law. You can't build a house without DEC approval. However, I don't think that's the purview of the Zoning Board in that this is a waiver of reestablishing the lot as a single and separate lot. In order for us to get a Building Permit we will need Health Department and DEC, assuming that we are within the jurisdiction of the DEC because with the wall, 10 foot, above a 10 foot contour there is no jurisdiction of the DEC. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: That is correct. MRS. MOORE: I wouldn't want to create a jurisdictional impediment. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: My situation is not from that point of view-. My situation is and the purpose of the topo was, that the four foot elevation, if the Health Department requires you to put the septic system in the rear of this property, which is basically the front yard, OK, you're going to have to fill it, OK, and, just as some of the properties down there are filled. So, therefore, any filling that may exist, may be under the jurisdiction of the DEC and that was the purpose of that. MRS. MOORE: OK, but again, if it is within their jurisdiction, we will be there, there is no way of building without it. However, but, to make this condition valid, if in fact, that the DEC says, no because of the setback to a bulkhead it's I believe 60 feet, OK, or might be even less, I don't want to a, we're just creating more conditions on a sale that aren't necessary. So, that's why I say that your approval you can do, certainly you can put any conditions you want that are reasonable, but, I don't believe that in this particular case that's, that would be a reasonable condition to place on a waiver when in fact, we may be right outside the jurisdiction or because of the water supply. I've been to the Health Department recently where all of the properties had the wells in the front and the sanitaries in the back and then all of a sudden ( ) comes through and they decide, you know, we should try the opposite and we've been doing that. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: the road? Sanitaries? Is that where it's going to be placed on MRS. MOORE: I think that the history of the development of this piece, the sanitaries are in the front, aren't they? MR. NAGY: Most of the sanitaries I would think in this case, the properties would be nearer to the road. Page 22 - Hearing Transcripts January 15, 1998 - Board of Appeals MRS. MOORE: Yes, I think that there's a drawing in your file by one of the neighbors that showed the sanitary systems of the other properties that they ( ). CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Department at this time? You have a submission before the Health MRS. MOORE: No, no, we're going for a Building Permit application because we need it. We don't want to spend more of Mrs. Nagy's money than is necessary. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Alright. MRS. MOORE: Thank you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. Anybody else like to speak in favor? Anybody like to speak against? Seeing no hands I'll make a motion elosing the hearing reserving decision until later. MEMBER TORTORA: Second. Motion carried. See Minutes for Resolution. P, age 23 - Hearing Transcripts January 15, 1998 - Board of Appeals 7:33 P.M. - Apple No. 4532 - SHAWN and. DAWN WILLIAMS CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Applicants are requestin~ a Variance under Article III-A, Section 100-30A.-4. based upon the Building Inspector's November 19, 1997, Notice of Disapproval for the proposed relocation of existing accessory shed to a new location in the front yard at a distance less than the required 20 feet to the north (side) property line. This parcel contains a total lot size of 81,99.1 sq. ft. Location of Property 405 South Drive, Mattituck, N.Y.; County Parcel No. 1000-106-11-20; Lot D on the 1914 Map of Shore Acres. I have a copy of a, actually it is a copy of the survey and I have a copy, I have a piece, the original survey indicating the placement of the storage building where it exists at present and it has been relocated and a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and surroundin~ properties in the area. How are you to night Sir? MR. WILLIAMS: Good, how are you? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Good. What is the approximate distance at this point to the property line? MR. WILLIAMS: Presently I had jacked the shed up and moved it. Right now it is 19. foot 6 off the fence and the fence isn't exactly on the property line. The best I can figure that a survey, a you know' sticking out, the fence at that point is about one foot eight off the property line so that would put it about 14 just over 14 feet from the property line. The reason for that is to sever large trees on the property that I didn't want to have to take down to you know move the shed. That was the easiest path to move it to relocate it out of the way for the new construction. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Alright. shed? That's the purpose of it? This will always remain a MR. WILLIAMS: Yes, right. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: questions ? We'll start with Mr. Homing. Any MEMBER HORNING: No questions. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mrs. Tortora? MEMBER TORTORA: say, it's 14-6. It's jacked up now. It's 14, what did you P~age 24 - Hearing Transcripts January 15, 1998 - Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: 14 plus or minus. MR. WILLIAMS: It's exactly 12 foot 8 from the fence. MEMBER TORTORA: The fence is about? MR. WILLIAMS: Yes, do you have a copy of the survey? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes. MR. WILLIAMS: The fence runs in onto my property from the existing property line. I don't know exactly at that point how far the fence is off the property line. The best I can tell is 1 foot point 8. So, that's with you know, we have 4 foot 10 inches plus the 12 feet 6 inches. MEMBER TORTORA: That's about 14 MR. WILLIAMS: Yes, about 14: CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: 14 feet 2 inches. MR. WILLIAMS: 14 feet to the property. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: 14 plus or minus. MEMBER TORTORA: 14, OK. I'm quite familiar with the area. I don't know if you can come any closer to the tree and still preserve the tree that your trying to preserve. I did look at the property and it seemed to be a reasonable location and I also looked at the property and see what your doing with the house to bring it back from the creek. MR. WILLIAMS: I also took some photos of the area where the shed is now if you want to take a look at them. MEMBER TORTORA: Sure, that's fine. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: What we're missing from you, is the affidavits and the mailing receipts. MR. WILLIAMS: OK. (Filling out affidavit, etc.) MEMBER TORTORA: The only other question I have for you now, is,. how far you are from the South Road? MR. WILLIAMS: The shed? MEMBER TORTORA: Yes, about how far are you? Bage 25 - Hearing Transcripts January 15, 1998 - Board of Appeals MR. WILLIAMS: I would say probably 300 feet if not more. Yes, the property is 690 feet long. That's way beyond halfway from the south. MEMBER TORTORA: it's about 300 feet? So you're going to - it would be safe to say MR. WILLIAMS: It's over 300 feet. This' is 300 and - I mean 690 feet long and this is where the shed is from the south side. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: About 350. MR. WILLIAMS: Yes, probably. MEMBER COLLINS: Mr. Williams, the photos are, they're photos with stakes, that's where you are putting it? MR. WILLIAMS: Yes, the stakes, right, I put the stakes there. Actually, I did move the shed. MEMBER COLLINS: Yes, right, so that's where - MR. WILLIAMS: But, I just staked out where I was putting the shed. MEMBER COLLINS: moved? So, the pictures of the shed are before it was MR. WILLIAMS: Right, right, yes, I took the pictures and then after I had the pictures and everything, then, I moved the shed. It's not permanent. I just have it on cement blocks in case it has to be moved any further. But, you know, I just wanted to get it out of the way so I can start clearing the lot so we could get on with the other project. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mr. Dinizio, any questions? MEMBER DINIZIO: No questions. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: So, you don't object to any reasonable restriction that it be only be used for storage purposes? MR. WILLIAMS: That's all I intend for. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Right. Thank you very much. I'll see if there are any other questions. Anybody else like to speak in favor? Anybody like to speak against? Hearing no further questions, I'll make a motion closing the hearing reserving decision until later. MEMBER TORTORA: Second. Bage 26 - Hearing Transcripts January 15, 1998 - Board of Appeals Motion carried. See Minutes for Resolution. P~age 27 - Hearing Transcripts January 15, 1998 - Board of Appeals 7:40 _ Appl. No. 4533 - DEBORAH LYONS and ANDREW COHEN CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Applicants are requesting a Variance under Article XXIV, Section 100-244B and Article III-A, Section 100-30A.3, based upon the Building Inspeetor's December 15, 1997, Notice of Disapproval for eonstruetion of a wooden deck: (1) at less than the required 35 feet from rear property line; and (2) exceeding allowable lot coverage. This parcel contains a total lot size of 8,276+ sq. ft. and is known as 355 Skippers Lane, Orient, N.Y.; County Parcel No. 1000-24-2-4. We have a very nice set of plans produced by Samuels and Steelman and we have one letter of objection in the file, dated January 12, 1998 and we have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and surrounding properties in the area. How are you tonight, Sir? MR. SAMUELS: Very well, thank you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: . would. State your name for the record if you MR. SAMUELS: I'm Tom Samuels, Architects. of Samuels and Steelman CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mr. Samuels? Great. What would you like to tell us MR. SAMUELS: Well basically maybe just to reiterate a little bit from the application why we believe this is a reasonable request for a variance and it has to deal with basically your categories for making the decision if there's an undesirable change in the neighborhood. For example, we believe that the neighborhood is one of, you know, downtown Orient of dense developments established over a long period of time and what we're looking at is a house on a very small lot which would naturally make it a little more density not out of character we believe with the nature of that neighborhood. There's a lot of old houses on small lots which are close to the lines and take up a larger portion of the site than would currently be developed in a modern community. Also, it's regarding the undesirable change. In this case, the deck is not visible from the street, it's on the backside of the house and therefore would have a minimal impact on the character of 'the street and we feel that is a meager factor, and, also is part of general relations to the house which are quite extensive and are taking a house which had been neglected for a long, long period of time and in general we feel that the projects which as you know if you've been there, is already on the way is for the benefit of the community as well as the benefit of our clients' private property. P. age 28 - Hearing Transcripts January 15, 1998 - Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: because it's two levels. OK, the 168 sq. ft., is really double MR. SAMUELS: Yes, that's correct. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: the basement? We're only dealing with the footprint of MR. SAMUELS: On a footprint basis, it's 168 sq. ft. It was little unclear. Gary Fish straightened this out. As far as the actual coverage is concerned currently are covering 20% of the site which is the allowable. If this were, if the variance were granted, we would be adding 2% to that of lot coverage bringing the total to 22% of the lot. It's a tiny lot. It's 8,285 sq. ft. or about 2/10tbs of an acre and that in itself implies kind of a hardship for my clients. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Just so I get this down right, because what I have is here, the amount of area is not substantial because the addition is adding 2% coverage to the existing nonconforming. The existing lot coverage is 23%. MR. SAMUELS: No, actually as I said, Gary Fish did straighten this out° I believe in the denial that you have, it states the current lot coverage of 20% that's what Gary figured and then we're adding 2% to that which would bring the total to 22%, if allowed. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: In the letter of objection? it refers to the new addition to the garage. Is that reflecting the elongation of the garage that's attached to the house? MR. SAMUELS: No, it's the second floor on the garage. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Second floor on the garage. MR. SAMUELS. Right, which is an attached garage to the house, and in one story garage we've added guest room over the structure which has not changed the footprint but, has increased the volume of the full house. But, otherwise the renovations are within the existing footprint except for a very small part where there was a louver door, which was enclosed. It was part of the original structure, but, it now- is actually interior space where as before just a louver door. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: questions ? Alright. We'll start with Mr. Dinizio, MEMBER DINIZIO: No, not right now. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Ms. Collins? P, age 29 - Hearing Transeripts January 15, 1998 - Board of Appeals MEMBER COLLINS: You already mentioned the expansion of the volume by going up over the garage in answer to the Chairman's question. MR. SAMUELS: That's correct. MEMBER COLLINS: I have only know, well I've been out of course to look at the house, but, that's how it is now. I did see a photograph in the file of the rear view of the house from Poquatuck Park before any of this work was done. Am I right in the following perception that previously the house had a basically one story high like an enclosed porch or a solarium or something like that on the back of the house. MR. SAMUELS: That's right, yes. MEMBER COLLINS: And you have retained the footprint, but you have now made it a full two story with pitched roof - MR. SAMUELS: That is right. MEMBER COLLINS: Over that. Yes, so - MR. SAMUELS: We did maintain the plate height where the roof and the wall meet which is quite a bit lower to almost 5 foot as oppose to 4 foot. So, that helped a little bit, I think keep, I mean maintain the roof pitches but, we did turn what was a one story kitchen and glass porch into a two story wing you might say ( ). MEMBER COLLINS: So, you kept the footprint, have in fact managed to add a considerable amount of volume to the building. MR. SAMUELS: That is correct. MEMBER COLLINS: And the proposed porch that now is in question pushes out beyond that footprint. I mean that's basically what it comes down to. MR. SAMUELS: Yes. MEMBER COLLINS: And I think I called it porch advisedly because I think if you have two story structure with a deck up and a deck down, the lower one really does become more like a porch and perhaps one feels a little more different, a little differently about it than about a deck. MR. SAMUELS: Perhaps. MEMBER COLLINS: Thank you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mrs. Tortora? Bage 30 - Hearing Transcripts January 15, 1998 - Board of Appeals MEMBER TORTORA: You must need lot coverage. MR. SAMUELS: No. MEMBER TORTORA: It must be because then your, your a, the papers you submitted we talked about 23 and then we talked about what if the addition is added, it's going to be 9.5. So, I really what a very careful calculation on that. MR. SAMUELS: OK, we'll need to do that separately I think, because it was the Building Department that came back with numbers which went into the denial and at that point we came to the conclusion I think, based on their expertise, that that was the number we presented ( ). CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Can I just ask a question? includes the existing detached garage? And that MR. SAMUELS: That's correct. MEMBER TORTORA: I just .don't want to put you on a spot when we flip around these numbers. I want you to have the time to think about it and come up with a firm number and get back to us on that. MR. SAMUELS: OK. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mr. Horning? MEMBER HORNING: I was going to ask if there was a needed detached frame ~ara~e on the lot? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Which is you know, an extensive building. MR. SAMUELS: There is, it's a, well, it's a shed and in fact, it's kind of ramshackle, but it is there. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes, it's there, sure. OK, and in that respect then you'll recalculate that and get it back to us in the near future? MR. SAMUELS: Yes. One further, oh, I'd like to introduce my client, Deborah Lyons is here and Merrill. MS. LYONS: I can clarify that it was my error. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Could I just ask you to come up and use the mike because we have a little problem taking that down, I apologize. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: We need your name again, please. Page 3] - Hearing Transcripts January 15, 1998 - Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: record, if you will. Yes, just state your name for the MS. KRAMER: My name is Merrill Kramer and I'm employed by Tom Samuels. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Very good. MS. KRAMER: And the error was mine and subsequently you don't need to necessary come back to them unless you feel more comfortable with that, but the preliminary numbers of 23 and 25 were incorrect. The numbers the initial existing footprint of being 20 and then the additional bringing it up to 22 are correct. Gary Fish did his calculations independently, I did mine and then we had a telephone conversation and conferred and we came up with the same numbers. So, those initial numbers were incorrect and when I went back to change the numbers on the application, I only changed it on the application and not on our attachment page. So I just want to clarify that. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Alright, thank you very much. MR. SAMUELS: One further thing if I might, is having to do with the surrounding. I believe we submitted a drawing which shows all the same, all the houses on that side of the street and the fact that not every single one, but, many of them in fact, are encroaching on what is now the rear yard. Obviously some of them were built before this setback was established, but, nevertheless, we are coming to approximately the average line of the other houses in that zone on that part of the Streei. I just wanted to make thai point as well. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Alright, thank you very much. Is there anybody else would like to speak in favor? Anybody like to speak against? Mr. Latham how are you tonight, Sir? MR. LATHAM: Good evening. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: It's a pleasure to see you Sir. MR. LATHAM: I'm Richard Latham, from Orient. I'm here to speak in behalf of my sister, Ann Latham Bliss, the owner of the house next door, just east, west of this house. I'm glad it was pointed out in the Notice of Disapproval by the Building Department said, 8 x 21 foot wood deck and it is certainly a lot more than that. It's been pointed out. It's a porch with a deck above. I think she feels the thing hasn't been the same footprint has been used in the renovation but, ii has gone all up. She feels overwhelmed by the thing. It's a small house and I'll just give you this book here. It's a book on Orient Historic District. You can keep it, there's pictures of two houses in there. You can keep it because you may P~ge 32 - Hearing Transeripts January 15, 1998 - Board of Appeals need it again. There was a, it's big. That's not the point. The point is, the deck outside, we didn't have a chance to look over the ( ) rear yard, she has no privacy. I don't think it's necessary. They've got a beautiful house here. I don't think it's Orient Historic, but, it's, it's nice and big. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mr. Latham? How old would you say that house was, MR. LATHAM: The one in question that they're building? Well, I think the book says, eight, late eighteen hundreds. I think there was only one alteration done and that was when I was a little kid. When the second wife came in and there wasn't much done. It wasn't a divorce, the first wife died. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Any questions of Mr. Latham, anybody? MEMBER DINIZIO: Yes. What could the house look like before? MR LATHAM: We'i1, there's one picture of it here. MEMBER DINIZIO: I mean could we get a picture of the back? MR. LATHAM: No, you can't. The back, I have to be honest, the back doesn't look like much. But, it was there. They made something of seeing from the street, is one thing, but, of course you have Poquatuck parking. The back ( ) that's pretty. important if you ever look back too. It's not just a street view, if you cut the backyard. I think it's important. I don't live in the house, she does, but I greatly believe in trying to keep that Historic District as it is. There's been a thing on the east side of the house, on the west side of the house a couple of years ago, a large addition, it didn't add much to it, ( ) they got it done, but, it's big. If you haven't seen ii, you should look at it. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I've been there three times, Rich. MR. LATHAM: Well, they gave some reasons here. I think the families that have seen it, gave a list of reasons why it should be done. They talk about to be, there's not an available one story roof that are in the same orientation which would be suitable the second floor deck. Even with a grade terrace in place of the first floor deck, we cannot achieve a second floor deck without violating the rear yard. I think the first floor deck would be as far as my sister is concerned, it would not be objectionable. It's mostly up on the roof sitting up there with a railing on it, looking out. It's the ( ) straw that breaks the camel's back. I hope you would disapprove the application. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. Any other comments, questions, statements, from anyone? Hearing no further comments, Page 33 - Hearing Transcripts January 15, 1998 - Board of Appeals I'll make a motion closing the hearing, reserving decision until later. MEMBER TORTORA: Second. Motion carried. See Minutes for Resolution. P~age 34 - Hearing Transcripts January 15, 1998 - Board of Appeals Transcript of Public Hearing January 15, 1998 Southold Town Board of Appeals (Prepared by Lucy Farrell from Tape Recordings) 7:56 P.M. - HAY HARBOR CLUB, INC. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: This is a golf club at Fishers Island and, Mrs. Moore, what would you like to tell us? MRS. MOORE: I lost my people today. Sandy Esser had the flu, and Christopher Di Bonaventure, who had intended to come, got called away from his responsibilities. Obviously they're all professionals. They have, as you are, other jobs and sometimes they just can't make it. I apologize for Mr. (unfinished). CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We just couldn't at that hour (postpone), Mr. Homing had already been on his way here. We had discussed the weather situation with him today. And my last discussion with him was about 10:20 a.m. and so therefore, he was on his way. MRS. MOORE: Well, I hope not to make this an uneventful trip. I want to get certain things again on the record. We do have some information that you had requested from last time and I'll get that to you. Let me just give this to Linde because I'll go over it. Again, I hate to harp on this, but, I try to bring everybody back to the issue, which is, how a Special Permit Application, Special Permit Application is presumed, it's a use that's presumed to be allowed. We have a golf club that is built there. Once you grant, as you should, as a matter of law, you should grant this Special Permit approval, the Code refers you at 100-242 Nonconforming Buildings with Conforming Uses and once the Special Permit is granted it is the equivalent of a permitting use. It says right here in the Code, ".Nothing in this Article shall be deemed to prevent the remodeling, reconstruction or enlargement of a nonconforming building containing a conforming use provided that such action does not create any new nonconformance, or increase the degree of nonconformance with regard to the regulations pertaining to such buildings." You had requested the square footage calculations. What I'm going to do is, again, refer you to the survey. Chandler & Palmer, prepared a nice survey that is dated September 9, 1997 and on it, it provides the footprint of the new the proposed clubhouse, and it shows the footprint of the old clubhouse. When you look at the two, well the old clubhouse is actually being squared off, so, it's being pushed a little further back, not by much, but, squared off. The new proposed clubhouse, because it's new construction must comply with all State Codes and if we were dealing with this building being burnt down by 20% so it could be reconstructed, they could not and Sandy Esser put that on the record at one of our hearings, that it would require a complete P~age 35 - Hearing Transcripts January 15, 1998 - Board of Appeals remodeling of the building because now the State Code triggers and the State Code says, that once you've lost a certain amount and it's very low threshold before the whole building has to be brought up to speed. So, the new building will be State Code. Also in the record you have the reason why the building was originally put here in 1920. The situation continues today. You have an elevation change of about 50 feet, you have the first tee, which is above that, the putting green is right adjacent to it. So, even if, not that anybody I would hope would suggest such a thing because there's putting green again. I put testimony on the record with regard to the replacement cost of the putting green, let alone the lost to the club of the putting green. But, the putting green is the only flat area and the relocation of the building it would be no further setback than it is today. So, it cannot be practically, it cannot be relocated. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I just can't understand that for the life of me. You talk about the problem that exists within that squared off area which we had walked around last August and why you're attempting to encroach even that much more into the hill area, it doesn't make sense to me. MRS. MOORE: What happens is, when you square off the building there is a, it wouldn't make, the only reason that it's not into the hill now, is because it has that bite mark out. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: squaring that off. That's what I mean and you're actually MRS. MOORE: Yes, it's being squared off and there's going to be a proposed retaining wall that is actually going to stabilize that hill because right now it's kind of a steep hill, but, it can erode and so on. So now, there's part of the construction cost is a substantial retaining wall which we'll address the flooding and some of the problems they've experienced with the old building addressing the flooding issues from the hill. I'm not sure if I understand your question of why their here. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: This is not, please at the same token, please be advised that this is not just my question, OK. MRS. MOORE: Well you're the speaker unfortunately. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Well only because I jumped in, OK, conceivably~ but, if you have a problem there now, you're further exasperating that problem by squaring the building off in that area. MRS. MOORE: No, no. The problem that we have today as far as the flooding, is that the problem that you're addressing? P~age 36 - Hearing TranScripts January 15, 1998 - Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: And the silts and all the rest of the stuff that emanates through the foundation or over or below the foundation into the basement. MRS. MOORE: Well, right, Sandy can address the construction. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We don't mean to put you on the spot in references because we know that Sandy is going to come back at the next time. MRS. MOORE: Right. You can ask that question of her, but, I think common sense would tell me, that 1920 this building was built. The foundation was of whatever meager condition it was. It was suppose to be a little golf club, probably not much money was put on to it. if you look at the structural integrity of the building in materials, it's wood and it's stone and not very substantial. You're going to be replacing all of that with poured concrete. All of the materials that will a, they're houses and buildings are built on edges of hills all the time, and as long as you address the problems that occur with that. There's nothing to stop anybody if you go up to the Poconos, or just recently or anywhere, even up in Tarrytown, in that area, there are buildings built right in the hill. So, this is the only place. I mean if they had another location that was an alternative, certainly that would be something they would consider~ but, there are no other alternatives for the location of this building. So; they work within the perimeters of the land they have and you build to protect against further flooding. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: The only other issue is the issue of parking which we have debated at infinitum. MRS. MOORE: OK, yes. I did give you, one of the papers that I just gave to Linda, you had asked for the main clubhouse, the parking there. There are 36 spaces. Let me also give you that, sorry. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Is there a map, Pat, because there's no map with this. Oh, you have the map, OK. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: She was going to refer to the map and then give it to us, I think. MRS. MOORE: I just realized I have it, I'm sorry. I don't have a copy of this. This is going to be the only one. This was used a, Sandy gave this to me. It was the original of the main house, main clubhouse. It shows the sailing dock and so on and so it's a shame that you weren't able to see this complex, but, it's (coughing) and lovely center. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We'll look at it this time. P~age 37 - Hearing Transcripts January 15, 1998 - Board of Appeals MRS. MOORE: The parking, this area here, is designated as employee parking. It'll show there are 20 designated staff parking spaces. The spaces are rarely used up. In fact, there's usually space there and for anybody who knows park there, will park there. There are 36 spaces for club members. So, in total weWe got 56 parking spaces up here at this main complex. I saw the hypothetical that was given based on the Board and if you want to see, well, I asked Sandy, well what does a two hundred some spaces equate to? She said, well take two acres and black top it. That's what the parking regulations would be. If you wanted a clear example of that, go to Wilmont's building over there on 58 and that's a good example of what horrendous 250 space parking lot looks like. So, I think the Code needs some adjustments. The practical issue here is that we've got an existing facility, the parking has been off premises parking since the 1920s and continues to date. There is no parking problem there and they don't anticipate one. They have for the record, you should be getting, one of the documents I'll be getting to you, I just a, it got crazy getting these documents. One is from Christopher Di Bonvaventura. Did you get it directly because I got a fax, but, it's such a poor fax, that I'm not sure. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I don't think so. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: I didn't get anything. MRS. MOORE: OK, you will be getting. If not a hint, I think he intended to bring it with him today and unfortunately when he couldn't make it, it didn't come either. But, the letter I did review it. It was, initially the first letter was to Mrs. Husband making contact with Mrs. Husband and finally they did make contact. Mrs. Husband has withdrawn her objections and I'll read a letter to you for the Board in a moment, but to finish my thought, Chris, also as a Board, so as to avoid, just the problems for the club on using this, the good will use of parking, Mrs. Husband's land. They have as a Board agreed that they will make a open continuous offer to purchase or lease the land from Mrs. Husband. Mrs. Husband is 88 years old. Realistically I'm not sure that anything is going to come of it. The offer will be made, it'll be put on the table, and most likely sometime in the future, the estate may in fact take her up on it. The sons have been in touch with the club members, the Board, throughout .this process, and they had no problem, but, I know that that was one of the concerns. I'd like to read to you a letter from Bob Anthony. He, Robert Anthony, Secretary to the Board, he had intended to be here and again, between the weather, illnesses, and professional obligations couldn't be here. It's addressed to the Zoning Board of Appeals. " Dear Mr. Goehringer: For your background information, (this letter is dated January 15th), I wanted to summarize my recent telephone conversation with Mrs. .Elizabeth Husband, who is wintering in Arizona. As you well know, Mrs. Husband is a neighbor of the Hay Harbor Golf Course on Fishers Island. I have spoken with her twice this week. When I Page 38 - Hearing Transcripts January 15, 1998 - Board of Appeals talked with her on Monday night and explained to her what we were working against a Thursday deadline, she immediately stated that she couldn't believe that the letter she signed had so much power and impact on this project. After we talked for a while, she said that she had not intended to interfere or block the project in anyway, but she merely wanted to voice two concerns which she had. I asked her if she would be willing to write a two sentence letter explaining her new position and to fax it to me and she didn't know what a fax machine was, nor did she have any stationery with her in Arizona. She then referred me to her Banker in Waterbury, Connecticut, whom she said, perhaps could write the letter for her. I contacted this gentleman the following morning after great difficulty. The number she had given was incorrect and I spoke with him at considerable length. He understood our dilemma and promised to try and reach her later that day. He finally reached her yesterday on her 88th birthday and he reported back to me the following. Mrs. Husband admitted to him, that she didn't write the original letter, but, signed it because two of her friends who wrote it and were against the project asked her to. She had no idea that the letter would carry any weight at all and as a former member of the club she never intended to block this project but merely to voice her concerns. When I asked him if he would fax a letter to me regarding his conversation with her, he said he didn't have Power of Attorney from Mrs. Husband, but Mrs. Husband thought she had given him Power of Attorney, that's why he was the one to contact and he didn't want to get in the middle of something that might adversely affect her doing business with his bank. I thanked him and then called Mrs. Husband again. She reiterated to me that she has no objection to the project and doesn't understand why we need her retraction in writing. Nonetheless, I prepared a short letter, a copy of which is accompanied which I have sent to her and asked her to sign and return. While I am hopeful that she will in fact sign and return it, her Banker cautioned me, that he only gets about one-third of letters he sends her for her signature back from her. I hope this summary is helpful and if I can be of any further assistance please do not hesitate to contact me. I want to express my appreciation to you and the Board for your efforts and work on this project. It is of great importance to the future of Hay Harbor Club.", and it's signed "Sincerely yours, Robert Anthony." So, you understand that we've been working very hard. It's been very difficult. The physical separation between Mrs. Husband and all of us, is difficult. Also, .not trying to be sensitive to her concerns and you know her age, is something that also the Board is ( ). CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: This may go down the howls of Fishers Island that a letter of this magnitude has taken so heavily. MRS. MOORE: Yes, yes, if she, and I can understand that because we have had very favorable response from the other adjacent property owners. I wish you'd give those the amount of weight that you give this one. Nonetheless, Mrs. Husband has retracted her Page 39 - Hearing TranScripts January ]5, 1998 - Board of Appeals objection. She's been assured that any concerns she has will be addressed and it is not just her. As we said, she is 88 years old. The contact has always been through her sons and there has always been a good relationship there. Even if the relationship for some reason changes, there will be again, an offer to purchase or lease this property. So that, really for the benefit of the Husbands because if they ever want to sell it, they've got an area that's been used as parking. Somebody comes in, may not be so happy with that and certainly for the club, it would cement a relationship and the use of property that they've enjoyed for many years. Another question you had asked tonight I think I have an answer is, how many staff people are housed at the main facility? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes. MRS. MOORE: OK. Sandy explained to me that there are on the second floor of the main facility, there is a dormitory and the dormitory houses about l0 college students. It changes but it depends on their agenda. The girls are housed above the dormitory on the second floor. As you remember from the testimony before, there was a third floor on this building. It's a very old, very regal building, but the third floor has been a, it can't be used for a fire code regulations. So that has been eliminated. The second floor is still useable. There is also an annex that houses the young men. So, in total there are 23 college students that are employed and they're brought in specifically. There are many more people that are employed by the Hay Harbor Club during the summer months. These are the ones that are actually housed because they don't live on the island or they don't summer on the island. They're brought in and they work for the season. So, that's the housing that is provided already at the main club for the swimming and tennis. Of those college students they say that on average, really they haven't had more than this, maybe there are 10 vehicles for these college students. They get around by trucks. There are two trucks that the club has that they transport the youth group all over the island and there is only one additional house that is owned by the club, and that is to house the manager of the club. I think he mentioned it to you last time he was here and his family who are his college age students and high school age children also work in the club. So, anybody who is a young and vibrant bodies will probably end up working at the club in one point in time. I think I've answered all of the questions that you had asked at one point. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: The only other further one that I kind of didn't come up with in this. Would you just ask Sandy, if there is a survey of the entire parcel, or at least a part? MRS. MOORE: The only thing we have is what you already have in your file. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: There is no other old time survey? Page 40 - Hearing Transcripts January 15, 1998 - Board of Appeals MRS. MOORE: That's the one. You have one in your file that's kind of dark, almost looks like a photocopy of a County record. That's the best that they have. They don't have anything else. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We'll start with Mr. Homing? MEMBER HORNING: Could you tell us how far from the Hobson's property line the proposed corner of the proposed new building will be? I'm looking at the map here and I'm not quite sure whether I see the old one or the new one excluding the deck that you have there. MRS~ MOORE: the back. Hobson, isn't Hobson? Oh, I'm sorry Hobson is in MEMBER HORNING: On the hill? MRS. MOORE: OK. I don't think I can answer that. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: You can reserve and we'll just - MRS. MOORE: Yes, I'll find that out. The Board Members would know much easier than I would. I would have to research, go looking through the file. I think at one of the transcripts there may have been discussion of the distance from, I think Hobson is actually the closest. In his own letter, I think in his letter he expresses how far he is from the club or at least in his impression that he's probably the closest the most adjacent property owner. He's got to because he's right next to the first tee. Isn't that where he is physically-? MEMBER HORNING: Yes. MRS. MOORE: OK, so he's the closest one. Does it show there? MEMBER HORNING: I see a figure of 23 feet. But, I'm not sure whether that is to the corner of the proposed building? MEMBER TORTORA: Or the old building? (Changed tape) MRS,, MOORE: Footprint, so I mean distance wise. So, it's within, it might be the same if not, a few feet difference. Not much. MEMBER HORNING: And could you tell us where the Hobson's house is, in relation to their property line, adjacent to the property line ? MRS. MOORE: I could find that out. page 41 - Hearing Transcripts January 15, 1998 - Board of Appeals MEMBER HORNING: MRS. MOORE: OK. MEMBER HORNING: If you would please? Hobson to, now is it, the Hobson property line? Yes. MRS. MOORE: MEMBER HORNING: MRS. MOORE: Ok. MEMBER TORTORA: inside corner. OK, the property line to the structure? Yes. I can find that out. I think that 23 feet is to the existing, the CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Of the new. MEMBER TORTORA: Yes, that's what it looks like to me. MRS. MOORE: I would have to look at that drawing. CHAIRMAN: We'll look at this one. Don't confuse that with the retaining wall. (Mrs. Moore reviewing map with Members.) MRS. MOORE: Yes, that looks like 23 feet from the property line to the corner. I'll verify. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Alright. Anything else? MEMBER TORTORA: Somehow I think that that may be in one of the transcripts. MRS. MOORE: Sandy may have mentioned it or one of the Board Members, the question that may have been asked. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: I don't think there was a footage given. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Somehow a 100 feet to the house, somewhere along the line I can recollect that. MRS. MOORE: I can look back to Hobson's letter. Hobson's letter I think may have said how far he was. I'll cheek. This file is growing so much. I'll look while you're thinking about other questions. MEMBER HORNING: It's not. CHAIRMAN: It's not 100 feet? t~age 42 - Hearing Transcripts January 15, 1998 - Board of Appeals MRS. MOORE: I'll look while you are thinking of other questions. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Lydia? MEMBER TORTORA: You go ahead (to Member Homing). MEMBER HORNING: I'm finished. MRS. MOORE: You're finished. MEMBER TORTORA: No more questions? I just wanted everybody else to ask questions because I'm frankly exhausted of asking questions. The only question I have is, we were talking about under the Zoning Tabulations on the front page of the site plan. It says the existing building, the floor area be demolished is 2700 sq. ft. The proposed new building is 3136 with a total of 5174. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We have new calculations here. MRS. MOORE: The calculations are clearer, I believe. MEMBER TORTORA: OK. MRS. MOORE: Let's look. We have new building is 5656. What happens is you have 54 x 54 footprint, OK. And the first floor has the porch and then the second floor, the porch, there's a second floor that's above the porch. So, what happens is, the calculation thai she gives is a footprint of 54 x 54 for the foundation, but then the actual square footage changes a little bit because you're cutting pieces out and putting them in. So, what I gave Linda this evening was a square footage of 6272 sq. ft. of the first and second floor of the new building less 616 sq. ft. of porch. So, ill total you have a two-story building that's 5656 sq. ft. The old again is difficult because it's pieced together. But, you have 2812 sq. ft. of first floor, less 486 sq. ft. of porch gives you 2,326 on the first floor and 2200 on the second floor, which gives you 4526 for two stories. MEMBER TORTORA: So the increase in footprint is the 11307 MRS. MOORE: Yes. MEMBER TORTORA: OK. That's all. MRS. MOORE: And then again, I refer you to the Code. It says, when you have a nonconforming structure, you're not prohibited from enlarging it as long as it's not increasing the degree of nonconformity. I mean we're not. MEMBER TORTORA: Well, that was my only question. MRS. MOORE: OK. Page 43 - Hearing Transcripts January 15, 1998 - Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: How do you determine that it's not increasing the degree of nonconformity? MRS. MOORE: building. You have a setback that is established by the old CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Right. MRS. MOORE: OK. The setback is remaining the same. The front yard setback which is really the problem is not changing. In fact, it's squaring off so it's not straddling the property line. The side yard is being squared off so you're not increasing the degree of nonconformity. Plus the second factor which is that you have a State Code issue. The State Code requires that you have certain, Sandy would express it better than I, but distances of foyers and distances of rooms and bathrooms and things like that, so that you are, she's building essentially within the same footprint squaring it off, and that the degree of nonconformity that she talked about was a l0 foot strip that she needed in order to make the building conform to State Code. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: On the existing first floor footprint? MRS. MOORE: Right. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Ok. MEMBER TORTORA: That's not going to bring it any closer to the Hobson property line though? MRS. MOORE: It's not changing the setbacks. It is not increasing the degree of nonconformity with regard to setbacks. The setbacks have been established. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Well, it's only where you square that corner off is the only place that it's going to be closer. MEMBER HORNING: Yes. MRS. MOORE: Yes, true, but the State, if you look at, I know from my own house, the Building Department says, OK you've established a setback line, ok, you can keep going so long as you don't increase that setback line. In other words, we're not expanding towards it, you're staying within the parameters. You're squaring off that building. That is, I don't believe even the Building Department has ever interpreted that to be an increase. You're not increasing the setback, you've established a rear yard setback. Page 44 -. Hearing Transcripts January 15, 1998 - Board of Appeals MEMBER TORTORA: We can clarify this in one shot. The existing setback at the closest area is now and the proposed setback is? MRS. MOORE: Let me take the drawing. The one that I highlighted that I gave to you. Did I give it to you or did I keep it? MEMBER COLLINS: 'This one I think. MRS. MOORE: Yes. No. Not that one. There was another one. CHAIRMAN: Lora, we will need that if you don't mind. MRS. MOORE: No, I'm sorry. It's here (her file). MEMBER TORTORA: I'm just trying to prevent you from coming back again. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: She's coming back anyway. MRS. MOORE: Well, if you don't need me and you're satisfied, I don't want to create problems. Take a look at this, this is the new. MEMBER TORTORA: The new structure. MRS. MOORE: Right. This is the orange I highlighted as the old. You've got an existing, you've got- what they're doing is squaring this off, and they've shifted the building, you know, they've straightened it out to start with, but, they've lessened. MEMBER TORTORA: So I think Jerry saying is your nearest setback now, would be the distance from here to here. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: No, from here to here. MRS. MOORE: This is the old. MEMBER TORTORA: No, this is the old. So, the nearest setback to this property line has got to be either here or here. I don't know. I don't have a measure. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: You're referring to the setback of the old. Well, that's not drawn to scale. MEMBER TORTORA: The old, the existing - BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: No, she's establishing the setback. MRS. MOORE: The existing is right here.. MEMBER TORTORA: Exactly. Page 45 - Hearing Transcripts January 15, 1998 - Board of Appeals MRS. MOORE: But what I'm saying. MEMBER TORTORA: Linda, are you following me? BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: existing. Yes, Lydia, she's establishing the MRS. MOORE: Right. Ok. You're not saying that it can't be squared off. What your saying is. MEMBER TORTORA: I'm saying this is the existing setback. This is the distance from here to here is the closest distance of the setback, correct? MRS. MOORE: The old. Yes. MEMBER TORTORA: Right. I don't know what that is. If it's 35 feet. If it's 30 feet. If it's 28 feet. MRS. MOORE: Whatever it is, yes. MEMBER TORTORA: That's the existing nonconforming setback on this property. MRS. MOORE: Right. MEMBER TORTORA: What we're proposing now is to come to here which is whatever, I don't know. MEMBER HORNING: 23. MRS. MOORE: OK. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: beginning. Well that was my question in the BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Is that eloser? MEMBER HORNING: Yes, it is closer. MEMBER TORTORA: That's why I'm just, you know, this is like an interpretation of what's said. MRS. MOORE: Sorry, you may say it to me three times and I might understand it. What I'm saying is that the Building Department says, OK, this is the line, you can't go further, you know, you established this line. OK. You established this line. What she's done is squared it off. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: And that was the purpose of my question. Page 46 - Hearing Transcripts January ]5, 1998 - Board of Appeals MRS. MOORE: OK, then we're all in sync. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We have problems where it exists retarded like that, what kind of problems are you going to deal - I realize that the retaining wall is going to take some of those problems but you're still .going to have topside erosion running down from that hill. MRS. MOORE: I don't believe that that's going to happen because of the retaining wall and you've got a pretty vegetated hill. So, I don't (unfinished). CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I know but it's running down anyway is what my point is. OK, so it's going to run down overlap the hill and do the same thing. I realize that the only change that you're going to have on this building is that you're going to have gutters which you presently don't have. MRS. MOORE: And you're going to have French drains. I mean it .probably drains into the, around the foundation so that the water doesn't stay there and go into the foundation. MEMBER TORTORA: (Speaking to Member Hornin~:. Am I corre~t~ that's wh~j~ your concern was. This is the increasing? ) MRS. MOORE: Right ~ MEMBER DINIZIO: Plus poured concrete. MRS.. MOORE: Right, concrete, impervious concrete. MEMBER DINIZIO: You've got stacked block there. MRS. MOORE: Oh, is that what it is? I couldn't remember what it f~I thought it was stone. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: It's not cement? MRS. MOORE: No. MEMBER DINIZIO: Well, it may have been repaired, but I mean what it is, it's block. MRS. MOORE: I thought it might be more helpful with the highlighting OK, and I wrote in the square footages on there. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, to wrap this up, we'll go on to Ms. Collins ? Page 47 - Hearing Transcripts January 15, 1998 - Board of Appeals MEMBER COLLINS: No, I have no questions. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK. Mr. Dinizio? MEMBER DINIZIO: No. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, I see several people chopping at the bid for a decision back there so I don't think there's going to be any objection back there. So, we will see you sometime in the near future whenever that might be. MEMBER TORTORA: Do we need to continue this hearing? BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Pat, are you asking for a continuation? MRS. MOORE: I don't want a denial. So, if you want any more information, OK if you, put it this way. The only other testimony that I anticipate, I was quite upset by the parking calculations which are so outrageous and unreasonabl?~ i.t just didn't make sense. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Well that's per Code. MRS. MOORE: I understand, I understand. So, if you would like testimony from the individuals who have been a member of this club for 10, 15, 20 years as to the practical use of the parking lot and whether or not it's used to its fullest capacity, what is, you know how much parking is available and so on, I could put it on the record. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: But that is the case, there is no parking lot. MRS. MOORE: No, no, true. But what you were looking at was at 56 spaces that we have up on the Main Facility compared to 200 spaces that the Code may require. Then, I'm going to put testimony on the record that says that there is always plenty of parking, that there's, when I was there, we scooted in even the hottest day of the season which was the day that all of the kids were there, we scooted and parked and walked around the place within two seconds time. So, there is no parking problem that they've experienced; and you have an Island. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, we've talked about the whole aspect Mrs. Husband, the whole aspect that you're going to continue. There has been no attempt by yourself as representative of the club in this presentation to come up with any other parking on site, OK? You haven't offered perpendicular parking on a fair-way anywhere, you haven't offered parallel parking to the - I~age 48 - Hearing Transcripts January 15, 1998 - Board of Appeals MRS. MOORE: On the road? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: On the road, all the way down. MRS. MOORE: But that's not the, the road, the Highway Department does its maintenance on the parking on the road. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: On your property. On your property. MRS. MOORE: There isn't, it's golf course. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: of that. OK, but I mean you haven't offered any MRS. MOORE: We don't have any to offer. We have the parking that has been used for 20 years across the street, and we will offer that that there's been a resolution to make it a continuing offer to purchase that. But the situation today that the change in the building will not change for the better or for the worse ~the parking situation that presently exists. And, that's the whole point from day one, is that there was, the parking is off-premises parking and that's what we'll continue. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, so. MEMBER DINIZIO: Can I comment on this parking? MRS. MOORE: Yes. MEMBER DINIZIO: I just want, because I want to tell you, you know, we had golf course in town here, request to put a building on it, and parking was never brought up. Now, that's a public golf course. Certainly they have members but it's open to the public also, so you can't even put a number of how many people can use that, and I can tell you, that place does not have 213 parkin~ spaces. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes, but it has - MEMBER DINIZIO: 213. It does not have any place where you can put CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: No, but it has adequate parking. MEMBER DINIZIO: No, it does not. The only thing it has is in the front, and that's it. You couldn't park any place else without getting hit by a golf ball. This is the same thing, the exact thing that she's saying. I mean, personally my personal opinion about this is this was written by somebody who sits in an office all day, and doesn't know the practicalities of how a golf course works because, you know, you have nine holes, I believe, it's nine holes. Page 49 -ttearing Transcripts January 15, 1998 - Board of Appeals If you have four people in each one of those holes, that would be a whole lot easier way of calculating how much parking you're going to need than to go 410 divide that by two. I mean, this is the most absurd thing I've .ever seen. MRS. MOORE: Right, and just so you know, I went to North Fork Country Club, reviewed their site plan records. I went to the Assessor's Office, figured out they have 14,000 sq. ft. of taxed square footage. That's the best we could do with the calculations. There was no site plan that actually showed what the total square footage is. So, we went to the Assessors. I went to the Assessor and went through with the other assistant there looking at the numbers and adding up. It was over 14,000. They have 97 parking spaces. This is a 14,000 square foot building. MEMBER DINIZIO: Where is this now? MRS. MOORE: This is North Fork Country Club. MEMBER DINIZlO: Oh, yes, I was just -that was my next visit. MRS. MOORE: Yes, I mean, they have tons of parking. I've been there for the restaurant and it's, they have an enormous amount of parking that is unused. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: In front of the building. MRS. MOORE: In front of the building. They have some more on the side, but in total they showed 97 parking spaces. So, they're clearly, I don't (unfinished). CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: That going to change though, Pat. What happened was they opened their driving range up which is exclusively used and they put a, first of all, let me just clear the air. What, Jimmy is referring to is Island's End. MRS. MOORE: No, I understand. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Fork County Club. And what you're talking about is North MRS. MOORE: Yes, yes. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Islands End, he is absolutely correct, is an open golf course. There are members; they own shares, OK, but anybody can play there, you just of course have to you know, get a tee time and you have to wait with the people who are there, who are members, where North Fork is exclusive as this particular golf course in question that we're talking about is exclusive, OK, to and only exists for its own members. The situation in North Fork prior to opening the driving range and in access next to the former Page 50 - Hearing Transcripts January 15, 1998 - Board of Appeals Goubeaud house there appeared to be at least 25 more ears in that parking lot prior to opening that access. That access my understanding is going to be closed, so those cars will be placed back into that front parking lot. MRS. MOORE: So they're going to in fact reduce the nUmber of parking spaces if they're eliminating the ones over by the - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: They were only temporaries. They were temporary so those people didn't have to walk to the driving range. MRS. MOORE: So my only point with regard to the North Fork County Club is that there is no way that the Planning Department calculated 97 based on membership. It made more sense to look at square footage and when you look at square footage, it comes to about one per 150 square feet of building. So, I kind of worked it backwards and said, we've got plenty, if you work just off the square footage. So, it just, the whole - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Square footage of building? MRS. MOORE: Yes. The parking calculation makes no sense with regard to golf course. But, back again, this is a preexisting structure located there, and we are merely trying to renovate, reconstruct this building. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, the final question is the building is used exclusively for the golfing use. I mean, I don't mean to be trite in my presentation of it. Anything that reflects golfing is what that particular building is used for. It is not used fox- anything else at this particular time. We know that the enhancement of the new building is to be used to house four separate persons in four separate rooms. But everything is done in that existing building as it exists today is for golfing purposes only. The putting green is for golfing purposes. MRS. MOORE: Yes, but the two apartments, I can't answer that because I don't know if the apartments were for the, one for the golf pro and one for the tennis master, or whatever. I think that's what you're getting at, is, was it always exclusively the apartments, the dormitory aspect of it, was it exclusively for the golfers? Probably not, it was probably more than just the golf pro because you have two separate apartments that were there. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Right, OK, then that's one question and the other question is, the use of the existing clubhouse is used only for golfing purposes. I mean there are no parties, that they come down to the (unfinished). . MRS. MOORE: Oh, no, is it a rental of a or a country? ~age 51 - Hearing Transcripts January 15, 1998 - Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: to utilize this for parties, withstanding? BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: or anything? MRS. MOORE: No, no restaurant. no. They don't come down from the main club or cocktail parties or anything Is there a restaurant that's open, There will be no restaurant, no, CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: So, it's a double-listed question, OK. I was wondering. MRS. MOORE: Yes, I mean I don't want to be backed in something that doesn't look like I'm answering the wrong question. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: What we see there is nine holes, nine tees, nine fairways, OK, and so on and so forth, and we see a putting green. MRS. MOORE: Yes. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: There is nothing else that is anticipated. There is nothing else that has been used since the 1800s? BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Any other activities that would on the use of it? MRS. MOORE: Oh, no. From the testimony that has been given so far, I don't believe so. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Weren't they talking about a swimming instructor or something? MRS. MOORE: No, no, well, they have at the main house, at the Main Building, they have the clubhouse, they have a tennis and they have swimming. So, what happens is that the dormitories, the individual room, will be used for the sailing master. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, thank you. Hearing no further comment I'll make a motion that we recess it without a date and you'll tell us when they can appear and then will go from there. MRS. MOORE: OK, the dates are January what? BOARD SECRETARY: Probably February? MRS. MOORE: In case we want, I don't want to be precluded from ( unfinished ). Page 52 - Hearing Transcripts January 15, 1998 - Board of Appeals BOARD SECRETARY: We don't have a date, Pat, he just made a resolution' without a date, so we have to readvertise. MRS. MOORE: I don't warit to, well, if you can avoid readvertising and I don't want to re-notice, that would be crazy. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: his resolution that he made. OK, then he'd have to withdraw CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: No, I will withdraw my resolution. I'll tell you that we will meet with you as a final hearing on February (26) whatever it is, the end of February. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: second to that motion? The 26th. OK, could I have a MEMBER DINIZIO: Second. Motion carried. See Minutes for Resolution. End of Hearings. RECEIVED AND FILED BY oou~:nolct To~,vn C~er:~, ~own o[ e .~