Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-05/14/1998 HEARING Transcript of Public Hearings May 14, 1998 Southold Town Board of Appeals (Prepared by Lucy Farrell from Tape Recordings) 6:41 P.M. - Appl. No. 4559 - CHRISTOPHER PLIANCONIS Continued hearing was requested by Ronald Hellman (recessed from 4/16). "As built" pool location affecting lot coverage limitation. Snug Harbor Road, Greenport. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Is anyone present? How are you? Do you want to come up and discuss with us where we've gotten at .this point. Is your attorney here? MR. PLIACONIS: He should be here, he's a little late. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Alright, we'll recess for about minutes. Do you have any objection to that Ms. Wickham? I'll offer that as a resolution. We'll recess for about 20 minutes. 2O MEMBER TORTORA: Second. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: All in favor. BOARD MEMBERS: Aye. Page 2 - Hearing TranScripts :May 14, 1998 - Board of APpeals 6:45 P.M.- Appl. No: 4565 - STEVEN ZUHOSKI. Variance under Article XXIV, Section 100-244, based upon the Building Inspector's March 30, 1998 Notice of Disapproval for a proposed garage addition with an insufficient side yard setback at property known as 1090 Gold Spur Street, Cutchogue, N.Y. 1000-95-4-18.12. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: (Read legal notice as'introduction.) I have a copy of a survey with the penned-in areas most recent date is September 30, 1997 indicating the garage and addition to the house at its closest point on the west side at 7 feet zero, and I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and surrounding properties in the area. Mr. Fitzgerald, I understand you're representing these people tonight. How are you? MR. JAMES FITZGERALD: Yes. I'm fine, how are you? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: us? Very well. What would you like to tell MR. FITZGERALD: The material in the application covers everything. But I would like to just emphasize that it's two things that are really important to the Zuhoskis and that is that the garage be on that side of the building because that's the side the kitchen is on and that it be attached for security and kids in and out, and groceries in and out of the rain, and what have you. And, of course, on the kitchen side is the side that one would expect to be most convenient. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: What exactly is in the addition? MR. FITZGERALD: I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: What exactly is in the addition apart from the garage? MR. FITZGERALD: Well, that we're talking about here, there's an addition to the kitchen. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I see, so it's elongating the kitchen. MR. FITZGERALD: Pardon me. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: making the kitchen larger. Which is elongating the kitchen. It's MR. FITZGERALD: Yes. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK. And the approximate width of the garage is what to your knowledge? MR. FITZGERALD: 22 feet, I believe. Page 3 - Hearing' Transcripts ~May 14, 1998 - Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: throughout the hearing. any questions? Alright. We'll see what develops Let's start with Mr. Dinizio do you have MEMBER DINIZIO: No. I don't. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Ms. Collins? MEMBER COLLINS: No. No questions. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mrs. Tortora? MEMBER TORTORA: No. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mr. Horning? MEMBER HORNING: I have no questions at this time. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: It was my understanding that an alternate plan was going to be given to me, or given to us I should say. Any - no? This is it, this is the plan? BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: I had spoken at one time to Mr. Zuhoski and he was talking about it. MR. ZUHOSKI: Well I wanted to see exactly what the Board would, you know, I want to come to an agreement tonight, and then if I have to do an alternate plan, I Will. I don't want to. But. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I see, alright. MEMBER COLLINS: two-car garage? Yes, one question, Mr. Chairman. This is a MR. ZUHOSKI: Yes. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Alright, let's see what develops throughout the hearing. As you know, in lieu of an appropriate second plan, we could grant alternate relief. You've been before this Board many times, and you know that I'm not doing it, I'm not smirking in a sarcastic manner, I'm smirking in a positive manner, alright. I didn't mean it to be that way. But we could grant alternate relief which, of course, would very simply cut down the garage. The question is, does he want the addition cut down or does he want the garage cut down? I mean if we couldn't agree. MR. ZUHOSKI: Right. One of my alternatives to the design was to put the garage closer to the house and the kitchen in the back. I don't want to change the sides of either. But I do want to come to an agreement if we can tonight on what exactly you will give me so I can go back to them and then get the proper permits. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Alright. While you're standing there we'll ask if there's anybody in the audience would like to speak in Page 4 Hearing~ Transcripts ~May 14, 1998 - Board of Appeals favor of this application other than the applicant and his agent? Anybody like to speak against the application? Yes, Sir. Could you state your name for the record please? JOE SMALLEY: Joe Smalley. I'm a neighbor of Steve here, friends for years. I just want to bring out a point that I'm not quite clear on Steve and the Board. We were told by the Zoning Board at the Town Hall that the original plans were turned down, and that Mr. Zuhoski had said that he would come up with alternate plans and assured the Board that he would be at least 10 feet away from the property line. Now this is a nonconforming lot and if I may take another two minutes. The property in question that Mr. Zuhoski only has about 18 to 20 feet from the side of his house on the left side, to said property line. And as I understand it, I was told the addition is to include on that side an extension of the kitchen and an attached 1-1/2 car garage and still have 7 feet to said property line and that's what on those items. I don't understand how he can do all that and still have seven feet to the marker and anything under seven feet is not really acceptable. Now, Mr. Zuhoski's map on the property line that I have here, shows that his property line goes straight back like from the south and north, approximately. The map that I have here from the Board for some 18 years shows that my map, the line on the left side runs wider as it goes to the east on the map. In other words, I don't go straight back, like rectangular. According to Steve's map, it's rectangular. My map I go~ proceed to go east. In other words, the front of my house is, the front of my property is 150 feet, but the back of my house goes to 236.93 feet, which is one of these spread-out things. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Right. MR. SMALLEY: So, I think there's a little question that maybe Steve is coming too close or coming on my line as a result of his property being shown on his map as being rectangular. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Let me just back-up for one second. You said you had no objection to him going as close to 7 feet to the line? MR. SMALLEY: No, I didn't say that-. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: You didn't say that. You talked 10 feet at the beginning and then you said something before. MR. SMALLEY: Yes, as I understand the law, the regulations are 20 feet. But in the map here, I don't see where Steve - Steve has 20 feet, how he can go, like you just said 22 feet. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: For the garage. MR. SMALLEY: I was saying before is that, my map shows he only has 50 feet from left side of his house. So, how much further can he go? And according to my map here, he's right on my border line. He's right on my property line. Page 5 - Heating'Transcripts ~May 14, 1998 Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Right. MEMBER TORTORA: Are you the property to the west? MR. SMALLEY: To the west. Yes, ma'am. The reason I'm concerned with this, Sir and the Group, is because I was told by real estate people, that if such, if this does happen, that will sort of hesitate any real estate companies, I mean people coming-in the real estate from the, going to the property, when they find out that, the property has been, in other words it would devalue the price of my property when I sell it. That's what concerns me most. Thank you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: You have a question of Mr. Smalley? MEMBER TORTORA: No. I mean I can - it's a large parcel and he doesn't want his neighbor seven feet from his property line. It's simple. MR. FITZGERALD: One of the materials that was submitted is, a copy of the survey upon which the East End Drafting Design has placed the proposed expansion to the additions and that is to scale. So ~ think you can define the locations and sizes. MEMBER TORTORA: What is the width of the deck addition? MR. FITZGERALD: Which deck is that? MEMBER TORTORA: This is adjacent to the garage, the new proposed mark on the survey that says a 'deck addition,' what is the width of that? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Well we've got 38, I'll answer it for him. We've got 38'7" minus 22. 16 feet, 7 inches. MEMBER COLLINS: No Jerry, your arithmetic, you missed the seven feet of setback to the property line, I think. MEMBER TORTORA: deck addition? Do you know the width of the proposed new MEMBER HORNING: The one in back of the kitchen. MEMBER TORTORA: Right here. that correct or is 30 -? This is 38 - the garage is 38, is MEMBER COLLINS: 38 from the lot line to the a - MEMBER HORNING: That should be 38. That dimensions - MEMBER TORTORA: And what is this width here? (All talking together) Page 6 - Hearing~'Transcripts ~May 14, 1998 - Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Again 22 and 38'7" is 16 feet 7 inches. CHAIRMAN to MR. SMALLEY: We'll be right with you. (Mr. Smalley handed a copy of his survey showing the property lines. ) BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: He doesn't understand what they're saying. Do you want us to keep this (eopy of survey), Mr. Smalley? MEMBER TORTORA: In other words, he relocates this. He's got, he keeps his garage in tact. If he, this is kind of, it's not very difficult really. If he relocates this to, instead of putting the new deck addition here, he moves this over - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Well you're referring to a deck. This is an addition to the house. The garage is the deck. MR. FITZGERALD: The deck is - it's a deck. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Right. Right. MR. FITZGERALD: determine that. OK, the addition to the house is what they will MEMBER TORTORA: Nevertheless, you'd still pick up the space in here. That's what I was - to get him away from the property line. Seven feet is pretty close on this side of the property. You know, that's just one suggestion, but it's a lot easier actually if you could come up with a way to get it further back than the property line. Seven feet is pretty close on this. MR. ZUHOSKI: Do I have to have a drawing on that? we come to an agreement tonight and then - Can I, can CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes, l0 feet. MEMBER TORTORA: I don't know. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Maybe 10 feet. Let me just say this to you in all truth, in all fairness Mr. Zuhoski. The reason for asking your client, your agent rather about alternate relief, is we have not, there has been no polling on the Board. We have not looked at this as a Board. We've looked at it independently and so therefore it's how the three votes go. The three out of the five. OK. And so I can't give you a specific amount. I could tell you at the least I would go is 10 OK. MR. ZUHOSKI: Then I would have to come back to another hearing. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: No, you could redesign it any way you want, as long as it meets the criteria of the - Page 7 - Hearing Transcripts ~May 14, 1998 - Board of Appeals MR. ZUHOSKI: Of what you decide tonight? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: yes. Yes. When and if we do decide tonight, MR. FITZGERALD: What you're saying is, if we may decide to draft alternate relief as follows. MR. ZUHOSKI: That's fine. As long as I have an idea. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes. We'll give you a figure when we make a decision, and you. know, certainly 20 feet to 7 feet is a substantial variance and as Mrs. Tortora said, 20 feet to 10 feet is a 50% variance. You're absolutely correct. And, of course, unfortunately you didn't build this house, right? MR~ ZUHOSKI: No, I didn't. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: And that's where the problem is. MR. ZUHOSKI: As you see there's plenty of land there. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes, and that's where the problem lies. MEMBER TORTORA: And that's also where if you didn't have a lot of options, I would say, " Oh, Boy." But you do have some flexibility. MR. ZUHOSKI: There is some, but I mean without staying within my budget and everything. By moving the kitchen over to the other side I might as well knock the house down. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: were doing? Mr. Smalley, did you understand what we MR. SMALLEY: Yes, I just want to say one thing Sir, Board. I don't want to be an enemy of Steven because we're neighbors. But I just wanted to bring out what I thought was basically overlooked, I don't want him you know, approving, it isn't much, you know what I'm saying. But, what I wanted to bring out is you see the rectangular 150, you see, the back of the house, my property. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: You see, the point is, that if you were to take a measurement from here up back to here, you'll find out that he is pretty rectangular at 150. He's probably 150, he may be 151. So, you're absolutely correct. It does come in on a diagonal. There's no question about it. But, even though this is 150, this is 161, that 11 feet is going to be used up on the angle. MR. SMALLEY: Yes, right. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: So, you'll probably get 150 to 150 at this point. But, if we were to grant it, it's going to be the closest point would be x, y, z amount. You know what I'm saying? Page 8 - Hearing TransCripts ~May 14, 1998 - Board of Appeals MR. SMALLEY: Yes, OK, Sir. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: He would have to live with the diagonal. So it may be 10 feet at one point and it would be 9.6 at the other. Well, it's got to be reduced because we're going to go with the least amount. This is what it would be, you know, whatever figure we come up with in reference to a basically an unanimous vote. MR. SMALLEY: I just wanted to bring these up, because like I said, when I opened my comments here I wasn't quite, I couldn't understand Mr. Zuhoski's diagram. It seemed that no matter what he did, he was going to be right on my property line. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: The reason why we're so familiar with this is because a lot of the Town on the waterfront areas are all diagonals. They'll measure it at 100 feet, but the 100 feet is like the measurement of the 161 on the back of his property. If you actually measured the width, it's 85 feet because I'm talking about 100 feet on some of these trapezoidal parcels that exists. Primarily Peconic Bay Boulevard in Laurel, is all trapezoidal. MR. SMALLEY: Well, I just wanted to bring that out because at thai point I'm going east. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: to you. East, right. Which even puts it closer MR. SMALLEY: much. It didn't match Steve's diagram. Thank you very CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you for coming in. Any other questions or comments? So that basically that wrapping this up, he will accept alternate relief and we'll see what we come up with with a figure. MR. FITZGERALD: That's correct. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: You want to give us a call tomorrow? We'll see if we get to it tonight. I'm not guaranteeing it. If not, we'll have a special meeting. I know it's important for you to build it at this time of the year because it's a great time of the year to build. Nice meeting you. Thank you for coming in and have a good night. 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 9 - Hearing Transcripts ~May 14, 1998 - Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mr. Dinizio, we're going to excuse you at this point. MEMBER DINIZIO: We'll see how long the next hearing goes, OK. I still have about 10 minutes. 6:50 P.M.- Appl. No. 4566 - FRANK BERETTO Variance under Article XXIV, Section 100-244B, based upon the Building Inspector's April 7, 1998 Notice of Disapproval for an "as built" garage addition. Pending building permit No. 24632Z was issued 2/3/98. Location: 695 Shore Drive, Greenport; 1000-47-2-18. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I have a copy of a sketch of a survey, the most recent date is April '25, 1998 from Anthony W. Lewandowski showing a garage at 11 feet 3 inches and I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and surrounding properties in the area. Is there somebody like to be heard on this one? How are you tonight Sir? Could you state your name for the record. MR. BERETTO: Frank Beretto. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Is there anything you'd like to tell us? MR. BERETTO: Nothing other than I applied for the permit, submitted the copy of the survey I was given at the closing. It's the same 75 foot width on the property. The plans show the dimensions of the distances from the property line. The application has a plot plan diagram. The plans and the applications have phone numbers of both myself and the architect and our addresses. The Building Department, reviewed the plans for five weeks. Neither of us were contacted, they issued that permit on February 3rd, and said build it as applied for and so we did and then later on they said, no, you need to have more width on the property and here we are. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: The Notice of Disapproval reads, "as built" garage addition, being located on a nonconforming lot under 20,000 sq. ft. in a R-40 Zone District, is required to have side yard setbacks of 10 feet and cumulative of 25 feet pursuant to Article XXIV Section 100-244 B. So, in this particular case you have 10 feet 1 inch on one side and 11 foot 3 inches on the other side which doesn't make 25 feet. MR. BERETTO: Yes Sir. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: And that's why you're here. Homing do you have any questions to this gentleman? Mr. MEMBER HORNING: No, not right now. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mrs. Tortora? Page 10 - Hearing Transcripts ~May 14, 1998 - Board of Appeals MEMBER TORTORA: No. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Ms. Collins? MEMBER COLLINS: I just wanted to confirm what I'm sure I heard you say and I'm looking at something in our file which is a zerox of part of the plan apparently as submitted to the Building Department. MR. BERETTO: Yes, ma'am, with a standard of about I inch from - MS. COLLINS: Right and that plan shows the setbacks very clearly and there was no question about what the setbacks were when you applied. MR. BERETTO: Neither to me nor the architect. MS. COLLINS: Well, OK. I will say for the record that I think that we should give Mr. Beretto his variance without delay. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Alright. Who has this one? J.D. you're on. MEMBER DINIZIO: Well, I'd like to grant it as applied. It's up to you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Alright. While you're standing there I just have to ask the proverbial question, is there anybody else in the audience would like to speak in favor? Anybody like to speak against? Seeing no hands Mr. Dinizio, you are here, it is your file. MEMBER DINIZIO: I'll have it for you on Monday? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Monday, you'll do the findings? MEMBER DINIZIO: 1'11 do everything. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Alright. You want to make the motion? MEMBER DINIZIO: I shall make the motion that we grant the application as applied. That will be a total of 4-1/2 feet, is that correct? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes. MEMBER TORTORA: You're doing it. Do you have a, you have a - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: No, he hasn't done it. He's going to do it. We'll send it to you. MEMBER DINIZIO: You have findings before you have a hearing. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: You're making the motion that's temporaneously. Is that correct? Page 11 - Hearing Tra~scripts ~May 14, 1998 - Board of Appeals MEMBER COLLINS: Actually it's 3-1/2 feet. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Well, if you don't vote on it, it fails and then you - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes, I'm voting on it. MEMBER DINIZIO: I mean I just don't under stand why we can't just vote on it. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We can. MEMBER DINIZIO: I mean, we could write it right now if you want. MEMBER HORNING: What's the distance you're talking about? MEMBER COLLINS: 3-1/2 feet. MEMBER DINIZIO: It's 3-1/2 feet. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Alright, so you made the motion? MEMBER DINIZIO: Yes I did. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I'll second the motion. Motion carried. See Minutes for Resolution. Page 12 - Hearing Transeripts ~May 14, 1998 - Board of Appeals 7:09 P.M. - PELIACONIS reconvened. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I'd like to reopen the Peliaeonis hearing. Sir, we're ready for you. Could you just state your name for the reeord, again Sir. MR. SALIMANDO: Yes, Good evening Mr Chairman and the Board. My name is Scott Salimando, 199 East Main Street, Smithtown, N.Y. Good evening, sorry, I apologize again for my tardiness. This was a continuation of our last occasion, part of what the Boa~'d wanted to see was a plan with regard to the swimming pool, specifically with regards to its landscaping and due to some objections that came in with regards to that. What I've prepared for the Board tonight is I have a diagram of what the homeowners, the Pliaconises propose with regards to the area. If I may. (Handing out diagram to the Board. ) CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: What does this entail Mr. Salimando? What kind of plantings are these? MR. SALIMANDO: The plantings are going to be as stated in the plan. We have everything from trees to red cedars in the corners which are 10-12 foot high, pink azaleas, we have 16 nigra arbovitaes which are approximately 8 foot high. In the far right hand corner we again have the 10 to 12 foot red cedars, then there are various other plants, spirea, this is again for landscaping purposes. In the immediate backyard area, specifically where the Hellman's property is laid, because Mr. & Mrs. Hellman had placed an objection with regards to the esthetic quality and the ability to see the pool. We felt that this plan would negate that particular situation. The property would still be feneed and the shrubberies around the pool, would negate them being able to see the pool, it would also negate any possibility of noise coming from the pool area. As indicated before, the homeowners are husband and wife, they have a small child. This is for their use and enjoyment. It is not a public facility certainly. It's not a facility where they're going to have parties that will disturb the neig, hborhood area here and that is why they want to take this into account. There was a letter submitted by Mr. & Mrs. Hellman which had asked for plantings. I think the Board may have that letter. The plantings were to be on their proper'ty area and from what I understand the total amount of money initially for that they've estimated $8,000. I've had a conference with their attorney and they've indicated that now that would be paired down to almost $3,000. My clients have made an offer to them, and the offer was basically to give them $500 in lieu of that. In other words they would still do the plan on their side of the proi~erty and give the Hellmans a monetary amount that they so desire to put plantings on their own side. But, unfortunately they're not in a financial position to be prepared to spend an additional $9.,500 to plant the necessary plants that the Hellmans would like on their property. They do want to be good neighbors, they do want to take it into account. We feel that the issue is the site of the pool and this particular plan speaks to that and would insure the integrity of the neighborhood, would insure the esthetie Page 13 - Hearing Transcripts .~May 14, 1998 - Board of Appeals quality of the neighborhood and goes to the very heart of what the objections were with regards to seeing the pool and hearing the noise. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Alright, so let's see what develops from their attorney and there would be two restrictions on my part in dealing with this, and that was, that the bushes would be continuously maintained, either through a drip water system or, you know, watering them among themselves, I don't care. And, I know there was one other one and I can't think of it at the moment. Oh, that there be no further reductions of excess lot coverage, or meaning increases of excess lot coverage. MR. SALIMANDO: Yes and parenthetically Mr. Chairman, my clients are very aware of that and they will be done and if this Board graciously approves the variance they can be assured of that. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Alright, thank you. Anybody else like to speak in favor? Anybody against? Ms. Wickham how are you tonight ? MS. WICKHAM: Good evening, fine thank you. Gall Wickham of Main Road, Mattituck, N.Y. I'm here representing the Hellmans whose as you know whose rear yard adjoins that of the applicant. It's an area of small lots and the area's do back up right to each other and privacy is a very key concern. The applicant chose to put their pool directly against the rear line of the property, not in the middle of their lot, but, right up as far back as they could and I think the Hellmans were very shocked and surprised by that because they do value their privacy and they were very disappointed by the turn of events that led us to this. The pool was put in as I understand it illegally with knowledge that it was a violation and the applicants initial offer to adequately screen the Hellmans property has apparently been withdraw and I'll address that a little bit further later on. My clients are most concerned because Mr. Hellman is in the world of Academia. In fact, in the environmental field which is rather ironic and he does spend a full six months, weather permitting in his backyard where he spends a lot of time reading, writing and working on his academic pursuit. So, this is really something that will in fact impact upon him and a blanket statement to the Board that there's going to be a little child in the pool and no parties is really not something that the Board has any measure of being able to rely on it as a protection to our client. I'd like to just briefly address the merits of the application that the Board is being asked to consider. First of all, the applicants are coming in after the fact and they did have an alternative. They could of put in a smaller pool that did comply and it could of been further back from the neighbor's property. So they're basically asking that you reward them for their flavor of violation of the code and I think the Board should take that into account in respect to any decision that it makes on this matter. We're also very concerned, that there seems to be quite a question about the actual size of the structure and the actual lot coverage. The Building Department figure of 24.4% is actually less than the applicant's' Page 14 - Hearing TransCripts ~May 14, 1998 - Board of Appeals estimate and does not seem to cover the full area that the pool appears to cover in the applicant's paperwork and my client has measured and indicates that the actual size of the pool is even bigger than that which is shown on paperwork. In fact, it appears that it's over 25% of lot coverage. It's a big question. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Can I just reflect on that. Two quick questions. How far is your client's house from the rear of his property line? Do you have any idea? MS. WICKHAM: that for you. I don't have that information. Yes, I could get CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: You could get that for us? MS. WICKHAM: of the house. But the point is, that he uses his backyard outside CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I'm aware of that, sure. The other issue was and you didn't have the luxury of this because you weren't at the last hearing because you weren't hired until this particular point so therefore no way am I trying to say anything about that. I'm just trying to say, that my question is, and my statement is, that in any pool situation, there has to be a way of getting into the pool without taking all the grass clippings, all the dirt and everything or else you're constantly vacuuming the pool. And, in a liner pool it's even more severe and further exacerbates the situation because those little stones and pebbles put holes in the liner. So, my statement was, what kind of water is going to go around the pool which again further increases lot coverage and unless it is of exact zero, zero, ground level as you know. .So, the purpose of going back in a symmetrical fashion of saying that as long as what we have existing now, does not change. That if it is 20.4 or if it's 25.1, that's the max that I would be willing to go, but, we have to work out this privacy factor situation that exists between the two neighbors and that is definitely a concern of the Boards because of the size of these particular pieces of property. We know these pieces of property are small. The variety of the variances that we have always go back to these particular pieces of property in the Dawn Estates. MS. WICKHAM: My point is, that the Board doesn't even know how big a variance (tape inaudible) because, I don't think you have accurate information and that's, that's what I was trying to a, but, I understand your point as well. I believe and again I was not here that there was some discussion at the last hearing and certainly in the applicant's paperwork that there are other lots in the neighborhood that are similarly situated and that this should not be anything out of the ordinary. There appear to be 67 lots in the neighborhood based on the tax map. In 20 years only two of them have sought variances so, there will be a precedence set here that the Board has to be cognizant of and I think that should also be considered in any conditions that they might impose should they grant a variance. One of those applications was Duke and which Page 15 - Hearing TransCripts ,May 14, 1998 - Board of Appeals was only a couple of years ago and that did discuss a lot coverage variance. However, that was a deck attached to the house. It was 45 feet back from the harbor and that was the only impact. It was not backed up against the neighbor's yard or any similar situation. There was no alternative location and there was no objection and the Board impoSed a 15 foot wide buffer planting area in that variance. The second application was Farber which was over 20 years ago, where the Board did grant about a 22% lot coverage variance in the same neighborhood. However, that was based on just the building area alone. The house again, was not a structure that was backed up against the neighbor's property. So, I think both of those are distinguishable and there's been no proof that I'm aware of, of any other pools or other properties in the neighborhood that have actually been given a specific lot coverage. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: But, we have a variety of variances, but, we don't have a variety of lot coverages. That's what you're referring to? MS. WICKHAM: Yes, I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Alright, because I have a whole page of variances from Cleaves Point. MS. WICKHAM: I'm sure. On the screening of a, that's really the key here, is the screening. We're concerned because there is only 2-1/.2 or so feet between the edge of the pool and the fence. So first of all, how are you going to get an adequate tree coverage in that small area which will be dumping its leaves and everything else in the pool in the first place is a concern that we have. So, I don't know how well it will be able to be maintained. We would have no control over its maintenance and as my client said when he was sitting here, I guess I get the black vinyl on my side. So, he's going to be looking at a very ugly black vinyl fence, even if the applicant beautifies their yard. So, that was why we had proposed screening because we do have room in our yard on our side of the fence of a arbovitae, of an arbovitaes screen. Originally they did get an estimate from a landscaper. It was very high and they did have him scale it back considerable and bring it down to just 24 plantings along the back of'the fence of a 7 or 8 foot height that would fully screen the area. We made that proposal and although they had originally said they would offer adequate screening they are not willing to do that, so I ask the Board if they would consider something in that nature so that both noise and the view of the fence and pool could be addressed properly. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Do you know how far apart those were to be planted Ms. Wickham? MS. WICKHAM: They were 24 to be staggered so they would not be in a line. They would be staggered on a - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Like a foot plot? Page 16 - Hearing Trah~cripts ~May 14, 1998 - Board of Appeals MS. WICKHAM: 60 foot span. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I see. MEMBER TORTORA: This is on your client's property? MS. WICKHAM: Yes, there's really no room inside the fence, that's the problem and they're willing to provide that area to do it. MEMBER HORNING: A very, very poor system. MS. WICKHAM: sereen it. Well, it's just really the only effective way to CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I have to tell you~ that I, it's a unique way. We're not use to that screening on somebody else's property. Certainly you would not - MS. WICKHAM: I understand that. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Certainly you know - MS. WICKHAM: We were hoping that they would agree to that because it doesn't seem frankly that screening on the inside of the fence is going to be at all effective and that's why it was proposed. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Alright. You're going to get back to me on the distance of your client's house. MS. WICKHAM: About 35 or 40 (changing of tape). MEMBER TORTORA: Conditions can be related to the application to the property. I don't know any instance that doesn't mean that it hasn't existed. But, if you know one, where the Board would have the authority to impose conditions relating to a another parcel. I'm just not familiar with anything like that. MS. WICKHAM: With the owner's consent. With our consent? MEMBER TORTORA: Yes, but I'm not - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: That's the reason why I wanted to talk to the Town Attorney. MEMBER TORTORA: do that. I'm simply not familiar with ability to force to MS. WICKHAM: My point is, and I understand that, my point is, that we did make what, you know, what we were trying to do to ameliorate a situation that was just ( )~ in a way that's really unfair to us to the town and it's unfortunate that it was not resolved in that manner. But, we do have objections and I think they're very valid to the variance. Page 17 - Hearing TraX~ocripts ~May 14, 1998 - Board of Appeals MEMBER TORTORA: I think your objections are valid' and you know, if the applicant is willing to do that, that would be fine. If he's not willing to do it, perhaps the Board will entertain approving the ( ), I don't know. But to impose that as a condition on someone else's property I (inaudible) MS. wICKHAM: I understand that completely. I was doing that more as an e×planaiion to the Board as to what we were willing to accept from the applicant. I don't have anything further unless you were looking for conditions. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. No, I think what we will do we'll confer with the Town Attorney on this issue. We may close as to verbatim and close it as a matter of process by the next regularly scheduled meeting. The question is that we may be writing to both you and the client or in one particular matter we also may have to reopen it to verbatim and we'll see what happens. MEMBER TORTORA: Have we definitely asked the applicant to (inaudible) he's not willing to do this? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: He just said he wasn't. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: No, or he may have a rebuttable. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We'll get back to you in one second Mr. Salimando. Pardon me, Ms. Wickham. MS. WICKHAM: They originally agreed to provide adequate screening and now they don't feel that that's what they want to do. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: you. Alright, we thank you, we'll get back to MEMBER COLLINS: Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes. MEMBER COLLINS: Has Ms. Wickham and her client received a copy of this thing which was submitted 'tonight? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes, yes, yes, it was just given to them. MEMBER COLLINS: Alright, I just wanted to make sure. MS. WICKHAM: Yes, I just got it now. My comment on that, was the I mean it's lovely but, I don't see how practically you can get arborvitae to grow in that - MEMBER COLLINS: Alright, I just wanted to make sure that - MS. WICKHAM: It's just that wide. Page 18 - Hearing Transcripts ~May 14, 1998 - Board of Appeals MEMBER COLLINS: I just wanted to be sure, that the left hand and the right were in touch. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mr. Salimando. This pool ranks with a tennis court that we did for Mr. Jack Whitney in Fishers Island several years ago. Steven Ham from Southampton, was the attorney and this went several hearings unfortunately. But, I don't mean that for your clients, I just mean it unfortunately because there was a lot of time involved. But, what would you like to tell us? MR. SALIMANDO: I appreciate the time that the Board is taking of this and again, we apologize for inconvenience. Just as a way, not a rebuttal, because again, we're not trying to do this in an adversary roll or although it seems it meets that way at times. A little history of this property is in order. This property never had any fences where the fence is now. The property was vacant for seven years. The Hellmans were able to use essentially the back yard of my client's property all that time. My clients come into the property, they look to develop it, they do develop their house, they place a fence. A black fence there, alright. Black slates vinyl, it's an iron fence so people can see through and that also enables you to see the vegetation and doesn't decrease from the beauty of the property. I don't know if that's the ( ) ending of itself is that finally some other homeowner had to come on to the scene and start using the property. We have never told the Hellmans that we didn't want to be good neighbors by put something on the property that would be esthetically pleasing. We never told the Hellmans that we w0uld put it on their property which is what the Hellmans have wanted. We said that we would put up these estheticallY trees and plants and we presented a plan, and presented it in a way, that I think is very logically and that would be very good for not only property values in the area, but also for the surrounding community as well. So to say, that we weren't willing to do, is not the case. To say, that we weren't willing to anything is not the case because we did offer $500 towards whatever the Hellmans would like to do where the fence is. You know the ironic thing is, my client has a right to put up the fence. If this pool is bulldozed in or wherever that fence is going to remain, will the Hellmans be back here to talk about a black ugly fence because they don't like to see that? I don't know, but, originally the thought was, from what I understood, that the pool and the site of the pool was the issue. No'w, it's the black ugly fence. We could go on and on and as you know, a famous show will say tonight, yatta yatta is what where going to get into over here and that's not what we want. We want a little closure here. My clients had to put the pool where it was Mr. Chairman and people of the Board, because there's cesspools in the backyard. To place it in the middle of the yard which is where they would tike to put it, would have meant to collapse the cesspools. It was unfortunate, but, that is where it was. It wasn't put there to be a gnat on the side of the neighbors, it was put there out of necessity and unfortunately that's exactly where it is. As far as their contention that they can't see how we can do this, well we had professional landscapers come in and they assured us that they can do it. There's a 3-1/2 foot area between where the Page 19 - Hearing TrmiScripts May 14, 1998 - Board of Appeals pool ends and where the fence begins. Not 2-1/2 feet as the Hellmans' attorney contends. That is plenty of space in order to put the arborvitaes there and to attain the esthetic pleasure and also the barrier that everybody so much desires. As far as the precedence being said, well again, that's what the Board is here to do and the Board is to take into account not only the town's desires, but, also that of the individual homeowners. The homeowner cannot do this in any other way. Obviously the detriment to the homeowner will be substantial at this point of time. To say that the homeowner did this illegally and with knowledge of that, I think is stretching the point. As we indicated to you on the last occasion, the homeowner hired somebody to do this. They were assured they'd get the permit for it and then when the permit wasn't forthcoming, this person put the pool in anyway and figured they'd get the permit later on and they didn't check out the local coverage lots, et cetera. It is a totally terrible situation, one in which, my clients are trying to rectify. They are trying to be good community people. They're trying to go with the wants and desires of this particular organization and that of the surrounding town. They didn't put up their legal pool and never applied for anything. They did so, out of good faith and that's why they are here tonight to continue to do this no matter how many times it's necessary. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Let me just offer one issue here. Let's assume at this juncture, that we recess without a date and we allow the landscaper to go in and do his job and then we reevaluate after the landscaper has completed his job. Now, the only threat of that would be, if we didn't have three votes on the Board to grant the lot coverage variance. That is the only thing I can think of at this point. I can't think of anything else at this juncture. MEMBER HORNING: Why would that be a threat Jerry? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Well because, then they might have to relocate the pool into another location. MEMB ER HORNING: landseaping? But, that wouldn't affect the backyard CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER:~ No, it wouldn't affect the backyard landscaping, but they would have to decrease the size of the pool. MR. PLIACONIS: Excuse me, but, the lot coverage would be the same. Relocating the pool, the lot coverage would be the same. MR. SALIMANDO: This is Mr. Pliaeonis.. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes, we met him the last time. MR. PLIACONIS: What will you grant me?, because I could chop the deck off the house. MEMBER COLLINS: I've been thinking seriously about that. Page 20 - Hearing Tra~lscripts May 14, 1998 - Board of Appeals MR. SALIMANDO: Well, if the issue is the 25.1, if the issue is 25.1 and the Board likes a lower number, then perhaps the deck can be an issue here. So again, I think the issue is whether or not the Board does grant lot coverage variances. It has been done, it's been done for specific reasons. I don't think this is going to setup a so called flood gate approach, and that you're going to be inundated with proposals and pools. This Board does not have a, as you pointed out before, there is no admonition to do something like that. It's just that you may not get that many applications. I don't think this is going to be the bell ringer to say come running to go put up pools in the Town of Southold as what the Hellmans' attorney has suggested now. And as far as leaves in the pool. Again, these are evergreens, they are arborvitaes. They're not leave producing types of you know coverage here, which again, we're either gasping at straws here, I think it's a very cogent plan. I think in keeping with the guidelines and all that it will benefit the community, there will be no detriment to it, it will not harm any property owners, nor will it harm the value of the property. And again, I've asked the Board, that it you know, consider this and we'll go by whatever instructions the Board so desires. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Can you give us a certify figure on what the true lot coverage is and see if there's any offers from Mr. Pliaconis in reference to eliminating the deck which he had just overstated. MEMBER TORTORA: We're also concerned about the screening. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We're concerned about two things. We're concerned about the screening and the lot coverage. Those are the two issues. That's where we are at this point. MR. SALIMANDO: What else would the Board like with regard to screening? Do they want us to proceed to the risk of taking the a, putting the screening in, so that the Board can review that? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Town Attorney too. I think I have to discuss that with the MR. SALIMANDO: And with regards to the certification of the lot coverage. They would like that prior to the next meeting. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Right, right. that would be greatly appreciated. And any reductions of MR. SALIMANDO: (inaudible) to the lot coverage. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Right. (Mr. Pliaconis having a discussion with his attorney.) Page 21 - Hearing Transcripts °May 14, 1998 - Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I understand that Mr. Pliaconis, but, there's been a statement made by the attorney on the other side who states that, they don't think the figures are correct. MEMBER COLLINS: Well, there's two different sets of figures. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes, I know. Therets one at 24.4 MEMBER TORTORA: We discussed this at the initial hearing and I think you conceded that the proposed lot coverage is in the percent of 25%. MR. SALIMANDO: That's correct. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes, but the question is, what in excess of 25%. MR. SALIMANDO: 25.1. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: 25.1. MEMBER TORTORA: 25.1. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Well, are there any concessions in reference to the deck itself? MR. SOLIMANDO: No. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: No. How big is the deck? MEMBER COLLINS: 360 sq. ft. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: 360 sq. ft. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: He didn't understand your question, Jerry. MR. SALIMANDO: Mr. Plianconis is now saying, that there would be a concession to his deck. We're talking about the deck attached to his house. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Right. MR. SAL[MANDO: Alright, which I believe is 386 - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: 360~ MEMBER TORTORA: 360 sq. ft. MR. SALIMANDO: 360 sq. ft. He indicated that if necessary, and again, this is so that his family can also benefit from the enjoyment of the pool, he'd be willing to take the deck off his house, if the ( ) were back to reduce the lot coverage size. They would preferably - Page 22 - Hearing Transcripts ~May 14, 1998 - Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Would you like to tell us how that affects the lot coverage size? MR. SALIMANDO: Probably could if I would imagine and I haven't done the computations which would be 43. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Send it to us. MR. SAL~MANDO: What's that? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Send it to us, that's all. MR. SALIMANDO: Does the Board decide to hear from anybody else? Either Mr. Pliaconis or Mrs. Pliaconis with regard to this. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Well, we really would like to hear from the landscaper. That's who we'd like to hear from. MEMBER TORTORA: The thing that I'm a little confused at. You'd be willing to forego the existing deck, but, you're not willing to provide landscaping on the neighbor's property. MR. SALIMANDO: That's correct. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Well, you can build a ground level deck is what I assume you're going to do. A cement slab sought of speak, or flagstone or whatever. MR. PLIACONIS: Right. MR. SALIMANDO: And Mrs. Tortora, as you so scrutiny pointed out before. To set the precedence, is to say that my client must maintain screening on their side of the property. Originally they wanted them to maintain it for two years. If that's something you people would do, then I guess, it's something that you'd require my client to do. But, I've never heard of that, nor do I think this Board would want to set the precedence for that. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: property? You're talking about on the neighbor's MR. SALIMANDO: Yes, on the neighbor's property. That's why we'd be willing to do on his property what I think any normal person would do and say, I'll sacrifice something to get something I desire for me and my family. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I don't know, we'll have to talk to the Town Attorney. Yes, ma'am would you state your name for the record. MRS. ROYALS: Ladies and gentlemen, my name is Joan Royals. I'm Mrs. Pliaconis' mother. I've heard some allegations made that perhaps my daughter and son-in-law plan on some wild parties. Page 23 - Hearing Transcripts ~May 14, 1998 - Board of Appeals Well, listen to me, I've known these people, know my daughter all her life, and I've known my son-in-law for 12 years. I've never known them to have a wild party. OK, we've never had wild parties at our home with the children growing up and Mr. Pliaconis' family didn't either. My son-in-law, has worked, 14 to 16 hours, a day, six and seven days a week, since he was 14 or 15 years old. He's a hard working family loving young man who I have the greatest respect for and he and my daughter are not at fault here. I've been a realtor for 18 years and obviously there is a problem. But, it's not with them being ( ) or bad neighbors. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I don't think there was a specific point. I think and that might of been a counterproductive statement. I think the point is - MS. WICKHAM: I'm sorry. What I meant was that the pools are noisy, it's not wild parties, the pools are noisy. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Just wait - one second. I think the point is, how do we adequately screen the pool and how do we minimize the impact of the lot coverage? Those are really the two issues as it stands before us. MRS. ROYALS: OK, I'd be happy to bring in photographs of the pool that we had at our home in Huntington, which was set into a hill and in the back of it, was no more than 3-3-1/2 feet and I had it planned to put birches, roses and over 45 perennials. I had a green vinyl plan rather than the black vinyl plan. I understand with the black that you don't see it, even as much as you do the green. But, I can assure you that you didn't see that fence during the summertime and I'll be happy to bring in those photographs and I think that may be what the children had in mind since my daughter did grow up with it and I'll be happy to show you photographs of that pool. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Alright. MRS. ROYALS: Thank you for time. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: please. You're welcome. Sir, state your name MR. DONAHUE: My name is Peter Donahue. I'm currently moving here to Southold to Greenport. But, I have been a neighbor of Christy Pliaconis for 32 years and to Vickie and Christy for probably five years or whatever the period is that they are married. Vickie and Christy lived right across the street from us for the last three years where they were homeowners in the Centerport area and I can attest to all of their friends because I've known almost everyone of them since those kids were born. Many of Christy's friends and Vicky's for that matter or my daughter, they were also the kids that have grown up in the neighborhood because there's an area that much like the Southold community where everybody likes to continue to stay. There has never once been one Page 24 - Hearing Transcripts ~May 14, 1998 - Board of Appeals episode in 32 years with the Pliaconises,. with Chris, his brothers, David and Dean in which there was a loud and boisterous party, they lived within 400 feet of my home, which I grew about, developed my family, they're not that kind of people, they're good people. I'd ask you to go take a look at their house in Huntington. I can attest to all of the things that they have done to improve that house in a very professional way. It is the envy of the neighborhood. They put the landscaping in the way which they keep it. Thank you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. MEMBER TORTORA: Can I ask Mr. Pliaconis a question ? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mr. Pliaeonis one of the members would like to ask you a question, could you come up for a second. MEMBER TORTORA: I'm just trying to figure out a way to resolve what as someone just described as a very bad situation. The neighbor wants privacy, you want to enjoy your pool, was built in error, through rightfully no fault of your own, but the builder's fault. Have you thought about a stockade fence? MR. PLIACONIS: The reason I didn't put the stockade fence was because the plan was, the landscaping plan would be trees along the edge of the pool so the three neighbors could enjoy them. Because there's two neighbors that adjoin my backyard. So, I figured all three of us could enjoy that with the black vinyl coated chain-link four foot fence. MEMBER TORTORA: Enjoy the landscaping planting? MR. PLIACONIS: Yes, because you're going to see it right through the fence and the black fence is going to fade into the landscaping. MEMBER TORTORA: property line. I'm talking about just on the back of the MR. PLIACONIS: That's what I'm talking about. If I put a stockade fence then everyone is going to look at a wooden fence rather than all of the landscaping. MEMBER TORTORA: neighbors would see - It would just be the neighbors? These MR. PLIACONIS: that - The two, the Hellmans and the other neighbor CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Well I have to see where it is. He's saying that it's truncating to two property lines. That's what he's saying. MR. PLIACONIS: There's three backyards that adjoin each other. Page 25 - Hearing Transcripts ~May 14, 1998 - Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Right. MR. PLIACONIS: Mr. Hellmans, my other neighbor. their name and myself. I don't know CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Right. MEMBER TORTORA: satisfy the Hellmans? Is there any way to do it so that it would MR. PLIACONIS: If it satisfies them, yes, but I don't see the reasoning because now that all the trees are going to be blocked. MEMBER TORTORA: I'm trying to you know. MR. PLIACONIS: It makes no difference to me. MEMBER TORTORA: I'm trying to resolve the problem. MR. PLIACONIS: I'll do whatever you want me to do. I just don't want to plant trees on his yard. That he requested me, 33 trees at $6,000 and today it was 24 trees at $3,000, OK. That's insulting me and I'd like to say one other thing. My friends, my pool is on the edge of the yard. So are his lounge chairs on the edge of my yard. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: What we're trying to say, is we're not sure we can do that either within the power of this Board. So, that's why I said we have to discuss it with the Town Attorney. MRS. PLIACONIS: The reason why, if I may speak, I'm Victoria Pliaconiso The reason why we did put the vinyl coated fence is exactly what Chris said, is so everybody eould enjoy the naturalness of Southold Town. We came out here, I came to look at the North Fork because it is a very beautiful town and it is quite unique and you won't find this on the South Fork. We did not do anything, we hired somebody to take care of this for us. Unfortunately the situation is what it is. However, we are trying to rectify the situation by putting these plantings up so everybody may enjoy these plantings. The stockade fence is going to be an ugly wooden fenee. I mean that's the bottom line. But, if the Hellmans would like a wooden fence they're more than welcome to have a wooden fence back there. But that's not, to us, that's not natural. It's not what we intended. But, if we have to concede to that we will. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. Ms. Wickham anything else. MS. WICKHAM: Well, I'm no fan of Seinfeld, but I know people are, so I'll be brief. All that I want to say, is, that the pool is the issue and I just want the Board to be aware that the 20% lot coverage permitted under the code on this lot~is, 2,556 feet. The existing coverage without the pool is 2,553 feet. So, all but 3 sq. ft. of this pool is totally illegal. It's not like shaving off a corner of it and so I think that that just needs to be put in perspective in terms of this application and as Mr. Hellman said, I Page 26 - Hearing Tra,iScripts ~May 14, 1998 - Board of Appeals appreciate your suggestion, Mrs. Tortora. I think both parties are striving towards natural coverage. But, I appreciate the suggestion. It's certainly worth a shot. Thank you. MEMBER TORTORA: Hope you guys work it out then. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I guess I'll recess this, I won't recess it, I'll close it as to verbatim. We'll discuss it with the Town Attorney and close it as a matter of fact at the next regularly scheduled meeting. Sir? MR. SALIMANDO: Anything the Board would like in the meantime? Do they need us to submit certified figures? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Certified figures and give us whatever you have in reference to the professional landscaper that you can give us. Thank you. MR. PLIACONIS: Mr. Chair Person, you said something about completing the landscaping in the back? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: No, no, no, I said, from the landscaper. Anything that you had from the landscaper that would give us, you know, you have a landscaping plan, you must have a landscaper in mind. Tell him to tell us that they can be built there, that they meaning planted there, that they can act as a screening at, you know, barrier and so on and so forth. We'd appreciate that. MR. SALIMANDO: We'll submit that to the Board. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: To the. Board in writing. MR. SALIMANDO: In writing as soon as possible. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: And if we have any particular problems with whence we receive everything and forward the stuff to Ms. Wickham, you know, we may be forced to reopen, we would rather not. But, we are extremely busy. Actually, we are inundated and but that's the best I can do at this juncture. MR. SALIMANDO: We would rather that as well and I would like to thank the Board for its consideration on behalf of the Pliaconis. Hope you have a good night. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. Good night. Hearing no further comment I'll make a. motion closing as to verbatim and closing as a matter of fact at the next regularly scheduled meeting. Motion carried. See Minutes for Resolution. Page 27 - Hearing TrafiScripts ~May 14, 1998 - Board of Appeals 7:44 P.M. - Appl. No. 4564 - BAYVIEW/SOUTH HARBOR, L.P. Variance under Article III, Section 100-33, based upon the February 10, 1998 Notice of Disapproval issued by the Building Inspector, to locate a proposed accessory garage in an R-80 Zone District in an .area other than the required rear yard. Location of Property: Along the easterly side of South Harbor Road (also extending near the end of Grange Road), Southold; 1000-75-4-22.6 (formerly parcel of 22.4). CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I have a copy of a survey, most recent date is February 12, 1998, indicating what was on this survey a concrete foundation which is today a house and a concrete foundation approximately 74 feet from the middle of the property line and 66.9 feet from the South Harbor Road property line which is I guess, west and a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and surrounding properties in the area. Who would like to be heard on this application, South Harbor. Good evening Sir, would you state your name for the record? MR. CROTEAU: My name is Michael Croteau. I'm the General Partner of Bayview/South Harbor partnership and this is kind of my project and I wanted to give you these I didn't give them to you. I just want to explain partially why, it's a little embarrassing that there's a foundation in for this garage already but much in the way the contractors never show up. I had one show up on a week when I was gone and he had the plans for the house in the garage and the whole thing got footings and foundations poured before we got the stop work on it. The plan is part of a conservation plan that we did on 17-1/2 acre farm'. I don't know if it's been about four years since we purchased the farm. You remember it Lydia at the time we bought it. We've reduced the density of tree lots, we're working on getting it down to just two structures at this point. We also took it upon ourselves to design and build the houses on the property. We saw some atrocious ( ) that live right across the street, so, we decided to build historic replica houses. Another thing that we did was lot line change from Grange Road to allow access from Grange Road so we wouldn't have to flag any lots off of South Harbor Road and also so that we wouldn't have to put any additional roads into the farms. It's a fairly compact farm, it's surrounded by roads on both sides, Bayview, Grange Road to the north and South Harbor Road to the east, to the west and in getting access from Grange Road, what it did was to set up the lots in our development area that we had established ( ) to be better than one acre lots but, fairly long. I think there approximately 165 feet by 200 and change and if you go on all three of the lots by what establishes the front yard, the front lot it would have the houses on all of these lots with their backs turned to the open vista and the main views and the two interior lots share fronts that face to the north and the lot in South Harbor Road would have a front facing to the west. So what we tried to do is, to turn the house and put it as an interior lot as possible and it doesn't need any other alternative other than have the garage in what is called the side lot. Part of the plan too, is to preserve. The South Harbor has Page 28 - Hearing Transcripts ,May 14, 1998 - Board of Appeals gotten increasingly busy with fire station and other things down there. The traffic has increased, we're trying to keep the family that's buying this house, a young kid, we're trying to keep the garage and the house as far back off the road and still maintain some useable yard and privacy onto the east of it. So all that leaves a garage in a place that the garage can't go unless you get the variance. So, I don't know if you have any further questions. Initially when I presented the plan I was going to try and get a disapproval on all three lots but then you weren't going to honor it. I couldn't with the Building Department's speed these days, I couldn't get those disapprovals, so I just decided to put it in for the first lot as we do the other two or which other one comes next, we'll do that, basically the same way. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I noticed that there's going to be a deck adjoining both the garage and the house? MR. CROTEAU: It's actually going to be grade level, a small brick walkway and most likely a detached arbor that's between the structures. More of a shading than it's not in the building plan yet because it hasn't been devised. It's not going to be a raised deck, we know that at this point. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Great. Collins. Questions ? I think will start with Ms. MEMBER COLLINS: I have no questions. I think the problem is very clear, I'm very sympathetic to the plans that are underway and I think it's appropriate for them to do what their doing. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: saying? So we may see you again is what you're MEMBER COLLINS: Yes, we will see him again when the next lots in. MR. CROTEAU: Yes, if I'm not burned out from building the first house if I have enough energy left for the other two or one. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mrs. Tortora? MEMBER TORTORA: No, I'm very familiar with the plan. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mr. Homing? MEMBER HORNING: 1993, is that right? Well, I'm a little curious. It was subdivided in MR. CROTEAU: I believe we purchased it in 94, we closed. The original subdivision that, the plan was, 28 house affordable project which was on the table I think in 92, late 92. By the time we negotiated a new developer it ended being 94 and then it took me a few years, with just a couple of kids and everything else going on to get to this point. The final subdivision was actually, we did a two-face subdivision. The first part was, conservation easement Page 29 - Hearing Transcripts ,,May 14, 1998 - Board of Appeals and selling the old farmhouse with 5 acres which three were preserved and then the development area was set a~ide. We just finished the second face of the subdivision which was dividing and developing an area up into three lots which was most recent, November I think last year something like that. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: farmhouse too didn't you? You made a variance on the old MR. CROTEAU: Yes, and we moved the farmhouse from the road to you know, back on the lot a little further. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I remember that. MEMBER HORNING: Mr. Croteau what I'm curious about is if it's zoned R-80, tell us the process by which you had it subdivided so that these parcels are - MR. CROTEAU: Well we're getting cluster, it's a cluster subdivision. We reduced the density from potential 8 to additional lots to three and did a cluster subdivision. MEMBER HORNING: Thank you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Great, while you're standing there, is there anybody else in the audience would like to speak in favor? Anybody like to speak against? Seeing no hands I'll make a motion closing the hearing reserving decision until later. We hope to have a decision for you very shortly. MR. CROTEAU: What is very shortly? just looking at the approximation of it. Days, weeks? I mean I'm CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Approximately a week. MR. CROTEAU: OK, I guesS we're anxious to get that part of work started. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Again, 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 30 - Hearing Transcripts ~May 14, 1998 - Board of Appeals 7:56 P.M. - T. PETIKAS Carryover hearings from March 23, 1998: Proposed two- family use on a 21,000+- sq. ft. parcel in this R-40 Residential Zone District. Location of Property: Corner of the Westerly side of Sound Road and the Northerly side of North Road (C.R. 48), a/k/a Northerly end of Main Street). Greenport; 1000-35-1-8, which requires approval from the Board of Appeals for the following: (a) Special Exception Application No. 4525 as provided by Article III-A, Section 100-30A.2 for a two-family use/occupancy; and (b) Variance Application No. 4526 as provided under Section 100-31A.3 for the reason that the substandard lot size of 21,483 sq. ft. does not conform to the requirements for a two-family dwelling use in this R-40 Zone District; and (c) fence in excess of four feet height limitation within or along front yard areas, based upon the building inspector's February 10, 1998 Notice of Disapproval, Article XXIII, Section 100-231. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mrs. Moore how are you tonight? MRS. MOORE: Fine, thank you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: What would you like to tell us. MRS. MOORE: Well I had a, I didn't want to put together some additional paperwork for the Board. I have for the last hearing but, didn't have a copy of it, I had gone to the Aeeessor's office and looked at all the properties, the surrounding properties in this area and identified the name of the owner as well as the square footage of the parcel and there are probably 25 names here. I would say 90% of the pareels that are on the Sound Road on the easterly side of Sound Road are half the size of this parcel. In fact, this piece was, you ean tell from the survey that the old Van Tuyl survey was two parcels put together with regard to the size. I had submitted to the Board and I want to make sure it's being part of the record a Memorandum of law, I gave a copy with cases to the Town Attorney and I gave one full set which included the cases for any of the Board Members who wanted to review cases, otherwise it was just a Memorandum with a citation. The other thing we have tonight is a plan of the house. Mr. Petikas went to Penny Lumber. and got a design of the type of house that he intends to build on this site. It's a standard two story house with one entrance, it is approximately, it's within the footprint of 50 foot wide by 30 foot deep. So, it will probably end up being 48 x 28, Mr. Petikas tells me that, so we have a general footprint that's the design. Here we have five prints of the. diagram and a tax map with all of the identified property. Really the only outstanding issue and I know Page 31 - Hearing Trm~scripts ~May 14, 1998 - Board of Appeals that youVre aware of it is that we did check the Suffolk County Water Authority. The water main runs right in front of this property. You can't get any closer. We are obligated to hookup to the public water and we have submitted the letter to Suffolk County Water Authority but, they've written us back saying, until the time that the Town and the Water Authority complete a study which they anticipate will be done by the fall that we can't hookup our water whether it's a single family house or two family house, there's no hookup right now and I think they share the same problem as most people right now that are looking for building permits that unfortunately now when you're with public water it use to be an advantage and you got taxed with that advantage in mind, now it's a disadvantage because of the moratorium. But, the Suffolk County Water Authority I know is pursuing getting this moratorium lifted and the town is working actively. I explained to Mr. Petikas this .project can't go without water and he's prepared if the Board should grant the approval then, it can be conditioned on public water because that is something that is necessary, both under the code and under the health regulations. So, we're prepared to do that. The only issue that seemed to be that was surprising to me, was the issue of the height of the fence. Mr. Petikas thought that a 6 foot fence made sense as part of the rear yard. Only for the rear yard and maybe that needs to be clarified. The rear yard is the back. If you face the house, the house in back will be facing Sound Road. The rear yard will be right behind the house so that you will actually have a side yard fence because the code is considered front yard. But, the side yard will be on Sound Avenue 48, a rear yard will be one of the neighbors and then another side yard. He's agreeable to something less than 6 feet. He certainly believes that 4 feet is not sufficiently high to block out the noise and the light that comes on Route 48 and I know that the Board is certainly aware of the traffic on Route 48 and this will provide a nice secluded back yard with some fencing. He's allowed to have a 4 foot fence, but really, that won't cover the lights that shine by cars that go by and the noise. So, he's willing to take less than 6 feet, but certainly 4 feet is just not appropriate in this case. We're here to answer any other questions you may have. MEMBER COLLINS: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Surely. MEMBER COLLINS: Mrs. Moore, I was looking at the drawing as you were talking about the fence and the side yard and the rear yard. MRS. MOORE: Which one, the survey? MEMBER COLLINS: No, this is the survey with the project drawn in on it. We've had this for quite a while. MRS. MOORE: Yes, it's in your file. MEMBER COLLINS: talking about. Could you just say again, what fences we're Pa~e 32 - Hearing Transcripts ~May 14, 1998 - Board of Appeals MRS. MOORE: Sure, let me come up. Can I come up and just show it? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Surely. MRS. MOORE: Sound Road is right here, North Road is right here. The house will be facing Sound Road, the rear yard is back here, OK, the fence will actually, Mr. Petikas tells me he only wants about 100 feet of fence. The property is 200 feet lon~. But, he only needs to fence the rear yard and he'd be happy to take that as a condition that the fencin~ of the rear yard up to 100 feet. So, we're talkin~ about really the height requirement being imposed on this portion of the fence. MEMBER COLLINS: That portion of the fence that is adjacent to what is literally the rear yard of the house. MRS. MOORE: The side yard, well, the back Yard. MEMBER COLLINS: That's why I was getting confused about it. MRS. MOORE: Technically, it's the side yard. MEMBER COLLINS: And then from that point down towards the Sound Road eorner - MRS. MOORE: Sound Road, it'll be opened. MEMBER COLLINS: It'll be opened. MRS. MOORE: Yes, there's no - MEMBER COLLINS: This drawing shows a fence all the way down. MRS. MOORE: OK, he's willing to modify that. MEMBER COLLINS: The fence he cares about is the one that gives privacy in the back yard. MRS. MOORE: Mr. Petikas here? Let me show the drawing cause that was the original plan that was submitted in the - MR. PETIKAS: Good evening. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: How are you? MRS. MOORE: See we had put in the fence like this. MR. PETIKAS: Oh, no, that's wrong. I'd like 100 feet from the north side of the west side of the house. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Alright, so I'm going to draw a line right here. Page 33 - Hearing Tra~scripts ~May 14, 1998 - Board of Appeals MRS. MOORE: Yes, we can modify it. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Right there, alright, that's where the line is drawn. MR. PETIKAS: That's has to be all the way uniformed because. I have 200 feet to the front of Route 48. I'd like to have just 100 feet just to cover you know, the house area. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: From the road? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: 100 'feet from the west, west of the property line. MR. PETIKAS: Because when you're a couple people, you know the lights are going to heat right on the house that's why. MEMBER TORTORA: Parallel to the front property. MRS. MOORE: I'm glad you pointed that out because he had a, we wen~ back and forth on where the location of the house would go. MEMBER COLLINS: Yes, because that's what we're working with. MRS. MOORE: The problem here, is that this property is sufficiently large that there's some flexibility on where the house can go and we can certainly say that the fence won't go beyond 100 feet. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Alright, now if as you know, we're missing a Board Member. He was excused for a specific reason and he'll be back. But, one of the questions was asked, do you still want the fence if we do not grant a two family house? MRS. MOORE: Do you still want the fence if it's only a single family? Yes, yes. If they say no to a two family, you have a single family house. You still want a fence? MR. PETIKAS: Yes. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: done? Right, good. Ms. Collins are you all MEMBER COLLINS:; Yes. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Alright. Mrs. Tortora, questions? MEMBER TORTORA: Have you withdrawn your application for a area variance ? MRS. MOORE: On the record, no, because it's of legal opinion that I think that the Board can determine that it's not necessary in this case. Page 34 - Hearing Transcripts May 14, 1998 - Board of Appeals MEMBER TORTORA: Alright, thank you. So, that's in tact? T hat' s al~,. MRS. MOORE: I mean that was my position from the beginning and in writing I stated it. But, in order to move this application forward I submitted it. We didn't want to delay that. MEMBER TORTORA: That was the only question. MRS. MOORE: OK. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: So the area variance is still in tact? MRS. MOORE: Yes. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mr. Homing? MEMBER HORNING: I'm all set. MRS. MOORE: As soon as you can get to this decision, we would appreciate it. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER:Alright, thank you. MRS. MOORE: Thank you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: You're welcome. Is there anybody else would like to speak in favor? Anybody like to speak against? Hearing no further comment I'll make a motion closing the hearing reserving decision until later. MEMBER COLLINS: Second. Motion carried. See Minutes for Resolution. Page 35 - Hearing Transcripts May 14, 1998 - Board of. Appeals 8:16 P.M. - Apple. No. 4560 - ROBERT AND ANN SHANK (Carryover hearing from April 16, 1998 for continuation). Fisherman's Beach Road, Cutchogue; 1000-111-1-19.1. 820 MR. ARM: I'd like to bring up some copies of the new survey which we actually got today, actually a copy of the survey of an existing one plus then I did what we're proposing on the new. On the new survey, it indicates John Metzger, Surveyors, did an existing lot coverage in the existing areas of the tie lines which was asked for which the area is 4,231 sq. ft. The area of the property, the tie line is 4,231 sq. ft. of which currently just to have because the existing decks that were there are now removed so you couldn't go through that in the survey, so the existing lot coverage currently is 44% of the above water area. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: That's upland area? MR. ARM: Upland area. The existing decks when I originally went to the house, I done measurements of all of the existing conditions which total 664 sq. ft. (inaudible) originally before they were removed and that put the total lot coverage of the upland area at 40 %. The proposed decks of the handicap ramp and the new addition as indicated is another 439 sq. ft. of new which also encompassed 36 sq. ft. which was part of the existing, of the existing porch which is to be removed. The new total proposed would be 50%. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: handicap ramp? Alright, what's the actual size of the MR. ARM: The handicap ramp is approximately 3-1/2 feet wide by I believe it's approximately 36 ft. long. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: 36 ft. long, alright. MR. ARM: The increase in the deck on the front yard of the road side, a lot of that actually is a necessity only because when you have the ramp that comes up, facing an area of the top of the ramp to carry through. The other part of the deck that goes down the side which we would like to do to continue down and join the rear deck, before they were removed, there was a platform that was raised to accommodate air conditioning unit, there was also a shower, and partial patio and partial walk also, which has all been removed. So, really the side deck, is really more or less to accommodate what was removed before it was upgrade which now that the house is raised it really isn't any other way to do it. Also, enclosed in that packet of information that I have, is a letter from Mr. Shank's attorney, indicating what is actually deeded to him which includes old lot 22 as well as part of 23. I'm sorry lot 23 and part 22 and there's copy of the subdivision map also and that's even reenforced Page 36 - Hearing Transcripts May 14, 1998 - Board of Appeals by the title company who also states that it is stated that it is part of his deeded property that includes the underwater portion of the property as well. The town has that area assessed at .27 acres which is what I discussed at the last hearing. If you use that as the means for lot coverage, the total with the new proposed is only 18.1%. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: That's not an accurate figure but I agree. Alright, the question I have is then, of the decks that would be replaced, what can you eliminate to give us back lot coverage, and that's not a decision that you necessarily have to make tonight, but, it's something that we have to discuss. We can recess this hearing, you can speak to Mr. Shank and then you can come back to us in a little while. Do you have any questions on that Mr. Shank? By the way, I just want to say, objectively we do appreciate the survey, it's the first one that's been done since 1976 and we at least know where we are at this juncture. I also on Sunday evening, was down to the house. It looks good with the foundation done so on and so forth. Now, we go back to the bad part and what can you eliminate to bring the lot coverage back up and I'm not talking about the handicap ramp, which I am referring to you know, any deck areas that are unneeded or with some deck areas that are unneeded? MR. SHANK: I guess if you go down that side line you saw that there's only 8 feet on the one side of the house. So, I don't know if I can reduce that to say 5 feet, there would be such wasted space because the bulkheading is right there. So I don't know what's in your mind on how much you would need to be reduce. If you can give me a figure, maybe I could tell you better accurately, but, - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Well, you're seriously over. I mean there's no question about it. We have to discuss where we can eliminate and as I said it may not be an issue that you want to discuss tonight. It may be an issue that you want to confide with your wife and go back. I have to tell you, that it is a great, great, asset having this draftsman here with you. MR. SHANK: Right, thank you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Because not individual, but when you ask him specific exactly what the answer is. only is he a great questions, he knows MR. SHANK: Right, I know that. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: And so that was a great assistance. MR. SHANK: Yes, anything you ask for, the Building Department, .the attorney, he just draws. When the Trustees had wanted the drawings for the permits, he just goes right back and draws them. He is great, I have to say that. I don't really know that I can eliminate anything very honestly because the house is so small. It's only 850 something sq. ft. The whole thing is just you know, that Page 37 - Hearing Transcripts May 14, 1998 - Board of Appeals the picturesque site there. There was only a deck across the back, you come out the kitchen door, there was only 5 feet of deck out the kitchen door. From the house to the bulkheading is 9 feet and 1/2 feet or 9 feet, how much can I eliminate, a foot around? I don't know that you know, the draftsman would like to do that in a design. You know I don't know what it would look like to show that much space around the house with decking. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: All those decks are nonstructural, is that correct? They're all going to be light bolted in. MR. ARM: Yes, with the exception of the one beneath the sheds, or (inaudible) where the sheds were towards. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Right, yes, I saw that. That was actually lit on Sunday, early Sunday evening when I was there. MR. SHANK: Actually I think, seriously over is correct, if you don't consider the underwater land. All of the deck that was there, was just there. The only thing I think that we're trying ask for is that 3 foot ramp, so I can get from the front door. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: There's no question about that. There's no-one that is going to refuse you a handicap ramp when you are in need of a handicap ramp, there's no question about that. MR. SHANK: Thank you. If you could see from the front door to the side where the shed is, there's only 2 feet where you can put like stairs to get up to, you know, the problem arose because of the rise of the house, otherwise all the decks were basically pretty close to ground level or a foot or so above. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Alright, let's go back to the original plan quickly which is the large plan which was done. When I asked the question structurally, on the west side, that is all structural deck that will be replaced over what you referred to as an enclosure now, because that's enclosure is that correct? You have a full cement block wall. It's a double sided cement block wall on that side. MR. ARM: That's correct, yes. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Alright, I assume that deck is not going to penetrate through that. That's going to be a roof underneath that so that you're going to use that for storage or something? MR. ARM: As to the existing that's where his water tanks are. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: That's where your water tanks and all the rest, alright. So, that 8 feet, is that 8 feet correct? MR. ARM: That's approximately. under 8 feet, it's about 7 feet. It's just actually a slight bit Page 38 - Hearing Transcripts ~May 14, 1998 - Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: right? So, the plus or minus is accurate there, MTR. SHANK: That's on the backside on the waterside of the shed. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: house. No, we're talking on the west side of the MR. SHANK: Right. Right, from the shed right to the where your depth water, it's only 2 feet. MR. ARM: It's 2-1/2 feet from where it shows to the boardwalk. Just sufficient space to access the shed. MR. SHANK: That's where the bulkhead ends and then the natural, that's a problem even in design, how we're going to get to that. I don't know if we can eliminate anything there other than not being able to walk up and down or around the house at that point because of the height. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Let's take the one on the waterfront itself. That's the same width approximately, just under 8 feet? MR. ARM: existing. That actually, the existing was about 9 feet to the CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: feet, plus or minus? And you cut it back to approximately 8 MR. ARM: We're going back to 8 feet. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: 7 foot, 9, 7, 10, and the same situation where there was no deck on the east side, north east side that's 5 feet as proposed? MR. ARM: Yes. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: So, really in an immediate loss if the Board wanted a loss, would be the part that sticks over all the way to the property line. MR. ARM: (inaudible) CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes, on the north east side? MR. ARM: Towards lot 24? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Towards lot 24. That could be removed, right? Is that correct Bob? That's a cantilevered, right? R. ARM: No, not all the deck is going to be raised. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: peninsula deck? I meant, when I say, it's almost like a Page 39 - Hearing Transcripts May 14, J998 - Board of Appeals MR. ARM: Yes. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: structural? Yes, I mean it's freestanding, it's not MR. SHANK: That's the nicest part of the whole thing. That's where my picnic table is. There's only one place you can put the picnic table because with chairs there, the deck only being 8 feet, you just can't put, that's why as long as I'm living there, that's the only place you can put the table, even when it was on ground. So you know you really can't have chairs and you know, 6 chairs and around any other place on the deck you couldn't walk around any other place. You know what I'm saying? If I was to take the table with all of the chairs in the middle you just couldn't walk around it. That's why it was off to the side there. Craig you know, originally on one of the drawings eliminated that and I said, no Craig, that's where I sit. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: to the property line. Well I understand that, but, it cannot go MR. SHANK: It was there you know, right? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I know it was there. But, it cannot go to the property line. So, you have to tell us how far back it can be cut back from the property line, because we never grant decks to a property line. It's never been done. I'm not saying you know, just give us a figure. I mean it doesn't have, sit down, work it out, we'll come back and five minutes tell us what it is and then we're going to require another field inspection. We'll go back there, take a look at it before we make a decision with the new plan, with the old plan and see what we have and we'll have a special meeting probably in approximately a week or so, but tell us where you can cut that back. 16 inches, 18 inches? MR. SHANK: I would say, if I would have to cut anything, if I would have to cut anything, honestly I would just prefer the where the shower and the - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Oh, that whole east side there? MR. SHANK: Yes, because it would be ideal, let me put it this way. It would be ideal if you can walk around the house. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Right, right, you mentioned that. MR. SHANK: Otherwise I'm going to walk down 10 steps to get to the front and then walk up ]0 steps to get to the front door. But, if that's the decision then, that's what I have to do, that's what I'll do because there's a door there, the kitchen, the slid door is right where that you know, the table was, and on the other side is where the other door was and the front is where the front door is. So, I would just say, let me get stairs down to there and then just Page 40 - Hearing Tra,~Seripts ~May 14, 1998 - Board of Appeals take that all away, square it off to the front of the house. you know what I'm talking about. Craig MR. CRAIG: The only thing is, we still need some of this for the air conditioning unit. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Well that's exempt. They're exempt. They're not going on the second story, they're going on the first story. MR. CRAIG: level. Basically', it's going to be raised above the ground CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes, but they're still going on the cement platform or something of that nature which does not calculate lot coverage. MR. SHANK: OK, great, or I could make it on wood. It was on wood 4 feet off the ground. IL that's a concession I'd like to make it now because we have stopped the project. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I know you have. MR. SHANK: We can't do anything in a week. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: underneath it. Thank God you put the foundation MR. SHANK: You're not kidding. The builder is getting upset and I guess he's looking for the work now because of the stoppage and like I said, if I can get a decision soon I'll take this away right' now. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Alright, so you want to calculate that for us Craig, and come back, you know, just drop it to us, we'll close the hearing pending the receipt of that and then give us those figures and we'll go from there. MEMBER TORTORA: There's nothing in the proposed grant that we want to take this back? Nothing we can take back - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: You can't. A ramp is a ramp, that the ramp .has to run that distance because that's under code. That's under code, you have no choice with that. MEMBER HORNING: May I ask? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes, surely. MEMBER HORNING: Where is the septic located? MR. SHANK: We provided that. Page 41 - Hearing Tra~Scripts May 14, ~998 - Board of Appeals MR. ARM: That was on the original drawing. It wasn't indicated on the new survey. Do you have a copy of the new survey? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes. MEMBER HORNING: Alright. MR. ARM: There in the front of that Mr. Homing. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Right here, right here. They're actually adjacent to the road. MEMBER HORNING: Oh, I see, OK. reaching tanks cylinders? It's not a leech field, that it's MR. ARM: Yes. MEMBER HORNING: Also, I'm curious on a statement you have in yol~r application for the variance. You say that the two adjoining lots are vacant and unbuildable and are owned by neighbors across the street. Can you explain that? MR. SHANK: Yes, it's a very unique situation down there. Actually, it's probably two lots, two, and maybe three lots to the east of me. You probably have three or four lots to the west of that and they're marsh lands. So, there's no way you can build on that. MEMBER HORNING: Permanently unbuildable. ? MR. SHANK: The DEC, my house could never be built again. MEMBER HORNING: Alright, thank you. MR. CRAIG: Can I just show the Board one thing? In reference to eliminating the side, the only part I'd just like to keep it enough just so we could have the access at the top of the stairs just so we could come through. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes, I was going to suggest that. I was going to suggest that you'~e going to have to make it 3 feet to make the turn to come in like this. MR. CRAIG: Then squared off. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes, squared off. MR. CRAIG: OK. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: You're going to eut it here, right and then it'll be cut back to here. So, give me that square footage and then you know, where we lie at that. Page 42 - Hearing Tra~,Scripts ~May 14, 1998 - Board of Appeals MR. CRAIG: OK, actually it's back here a few feet only because there's the door out that side, so just enough for the door. OK, thank you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you, he'll give us those figures. If you don't want to give them to us, you can call us tomorrow or fax it to us, whatever you want to do. Is there anybody else would like to speak in favor of this application? Anybody like to speak against it? Hearing no further comment, I'll make a motion closing the hearing pending the receipt of the information from the draftsman. MEMBER HORNING: Second. Motion carried. See Minutes for Resolution. Page 43 - Hearing TranScripts ~May 14, 1998 - Board of Appeals May 14, 1998 Hearing Southold Town Board of Appeals 7:25 P.M. - Appl. No. 4547 - Application by RIVERHEAD BUILDING SUPPLY. Continued hearing frOm March 23, 1998 for Variances based upon the Building Inspector's January 2, 1998 Notice of Disapproval which reads as follows: 1) the proposed structure being located in an LIO District is permitted to have a maximum of 60 feet of frontage on one street. The proposed building is approximately 115 feet facing Rt. 25, Article XIII, Section 100-133C; 2) When fences are located in or along side and rear yards they shall not exceed 6-1 / 2 feet in height, pursuant to 100-231B..." Location: 74610 and 74500 Main Road, Greenport; 1000-46-1-1 and 2.1, combined as a single lot. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I guess we are ready. Mrs. Moore? PATRICIA MOORE, ESQ: Thank you. This evening the Goodale Family is here representing Riverhead Building Supply. Mr. Smith, Allen Smith from Riverhead, co-counsel, and we are here to answer any questions you might have. When I went back to my file I realized that it has been quite some time since we had the last hearing. I know that you have an extensive record on the history of this legislation, and we discussed the unique nature of this project and the design elements of this facility and the use of the facility and if you have any additional questions since that date - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: What happened with the Planning Board? MRS. MOORE: The Planning Board, I went to the Planning Board. And they wrote to the Zoning Board a response saying that they reviewed the application. I had gone into them and said, our preference obviously is to stay where we are. We put up the green stakes so that you would see where 100 feet falls; and in fact, when you are there, you noticed that the Seven-ll the 100 feet is actually a little bit behind the back end of Seven-Il. So as you move the building back, I think it probably is going to detract from that line of sight because now you're going to really see the back end, Seven-ll back end. Nonetheless we went to the Planning Board and said, we just cannot move the parking. We can do anything but move the parking. They said, well, they had no problem with the original plan. They came back and said that they would, if we moved the building back by 10 feet and increased the green space by 10 feet, the parking remains where it is, and the way to solve the concern about the view of the parking, is that there'll be some low lying shrubs, green shrubs that will on the side of the road, on the Main Road and block the view of the parking. Certainly nothing that is going to interfere with parking and accessing, pedestrian Page 44 - Hearing T~m~scripts May 14, 1998 - Board of Appeals assess. But, it'll all 'be done through the site plan process. But, that's one way of hopefully resolving some questions that the Zoning Board may have had. So you know, it's obvious. Our first choice and the law, the code allows us to be where we have proposed to be. In fact, the average setback is about 40 feet and we're back at 100. If we can move this process along because they are certainly they're poised to begin - we're delayed at the site plan of stage because of this variance (request). If they're willing to compromise, they've told me that they're willing. Certainly not something that they're happy about, but if the Board cannot get a consensus for purposes of approval, we will agree to your alternative relief. So, if you choose to impose alternative relief. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Alright, any questions of the attorney for the applicant? Alright, we will then go on and ask if there is anybody else in favor of this application that would like to speak? Mr. Hulse: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mr. Hulse, how are you tonight Sir? MR. HULSE: My name is Fred Hulse. I live at 35 Sunset Lane in Greenport and I just came to speak in favor of this because I think Mr. Goodale is trying to do something for the area, and his original proposal looked very good to me. It's going to make the area much more attractive then it is now without the piles of lumber laying all around. The building looked pretty good from what I've heard of it and that area is certainly not going to detract from it, a bus garage and telephone building and a light plant and there's never going to be anything behind him, except railroad tracks and marshland. So, I think it behooves the Board to move this along and let the business man get going. It provides a lot of employment in the area and of course any extension also provides taxes to the Greenport Sehool District plus the Town of Southold. So, I think the Board would be well to take this under consideration and give the man his due and let him move along. Thank you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. Anybody else would like to speak in favor? Anybody like to speak against? Good evening Sir, would you state your name for the record please. MR. FARRELL: Good evening, my name is John Farrell. I'm a resident of the Cove, I call it, other people call it. Driftwood Cove but, I like to call it the Cove. There are 100 residents where I am and I'm ~30 feet away from the new building. Now I've done a little research in terms of demographics. For the quarter ending the end of March, 325 Building Permits have been issued. So being very generous~ I'll say 2,000 for the year, alright. We'll say 300 a week walk-ins or drive-ins, and 200 tickets a week sent out via trucks. Not very much for a facility this large. My only point is this to start, that this part of the building is going to be used by someone else in the future. What is going to be is the best and highest use would be a manufacturing facility, not a lumber yard or a Supply house because I'll tell you why. Penny Lumber is not going to fold Page 45 ~ Hearing Transcripts May 14, 1998 - Board of Appeals their tent and go silently into the night. Every building lot that's taken up is one less job or complete house that is going to be built. So where does that lead us? It leaves us with a large facility and no one to serve us. Number 2, my feeling about the fire hazard here. I live 130 feet from an ascendary bomb. Not too much smaller than Hiroshima, if it let's go. Alright? Think about what I'm saying, there's 100 residents that will immediately be put out of home and could very well be burned, or seriously injured, children and other matters. We also have CCA or, that special treated lumber which consists of arsenic, nothing else. Arsenic. On fire it becomes toxic. We don't have gas masks anymore, that was during the forties. That's all I wish to say, but if this does not be settled now, and they have this, I'm going to leave you with three words: "Fire, fire, fire." Thank you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. like to speak against the application? the record. Is there anybody else would Yes, Sir, state your name for MR. RUTKOWSKI: Anthony Rutkowski. Based on the development at this hearing, there is no evidence whatsoever of the hardship or other legal requirements rationale to the granting of such a variance, and indeed the record indicates that the applicant's desire of such a variance is based solely on convenience. It is my understanding that convenience is not a legal basis or granting of any variance, let alone any drastic variance such as been required which doubles the permitted size of the premise. We also continue our objection to the absent support, excuse me, on the absence of any supporting traffic or environmental impact studies substantiating the effects of this requested variance. I wish the Board would reconsider this, a lot of important things going on down there and you know, there's two sides to every story. Thank you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Anybody else like to speak against? (None) Mrs. Moore, anything in rebuttal? I have a question for you. MRS. MOORE: Just to touch on a few points that were raised. First of all, it is a unique design.. We did go through an extensive record; and the submission of the area variance criteria were submitted in writing on the original application. In addition, the history of this Code is really what we're addressing, and whether or not it was even intended to address this type of use. But we did go into that extensively, and I don't what to make a very long, turn this into another long meeting. Secondly, the fire issue, this building will be sprinkled. We've explained that or responded to that question previously and in writing, in writing. So, it is actually going to be much safer than, I don't want to say it's unsafe now but, even safer than it is presently. The fact that the materials will be stored, also takes care of any concerns with regard to the chemicals in the treated Page 46 - Hearing Tru~iscripts ~May 14, 1998 - Board of Appeals lumber. The fact that they will be under cover, they will be sprinkled, and they'll be under more controlled environment should make it even more stable than they are now. And you have a question? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: As you know, again we're missing a Board Member. We had talked the 115 feet, and we know that the code reads 80, and we know that we're close to almost double the variance size in reference to what the eriteria is in the code concerning this, and there was some touching at the last hearing in reference to that 115 feet. My question is 'what is the bare minimum that could be dealt with in reference to width of this building - you don't have to answer this question tonight. OK? MRS. MOORE: But, let me explain to you beeause I know you're asking, is there any lesser sum. We had actually considered a larger building. This is a reduced version. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I am aware of that. MRS. MOORE: And in fact it's 60 feet on a standard acreage which would be typically about 150 feet road frontage. We actually have, I don't have the map right in front of me, but, I think we have 300 feet, 350 feet of road frontage. You have the maps there. I can pull it out. But, we touched on that last time, that the reason the code doesn't make sense is because it creates a 60 foot requirement regardless of the road frontage, and we have actually doubled the road frontage by the acquisition of the extra parcel. So, it is actually consistent with the intent I believe, if we were to take 60 feet of the original parcel and then 60 feet of the other, you'd have 120 feet in length. We just couldn't put those two together. And we're creating a better design of the entire property. So I don't think that that has, I know we talked about it. Do you want to consider something smaller? I don't think so because I know we've talked about it. So. This is the size and if it's necessary for purposes of the proper vehicular access. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK. We'll then ask if anybody wants to speak before we actually close this hearing. Does anybody want to make any further comments? Anything - that something may not have been touched upon? Any Board Members have any specific questions? Ms. Collins? MEMBER COLLINS: No. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mrs. Tortora? MEMBER TORTORA: No. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mr. Homing? MEMBER HORNING: Ne. Page 47 - Hearing Transcripts May 14, 1998 - Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK. We thank you all for your courtesy and we will take everything into consideration, we wish you a safe home and have a good evening. Hearing no further comment, I'll make a motion closing the hearing reserving decision until later. MEMBER HORNING: Second. Resolution. Motion carried. See Minutes for End of Hearings. ~ECEtVED AND THE $OUTHOLD TOVfN Dff~%~ -/~' ~ ~ HOUR Town Clerl:,