Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-01/22/1998 HEARINGTranscript of Public Hearings January 22, 1998 Southold Town Board of Appeals (Prepared by Lucy Farrell from Tape Recordings) 7:05 P.M. - Appl. No. 4534 - LORI HUNTER CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Based upon the Building Inspector's Notice of Disapproval dated December 10, 1997, applicants are requesting a Variance under Article VII, Section 100-72 for permission to construct an accessory building in an area other than the required rear yard at 11228 Soundview Avenue, Southold. 1000-54-6-2.6. I have a survey dated September 24, 1997, and updated on October 31, 1997, indicating the approximate position of the proposed garage which is 24 x 30, approximately ll feet, at its closest point to the property line which is opposite the driveway of the road going in and we have a copy of set of plans indicating this proposed building, and we have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and all of the properties in the immediate vicinity of this property and other parcels in the area. OK, I think we're ready. How are you tonight Si~? Could you state your name for the record. MR. SAETA: Yes, Richard Sacra. The reason why we asked for this Variance is because there's no way that we can put this structure in the back yard. It just won't fit. So, what we did, we put it as far out of the way as we could and, as far back as we could. We're allowed a 10 foot back yard set and we made it 11 feet just give us enough room for building. The building is needed. I don't know what else I can say about it. It's pretty open and closed. Do you have any questions? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: storage, is that correct? The building is going to be used only for MR. SAETA: Yes, it's garage for storage. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: What kind of utilities will it have? MR. SAETA: No heat, no plumbing. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Just electric? MR. SAETA: Just electric. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: you're showing? And the maximum height is~ 22 feet as Page 9. - Hear'ing Tran~-Cripts Jarluary 22, 1998 - Board of Appeals MR. SAETA: We should have, yes, 22 feet. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, that's to the ridge? MR. SAETA: To the ridge. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, if we're taking a medium height then, we're talking something less than that. MR. SAETA: Less than that, yes. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Eight foot ceiling. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes, It's usually 12. So, it's probably around 18. MR. SAETA: Right, it's a 12-12 pitch. It's 24 across the front, so you take 12, it would be 12 plus the first floor, which is l0 feet, plus 12, it should be 22 feet. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes, the Building Department measures it, mean roof. MR. SAETA: Between the eve and the ( ). CHAIRMAN GO~EHRINGER: Yes, so it's really probably about 18. We'll refer to it as 22 to the ridge. That's from the grade anyway, right ? MR. SAETA: That's from, yes. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Finished grade, yes. Is there any particular reason for the shed going around the back of the building? MR. SAETA: Down the road they may want to use this for a guest house. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We don't permit that and we would put a normal restriction on it, that it not be used for that OK, just so you're aware of that. I'm not speaking for the entire Board but that is probably the only reason that we would have a tremendous problem with. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Also, the Code doesn't allow it. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes, the Code doesn't allow it. We've never granted it. It's never been granted. Unless for some reason you had a preexisting nonconforming cottage on your property, which we have a very small amount of in this town, OK. Page 3 - Hea~ing ~ran~cripts January 22, 1998 - Board of Appeals MR. SAETA: Well for now it's just going to be used for storage, so, what you're saying, is that cottages, in other words a - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: A detached - MR. SAETA: A detached guest house - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Sleeping quarters or MR. SAETA: For sleeping quarters is not allowed. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Is not permitted in the town. We'll start with Mr. Dinizio. Any questions of Mr. Saeta? MEMBER DINIZIO: No, just we have to work out the mean height because I think we're going to have to, we're going to have to put that in the decision. MR. SAETA: The mean height has got to be below - MEMBER DINIZIO: Yes, right, whatever, I think it's the mean between the top of the first floor in the ridge. Whatever that happens to be. MR. SAETA: Right.. In other words the distanee between the peak, OK, or the ridge and the eve, OK, would be halfway. In other words, if your roof pitches like this, halfway across that pitch, or, would be the allotted height. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: What is that though? Do you know what that is? MEMBER DINIZIO: What do you think that would be about? MR. SAETA: In this building? MEMBER DINIZIO: Yes. MR. SAETA: 22 to the top is, it's easy enough to figure. You go back over 6. You're going to come down about 6 feet from that. So, we're talking about 16 feet. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Alright, thanks. Ms. Collins? MEMBER COLLINS: The house already has a two car garage integral to the house. MR. SAETA: Right. That garage is going to become a family room. They've just had a new baby to the family and Lori Hunter Page 4 - Hea~ing TransCripts January 9. fi, 1998 - Board of Appeals doesn't like the idea of having lawn mowers and gasoline and cars parked in their house. She just wants it away from their house. MEMBER COLLINS: house in effect. So this is the first step in a rethinking of the MR. SAETA: Yes, exactly. MEMBER COLLINS: And I note, although it's not before us, by I just note, that the survey mentions pool. The architectural survey. MR. SAETA: Yes, right. Yes, eventually there will be a pool. MEMBER COLLINS: So we'll be seeing you again. MR. SAETA: Yes. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mrs. Tortora? MEMBER TORTORA: No questions. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, we'll see what develops throughout the hearing. We thank you for your candor and we'll let you know. Is there anybody else would like to speak in favor of this application? Anybody like to speak against the application? Hearing no further comment I'll make a motion closing the hearing reserving decision until later. MEMBER TORTORA: Second. Motion Carried. See Minutes for Resolution, Page 5 - Hea~ing Transcripts January 22, 1998 - Board of Appeals 7:15 P.M. - Appl. No. 4530 - AMAC, INC. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Based upon the Building Inspector's Notice of Disapproval dated December 22, 1997, applicant is requesting a Variance under Article X, Section 100-101C(1) for permission to construct canopy over existing gasoline pump island, which canopy structure will exceed the 18 ft. height requirement~ for accessory structures and will be located in an area other than a rear yard.. Location: 7400 Main Road, Laurel; 1000-122-7-1. We have a site plan produced by Garrett Strang, dated October 30, 1997, indicating the placement of this canopy on the property, and I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and other surrounding properties in the area. How are 'you tonight Sir? MR. STRANG: Very good, thank you and yourself? I just want to bring the green cards out. We got them back all but one. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Can you tell us why this applicant has decided to put a proposed canopy over there? MR. STRANG: Several reasons. Most service stations today do in fact look to have the canopy over their pump island. Several reasons,' one being obviously protection from the elements when the gasoline is being dispensed and in our case we have the full service station as oppose to the self-service station. So, in order to provide a little bit of weather protection from the attendance that is dispensing the fuel is helpful. Secondly, it provides the opportunity for a better price ( ) existing than (unclear-noisy) to be installed without a canopy. So, primarily that's the reason behind the application to place the canopy as shown in the drawing. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: In your opinion Gary, why does it afford a better fire dispersion system? MR. STRANG: I believe you can get better dispersion of the, when it's up in the canopy than it is on some sought of a situation that it's hanging over the pumps themselves and a certainly better looking, I believe, if it's hidden within its confinements of the canopy and the chemicals can be I think better dispersed from that as well. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER~: The height of the proposed structure? MR. STRANG: Yes. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: What is it? MR. STRANG: the top. I believe it shows on the elevation here of 19 feet to Page 6 - Hea~ing Transcripts January 22, 1998 - Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: nature? OK. The reason for height of that MR. STRANG: That's pretty much the standard height that we've been working with although I think we have, if push came to shove, we could bring that down to be in compliance with the 18 foot height limitation without a hardship. (Mr. Strang speaking with I believe Mr. Ilgin). CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Well, the outside island closest to Old Main Road, is the one that has the diesel fuel on it, and the canopy is going to cover that one over too, right. MR. ILGIN: Yes; MR. STRANG: We can bring that down to eighteen I think, and still have comfortable room to negotiate the vehicles for (). CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, in the past Garrett, we've had a variety of problems with the lighting in these canopies, and this emanated from a couple of applications in which there were complaints from neighbors and so on and so forth. What is the lighting aspect for this one? MR. STRANG: Well, we can addressed that. The lighting hasn't been designed as yet, but, there's several different ways of lighting from underneath the canopy. I know some of the canopies I've seen myself, they use a fixture that surface mounted to the bottom which lets the light diffuse out more brilliantly if you will. I think there's also the option to have it as a recess light that's flushed with the underside of the canopy which then just comes down as appose to disperses outward as much. So, if that's, that's a concern of the Board, we can certainly address that. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Alright, is there any indication that any of this will be self-service, or will it remain as it is? MR. STRANG: It will remain as a full-service station. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Alright. I'm going to go through the Board, and then we're going to discuss site plan and so on and so forth and where we are at this point. So, we'll start with Mrs. Tortora. MEMBER TORTORA: of the canopies? What's the overall dimensions of each roof top MR. STRANG: They're, I believe I've been having them depicted on the site plan as 26 feet for the sake of argument 26 feet in the Page 7 - Hea~ing Transcripts January 22, 1998 - Board of Appeals east, west direction and it goes basically from property line .to property line and north, south, so, it ranges because the property is pie shape, at the westerly side it's 45 feet, approximately these three sides 56 feet, which in reality is smaller than the normal required coverage to the island. But, we couldn't make it any bigger. MEMBER TORTORA: What is it, I mean each one, there are two separate canopies. MR. STRANG: No, there's one canopy. MEMBER TORTORA: So, it's going to be one canopy. MR. STRANG: One canopy. The area that's crosshatched, on the site plan, it's a parallel, it's sought of a parallel plan configuration. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: They're staggered? Aren't they staggered? MEMBER DINIZIO: No, the square that you're looking at, isn't that where the concrete is? MEMBER COLLINS: That's the concrete. I just figured it. MR. STRANG: The area that's crosshatched, is the actual canopy itself, one piece. CHAR[MAN GOEHRINGER: Oh, OK. MR. ST RANG: These areas that are shown underneath, is the actual concrete pads that surround the islands. MEMBER TORTORA: But, this is the canopy? MR. STRANG: The area that's crosshatched. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I'm sorry, this is the canopy. The entire thing is the canopy. MR. STRANG: That's correct, one piece. MEMBER TORTORA: OK. This is a state road. Could you indicate for us, on the map, where the state right-of-way extends to? MR. STRANG: Sure. Well, the state right-of-way is, comes up to the property line, is approximately that we believe is 50 feet across. Page 8 - Hea~ing TransCripts January. 22, 1998 - Board of Appeals BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Is that a, I didn't catch it because of the paper. Is that 50 feet? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: 50 feet, yes. MR. STRANG: I believe it's a 50 foot right-of-way in width, across to 'the neighboring property line on the north side of the main road. MEMBER TORTORA: So, the canopy would abut the state 'of right-of-way? Is that correct? MR. STRANG: The canopy would be right over the property line. That's correct. MEMBER TORTORA: Would it be over the property line, or would it be contained in the state right-of-way? MR. STRANG: It wouldn't be in the state right-of-way. be on our property. It would MEMBER TORTORA: And so, it would abut the state right-of-way? MR. STRANG: That's correct. MEMBER TORTORA: Have you a, because I'm a little concerned about access and egress on this particular proposal and I wondered if you had a contacted the state DOT to get their clearance on this? MR. STRANG: As of this point, we haven't, because we felt it was order of priority. If you will, without the variance, there was no need to go any further with any of the other agencies. So, we felt the first step was to come to the Zoning Board of Appeals. Assuming we were granted the variance, then we would take it to the next step, which is the Planning Board, which automatically kicks in with the State DOT. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: That's basically my point. My point is, that we're going to have to run these coneurrent. They're going to have to be you know, current hearings. MEMBER TORTORA: Because for us to, I mean for us, for me personally, I'm speaking for myself for me to even consider this, I would have to know that the State has looked at this, you're proposal~ and deemed that it is adequate and safe in terms of access and egress before making a determination for the variance, because as part of the balancing test in making the variance determination, we have to weigh the benefits to the applicant against the possible detriment to the health, safety, welfare of the community, and I don't have that information. Page 9 - Hea~ing Tranocripts January 22, 1998 - Board of Appeals MR. STRANG: I understand that. The only thing I can mention to this Board is that nothing about the way the station functions today, is going to change, other than the fact, that we had a protection over the pump islands. So, there's not going tO be, we're not increasing the building, we're not increasing the usage, or anything else. The use is the same, the size of the building is the same. Basically, all we're doing is providing a coverage over the pump islands. MEMBER TORTORA: I did want to mention one other thing. I notice, that you're proposing an increase in lot coverage to exceed the 20% allowable. You're going to be up around 24 at this point. MR. STRANG: It's 30%. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: It's 30%. Business property. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: It's 30% required. MEMBER TORTORA: Excuse me, pardon me. Corrected. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: The point in question since Mrs. Tortora has basically said, because of the extenuating circumstances that have existed with this property, not necessarily only with the present owner, but, with past owners, OK, we certainly would want to see that eventually everything is going to be brought up to the site plan aspects, alright, which you're going to have to do anyway, alright, as you're aware I'm sure, because of the Notice of Disapproval indicates that. So, it would only make sense to make that application. We'll hold this one in abeyance while you're working on that, and then we'll, when we get to the point where you know, if there are any minor changes, where they may clip and end off a canopy here, you know bring it back one foot on so it's actually within the confines of the property, rather than zero lot line. You know whatever they intend to do. We can incorporate that in a decision. I personally, in my opinion, I'm only speaking for myself, I have no objection to a canopy of this nature in this particular area based upon what we have, and as long as the lighting stays site specific to that particular island where as I explained to you, we've had problems before, I don't have a particular problem with it. So, are you done, I apologize. MEMBER TORTORA: Yes. No, I just feel that before going ahead and approving this I would like to have the State review it, in terms of their concerns which were expressed before as far as access and egress and if this is going to affect it, I have no objections to the canopy, but, want to be assured that they do not run a fowl of the State DOT. MR. STRANG: OK. Page 10 - Hearing Trm~scripts January 22, 1998 - Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Ms. Collins? MEMBER COLLINS: I just note that I share the view that I have no problem with a canopy being erected at that station, in that location, and I second the view that there are other issues that have to be resolved before we can sign off. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mr. Dinizio? MEMBER DINIZIO: No, I disagree with that, but, wherever I could, I mean, coming certainly from a woman who has quite a (coughing), you know if I was spending the amount of money I'm spending on Mr. Strang and then the other lawyer that might have to get involved, I certainly would want to know number 1~ if I at least have the concept of this approved, and I think we're doing nothing more than that because we can't supersede the Department of Motor Vehicles. I mean they're going to have the last say. If they think that it's got to be moved in a foot, it's going to moved in a foot, whether we say it's there or not. And certainly lighting, it's the same thing. If the planning Board decides that you're going to have lighting it's going to be recessed, nothing we say or do, is going to chan~e that. That's going to be part of the approval. So, you know, coming to the Zoning Board of Appeals, is the first natural step in a progression from a business man's point of view mind you, from a person whose expendin~ dollars that we should be considering this, and what we are considering is a concept if nothing more, that yes, you know you have to come to us because you want the canopy. Yes, you can have the canopy, now work it out with whoever it needs to be worked out with. If you think the State DOT is going to have a problem, they want to move in a foot, nothing we say is going to override them at this time. I feel like if these people have an application, you know, we should be kind enoUgh to consider it and then ~o from there. Certainly, all of our decisions are that. That we do not override anybody. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: The only thing is Jim, that we would then have to come back and modify the decision. MEMBER DINIZIO: No, we would not, because they would net exceed us. They could not exceed what we decide. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes, but if you grant it as applied for and they requested that the canopy be cut back to say, 16 inches - MEMBER DINIZIO: Then, they would not need to come back to us. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: They'd need to come back. It's within the same footprinting you approved. It's not outside the footprint. Page 11 - Hearing Trauscripts January 22, 1998 - Board of Appeals MEMBER DINIZIO: We're granting their concept, we grant where we'd like to and if they want to build a small one, well more power to them. CHAIRMAN GOEHRIGER: Alright. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Alright, I didn't eateh Lydia. you want to say something, Lydia? Did MEMBER TORTORA: The proble~m is, without them having reviewe~l it, you don't know what they're going to say. I can't speculate as to what they're going to say. I'm merely suggesting that you allowed that input in making your decision, so that whatever decision he has, it's coordinated between the departments and you're not getting three different views on this. To me, that's a much cleaner way to go for you, as a business man. Mt{,. STRANG: Well, again, as I explained earlier, the reason that we came before the ZBA, which is exactly what Mr. Dinizio pointed out~ is that we felt this was the first step, because without the variance it's moot, so there's no reason to go to the Planning Board or go to the DOT. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I think quite uniquely though you have here a situation where you have four members and I'm not speaking for the other three, that are saying that they really, I think where, BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Three. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Ms. Collins too?, that we don't have a basic problem with the concept of the canopy, right? So, I think we'll just recess it until you get to that particular point and then we'll come back and deal with the whole aspect of it. MR. STRANG: OK. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I mean I think that's really the way to go, alright and we thank you very much. MR. STRANG: Were there any other questions of the Board? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I don't have any at this time. Anybody else? Is there anybody else would like to speak in favor? Anybody like to speak against? Hearing no further comment, I'll make a motion recessing the hearing without a date. MEMBER TORTORA: Second. Motion carried. See Minutes for Resolution. Page 12 - Hearing Tra~lscripts January 22, 1998 - Board of Appeals 7:35 P. M. - Appl. No. 4536 - INDEPENDENT GROUP HOME LIVING PROGRAM, INC. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: This 'application is for a proposed swimming pool to be located in the required rear yard facing Oaklawn Avenue, and based upon the Building Inspector's Notice of Disapproval dated November 10, 1997, a variance under Article VII, Section 100-72 is required for the proposed lot coverage over the 20% limitations in this ~ Residential-Office Zone District. Location of Property: 52550 Main Road, Southold; N.Y.; County Parcel ID 1000-61-3-1, containing 15,920 sq. ft. I have one letter of objection and I have a letter from Mr. Fischetti who is an adjacent property owner asking for a recess and I have a survey dated March 22, 1985 indicating the placement of this fine nice home and the location of the accessory building which is a two car garage and a shed, and a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and surrounding properties in the area. I have a penned in area of the pool showing it at a distance of approximately 18 feet to Oakland Avenue which may change. Mr. Arnoff, how are you tonight, Sir? MR. ARNOFF: Good evening Mr. Goehringer, it's a pleasure being here, how are you? Before I proceed, I've got some green cards and some receipts, which I'd like to hand up. Mrs. Kowalski wanted that. My client had prepared for you, a drawing that's actually upon the survey itself, of the suggestions of Mr. Fischetti. We staked it out, it's been staked out for all of you to see, but, in addition, it's depicted on the survey so you'll see this is two pages and it's kind of graphic to do it this way. The first page has the existing fence and shed which are to be removed and the second page shows you where the proposed pool is. Graphically for purposes of at least the Board to see, I'll hand up copies to everyone. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: That's quite a substantial change. MR. ARNOFF: Yes, it creates, I had spoken to Mrs. Kowalski about Mr. Fischetti's letter. For the Board, I note three of the Board Members know me well and I will tell you that as an Officer of the Court and as a former Town Attorney, I personally spoke to Mr. Fischetti and Mr. Fischetti's request for an adjournment would predicate it, was only, if, my client was unwilling to move the pool from the present location~ the location now shown on the survey before you. We spoke at length, my client and I, and I told Mr. Fischetti I didn't see a problem with it and if there was a problem I would consent to the adjournment until he came back because he would have a right to be heard other than his letter. He was pleased with that and he accepted that. So, I make that statement for the Board to know that that's what in fact happened. I think Page 13 - Hearing Tra~scripts January 29., 1998 - Board of Appeals I've addressed all of the issues in the application that was submitted to you. Mr. Goehringer, I think you of all people know my position as it relates to Group Homes. I've been an advocate of Group Homes for quite some time. This particular property by way of history for the Board Members who don't know, was formerly a local physician's home and when there was a Group Home for a different purpose suggested in the community for a group known as The Way Back when there was a furor over the potential of them going into an area, I think probably in the estates, the town went and searched for acceptable group homes and this was one of them, Dr. a-. CHAIRMAN GOEHRiNGER: Campbell. MR. ARNOFF: ( ) No, no, the doctor in Cutchogue whose house they CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Verderese. MR. ARNOFF: Verderese and I believe there was a house in Strawberry Fields or near Strawberry Fields. It was one, and there may have been one other. The way back settled on Dr. Verderese's house when Mr. Stockton was a CEO by GHL, who is here tonight, heard of the availability of this house. He made application, came from here and they have been there ever since. I think it's been six years, five years and as a neighbor I can say they've been a good neighbor since I live very close by. I can that with certainty. I think what I've said in my application, is that this is a ( ) minimal, if any variance that we're asking for. I commended the Building Department which is unlike most lawyers today but I did commend them on doing the job that they're suppose to do, because this is one that could have slipped between cracks and they are right. It requires a variance, it requires coming here and their computations are correct. As you know this is community residence, but we normally don't handle that. The pool will be provided for the exclusive use of the residence, no-one else and it's become a normal thing tO have a pool, it's not going to be disruptive to the neighborhood, it's not going to create any problems. I think Mr. Fischetti was quite right. I think the pool was situated where it was because it was the easiest place for the pool company to put it, because the pool company if you notice on the Building Department's application, was the one who made the application. It was not done by my client, it was not done by me. So, I think he said, well, where can we put it with a minimal amount of disruption and that's where he put it. But, it's not going to change the residential character of the neighborhood and there are no facilities for these people close by and to truck them or to bus them to neighborhood beaches, I think this creates a management problem and a control problem, that is obviated by the construction of the pool. I have nothing more to offer. Mr. Stockton is here. If Page 14 - Hearing Tra,,scripts January 22, 1998 - Board of Appeals anyone has any questions either of myself or Mr. Stockton, we welcome. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, we'll start with the questions in one second. I just wanted to ask you, is there any screening that you're anticipating? You're not showing any, that's the reason why I ask. MR. STOCKTON: Yes, obviously the way we have to do it, it has to be landscaped so you won't even see it. You won't see it from the road. MR. ARNOFF: be screened. screened. It will not be seen from the road as he said, it will Obviously it has to be fenced, but it will also be CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: There'll be no lighting other than ground level lighting? They're not necessarily be used at night for any specific reason or anything? MR. ARNOFF: Right. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We'll start with Mr. Dinizio. MEMBER DINIZIO: How high is the fence? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: 4 feet. MEMBER DINIZIO: The fence that's proposed around it, is just going to be a 4 foot chain-link? MR. ARNOFF: 4 foot. MEMBER DINIZIO: That's all I have. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Ms. Collins? MEMBER COLLINS: I have no questions. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: You're showing the pool, you're showing the enclosure, you're not showing any deck around it. Is there any deck, or is it ground level? MR. ARNOFF: No there will be a ground level deek. be ground level. It's going to CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Will that ground level deck Mr. Stockton, basically encompass that entire area around the part that's fenced, or I mean is just going to be like 4 feet or something like that. Page 15 - Hearing Trah~cripts January 22, 1998 - Board of Appeals MR. STOCKTON: the existing? Yes, well, the fenced in area, the new fence or CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: The new fence. The one that's stable. MR. STOCKTON: fence. Whatever decking material we use will go to the CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Will go to the fence, OK. I guess what we need from you Mr. Arnoff, is just the distance between the pool and the fence so that we can say that the setback is not really 42 because it's to the deck? Do you know what I'm saying? BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Well, the decks are ground level. MR. ARNOFF: The deck is to the fence line. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: But, the deck is going to be ground level, right? OK, so we don't really need it. It's not part of the lot coverage. It's not going to be a change of the calculations. OK, great. Mrs. Tortora? MEMBER TORTORA: As far as the screening, would you have any objections to a condition of screening also on the southwest property line, the Fischetti property line? MR. ARNOFF: No, no objection. MEMBER TORTORA: OK, thank you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Alright, while you're standing there we'll see if there's anybody else. Would anybody else like to speak in favor of this application? Anybody like to speak against? Yes Ma'am. Could you use the mike up here, if you wouldn't mind. MRS. HALSEY: I'm Cynthia Halsey. I live directly across Oakland Avenue from these premises. I think you have my letter of objection. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I do. MRS. HALSEY: And I think you know I'm very concerned that they propose to start digging without knowing what's under ground. Namely wasteline septic tanks that are active and old ones. I don't think frankly speaking, that they should use their land for swimming pool. I think they should use it for more off-street parking. We have a great deal of trouble on Oakland Avenue. It's very heavily travelled and when their contractors were working, when they were installing them, the house itself I think at present is a good neighbor as we were promised. The contractors most assuredly were not. They disregarded the safety of the neighborhood completely. Page 16 - Hearing Tra~,~scripts January 22, 1998 - Board of Appeals [ had to call 'the police several times to insure that the school buses didn't run into among other things and then, with a hard cement mixer who wished to deliver cement across the street. In fact, parked in my driveway and I told him to go away, he parked in front of the fire hydrant and I told him to go away and then he said, I am going to run the chute across the street and I said I think the Police Department would have a different view. They did. They have parking that endangers people when they have company there. They have large trucks coming in and out. They had a contractor that was doing something to their gutters who set up a truck in the street and started cutting metal and I had to call the Police and say, would you please take them away, they're going to be dangerous. They had a TV installer who had large strips of wire floating across Oakland Avenue entangling up the ears and they have now going an out of Southold contractor. I mean I believe this house is off the tax rolls and nobody has ever been asked in Southold to my knowledge to do any work on it. They at least would have some idea of where the school buses come and go and when. So, I don't think frankly that, this is a good use of the property and also I do think, that you ought to be concerned about the fact that you make a change like that, you're affecting everybody. I don't really feel, that with the school getting larger that you want to conglomerate more on that land. I mean it's all very well to say people will not use things at night. It's all very well to say, they'll be careful, but, with the graveyard not far away and notorious mischief occurring, I suspect you're going to find you have safety hazard with that too and I'm very concerned about having the Police Department or the Ambulances, or goodness knows what kind of trouble will cause from all of us actually. Myself of course I'm interested in first and foremost and my household and its welfare. I do think that you should bear in mind, that once you've dug a hole in the ground, you can't tell what's going to happen after. The drainage I want to point out that it is difficult, the town has just done very, very good work to see we're not flooded out three days in a row in a heavy storm. If you put a large structure in there, the tidal percolation coming up from the creek, may backfire and then we're going to have more floods and I don't think that's a very good idea for anybody. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. Is there anybody else would like to speak against? Seeing no hands. Mr. Arnoff, anything in rebuff? MR. ARNOFF. Well, all the work that's done at the site, is done by bids. Any local person who bids the job gets the lowest bids, gets the job. Just that no-ones been able to do that. I shouldn't say no-one, but, obviously the people she's talking about may very well come from out-of-town. We certainly will, if in fact, contractors are who are independent contractors, are coming there and acting inappropriate, as a matter of fact I thank this lady, for ealling the Page 17 - Hearing Trahscripts January 22, 1998 - Board of Appeals police. I think it's the appropriate thing to do. We've all had problems with contractors. I would say, that IGHL is immune from that. We try to have responsible people doing the work. Certainly we're not going to be disrupting ground water. We're not going to be disrupting anything. We're putting in a swimming pool for the exclusive use of the residence. There are, so the Board knows, there are counselors on duty 24 hours a day in this building. This isn't like there's not going to be anybody there we're it will be attractive nuisance if you will, for people, for children walking by and now with it relocated some 40 feet off of the road instead of 18 feet off the road, it becomes even less, especially when it's screened. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Alright. The issue of parking. Is there adequate parking on the site? MR. ARNOFF: Well, there's parking on main road. I mean, it's a public street, where there's parking. There are no, the residence don't have vehicles. For the one day a week that they're, for the weekend where there may be visitors, people park on the street, that's for sure, but, they're not parking on Oakland. That's no parking as I recall that particular spot. I believe there's no parking on Oakland Avenue. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: So, they're parking on the main road? MR. ARNOFF: Right, and there is a small parking area as one pulls in off of the read and that's not being changed, that's staying the same. MR. STOCKTON: There's room for four cars. MR. ARNOFF: Yes, there's room for four cars. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Those are staff cars though, right Mr. Stockton? Yes, OK. So, basically anybody that would be visiting, would be parking on the main road primarily. Anything else? MR. ARNOFF: No Sir. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. something you wanted to add. Mrs. Halsey you had MR. HALSEY: Yes, in theory I presume it's adequate for cars but, if you have ever seen the delivery trucks all coming in and very large ones. Trucks that were two in the yard today with ladders on them. I don't think another car could have got in. The theory may be perfectly correct, the actual usage and I have to look at it every time I come in and out of my driveway, to see if somebody is going to come out and if I'm going to have to dodge them. Oakland is Page 18 - Hearing Tral~scripts January ~.2, 1998 - Board of Appeals narrower there as you probably know as you probably know than it is some farther back. I don't really believe that that'is adequate. I think another lane in their parking lot would be a much better idea than anything else. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. OK, we now get to the perplexing aspect of what we're going to do with the hearing. Based upon Mr. Fischetti's letter and based upon what you had men!toned, my suggestion is, that I doubt seriously that you're going to build a pool this time of the year anyway. So, my suggestion is that I think, that we'll just close the hearing any verbatim testimony and physically close it, OK, on the 26th of February, OK. MR. ARNOFF: Fine. necessary. So then, you don't want anyone here, it's not CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: No, and if Mr. Fisehetti for any reason feels concerned between the 14th and the 26th, he can write us a letter and we would be very happy to afford you a copy of the letter. In fact, we'd appreciate him writing us a letter, telling us that he thinks 'that everything has been mitigated. MR. ARNOFF: I think, what I'll do for purposes of the Board, tomorrow I'll send a letter to Mr. Fischetti with exactly what you people have and shown this is what's anticipated with screening so he knows and in the letter I'll ask him to send you a note. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We thank you all for coming in, we thank you for your comments, nice to see you again Mr. Stockton and I'll make a motion closing the hearing verbatim testimony and effectively closing it on the 26th of February. MEMBER DINIZIO: Second. Motion carried. See Minutes for Resolution. Page 19 - Hearing Trauscripts January 22, 1998 - Board of Appeals 7:50 P.M. - Appl. No. 4531 - DUANE PASCALE CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Continued hearing from 1/15 for continued discussions (regarding alternative plan from applicant before closing hearing). Open, unroofed deck variances at Minnehaha Boulevard, Southold. Mr. Pascale how are you tonight, Sir? MR. PASCALE: Fine, thank you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We've had a chance to digest what you had given us and we are here to anxiously await what you are anticipating. Mt{. PASCALE: OK. Can I just say three points before I hand you my revised proposition. Just try to keep in mind that my lot is a really odd shape and it's kind of difficult to create what I want to create with that weird shape that I have. The other point I wanted' to address was I think Ms. Collins brought it up last week, is a concerning the Owaissa Avenue being 'treated as a front yard type boundary. I just want you to please keep in mind that it is a private right-of-way at this point which I have claimed an interest in. That it is never used and it's not even paved. It's grass on it. I'm the one that cuts it, rakes the leaves. I maintain all year long. So, just to treat that as a front yard is~ I'm hoping you can kind of like, and even so the deck would be 36 feet away from the neighbor's property line the way I've redone it. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Could I just ask you a question before you go any farther. Are you asking for an abandonment of that road end from the town? MR. PASCALE: Charles Cuddy, do you know him?, the attorney is working on it. I don't know which approach he's using. But, he successfully acquired the one that's five houses down from me and he's doing the same approach, it's the same Wickham deeded improperly, in the teens, the early 1900s and according to my deed, it's identical situation where the right-of-way was improperly deeded to the ( ). CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK. But, if there is a road end that is usually the process they take. They go for a road abandonment. MR. PASCALE: I wish I could answer that. I'm not too sure on that one. And just lastly, I just want you to remember too, that I do have arthritis in my ankles and I do plan on retiring here and I Page 20 ~ Hearing TranScripts January 22, 1998 - Boal~d of Appeals don't suspect my ankles of getting better as I get older. So, it would be helpful. Anyway, could I hand you these revisions? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Sure. Thank you. MR. PASCALE: If you can just make a notice of the back. The old plan was 9 feet from the bulkhead and I changed this now to 21 feet away, back from the bulkhead. You know, the problem that I'm still facing though, is the percentage of the lot coverage and you know, even though it's substantially a smaller deck by 30%, you know, I still show that figure on the top of what I'm over allowed on lot coverage. I don't know if this hurts me or helps me, but, keep in mind that the house as it is, exists right this day is, is 1.5% over already. So, I'm really asking for 5% variance. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: about. So, you're 26.5 is whal you're talking MR. PASCALE: Yes, point 6 actually. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Oh, point 6, that's a 6 point, right, sorry. What's the actual square footage of the deck? MR. PASCALE: This new proposition is 716 instead of 1,000. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: 12 x 34.3 - So, we're talking the largest portion is MR. PASCALE: Which is really two sections. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Right and then 14 x 22'with a little bit of a change in that area of 6 foot. Was that little change taken into consideration in reference to that? MR. PASCALE: I pretty much figured it all in. square reduction area, the lower left - Also, that little CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: assume? Where you took it out for steps, I MR. PASCALE: No, that had to be an operable shower. I'm trying to keep also within the boundaries of the walkway as you can see. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes, so the walkways are going to be - MR. PASCALE: Well, removed. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Let me see, I have to check the first plan. What do you mean by that? Page 21 - Hearing Transcripts January 22, 1998 - Board of Appeals MR. PASCALE: We were considering if the Board needs to have a drainage problem addressed. We can take it out free from drainage, otherwise we'll leave it. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: So, let me understand You're physically not going to take them out then, underneath? that again. it would be MR. PASCALE: I would prefer not to have to have the expense, but, if it, if it's a requirement by you guys to help with this, that there was a drainage problem, maybe, I would say thai, otherwise I .would probably the parts underneath I would leave, but I would crack out the different spots, the part that would be exposed. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Alright. So, in effect, it carries pretty much the contour except for one section of it. MR. PASCALE: Yes, except for that one jutting out for a - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I don't know your house interiorly, so I can't tell you exactly what I'm saying. MR. PASCALE: Yes, but you're right. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: So, we'll start with Mr. Dinizio. MEMBER DINIZIO: No, I think it's a definite improvement and I suppose you're somewhat right about the Owaissa Avenue and I mean it certainly is grassy, no-one would know that there's really a road there, but, we do have to consider it because it's still there. But~ it's definite an improvement. That's all I have to say. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Ms. Collins. MEMB ER COLLINS: I went again and walked around the neighborhood and went across Corey Creek and looked across at the property and I just want to say that where I come out is, you have a lot coverage problem, it's a densely packed neighborhood, going beyond the allowable lot coverage is certainly not unheard of in that area. But, I feel that the project even now, entails lot coverage that strikes me as very high for the neighborhood, and more to the point, I think that people have decks and if you have waterfront property having a deck is obviously extremely important, but, I would think that the deck that would be suitable to the neighboring environment if you will, is a smaller deck than your revised version and the bottom line in my view is the piece behind the garage and whether that is really a necessary part of the project. I'm just giving you my sense of what fits - Page 22 - Hearing Transcripts January 22, 1998 - Board of Appeals MR. PASCALE: Yes, that's the kitchen though. MEMBER COLLINS: Because we're suppose to balance the benefit to you and you obviously have an important interest in getting a deck. That's a benefit. MR. PASCALE: I sure do. MEMBER COLLINS: But, the neighborhood has an interest in not having big structures creeping in. MR. PASCALE: Well, Mr. Steiber on the Owaissa Avenue side is, you know, we're very, very, friendly, and he has absolutely no objection whatsoever, and if I knew it would of helped, I would of had him write a letter stating that he doesn't mind and really you can't even see it from anybody else other than the Steibers, which is the Owaissa Avenue side. The house behind me can't see it and the Michaels' house on the other side, it's, it's really blocked by the shed and if you see where their house is located, they can't even see it, and that piece that you're talking about, does happen to be the kitchen area right where you want to have you know, luncheon. In that area, I mean, unless a height difference makes anything, I could make that lower, if I had to. MEMBER COLLINS: As you plan was originally proposed, which end is the higher deck? MR. PASCALE: To the opposite of what you were just addressing. MEMBER COLLINS: Yes, it's up where the shed is now? MR. PASCALE: Correct. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: And what's the height there? MR. PACALE: It's a, of the deek? MEMBER COLLINS: 36 inches, I believe. MR. PASCALE: 36 inches and that steps down - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Is that 36 inches measured at the house, or is it measured on the extension of the 19. feet out? MR. PASCALE: I think I measured at the house. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: So, that's probably more as you go out. MR. PASCALE: Oh, because of the incline you're saying of the land? Page 23 - Hearing Transcripts January 22, 1998 - Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Right. Could I just explain something to this Board prior to the last hearing? I mean based upon the last hearing and this has the same affect here. You will never, never, never build a ground level deck. I don't care how good you are. I don't care how well you manieure the property, OK. It will not be done. There will be one seetion of that deck that will be out, alright, or maybe an entire section. As in the case of this one, you know, we're talking, you know, extensive lot coverage, but we're also talking height situation. If you're measuring 38 inches, at the house, you're probably going to be 48 inches at the other end because of the way the lot falls off. MR. PASCALE: saying though. I'm not sure of that, but, I know what you're CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I mean not that it makes a tremendous difference we're dealing with lot coverage here. So, in this particular case a, it's something we'd like to know. What about the height on the other one? On the other deck? MR. PASCALE: Well, the other two really however we call them combined, is really like 18 inches. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: measuring 6 feet there? |s that going to be a - OK, so, is that little area that you're Is that going to actually be a step-down or MR. PASCALE: That little square? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: you have the a - No, no, in between the two decks where MR. PASCALE: Oh yes, yes, that would go from the deck. I don't know if you have the original, front view. Yes, that would be two steps down to a, to the level. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: To the lower level? MR. PASCALE: To the lower level and then it would be the you know, all along. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes, right, thank you. MR. PASCALE: I don't know if it means anything. Well, I guess it really doesn't, but, there's probably 3-1/2 feet of shrubbery all along the back of the house that, I mean we'll be moving out which the deck is, I mean that's ( ) anyway. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Right, OK, Mrs. Tortora? Page 24 - Hearing Transcripts January 22, 1998 - Board of Appeals MEMBER TORTORA: I did go down there and I took a careful look at the neighborhood and I took a careful look at the adjoining lots and the setbacks and lot coverages in this area, and what I saw in my own mind, was that to the east and west visually, that your house, the outer most edge of your house towards the water, exceeds the average encroachment of all of the other lots on the street. 21 feet from a bulkhead is too close when you consider, 1, that the setback is 75 feet and when we were discussing a 716 sq. ft. over, you know increase, it may be 6.6% over the 20% lot coverage, but 716 sq. ft. in percentage has to be in relationship to the allowable lot coverage which is I think about 2200 sq. ft.. It's too big in my mind, too big, too much. Too small a lot to accommodate that without being a detriment to the community. I can see no other houses of that size, in that magnitude in proportion to the lot. I'll go back and check again. I will, I will go back and check again and again. But, it's just too big and too much. MR. PASCALE: Well, you know it's the biggest house in the entire neighborhood? It's not a ( ) house, but it happens to be the biggest house in the whole neighborhood. MEMBER TORTORA: It is the biggest house in neighborhood and you're asking to make it bigger. problem. That's why you're here for a lot coverage. you're here for setback to the bulkhead. the whole That's the That's why MR. PASCALE: I pay more taxes. I mean, you know. MEMBER TORTORA: If you had a bigger piece of land you could have a house three times that size. I don't think that's the issue. The issue is that the decree of what you're asking for is excessive. It's substantial. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Does anybody have any suggestion in what the maximum they would be happy with in both either footage or maximum square footage? I say footage I'm talking about direction to the bulkhead. The only question I have is, in looking at the overall plan which Ms. Collins very nicely showed me again, this center area here, which you're indicating, I have to get the new plan now. MR. PASCALE: With the steps in the middle. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: With the steps in the middle, is it really necessary for that to be as deep, because I can see that, I assume this a bedroom over here? MR. PASCALE: That's correct. Page 25 - Hearing Transcripts January 22, 1998 - Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: And I can see a reason why you would want to have a deck outside the bedroom because it would be nice to sit out there. Is it really necessary in this area to have the deck that deep? I mean couldn't you shrink that back? MR. PASCALE: Yes. You see that's already 12 feet. I was thinking of shrinking the other objectionable area for which was another couple of feet which I have a plan for, but, it makes it very tight to put a table and chairs around it. CttAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes, in front of the kitchen area. Well, that's what I'm saying. This area here, the focal point in the center, that very rarely ever gets used because basically you're utilizing this area down here, or you may be utilizing this area up here. That's the reason why I asked. MR. PASCALE: I mean I could look at it that way. I've had a feeling that that would be more used by the kids with lounge chairs and stuff, but I mean, I'm not sure. I mean to make that one section smaller you're saying? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Well, I mean that may be an area that the Board may have, you know, if you shrunk it in that area. I mean I don't know. No-one has given me any indication. I'm not asking necessarily for a, to put anybody on the spot either. MEMBER COLLINS: I just wanted to suggest Mr. Chairman, that at the last hearing you, I believe it was you, brought up but didn't pursue the patio approach. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Right. MEMBER COLLINS: Didn't that not come up? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes. MEMBER COLLINS: that discussion. And I wonder if Mr. Pascale followed the gist of MR. PASCALE: You mean like a ground level patio you were saying. I was under the impression from the Building Department, that it has to be low enough to run a lawn mower over. That's how they described it to me. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes, and that goes back to my original discussion of the deek on the prior application, beeause I assure you if it's that much out. MEMBER COLLINS: Yes, no, I understand. Page 26 - Hearing Transcripts January 22, 1998 - Board of Appeals MR. PASCALE: That's exactly right. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: And by the nature of your sloping property, you'd have to start at minus zero at the house to get zero. MR. PASCALE: Exaetly, and then I would just fill with mud. MEMBER COLLINS: OK, no, I just wanted to make sure that it had been adequately aired. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: That's why in my mind, it was important to again~ discuss the height situation because from level to 36 inches is a substantial amount. Mt{,. PASCALE: I mean I have another plan that I did first and then we went and staked it out, and it seemed very tight by the kitchen area to be able to put a barbecue grill, the table and chairs and you know, which I broke that down to 12 foot, a 12 foot deck which you have right here. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: to us. OK, we'll see that, if you want to give it MR. PASCALE: Yes, I have it'. It's just that it didn't do much percentage wise. It only brought it down to 6.2 and I didn't think it would make a difference, so I figured I would stick with the one that gave me the room to be able to maneuver. I mean the only difference with this, is, the area by the kitchen area. Instead of being 14 feet out it's 12 feet out, which brings the distance from the bulkhead to 23 and change. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: the bulkhead? What's the distance on the other end to MR. PASCALE: You see, the only problem with this one, that I forgot to mention. I don't know if this is going to make a difference. If I were to go a little smaller, would I be able to be a little elevated more equal to the door, because that's so much steps, that the steps that small of a deck, would be taking up a large area of where the walking would be. In other words, if we go smaller - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: So, you would elevate - MR. PASCALE: I'd prefer to elevate that section. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: To the same distance as the other end. MR. PASCALE: As the other end. Page 27 - Hearing Transcripts January 22, 1998 - Board of Appeals MEMBER TORTORA: You're still on, that wouldn't change the closest edge to the bulkhead. It would still only be 17 feet. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: No. MR. PASCALE: No, that doesn't change that other - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: At that point. No, that doesn't change. You can clip that corner though. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: No. MR. PASCALE: I could. 670 sq. ft., is that what ( ). CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Alright, we'll wrestle With this and we'll see what we come up with. MEMBER DINIZIO: Will you accept an alternative relief if we? MR. PASCALE: Yes, I would rather have an alternative than nothing, if that's what the question is. MEMBER DINIZO: OK, I just wondered if you would. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: questions. OK, good. Ms. Collins any last minute MEMBER COLLINS: No. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mrs. Tortora? MEMBER TORTORA: No questions. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Alright, we will definitely play with it. Thank you very much. You're drawings are well done. Is there anybody else would like to speak in favor or against this application? Seeing no hands I'll make a motion closing the hearing, reserving decision until later. MEMBER DINIZIO: Second. Motion carried. See Minutes for Resolution. (End of Hearings).