Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-10/14/1999 HEARINGPg. 1 7 19 31 37 38 42 44 48 49 5O 53 8O 92 TRANSCRIPT OF ZBA HEARINGS HELD October 14, 1999 Appl. No. 4747-PAMELA & DAREN PFENING Appl. No. 4743-RAYNOR-SUTER HARDWARE, INC. Appl. No. 4750-R. RIBAUDO Appl. No. 4748-ERNA LANG Appl. No. 4752-MICHAEL RUSSO Appl. No. 4753-PAUL & RUTHANN CORAZZINI Appl. No. 4754-ROBERT & ESTHER BADENHOP Appl. No. 4755-EDWARD & AUDREY WETZEL Appl. No. 4756-B. WARREN APpl. No. 4756-B. WARREN Appl. No. 4757-SCHEMBRI HOMES Appl. No. 4749-LESLIE WINDISCH Appl. No. 4751-W. HOWELL & R. PATTON Appl. No. 4758-RONALD & VICTORIA JOHNSON Page 1 - October 14, 1999 Board of Appeals Hearings TRANSCRIPT OF PUBLIC HEARINGS October 14, 1999 SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS (Prepared by Lucy Farrell from Tape Recordings) 6:33 P.M.- Appl. No. 4747 - PAMELA & DAREN PFENING This is a request for a Variance under Article III, Sections 100-31C and 100-33, based upon the revised Building Inspector's September 8, 1999 Disapproval for a proposed storage barn/building to be located on a vacant lot without a principal use. 2905 Arbor Lane, Mattituck; 1000-113-7-25. CHAIRMAN.GOEHRINGER: Mr. Pfening we did receive you letter. You met with the adjoining property owner, we do appreciate that because that assists us in closing the hearing in making decision. Is there any further comments you want? You have no objections to us tying this in into the C.O. on the house which we discussed? MR. PFENING: No, not at all. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: All right, OK. I saw the mutual agreement between the hedge rows which will stay, which will act as a normal natural barrier between both pieces of property. I guess the only question I didn't ask you and I'll ask you now and one of the ones I held in abeyance was, what kind of utility are you going to put in this building other than electric? MR. PFENING: What kind of utility? Probably run water to it. Side water inside but that's electric and water, that's really it. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: All right. Any other questions of this gentleman? Ladies and gentlemen? No? OK, we'll make a motion closing the hearing reserving decision until later. All in favor?. Motion carried. See Minutes for Resolution. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Unless, you guys want to entertain a decision now? MEMBER COLLINS: I've drafted one. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, we'll read it. MR. PFENING: I'd like to know, I mean I don't want this to go on. Page 2 - October 14, 1999 Board of Appeals Hearings CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: tomorrow. Well you'll know,, you just have to call us MEMBER DINIZIO: We're going to do it now, right? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes, we'll do it now. MEMBER COLLINS: You want to pass this? Shall I pass this out? This is a decision. We did have the opportunity to discuss this at our last hearing - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: That is correct. MEMBER COLLINS: And, it was clear that the Board was willing to accommodate the Pfening's desire to have this building before they have a principal use. We just want to protect the town from ending up with no principal use on the property and that's why the decision in effect says, putting this building up, is OK, but, there will be no C of O issued for it until such time as a C of O is issued for a single family dwelling on that parcel of land and now Mr. Chairman, you just said something about hedge rows that I missed. Was that some kind of a condition, or, is that just something we understand? MEMBER TORTORA: It's an agreement with the - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: It's an agreement with a property owner. MEMBER COLLINS: OK, because I don't have it in this draft because I don't where it would go. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes, that'S basically the next question. Should we put it in as we did the last one? MEMBER TORTORA: Yes. MR. PFENING: Well- CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: The hearing is closed. You can't talk. You can stand there but, you can't talk. We're in a deliberation, it's up to them. It goes in, it goes in, it doesn't, it doesn't. MEMBER COLLINS: Jerry, could you, some how I missed this hedge row. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: It was an agreement. This gentleman met Mr. & Mrs. Gatz and they agreed to keep the natural barriers, let's not call it a hedge Page 3 - October 14, 1999 Board of Appeals Hearings row, we'll call it natural barriers between their property and his property. You know we certainly can't commit them because they're not here and part of this public hearing, but, it was asked at the prior hearing if he intended to keep - MEMBER COLLINS: That's right, I remember the question. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Those trees and those bushes around this building, particularly contiguous to the piece that belonged to Walter and Marilyn Gatz and his statement was, "yes". OK, so the question is, do you want to make that a condition? MEMBER TORTORA: No, because that's part of what the, how the neighbors kind of came to an agreement on it, and that's what was presented to us, very much so. MEMBER COLLINS: So, what we're going to say is, the condition in addition to the one having to do with the C of O is, there's the further condition, that applicant, I mean that's the only person we could define here, will not, how do we say it? Will not clear- CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Clear, raise. MEMBER COLLINS: Yes, but what kind of distance are we talking about? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: This distance of the building, or, within five feet of either side of the distance of the building which is rather a large building. MEMBER COLLINS: The building close to the property line and that's the whole point? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Right, that is correct. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: I thought she wanted it moved over 5 feet or something. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I think we let that go. MEMBER COLLINS: So we're saying on the condition that the land be left naturally vegetated between the building and the property line? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes, except for the overcut of where the building basically you know, I mean whatever overcut you need to build the building and to keep the appropriate amount of trees away from the building so they don't destroy the building. Page 4 - October 14, 1999 Board of Appeals Hearings MEMBER COLLINS: Yes. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: You want to give a setback of distance for an overcut? ' CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: No, I think it could be a five foot overcut. MEMBER TORTORA: I'd make sure that that is left, because that was her objection. She withdrew the objection based on this agreement that you reached with her. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mr. Pfening, yes, what? MR. PFENIN. G: I could speak? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes. MR. PFENING: First of all there's a couple of trees I do have to take down because I don't want them to get near the building. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We understand that. MR. PFENING: But, the vegetation buffer is mainly controlled by the Gatzs anyhow and we both just agreed that we're not going to cut into it. There's no, I'd say, there's no distance. I have to get around the building - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We understand that. MR. PFENING: And your building is on an angle so, if you say, 5 feet from the building, that goes almost 50 feet onto my property from one end of it. I would say, at the 20 foot side of the building, we don't have any intention to cut into that buffer and the Gatzs. The whole reason for meeting the Gatzs there was to show them my intention and once they actually saw the site and the building stake, they said, OK, we understand what's actually happened here. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, this is a rhetorical question for you then which we very rarely do when we're deliberating. You are a builder, OK? MR. PFENING: Hm, hm. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER; You build this building, you build your house and then somebody comes along offers you $750,000. That's an arbitrary figure. You leave, OK, what is to stop the new owner from cutting everything down on that side? It is now an art gallery, OK, and they put large glass sliding doors in, and that's where they're going to paint their paintings and that is the concern Page 5 - October 14, 1999 Board of Appeals Hearings that this Board has and that is the reason why we are imposing a condition. We do not want to impose a prohibitive condition, but, we want to impose a condition. MR. PFENING: Well OK, that's why I just wanted to interject and point out that the angle that the building is on. That's five feet on the one angle of the building would be I mean limiting the use of that section of property right on that side of the building. I don't see any reason for that. Mr. Gatz's property is honestly, I mean it's completely opened, all 15 acres of it. It abuts my property. I guess the last 25 to 30 feet may be heavily brushed and my property has mostly the ( ) vegetation on it. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: What kind of overcut are you talking about? MR. PFENING: I would ask the Board to propose to at least three. I would leave the last five feet remaining along the entire property line. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Let me see how that deals with the right-of-way. MR. PFENING: And actually my intention is to plant to, curilate--, you might say arbOrvitae or some sought of evergreen, pines. I have every intention to do that. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK. MEMBER COLLINS: We want to make this a simple statement. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Right, well, you know, I mean I don't think we should take this time to do this. I think we should do this at the end of the hearing and I know this causes a problem for the applicant, but, I mean we have rather a huge agenda to continue with at this point. What we're saying to you is we are going to make a decision, but. we're not going to do it this second because we have to kick it around. We understand what yoU're saying. We very rarely let you get involved in negotiations or deliberations I should say but, we'll take that into consideration. Call us tomorrow, we hope to have it for you or sit back and you know, we'll do it at the end of the meeting. MR. PFENING: OK, I do want to add one thing though. Again, this whole intention of this meeting was not to do it with the replacement of the barn and that's why even addressing Mr. & Mrs. Gatz. s seems to be - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: And we're very happy about that. We have to tell you, that we're happy that they're not objecting to the position of the barn but, the reason why they're not objecting is because the head row is going to stand or whatever you want to call it. It's going to stay. It's going to stay there. So as Page 6 - October 14, 1999 Board of Appeals Hearings not to cause someone of their family members to have a rear yard problem in the future when they build on a piece of property that's adjoining yours and that's the purpose of it. So, as I said, you're welcome to stay. We hope we'll get to it, if we don't we'll address it at the next regularly scheduled special meeting, OK?, and we go from there. MR. PFENING: This may go on? I'm asking this because I started in July. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We have 62 days from tonight to make this decision. We certainly want to get rid of it and ! don't mean that in a sarcastic manner. We certainly want to dispose of it as quickly as possible. If we had the condition as it stands, OK, what you see before you are normal facts that individually Board Members are assigned. We have almost the entire thing done except for the drafting of that particular portion of the condition that we want to deal with and so we're simply waiting for that, that's we're we are. MR. PFENING: OK, so if I'm opposed to that condition, I just have a question. Do I have to come back and appeal this? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Sure. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: We can talk about that tomorrow if you want to give us a call. MR. PFENING: OK, thank you very much. Motion carried. See Minutes for Resolution. Page 7 - October 14, 1999 Board of Appeals Hearings 6:45 P.M. -Appl. No. 4743 - RAYNOR-SUTER HARDWARE, INC. Variance for insufficient lot size with regard to a proposed second principal (permitted) use (2nd floor), corner of Pike Street and 320 Love Lane, Mattituck. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mr. Raynor from Raynor-Suter Hardware, good evening, What wOuld you like to tell us about your special exception (sic) application, Sir? MR. RAYNOR: Well you gentlemen are well aware the Personal Services Studio on the second floor that we are requesting is a permitted use in a Hamlet Business District. The problem exists in that the lot size presently under th,9 ordinance is 20,000 sq. f. The building that we're in pre-existed the Town Zoning Ordioance by about 50 years which was put up in 1927. I'm not sure that there are any business that exist either on Love Lane or Pike Street that have a minimum of 20,000 sq. ft. I really feel, that the request before you is consistent with other buildings in the area that had approval for alterations over the years and it is reflective of the neighborhood being a down town location more or less a mom and pop operation throughout. The question obviously would be to have a second use the intensity of parking and I'm sure the Board is well versed in the fact the property to the east owned by Mr. Zahra also abuts the park district property and I estimate there's probably parking in there for 70-80 cars as well as diagonally across from the intersection of Love Lane and Pike Street the parking that exists for the Municipality backing up to the railroad station. I want to be sure to give the Board the Affidavit of Posting before I forget that and Mary Ann Cullins, and basically if the Board has any questions I'd be happy to field them at this time or anytime. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: All right, we did receive a letter from the adjoining property owner. Could you explain this situation of rights-of-way in the back of your building? I know you have parking directly to the rear of your building between yours and Mr. Zahra's, which you use basically for your own employees. MR. RAYNOR: way. Right. Basically where we're parking today is in the right-of- CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK. MR. RAYNOR: There exists about I'm going to say plus or minus 40 feet between Mr. Zahra's building and our own. That right-of-way, was created by myself and Rob Barker back in I'm going to say 1973, when we purchased the property and the idea behind the right-of-way was that should ever Mr. Barker transfer the property - at that time was the remainder was either in the hands of Milowski ~nd the Kelsey Estate. That we had the ability to bring all the trucks to Page 8 - October 14, 1999 Board of Appeals Hearings off-load away from Love Lane and Pike Street, and keep the traffic flow and the pedestrian flow open. That was the original reason for it. When we had originally submitted the first application, I received a letter I believe it's Aksen, who is the attorney for Mr. Block and Mr. Riley and it was our error in showing that as parking. I wanted to reflect actually what was there. I had sent the Board a memo saying, please delete this from the site plan and the sketch that we've shown, and I forwarded a copy of that to their attorney so that they would realize that it was an error on our part and it was not something that in any way would take from their rights. But that's how it came to be. It was a gentlemen's agreement in the early seventies, that when Mr. Barker transferred the property he would extend 'the right-of-way down to the property of Milowski and on down through with the various owners, and unfortunately as you know Mr. Barker passed away and this didn't occur. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: So you actually don't have a right-of-way over these gentlemen's property next door? To the existing right-of-way which goes out to State Road 25? MR. RAYNOR: No, not at all. We do have a walking easement that goes to the parking lot. But this is kind of academic. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: And in your statement before that you're feeling that there is enough public parking that patrons to this second use could utilize, all right, that you're feeling that there is no need for any additional parking on your site or any other site that's related to meaning contiguous to your property? MR. RAYNOR: With the exception of the second Saturday in July when we had the Street Fair in MattitucK and possibly years ago when the Strawberry Festival was there, that lot is full. I have not seen that lot totally full in almost 30 years of being on Love Lane, Pike Street corner. So yes, I do feel that it's more than adequate. Obviously the train is no longer the factor for the commuter that it was 25 years ago, and that lot is greatly under-utilized. CHAIRMAN GOE'HRINGER: OK, just tell us briefly about the business and what's going to ha~per) there and what kind of changes wJl~ be made. MR. RAYNOR: Physically the changes to be made would be a change in the doorway on the Pike Street side. It will go from a double freight door to a single entrance door. Outside we intend to revamp the windows upstairs. That'll be the end of the physical appearance changes. The gentlemen that have come to me and have interest unfortunately couldn't be here tonight. We want to open this Personal Services Studio and then using the vernacular from the ordinance. They're fitness trainers and they have a number of students and a number of people apparently that they are helping with personal physical fitness and beyond that I can't speak for them, but this was their intent, as intent to put the Page 9 - October 14, 1999 Board of Appeals Hearings second floor of the store with gymnastic equipment with weight equipment and use it. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OKi thank you. Is there anybody would like to speak to Mr. Raynor regarding this. We'll start with Mr. Dinizio? MEMBER DINIZIO: No. CHAIRMAN: We'll be right with you, Mr. Block, we're just running through the diaz here and we'll get to the audience. MEMBER COLLINS: Yes, Mr. Raynor, I would just like to ask a couple of questions to get into the record a little more about, sought of the heart of the matter here,. It seems to me the heart of the matter is that the Building Department looked on your request to do this work upstairs and said, you need 20,000 sq. ft. per use in the Hamlet Business District. And as you pointed out before, your Hamlet Business District is a perfect little small town downtown where nobody has anything even vaguely approaching 20,000 sq. ft. per use. I'm not lecturing, I'm really am asking a question. I just want to get your view of your neighborhood into the record. Is there any business structure in the Love Lane Business District that actually stands on a parcel as big as 20,000 sq. ft.? Can you picture one? MR. RAYNOR: Probably the largest business structure I could figure out would be now Tandy Plumbing, which years ago was a boarding house and that's probably about 80 feet by 100 and I'm estimating, maybe 120. MEMBER COLLINS: Oh yes. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: It's 103, Henry, 103 x 234 x 212 x 84. MR. RAYNORi You can't argue with numbers, especially if you got it in front of you. I don't honestly know of anything that's that large. MEMBER COLLINS: All right. Ok. I think if push came to shove here because you were literally looking to do work to put in a second use. I mean, is it your experience in watching life go bY on Love Lane over the years that local businesses have been able to refurbish, revamp, fix up their properties in a physical and structural way without having 20,000 sq. ft.? MR. RAYNOR Yes, yes. Very much so. Rather than to go into it, there are a number of businesses there that have multiple uses. I really don't want to go into too much of my neighbor's business because I don't know if they, ve been here to the Zoning Board of Appeals. Page 10 - October 1,4, 1999 Board of Appeals Hearings CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: The one to answer your question is the octagonal building on the corner that we just granted. MEMBER COLLINS: Of course we just granted a Special Exception, that wasn't a Special Exception was it? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: No. MEMBER COLLINS: No, but at any rate, to put in a coffee bar down at the comer and actually that was my next and final question which is, to what extent there are properties that are a single parcel, a single structure with more than one use. I'm not looking for names. Are there any around in the Love Lane area? There is the Octagon. MR. RAYNOR: Yes.there are, i can think of four in the immediate block. MEMBER COLLINS: Fine, thank you. l just wanted that in the record, thank you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mrs. Tortora? MEMBER TORTORA: The exercise equipment. Are you going to have any inner reaction with the exercise equipment or with the business upstairs at all? MR. RAYNOR: I'm going to be strictly a landlord and as far as the operation is concerned, ! certainly could lose a pound or two. MEMBER TORTORA: It doesn't look like it. That's the only question I have. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mr. Horning? MEMBER HORNING: I'm all set. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK. Thank you Mr. Raynor we appreciate your, ~ stand corrected on the issue of Special Exception. I apologize. I happen to.be on Special Exception kick tonight, and i apologize. (Changed tape). Anybody else that would like to speak in favor of this application? Anybody like to speak against or has concerns? Mr. Block, I apologize for holding you up. MR. BLOCK: Not at all. Whether it be against or for it's up to you folks. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Just state your name for the record, please. MR. BLOCK: My name is Richard Block. My partner is Rich Riley. He's here presently. We have the property that's contiguous to the property in question Page 11 - October 14, 1999 Board of Appeals Hearings MR. BLOCK, continued: and I have a few questions. Parking in the area of Love Lane is at a premium as we all know. Since the property that is changing its use has no parking at all, per se, where are the new patrons of the new entity, the exercise salon going to park? That's one question. Second, our property has suffered and has been violated consistently by all our neighbors, the exercise salon, the hardware store and the market by people who are parking on our private property constantly of both commercial and individual. With the new use being put in, the exercise salon, we can only see a larger influx of transgressors to our property which hampers our customers and our business. How can we be assured that our property will not be violated? Also, how can we be assured that our deeded driveway is not violated? Now and in the future, it is our right-of-way, which is quite valuable to us for egress and exit, we need it. We deserve to enjoy this right-of-way at anytime we choose to do so. The market, the Zahra property, and the hardware store, use our property, not them per se, and we enjoy a good existence with our neighbors per se themselves. However, their customers are transgressors. Not too many overt people have come to pass, but we're just saying, if this new exercise salon enjoys the same flavor or the same existence as the other exercise salon, there's going to be a lot more people trying to park on our property. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Can I ask? Mr. Block, are you referring to your rear yard? MR. BLOCK: Yes. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: The entire rear yard as it.exists right now? MR. BLOCK: The entire rear yard. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: This is in back of the laundromat. MEMVER TORTORA: Oh. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I had seen signs on (saw) horses, you know, out there at certain times. I don't know if there, there now, because I really don't park back there anymore. MR. BLOCK: Just once. That was during that thing in July. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: You're referring to anybody that illegally parks back there? Page 12 - October 14, 1999 Board of Appeals Hearings MR. BLOCK: Exactly. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK. All right, we'll ask Mr. Raynor the other question. MR. BLOCK: The only thing we have because there is a lot of violation and usually hard feelings occur. We try to be as neighborly as possible. We know that people use it for going to the post office and so forth we shirk that right off because they're going to be there just for a moment or two and usually people are pretty good about it. But with this going on, ! feel as though it should be adjusted. MEMBER T.ORTORA: Is there nothing that you can do about it to prevent parking on your property? MR. BLOCK: To fence it off? To have a gate that opens and closes? ] wouldn't like that flavor myself. I'm just saying, we have put up a sign that parking is by authorized, you know, that's more of a subdued thing and people do violate that, but we want to be neighborly, too. But we just want to know, if this exercise salon coupled with the other one, which is contiguous to our property, we're going to have more people. MEMBER TORTORA: I just don't know if you have problems with violations nOW. MR. BLOCK: We do. MEMBER TORTORA: Yeah. And if you're not able to control them now then - MR. BLOCK: Well, that's what we're looking for, a redress from the court. MEMBER TORTORA: What I'm trying to say is, I'm not sure that we can handle this through this one application, because (unfinished). MR. BLOCK: I realize that, but, will it have more input? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: It will worsen. MR. BLOCK: I would think it would get worse. It seems to be reasonable to assume, that it would get worse. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Does anybody else have another question of Mro Block? Page 13 - October 14, 1999 Board of Appeals Hearings MEMBER DINIZIO: Do these people drive through the town parking lot to park on your property? How does it work? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Well if you had a piece of chalk Jimmy, I would show you how it works. MEMBER DINIZIO: Yeah, I mean I've been back there before. I just can't quite picture your particular piece and I mean there's a lot of parking back there. ] couldn't understand why someone would have to (unfinished). CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: What happens with Mr. Block and please I'm a Mattituck resident and I've lived there for 40 years and I am totally, I totally' sympathize with you with your problems. That there is no physical way to get to the mail, ex.cept to go through the delicatessen market place that's there or to park on Mr. Block and Mr. Riley's property and walk down the right-of-way which belongs to the Mattituck Park District. MEME~ER TORTORA: What's the matter with the Municipal Parking? MR. BLOCK: Not to interrupt, but Mr. Goehringer, we have a joint, with the Park District, a walkway. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Right. MR. ~,LOCK: Which they, we consented to this, which we could eradicate, we have an escape clause for it. But we enjoy that ourselves, because why not walk and our property is there. But it is our property and we'd like to have it in good faith but we have had real problems with like say the market was consistently running their big five, six, ten ton trucks over our cesspool. Our cesspool is our livelihood. But we had a large problem with that. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Can I just ask a question, Mr. Block? MR. BLOCK: Absolutely. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: And this is just a purely selfish question of me. Why haven't you tried to fence that to some degree? MR. BLOCK: Like I said, it would mean opening and closing the fence. Is that what you say? MEMBER TORTORA: The problem is this. I'm a Mattituck resident, too. My question is, why don't they park across the street in the Municipal Parking lot which is even a 75 feet from both of your businesses? Page 14 - October 14, 1999 Board of Appeals Hearings MR. BLOCK: You're right. They should park in the Park District Parking Lot, but they don't because they want to go closer. It's normal. But most of the peoPle since we've put up the sign, they've been, like I say, we want - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I know, you're also a Mattituck resident, I know. MR. BLOCK: .Right. We also want to be, you know, good to everybody but when we get an influx of a lot of people we would like them to be (). CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Any other questions of Mr. Block? We thank you Sir. Anybody else would like to speak against or has concerns about this hearing. MR. BLOCK,: One more question? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes, surely. MR. BLOCK: Can I find out. In other words, my question, i'd like to have an answer - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes, and now I'm going to Mr. Raynor, who is the applicant. Mr. Raynor, I don't know if you want me to paraphrase the question? But maybe you want to address what Mr. Block had to say and then I'm going to ask you a specific question, after that. MR. RAYNOR: Well, Mr. Block has never come to me with a specific problem. I realize he has had problems with the trucks coming through. Other than that, i really have no comment. But we obviously don't encourage anything, and we can't even fit any of our trucks onto his property nor do we ever want to do so. It is a practical or pragmatic kind of business when we have frontage on the street to utilize the neighbors parking, nor would we ever have the intent to do so. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK. Let me just ask you a question. Would it be adverse to your interest if you erected some sought of fence in between your property and Mr. Block's property so people wouldn't attempt to park on his property and then transverse yours, the rear yard, we'll refer to it as your rear yard, it's really not the rear yard, it's really the side yard of your property? MR. RAYNOR: For the past 15 years, nobody can. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Right, I know, I know, you're kind of have to be like a mountain goat to get over there. Page 15 - October 14, 1999 Board of Appeals Hearings MR. RAYNOR: I would have no objection, none at all. However, It would mean putting a fence across the right-of-way. I'm sure Mr. Block would have objection to that. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mr. Block? MR. BLOCK: I want the right-of-way to be used by my partner and myself at any time without having to go to have to ask permission. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Well, what if you put a gate there and you both had keys to it? MR. BLOCK: That's all right. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Is that all right Mr. Raynor? MR. RAYNOR: I have no objection. I'm not sure it's going to serve any purpose. MR. BLOCK: No, I agree with him. MR. RAYNOR: I don't think Mr. Block and Mr. Riley object to traffic coming from Pike Street to our property to his. I think his objection is and I see it everyday, just what the gentleman is describing. Everybody pulls into the Municipal lot and then hey, we've got a nice cylinder block parking lot and I don't have to walk a half a block I only have to walk 300 feet now and they pull into the back of this facility and they use it. Unfortunately, unless he can control it on site. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: But the point is, the elongation of your cement · driveway or where your cement driveway stops which is directly toward the rear of your building, the rear toward your property, OK, where you have basically the grass mound, we'll refer to it as a hedge row, whatever you refer to, OK, what you said is virtually impassible, which you're absolutely correct. I mean there are some little pass in there and so on and so forth. MR. RAYNOR: We have two dumpsters there. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes, right, right. Do they have a right-of-way over there, Mr. Block and Mr. Riley? MR. RAYNOR: Mr. Block and Mr. Riley have a 25 foot right-of-way, you're getting right on the corner of the Zahra building coming west. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Right. So, in order to stop any foot traffic or somebody attempting to park on their property, if as I had suggested, the erection of a fence with a gate so that you both had mutual use of it if you Page 16 - October 14, 1999 Board of Appeals Hearings needed it, that would stop the foot traffic and force the people to park in the parking lot, would it not? MR. RAYNOR: No. No. Foot traffic is coming all from the Municipal Parking lot across his property. It's not coming across the Hardware store's property. MEMBER TORTORA: It's coming from Love Lane. MR. RAYNOR: Outside of me getting a cup of tea about 7:00 o'clock in the morning when they're coming in. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: So, that's not going to help the situation. So we really have no rectification on how you know, we're going to help Mr. Riley and Mr. Block at.this point based upon your second use here. Is that correct? MR. RAYNOR: That's correct. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I mean, i really don't know of any other reason. Come up, Mr. Block. We're taking this down by tape. That's why we need you there. MR. BLOCK: What I'm saying is, the right-of-way and the Municipal Parking for the Park District, can change like that without us having any hold on it whatsoever. But our right-of-way does not change. As a commercial right-of- way, we have 20 feet from the Zahra's building, I guess it's west to Mr. Raynor's building west to Mr. Raynor's building. We would like that free. Not immediately but, in other words we'll work together with it. But, we really don't want any parking lot or dumpster, this that and the other thing. However, we're pooling with that. We can do a lot of things with it. I have no problem with Henry, and ~ don't think he'll have any problem with me as far as that right-of-way goes, but we'd like to have it accessible at all times. However, ! know he's, and he'S worked with us before: We had no problem. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Raynor? You still have an ongoing dialogue with Mr. MR. REILLY; Without a doubt, without a doubt. But we'd like to know is, the only objection we have is if people influx on our property and stay there and they do, they do. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Right, sure. MR. REILLY: And our customers get into words with them at various times and we've had caustic situations at various times. So far everybody's' coming out pretty good, but - Page 17 - October 14, 1999 Board of Appeals Hearings CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mr. Raynor, did you Want to say something? MR. RAYNOR: i'd be more than happy to work it out and I have worked with Mr. Block and Mr. Riley you know, it's a neighborly thing to do as people like to walk less and less. we have on occasion people pull in between the hardware store and. take their laundry across. MR. BLOCK: They have done that. MR. RAYNOR: What you going to do? That's human nature, i've never had a problem with regard to anything there. If there's anyway and it becomes a problem I would hope, that Mr. Block and Mr. Riley would come and say, ho~v look, "they're parking on our property, do something about it" and ! would respond. The tenants would say, look it's for both. You're going to have to control your patrons. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mr. Raynor is there a possibility that when the sign gets posted for this new use, that the bottom of the sign or an adjunct sign be placed and a very small one saying 'parking in Municipal Parking Lot only.' MR. RAYNOR: I'd be more than happy. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: is that OK with you? MR. BLOCK: It's great. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yeah, Municipal Parking or Street Parking only. MR. RAYNOR: In fact, we'll put that over the doorway. MR. BLOCK: Most people do not follow signs. MR. REILLY: Mr. Goehringer, it's the shortest point between - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Two points, right. MR. REILLY: The post office, the market, so forth. The most problem of course is with the market because all of their commercial trucks park and another problem with that it's been all right so far. I still have to go out and address the situation many times. But we're sandwiched in there and of course it looks very appealing, no question about it and everybody comes in and out of the truck they go, they're doing their business and so forth and then a lot of times they'll block in our customers. Now that affects me. Page 18 - October 14, 1999 Board of Appeals Hearings CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I just want to mention something to you about the parking lot on the other side of Mr. Zahra's building. That parking lot belongs to t he Mattituck Park District, which belongs to all of the residents in the Hamlets of Mattituck and Laurel. That particular parking lot is now under a lease with the Town of Southold. The Town maintains that parking lot, OK, and we are presently still under a, I don't know what period of time of the ten year lease we're under, but when that lease comes up for renewal, we automatically renew it. It would only be the Town that would tell us that they do not want that lease renewed. We have no intentions of disposing of that property in any other way. We have to do it through public referendum anyway, and I'm speaking not now as a Zoning Board person I am now speaking as a Commissioner of the Mattituck Park District which I have held a position for 24 years, so I just wanted to tell you that it's not going to be an immediate situation where that particular parking lot would be done away with. MR. BLOCK: I didn't know that and from our point of view, we knew it could happen because it's out of our hands. I mean it's the Park District property. They could build an apartment house there if they want. MEMBER TORTORA: No, they couldn't. They would have to go to voter referendum. MR. BLOCK: Well, but still. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I just wanted you to go away from this hearing knowing that tonight, that's all. Just so long as you're aware of that. So we will attempt to take all of this information and certainly kick it around and make a decision, and we hope that the ongoing dialogues continue at all times to always occur between property owners and that's a generic statement. Thank you. MR. BLOCK: That's not a problem. Thank you. MR. RAYNOR: Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: 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 19 - October 14, 1999 Board of Appeals Hearings 7i13 P.M. -Appl. No. 4750 - R. RIBAUDO Proposed swimming pool at less than 100 feet from the top of the L.I. Sound bluff at 1920 The Strand, East Marion, 1000-30-2-56. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Good evening Sir. RICHARD SCHAEFER: Good evening. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Who are you Sir? MR. SCHAEFER: My name is Richard Schaefer. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: How do you do. MR. SCHAEFER: I'm a contractor and I've been authorized by the Ribaudos to apply for a variance to build their home. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: What is the nature Or the name of your business? MR. SCHAEFER: Richard H. Schaefer, Inc. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: What would you like to tell us about this site? MR. SCHAEFER: Well it's a buildable parcel and it abuts or it overlooks the Sound and the Ribaudos want to, .their prerequisite to build a house is to be able to put a pool behind it. ! mean that's what they would like to do. In order to do that and in order to keep the front of the house in keeping with the rest of the neighborhood, they have, they would like to have an 80-foot setback to the house, and then the necessary depth, to the back'of the pool which would encroach into the buffer zone with the bluff. So the nature of the variance is they need about 20 feet for a portion of the pool into the 100 setback from the bluff line. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: So, you're proposing it at 80 feet right now? MEMBER COLLINS: 80 feet front. MR. SCHAEFER: I'm proposing an 80 foot front yard and only extending approximately 20 feet into the buffer zone. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: The buffer zone is what you're, referring to is 100 foot buffer zone in the rear to - Page 20 - October 14, 1999 Board of Appeals Hearings MR. SCHAEFER: Yes, from the crest of the bluff or the top of the bluff, we're supposed to stay 100 feet away from it. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Right, OK. MR. SCHAEFER: In order to do that, we're stretching up the house. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: So it's 80-80 basically? 80 in the front, and 80 in the back then. I don't care about the front yard because that's not the nature of this application. MR. SCHAEFER: Right. CHAIRMAN.GOEHRINGER: So, we're only talking about the, you're talking approximately 80 feet. So, you're talking about encroachment into that 100 feet by 20 feet? MR. SCHAEFER: Approximately, yes. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK. MR. SCHAEFER: I have all the, we, we submitted all of the letters to the neighbors, notices of this and I have all the information here for you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We'll take that. Thank you Sir. All right, the question I have is, how come the or how did the situation change from the original copy that I have, Mr. Schaefer, and these are pragmatic statements. These are in no way meant to be critical of your application or the filing of your application. How they changed from the Health Department copy which is dated 4-23-99 and the most recent copy which has the topo on it and to the present most recent copy which is dated October 12th which we have dated (stamped) October 12th, which shows basically a depiction of it, it's not an actual survey? MR. SCHAEFER: May I? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes, sure I'm ready. MR. SCHAEFER: What happened was, when the owner saw the front yard setback with the rest of the neighbors and he saw it plotted on his drawing, he thought he'd be sitting on his rear deck looking at the rear end or the sides of both houses on both sides of it. The neighbor to the east has his I~ool behind his house and it does encroach into that zone, into that buffer zone and he just felt that he has to get his house back a little further otherwise he'd be sitting out like a bump on a log on the Strand. Page 21 - October 14, 1999 Board of Appeals Hearings CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: All right, now here's where the problem lies. I go out and do a pre-inspection and l go out and do a post inspection. So I do normally two inspections on the property. Well, Iow and behold, about a month ago, I went out and did an inspection and met the easterly property owner and spent almost an hour on her property. This was Mrs. Kennedy, who by the way is a very, very, nice lady, and the only copy that I had was the Health Department copy. So, she thinks, that the swimming pool is going to go where that initial situation was. And she didn't tell me she had a particular concern with it because of that particular location which was the location that we thought it was going to go. So somewhere along the line, you're going to have to go to her and explain to her where the change is because she's from New Jersey and she's not here tonight. MR. SCHAEFER: That's why I'm here because the Ribaudos are from New Jersey. But I did submit a sketch with that letter of the meeting to all of the neighbors. The new sketch, the revised sketch. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK. Right. Right. MR. SCHAEFER: It was a revised copy of the survey as a matter of fact. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: So, she has the revised copy? MR. SCHAEFER: Yes. All the three neighbors have the revised copy. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: So basically the question is going to come in if she understands it or not because I guess I'm going to have to be required to call her because she said to me at that meeting that I had, because I had to walk on her property conceivably to see what the property looked like because this property is overgrown. It looks like a jungle as you know. MR. SCHAEFER: Right, rightl CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: So I guess I'm going to have to call her and explain to her what the new - BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Was it more than nine days ago? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: More than a week ago? MR. SCHAEFER: Is this the neighbor to the east? CHAIRMAN G.OEHRINGER: This is the lady to the east, yes, Mrs. Kennedy. Page 22 - October 14, 1999 Board of Appeals Hearings MR. SCHAEFER: Because I believe her property, they, they'did get a variance themselves I believe. I was told that. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Maybe they did. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: If you met with them more than a week ago, they have since received the revised plan. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Right. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: So she's probably aware of it. CHAIRMAN.GOEHRINGER: All right, that's where we are on that respect. Just one further question and that is, this pool is to remain open at all times to the sky? No enclosures? MR. SCHAEFER: Oh, no, no enclosures. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We'll start with Mr. Homing. Mr. Homing, any questions of this applicant? The agent for the applicant? MEMBER HORNING: No questions. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mrs. Tortora? MEMBER TORTORA: No, I think you've cleared up my question. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Ms. Collins? MEMBER COLLINS: Yes, I do have questions. First, Mr. Chairman, I think that the paper track here is as follows: Mr. Schaefer you can correct me if I'm wrong. You 'applied for the Building Permit for the house and the pool and you got it. MR. SCHAEFER: Yes. MEMBER COLLINS: They granted the Building Permit, and the drawing that goes with that is the one that shows the corner of the pool precisely exactly 100 feet back from the relevant line. MR. SCHAEFER: Right, that was submitted to the Health Department. MEMBER COLLINS: Yes, that's what the Health Department approved, MR. SCHAEFER: That's the only reason it was submitted to the Page 23 - October 14, 1999 Board of Appeals Hearings Town. MEMBER COLLINS: But, that's the one on which they based the Building Permit? MR. SCHAEFER: Right. MEMBER COLLINS: And then, after your client, as you've just explained to us, looked at the setbacks on the street, he decided that his house really ought to be further back from the street and therefore closer to the bluff. MR. SCHAEFER: Yes. MEMBER COLLINS: So, you went to the Building Department and asked to amend the Building Permit at which point they said, that puts you in a position where you're in violation of the code setback and that's why you're here. is that right? MR. SCHAEFER: Yes. MEMBER COLLINS: Now, in both of these drawings they're the same survey of the lot. One is the one with the Health Department stamp and one is the one that went to the Building Department when you revised it. In both of those, there's a perfectly straight line drawn on the survey and labeled, "average line of bluff as per FM6266" and the 100 feet is measured from that line. On the survey that shows the project as you now want to build it, there are contra lines drawn in. MR. SCHAEFER: Yes. MEMBER COLLINS: And the contour lines appear to me I hasten to say, that not being a jungle fighter I did not get into the property, and I did not go into the neighbors to take a look at it. I only looked at it from the road. But, reading this survey here, the one that represents the project as you now wish to build it, it looks like the crest of the bluff at 56 feet above sea level is a. good 10 to 20 feet inland from. that straight line that's marked, "average line of bluff'. MR. SCHAEFER: The surveyor indicated all that. I really didn't. MEMBER COLLINS: OK, let me tell you how I read this chart. It appears to me that the surveyor has drawn a straight line, that is a line that represents what he says, some kind of average line of where the bluffs, I realize the bluffs up there go in and out. MR. SCHAEFER:' The top of the bluff, right. Page 2,4 - October 14, 1999 Board of Appeals Hearings MEMBER COLLINS: And it appears to me that that line is at a spot that is we~l over the edge of the bluff, and that your setback from the actual edge of the bluff which is what our Code asks you to setback from is considerably less than what your surveyor claims. I'm very troubled by that straight line because it looks to me like it's hanging in space about 10 to 12 feet below the lip of the bluff. MR. SCHAEFER: I don't know who determined that line. I would assume the surveyor knew what he was doing. MEMBER COLLINS: OK. Because if I believe, ! mean, I think I know how to read this survey and if I believe it, the pool as now proposed intrudes not 18 or 20 feet into the forbidden territory; if you will, it intrudes - no 40 feet or so because the. forbidden territory starts alot further inland than your surveyor's line shows and I'm really bothered by that and I really want to see it resolved and awfully sorry that I didn't study this stuff two weeks ago, but I didn't have a chance to so that I could of asked the questions sooner. MR. SCHAEFER: The average line of the bluff, ~ don't know what that code is that FM6266. But, it must be on a geodetic survey, coastal geodetic survey. ~ can't, I really can't help you on that. MEMBER COLLINS: But I just want to make sure that - MR. SCHAEFER: That's a determined line. I don't think it's by the surveyor. ~t has to do with coastal erosion somehow. MEMBER TORTORA: I think there are three things here. The code if ! recall correctly, refers to the top of the bluff. MEMBER COLLINS: The top of the bluff, 239. MEMBER TORTORA: This survey is referring to an average line of the bluff. Then we have a coastal erosion hazard line which has nothing to do with this particular application as the Building Department has disapproved it. So the question is, you're saying, that the average line of the bluff is not the same as the top of the bluff. MEMBER COLLINS: That's how I read this survey. MEMBER TORTORA: So then I would make a suggestion. Let's contact the Soil & Water Conservation. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We did already. We just didn't get the report. Page 25 - October 14, 1999 Board of Appeals Hearings MEMBER TORTORA: And that should be included in their report to identify the top of the bluff as per the code. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Well there is a major problem in that there's a flaw within the Pebble Beach area. And the flaw is, that there are in some of these on some of these parcels four separate lips on these bluffs, and we found this with, excuse my, what was the builder's name, Zoumas? Zulo\as? What was it? Zervos. Zervos, OK, on the opposite side of your right -of-way which leads down to the water. We found as many as six lips on the bluff in that particular area, with six tops of the bluff, sort of speak, OK. So, I'm not sure it's incorrect in taking an average line which this surveyor chose to do, who is Stan Isaksen. MEMBER TORTORA: I'm not either. MR. SCHAEFER: I'm not familiar with it myself to be honest with you. I assume that he knew where he got this from. MEMBER COLLINS: I sense that perhaps my fellow Board Members are not troubled by this. But I would really like to have this resolved and I apologized before for not having looked at this two weeks ago, at only two days ago. But I'd just like to know what the surveyor means by average line of the bluff because the way this property is drawn on this map, the crest of the dune, which ! would take to mean the edge of the bluff is well in-land from the so-called average line of the bluff. And I'd just like to know where we are. MR. SCHAEFER: Well even the first application it would have been a violation on the first one - MEMBER COLLINS: Yes, the same thing, absolutely. But the first - MR. SCHAEFER: If you're questioning that line. MEMBER COLLINS: I am. MR. SCHAEFER: And I really can't tell you about that. i'd have to check it myself. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Could I just ask Mr. Schaefer one other question? Did you want another question? MEMBER TORTORA: No, I just wanted to know if we could get a clarification from the surveyor on it, so we can move this along. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, the other question I have is, if you say that with this survey that we're talking about, the one with the topo on it, which Page 26 - October 14, 1999 Board of Appeals Hearings again coincides with the other survey except for the Health DePartment one that was submitted, you're saying that you're encroaching approximately 20 feet. We have a 16 x 32 foot swimming pool of which the straight line appears to be at least two feet into the swimming pool. Why are you saying that we're encroaching 20 feet? MR. SCHAEFER: Well, I did submit a revised schedule and I just indicated that with the size of the house, the size of the deck, I was allowed 6 feet to the back of the pool, behind the deck and then we come up with a 16 foot by 20 foot pool - 16 x 32 pool. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, but you could in effect put no deck on the waterside? MR. SCHAEFER: On the waterside of the house? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: On the waterside of the pool. MR. SCHAEFER: Yes, right, yes. Well there was no deck. I don't know if a patio encroaches, if it's on grade. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I mean this Board could restrict no deck on that side of the pool? MR. SCHAEFER: That's not a problem. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: So, at this juncture just to wrap up, you're going to get those questions asked for us from the surveyor, from Mr. Isaksen, the questions that Ms. Collins and Mrs. Tortora were dealing with? OK, and we'll go on with Mr. Dinizio. Any questions, Mr. Dinizio? MEMBER DINIZIO: No. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: No. MEMBER DINIZIO: Well I mean other than to say, that if that's the case, you know, the house is probably going to be within 100 feet too. I think the average in that area should be an average because you are right, Jerry. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes, there are several lips in that area. Trust me ~ walked up and down the stairs of Mrs. Kennedy and I did to the best of my ability to look at this piece of property from a nurturing of the bluff area which is by the way relatively good. We are still waiting for an evaluation from the Soil & Water Conservation which is a Suffolk County Agency which freely goes out and evaluates this bluff. Unless they go through Mrs. Kennedy's property or the Page 27 - October 14, 1999 Board of Appeals Hearings people on the opposite side, they'll never get back to it, or they go by Helicopter, I don't know, but needless to say, we're still waiting for that. SO I think what we'll do is, we'll hold this hearing over until the next regularly scheduled meeting, regular meeting, and you'll have the answers for us, and Soil & Water and then we'll be able to a - MR. SCHAEFER: Well, I'll just get the determinations as to how he arrives at that bluff line. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Right. MR. SCHAEFER: The average foot line. CHAIRMAN.GOEHRINGER: Go ahead, Lora. MEMBER COLLINS: I just wanted to say for Mr. Schaefer's sake, that the wording of code refers to a setback from the top of such bluff and obviously, if you had a property that was a couple hundred feet wide and the bluff kind of wandered around, certainly there you would be wanting to draw some kind of an average. But here the survey doesn't show anything of that sort. That's why I want to know what that line is. MR. SCHAEFER: OK. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Good. We thank you. Don't leave because there are other people that are going to speak. MR. SCHAEFER: OK. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. Is there anybody else would like to speak in favor? Anybody like to speak against? Go ahead, Sir. State your name for the record please. ROBERT KLOTZ: Miriam and Robert Klotz. We own the property adjacent to the property in question. We're on the west side, and we received in the mail a sketch which has no front setback number on it. .The number that was mentioned today was 80 feet setback. The last plans that we saw had a 62 foot setback. This plan that we received in the mail has no setback. I can give it to you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I just have to tell you, that's not the nature of this hearing. But we will accommodate you. The ones that we do have, say 80. MR. KLOTZ: Say 80, OK. Now the question that I have is, our. neighbors to the west of us, adjacent to the line west of us, have a setback from the front road of Page 28 - October 14, 1999 Board of Appeals Hearings approximately 40 feet. There is a setback minimum I believe of 40 feet. I question why the setback for a proposed dwelling has to be 62 or 80 feet back in regard to asking for a variance on that basis when the neighboring homes they have an application here that they want to be consistent with neighboring houses, and the house to our west is certainly about 40 feet setback which ~ think it would be inconsistent to have a larger setback of 80 feet. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I don't know but we can ask the contractor for you which we will do. MR. KLOTZ: OK, and also we wanted to raise an issue about run-off of overflow from the p°ol and so on and grading. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We will build that into the decision. We trust you that if this is granted we will build it in the decision~ MR. KLOTZ: And also the location of the filtered motors and the pump, on which would be a concern. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: That's definitely a concern. I cannot tell you how many times we have dealt with those aspects, particularly on relatively narrow and I'm not in any way degrading your property or this property, on relatively narrow pieces of property, which they are. You know, they're not 150 feet wide and so that is a legitimate concern. MR. KLOTZ: And also you mentioned something about the lips at the bluff in that area. There is a variation, and I think that we've conformed to the roadside variation of that, as Ms. Collins mentioned the elevations do vary and the lip of the bluff is certainly closer in that area to the road. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK. So we'll start with the first question. Mr. Schaefer, if you could you the mike over on this side so that we .can get this going. I appreciate it. Mr. schaefer, I'm not answering the question for you but, I think you told us, that the purpose of pushing the house back was a particular concern of your clients. Maybe you want to restate that for Mr. Klotz. MR. SCHAEFER: I'm going by the survey, and when he saw the survey and the location of the neighboring houses, this is where I say the consistency comes in. He wants to be consistent with it. I don't know if, I didn't physically measure the neighbors' houses, but I'm just going by what the surveyor had. ! don't know what your setback is, Sir. MR. KLOTZ: I don't know off-hand either. I know the neighbor to our - Page 29 - October 14, 1999 Board of Appeals Hearings CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Pardon me, you have to address the Board on these. This is not a (unfinished). MR. KLOTZ: OK, all right. Well our setback does not include positioning of a pool. We have no pool. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: No, but we're talking front yard and setback. MR. KLOTZ: And our own setback didn't infringe on a, we didn't ask for a variance. We were within the town ordinance. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: This is not a variance. The front yard is not a variance application. That what it's doing is, it's pushing the house back far enough so t.hat the pool is the variance portion of this application. Only the pool, OK. MR. KLOTZ: Right, I understand that. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: They can literally build this house, without a variance at this point, minus the pool. we think, MR. KLOTZ: As far as we're concerned, you mentioned Mrs. Kennedy's concerned over where the pool is going to be located. We are also concerned about where the pool would be located. It will be essentially out our window overlooking the sound. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Right. Mr. Schaefer also would please between now and the next hearing tell us where the anticipation of the filter motor and pump are going to be placed preferably in an area that is most sound bending so that the neighbors don't have to listen to the drone of that. MR. SCHAEFER: Right. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I have to tell you that I did spend some time like I told you, about an hour at Mrs. Kennedy and with the neighbor across the street and I heard absOlutely no drone out of her motor, for her pump. I haPpen to be a pool owner myself and I've taken some great strides in trying to hold that noise down. So whatever you can do to do that, we would appreciate it and get back to us. MR. SCHAEFER: Very good. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: What else can we do for you Sir?. Page 30 - October 14, 1999 Board of Appeals Hearings MR. KLOTZ: Just address the issues of lighting and grading of the property for water run-off and noise. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, will you address those issue also and by both letter and verbally present them to us? MR. SCHAEFER: Fine. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: So we will continue this hearing, Sir and we urge you and your wife to come back and cOntinue. MR. KLOTZ: Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN.GOEHRINGER: Thank you. All right, is there anybodY else would like to speak? Seeing no hands, I'll make a motion recessing this to the next regularly scheduled meeting. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Give a date with that please. MEMBER DINIZIO: Second. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: November 18th. All in favor? Motion carried. See Minutes for Resolution. Page 31 - October 14, 1999~ Board of Appeals Hearings 7:40 P.M. -'Appl. No. 4748 - ERNA LANG Proposed garage in a front yard location at 220 Oak Street, Cutchogue. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Is there someone here that's representing. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: She's here, in the back. She has crutches. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, we'll give you some time. Take your time. You are Mrs. Lang? Thank you for coming. We see that you're a little incapacitated. Who is this gentleman with you? MRS. ERNA LANG: That's my son. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: What's your first name, Sir? HANS LANG: Hans. (Submitted returned green cards, etc.) CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Hans. It's a pleasure meeting you both. The nature of the purpose of this garage is what? Why do you want it? MR. LANG: Why do we want it? MRS. LANG: We don't have one. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: You don't have one. You want to put your caf'in the garage? MRS. LANG: Yes. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I think that's certainly a viable reason for a garage. No question about it. The question I have or the statement that I have is, for the past 20 years that I have been on this Board, that is as of January 1st, we have never granted a garage at 5 feet. So, you've got to tell us in what appropriate location you would consider puffing this garage in reference to a setback to Oak Street? I realize that there are some older garages in the area but I would like you to spend a little more time, it doesn't have to be tonight or (changed tape) that on these older established lots as your community is, which by the way is a very nice community. I enjoyed going down there and seeing it. You've got to give us a little more space. We've got to figure out where you can put it a little bit farther away from the road. MEMBER TORTORA: Another 15 feet. Page 32 - October 14, 1999 Board of Appeals Hearings CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I think the most recent one that we granted was over on Deephole Creek and that was exactly 20 feet and we put some restrictions in it. MR. LANG: Is there a reason why? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Basically I'm not speaking for the Board, they're all here, but I think the major thrust of this concern lies with visual, it's visually upsetting to people in the neighborhood and to us and it's a precedent that we actually started and we're starting at 20 feet. That was the most recent one we did on Deephole Creek which was Deephole Drive in Mattituck. MEMBER TORTORA: I wasn't crazy about that. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes, and we weren't terribly crazy about 20 feet at that one, I have to tell you. MEMBER TORTORA: The code is 35 so when you come in and say we want to be five feet, that's a substantial variance. MR. LANG: Right, but the other neighbors - MRS. LANG: But, there's no other place. I mean if ~ put it further back then it's f-- right in the bedroom, looking out, ~ have no light in the bedrooms then. MEMBER TORTORA: It looks like on the survey, it looks like on the survey that you showed us, that it is a considerable distance from the house. How far is it from the house now? MR. LANG: I honestly don't even know. MEMBER TORTORA: HoW far is the house set back from the road? BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: It's about 83 feet. MR. LANG: in whose view would it really be though? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: It's a precedent we started? MEMBER TORTORA: The house is about 83 feet? BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: 83 feet, yes. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We will not allow anybody to do two things and that is go any closer to the property line than we think should be placed within a .... Page 33 - October 14, 1999 Board of Appeals Hearings specific area, that's number 1, and: we never allow the closing up of two side yards on waterfront property. So in other words, if you were to attach it to the house on the side that was most open, we wouldn't allow that either. MR. LANG: You would not allow an attached garage? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We would not allow it. MEMBER TORTORA: If it's clear. In fact that's an alternate site.. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Well that is an alternate site possible but, I'm not big on closing up side yards. MEMBER D!NIZIO: Well, we could still make the setback. MEMBER TORTORA: They've got 37 feet almost 38 feet on that side. What's the overall size of the garage? MR. LANG: ! don't know, its on the survey. Dad had these plans made up. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I'!1 tell you in a second. MEMBER COLLINS: It looks like about 25 x 25. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: 24 X 24. MEMBER COLLINS: OK, it was close. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, so we'll start with Mr. Dinizio. Any questions of these people? MEMBER DINIZIO: Well, only, will you accept alternate relief if we find some other place that we all agree upon? It's definitely going to be a lot of give and take here because 5 feet is not something we grant. Believe me. MRS. LANG: What about 10 feet. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: No, we're looking more at 20. MEMBER TORTORA: Or we're looking at side yard. You do have a lot of room on the property to put at other places and that's what we're saying to you. MR. LANG: We'll have to do it in the center of that where you see that horse shoe. Page 34 - October 14, 1999 Board of Appeals Hearings MRS. LANG: It's the cesspool. MR. LANG: There's a cesspool there that's not even marked there. MEMBER TORTORA: You know what would help because I don't want to box you into a corner and I would like to see where the cesspools are. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yeah, can you measure them out for us? Place them right on the survey and give us some distances and stuff, Hans? MEMBER TORTORA: Mark how far, exactly how far the house is - MR. LANG: What do we need to go to a surveyor again for this? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: No, you can do it yourself. Find the cesspool and measure it and tell us approximately where it is on the property. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Measure it from the house, the front of the house. MR. LANG: It's right by the garage. It's next t° the garage. I mean ! probably could show you. I mean exactly to the foot I won't know. It would be right in here. (Mr. Lang showed Chairman where it is on the survey in the file.) CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Right, but that's not going to effect the movement of the garage this way. MR. LANG: But like mo.m was saying I guess because of the view of the bedroom she don't want to see a wall. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: You might be able to have about 25 feet between the garage and the bedroom wall if she moves it back because it's 83 feet to the road and the garage is 24. MR. LANG: Well this neighbor here just bought this house and he's the same neighbor here. She passed away. So this guy here across the street, what's his last name? MRS. LANG: Bob Doroski. MR. LANG: Doroski, he just bought the house next door. So there's there's only two neighbors. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: All right, so what do you want us to do? Do you want us to do alternate relief or do you want to come back with a different plan? Page 35 - October 1'4, 1999 Board of Appeals Hearings MRS. LANG: What's an alternate? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: What's an alternate plan? MRS. LANG: Yes. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: It's any other place on the property. MRS. LANG: Oh, my goodness. MEMBER COLLINS: No, Mr. Chairman, Mrs. Lang was asking what you mean by alternate relief? What we're suggesting is, we negotiate among ourselves as you can see we have somewhat different views but we're all against a 5, nobody is going to give you a 5 foot setback and we come up with something that will get at least 3 votes and we're asking you if you're willing to let us sought of tell you that. You, of course, can say no under the circumstances and not do it. Or, do you want to go home and doodle this thing through and think about the concerns that the town has with keeping down clutter. That's the heart of the matter here and consider whether there's somewhere else on your property on the side or closer to the house where you can put it and come back and tell us. That's really the question. MRS. LANG: No, that's all right. MEMBER TORTORA: It's a big decision. You definitely would not consider the side yard. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Next to the house. MR. LANG: No because the way the sun comes there it would totally block the whole entire house. MRS. LANG: No. Mrs. Hulse, the other neighbor there, they put it out front because she's, you know, her husband passed away some eight years shoveling the snow in the winter, you know, it's quite a -. MR. LANG: I mean it's the nodh side so you don't really, you know. MRS. LANG: You have to shovel quite a way and I mean we're not getting younger. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, we're just asking. Ms. Collins, are you.asking .a question? Page 36 - October 14, 1999 Board of Appeals Hearings MEMBER COLLINS: No, I just wanted, I was afraid she wasn't following you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Anybody else, question, question? All right so that's what we'll do. We'll grant alternate relief and we'll do the best we possibly can. MRS. LANG: Oh, OK, thank you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We do appreciate your coming in and please be careful walking out. Is there anybody else would like to speak in favor of this application? Anybody like to speak against the application? Seeing no hands I'll make a motion closing hearing reserving decision until later.. MEMBER COLLINS: Second. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: All in favor? Motion carried. See Minutes for Resolution. Page 37 - October 14, 1999 Board of Appeals Hearings Appl. No. 4752 - MICHAEL RUSSO Application for a Variance with respect to the front yard setback of a proposed addition at 775 Oakwood road, Southold. 1000-90-4-22. (Hearing was canceled and recalendered for November 3, 1999.) The hearing was canceled due to insufficient notice by applicants required by Chapter 58, and is re-calendared for November 3, 1999 at approximately 6:45 p.m. The Board Members confirmed they had no objection to November 3, 1999 as the date of a Special Meeting. Page 38 - October 14, 1999 Board of Appeals Hearings 7:48 P.M. - Appl. No. 4753 - pAuL & RUTHANN CORAZZlNI Application for a Variance with respect to the existing garage and pool, in a side yard area as modified by the proposed location of a dwelling addition, at 3120 Albertson Lane, Greenport. 1000-52-4-1.2. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Are the Corazzinis here? How do you do Sir? MR. CORAZ. ZIN]: Very good thank you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: What would you like to tell us regarding your application? MR. CORAT. ZINI: Well I think basically you have all of the information there. It's just a question that my wife and I want to put an addition on the house and we found that it doesn't comply I guess with the code and so that's why we're here. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, we'll start with Mr. Homing? MEMBER HORNING: Any question of Mr. Corazzini? I don't mean to put you on the spot. MEMBER HORNING: Well you did. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Well I just gave you that nice flowery statement here and I don't expect it. MEMBER HORNING: You shouldn't of done that. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I have to tell you Mr. Corazzini while Mr. Homing is waiting, I found this to be a very interesting Notice of Disapproval. In a respect that the application really is for a, it's for an addition right? And, the house is directly in the center of the properties, but whatever the interpretation is it is and that's the way we go. MR. CORATZINI: Well I was told it was because that the addition would go past, I have an existing detached garage and swimming pool and it would make the detached garage and swimming pool in the side wall which is not - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Which is exactly what we just had done on Bayshore Road so I understand it. Questions? MEMBER HORNING: addition? Yes. Have you considered .other locations for the Page 39 - October 14, 1999 Board of Appeals Hearings MR.' CORAZZINI: I just don't know. There's no place else I could put it. I have to attach it to the house. The house is already there. MEMBER HORNING: I mean different sections off the house a different way? MR. CORAZZINI: No, that really the only, I mean if you see by the survey it's the possible place it could go. You can't go out the front and that's really the only place that makes sense. It's the only possible place it could go. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: All right George? MEMBER HORNING: All right. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mrs. Tortora? MEMBER TORTORA: In other words, the pool is in a conforming legal location now? MR. CORAZZINI: Yes. MEMBER TORTORA: But what's going to happen is what we've seen before is the minute you put on an addition which is also in a legal conforming place, the pool becomes - MEMBER DINIZIO: No, the garage. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: The garage. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: The pool and garage. MEMBER COLLINS: The pool too. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Both of them. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Actually both, yes. MR. CORAZZINI: The pool misses by about a foot. MEMBER TORTORA: I see it. I understand it completely, I see it. No questions. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Ms. Collins? MEMBER COLLINS: Just a fact, when were the, because I'll have to draft the decision. When were the house, the pool and the garage built? Page 40 - October 14, 1999 Board of Appeals Hearings MR. C.ORAZZINI: The house was built in 85. The pool I'm guessing probably about 90-92 and the garage in 94. MEMBER COLLINS: Great. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mr. Dinizio? MEMBER DINIZIO: No, I have no questions. I was speaking to TJ. We thought if we could attach the garage to the addition then you wouldn't even have to come here, it would all be one. I guess it didn't work out. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: The pool would be out then probably. MEMBER DINIZIO: Yeah. MR. CORAZZINI: If I did that too Jimmy, that would block any access to the back of the property because now there's still quite a good space between the proposed addition and the garage. There's plenty of access but not that I really have to go back there but if I ever did. MEMBER DINIZIO: Yeah, well I just wanted to say that was the thing we discussed. But, I have absolutely no problem at all with this. I'd like to see if we could act on it tonight. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes we could. MEMBER COLLINS: I got it written. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: You do? MEMBER COLLINS: Hm, hm. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Well let's do it, unless you want to do it later. MEMBER COLLINS: You want to do it now? MEMBER DINIZIO: Yes, let's do it now. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We'll do it now. One of the rare'times but, let me finish the hearing. Is there anybody else would like to speak in favor of this application? Anybody like to speak against the application? This is the shortest hearing. Actually the one before was shorter because no-one showed up. So, it appears that - Page 41 - October 14, 1999 Board of Appeals Hearings MEMBER COLLINS: I just have to find it. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We're just going to look for your findings and then we'll talk about entertaining it for you. MEMBER COLLINS: Here we are. The draft decision says, that the house, pool and garage were built in the years that they were built, which is why one of those years and the point is, that they have been establiShed part of the site for some years, that nothing will change as a result of putting the addition on the house, except for technically, they will move from the side yard to the, rear yard to the side yard, that there will be no change in their use, there appearance, or how they fit on the lot, and therefore, no negative impact on the neighborhood or the environment and that's why we shOuld grant a variance. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I see your making the motion too. MEMBER COLLINS: Yes. MEMBER HORNING: I'll second it. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: All in favor. Motion carried. See Minutes for Resolution. Page 42 - October 14, 1999 Board of Appeals Hearings 7:52 P.M. - Appl. No. 4754 - ROBERT & ESTHER BADENHOP Special Exception for an Accessory Apartment in conjunction with owner's residence at 1100 South Drive, Mattituck. 1000-106-1 CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Good evening. MR. BADENHOP: Good evening. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: How do you do? Mr. Badenhop how long has this apartment existed, the best to your knowledge? MR. BADENHOP: When the house was built, 30 years ago. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: 30 years ago. You are now coming before us to legalize this. You and I had at least two discussions on the phone today regarding the possibility of inspecting it and I am aware of that situation, only to say, that you have some justice of the peace or action going at this time and believe we'll leave it at that particular point. We'll start with Mr. Dinizio. Any questions of Mr. & Mrs. Badenhop? MEMBER DINIZIO: No, no questions. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: MS. Collins? MEMBER COLLINS: No, not based on what you told us. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mrs. Tortora? MEMBER TORTORA: No. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mr. Horning? MEMBER HORNING: I concur with my colleagues. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK. The nature of this application is such, that you have to meet as we had discussed briefly on the phone and you would explain to me some of the discussion that you would have with the Building Inspector regarding openings of windows and so on and so forth, that you'll have to meet all of those codes. You are familiar with that? MR. BADENHOP: Yes, which is not too much. Page 43 - October 14, 1999 Board of Appeals Hearings CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Right, OK. Let's see what develops throughout the hearing and it appears that then an interior inspection is not necessary so then we'll just - MR. BADENHOP: That's true. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yeah, because you did make a sketch for us which we have in the file. So, let's see. Is there anybody else would like to speak in' favor of this application? Anybody like to speak against the application? Seeing no hands we're going to close the hearing and we'll make a decision later, hopefully tonight. If not, it will be made within a short period of time. We do appreciate your coming in. It's a pleasure meeting you both. You're neighbors of mine and I've never met you before. MR. BADENHOP: My pleasure. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. MEMBER HORNING: You made a motion closing the hearing. CHAIRMAN GOEHRiNGER: Yes. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: We need a second. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We need a motion, yes, recessing the hearing until ~ater. MEMBER DINIZIO: Second. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: All in favor? BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: It was closed not recessed. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I meant closed, pardon me. Motion carried. See Minutes for Resolution. Page 44 - October 14, 1999 Board of Appeals Hearings 7:55 P.M. - Appl. No. 4755 - EDWARD & AUDREY WETZEL Addition to dwelling with a front yard setback at less than the established 30 feet and less than 35 feet provided by the Bulk Schedule of the Zoning Code, and lot coverage over 20% (if deemed necessary). 35 Second St., New Suffolk. 1000~ 117-10-20.4. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Good evening Sir, how are you? Could you gentlemen state your names for the record. (Response-Dana Wetzel, Son Edward & Donald Toronto, son-in-law of Eddy.) CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I had a discussion Mr. Wetzel last week on the phone, or was it this past week? I think it was Monday, yeah, maybe Monday, and what would you like to tell us regarding the application as it existed before we ran into this other issue that we're going to bring up tonight briefly ? MR. WETZEL: The proposed extension is a 7 foot extension. There's going to be a porch on the side there and it'll come to the rear. The house is going to remain a single family, two people, retirement cottage, modest in size and not over powering, similar in style, appearance and occupancy in the neighborhood and the neighbors is not oppose to changes. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Except for one neighbor. I received one note. Did you receive it? MR. WETZEL: No, we didn't. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, we'll give you that. Reading from your notes here, I'm not sure that there's an objection, there's a matter of concern. Let me rephrase that statement because I did meet with that neighbor on Saturday. Lets see I'm reading from the notes that you gave us. You're showing the a, what's this 21 sq. ft. over and 31 sq. ft. over, issue, that you have? Are you familiar with that? BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Those are lot coverage calculations. MEMBER COLLINS: Yeah and isn't there something new from the Building Department on that? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes, there is a new, but, I think that's only on a - MR. WETZEL: As far as percentage? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes. Page 45 - October 14, 1999 Board of Appeals Hearings MR. WETZEI: I have here that it exceed the 20% lot coverage. Is that what you're referring to. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Right. MR. WETZEL: OK, it exceeds by .64%. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Which is less 1%. MR. WETZEL: Less 1%, right. I actually got another figure as well, 20.3% which comes out to 21 ft. sq., so, between 20.6 and 20.3. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Is the house presently heated as it stands right now? MR. WETZEL: No. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: No. I think the best way to deal with this aspect from the concerns of the neighbor, is to give you a copy of this. I have to get a copy sO we may have to take a short recess to copy it for you. But, we also need you to do is, as I have spoken to your father, and that is, to modify your application regarding the 1972 decision of this Board and so we'll have you back on November 18th. You can address the issues with the neighbor. My suggestion is possibly speaking to the neighbor. MR. WETZEL: Beforehand. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Beforehand, OK. He is of course the gentleman that does not live in that house. This is Mr. Leary, he lives on the other side of Cutchogue. I have a three page thing, which actually four pages, which includes, it's not a thing, it's a document, which includes his survey and some particular concerns he has. MEMBER TORTORA: cesspool - He seems concerned about the septic tank and the CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: And a well and so on and so forth, right. MEMBER TORTORA: But, in fairness to you, you should have a copy of this letter and have time to look at it and address his concerns. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Well yeah, but they have to make that modification anyway, so they have plenty of time to do that within the next couple of week, all right? Page 46 - October 14, 1999 Board of Appeals Hearings MR. WETZEL: OK. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Is there anything else you'd like to address Sir regarding this? I mean you'll certainly have more time at the next hearing, it's not a concern. MR. WETZEL: Yeah, just reading this, this is in regards to the meeting of 1972, that's a letter, seasonal to (). CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: This is the letter. We'll take the letter but remember you still have to modify the application. MR. WETZEL: Right. MEMBER C'OLLINS: Mr. Chairman, is it fair for me to ask? You talked to Mr. Wetzel today about and using his words, modify the application and I'm in the dark as to what you've asked him to do. Are you willing to tell us or? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Oh, sure. The 19th, I have a copy of it but, i have no intentions of reading verbatim. MEMBER COLLINS: NO, we've all read it. It's in the file. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: He actually along with the Notice of Disapproval has to ask this Board to lift the condition that was placed on this piece of property along with two other parcels which were the nature of the subdivision in 1972. MEMBER COLLINS: So that's what you've asked him, that's the modification? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: That's the modification. MEMBER COLLINS: You have told him that since that condition exists, he's got to ask us to lift it? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Right. MEMBER COLLINS: OK. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: All right? Is there anybody else would like to speak from the Board regarding these two gentlemen? I don't know what's the matter with me tonight. Is there anybody else on the dais that would like to speak to these two gentlemen, at this time? MEMBER DINIZIO: No. Page 47 - October 14, 1999 Board of Appeals Hearings CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: No? MEMBER DINIZIO: No, I'm fine. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: All right, so that's where we are. Did you say Lydia, that you would volunteer in copying this for these nice fine gentlemen? MEMBER TORTORA: The letter? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes. MEMBER TORTORA: That's no trouble. MEMBER COLLINS: Well here, do you want to give him mine and I'll get another one tomorrow? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: received. MR. WETZEL: Thank you. All right. This is the entire thing that we've CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: You're welcome. We thank you for coming out here and we apologize for not being able to dispose of this hearing tonight. Is there anybody else would like to speak in favor or against this hearing bearing in mind of course that this hearing will continue on November 18th? MR. WETZEL: We'll be notified through the mail? BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Yes. Well you're going to have to stop by the office if somebody is to modify the application. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: You're going to have to modify the application. Either stop by or fax it to us, or whatever way you're going to do it. MR. WETZEL: OK, thanks a lot. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, so bearing that in mind, I'll make a motion recessing this to the next regular scheduled meeting., CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: November 18th. At this time I made the motion. Who second it? MEMBER TORTORA: Second. Page 48 - October 14, 1999 Board of Appeals Hearings CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: All in favor? Thank you Lydia. Page 49 - October 14, 1999 Board of Appeals Hearings 8:11 P.M. - Appl. No. 4756 - B. WARREN "As built" accessory garage in a side yard location at 500 Deep Hole Drive, Mattituck. 1000-115-112-6. (There is nothing on the tape regarding this hearing) Page 50 - October 14, 1999 Board of Appeals Hearings 8:13 P.M. - Appl. No. 4757 - SCHEMBRI HOMES "As built" foundation for a dwelling at less than 50 feet from the rear property line. Indian Neck Lane, Peconic. 1000-86-1-4.24. (Starting of hearing on tape is: ) MRS. BARRY: More in the rear of the house and was told that there' was a 40 foot setback in the rear yard so when the mason went to pour it, he poured the foundation thinking he had 10 extra feet, so he ended up, and it ended up as a 49 foot setback which he figured he was fine at and it ended up, it was truly 50 foot setback in the rear yard so then we were short the foot. Now, we did bring the under construction survey for the foundation on the 2nd of September, but, it was completed August 31st. it was handed to one of the part-timers of the Building Department. We figured we didn't hear anything, everything was fine and then on the 16th we got a call we need the under construction and I said, it was already handed in and then said, OK, you know, ~ brought another one down and then or so, they notified us and at that point we had already started framing because we never heard anything back that there was you know, a problem and at that point we were framing and the roof was on and the half windows on the side was on. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: For the people in the audience, you are an employee of Schembri Homes, is that correct? MS. BARRY: Yes, I represent the Schembri Homes and I'm here on behalf of Tony and Schembri. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We'll start with Mr. Dinizio. Any questions of Mrs. Barry? MEMBER DINIZIO: NO. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Ms. Collins? MEMBER COLLINS: Ms. Barry when you were giving us what happened blow by blow, there were a lot of reference to he and he and he and I got a little lost and the bottom line here is, you made some statement in there, that he, thought that 40 feet was the required rear yard setback. MRS. BARRY: Well when the inspector came, he felt that I guess because of the rest of the houses on Indian Neck Road on the opposite side, have very large setback. This is on the opposite side of the road, the setback is a little bit less so he was concerned meaning the inspector doing the inspection. But, we had almost you know at that point, had excavated it. He did check it and come Page 51 - October 14, 1999 Board of Appeals Hearings back and tell him that you know, that's right, that it was the correct setback. looked closer to the road I guess - It MEMBER COLLINS: I'm sorry, you,re talking about the front yard setback. MEMBER COLLINS: Yes. I'm not- MRS. BARRY: At that point, they moved the house back 10 feet because he thought that it was too close to the road, the excavator. MEMBER COLLINS: OK, - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Than what you applied for? Is that correct? MRS. BARRY: Right, he moved the house back 10 feet. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Right. MEMBER COLLINS: Well, let me just say for the record why I was asking. This is certainly not the first variance that we've had where Schembri House has been placed in a spot that violates the Zoning Code setbacks. I can think off- hand two and I think there's been three in the last year and some of us are perhaps more troubled by that than others of us and I'd like to feel confident that the Schembri Organization has a system for figuring out what zones they're building their houses in and what the setback requirements are. In this case, it's only a foot and nobodies going to lose sleep over that. But, I'm troubled by the recurring phenomenon. MRS. BARRY: They are very careful and we do have very good surveyors and this is an unfortunate situation that I don't foresee happening again. MEMBER COLLINS: I hope not. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mrs. Tortora? MEMBER TORTORA: No. CHAIRMAN' GOEHRINGER: No questions, OK. We'll see what develops throughout the hearing Mrs. Barry. Thank you for coming in. Please don't leave until the hearing is over. Is there anybody else would like to speak in favor of this application? Is there anybody like to speak against the application? Seeing no hands I'll make a motion closing the hearing reserving decision until later. MEMBER TORTORA: Second. Page 52 - October 14, 1999 Board of Appeals Hearings CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: All in favor. MRS. BARRY: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes. MRS. BARRY: I have a subdivision map I'd like to just present. There's open space behind the property so it's not encroaching on anybody. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you very much. Page 53 - October 14, 1999 Board of Appeals Hearings 8:20 P.M. - Appl. No. 4749 - LESLIE WINDISCH Request to convert accessory building to sleeping quarters (habitable without cooking or kitchen facilities) with bathroom facilities at 1375 Pine Neck ROad, South'old. 1000-70-5-39. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Good evening, Mrs. Moore, how are you? PATRICIA MOORE, ESQ: Good evening, fine, thank you. You have my outline attached to the application. I'd like to go along with that outline 'and then give you additional information as we go through. If you have any questions simply interrupt me as I go. To begin with, Mr. & Mrs. Windisch are here this evening. If you have any particular questions that I can't answer, well between all of us we can answer all the questions for you. To begin, the standards, that no undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties, if the variances is granted. You have the record which shows that this is an existing cottage. It was constructed prior to zoning. I referred you to the pre-C.O, that was issued at the time. I'm sorry, the pre-C.O, that had been issued you should have in your file. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I don't think we do. MRS. MOORE: You don't have a pre-C.O? BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: No, not for this building we don't. It's a different building, right? MRS. MOORE: OK. No, I think that the one I have is the One. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: We have a Building Permit that was issued for this building that says, "uninhabitable", and then there's another- it's a different building you're talking about I think for a cottage. This is not for a cottage. MRS. MOORE: I'll check with the record to see if I have the right. Do I have the pre-C.O, for the cottage? MEMBER COLLINS: This is the pre-C.O. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: No, that's a different building. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I have a pre-C.O, dated October 14, 1994. Is this the one you're referring to? Page 54 - October 14, 1999 Board of Appeals Hearings MEMBER COLLINS: No, no, January 14, 1970. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKh For the main house. MEMBER COLLINS: Yeah, at that time this was the main house. MRS. MOORE: Yes, correct. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: I don't know the stow about it. MRS. MOORE: Oh, that's alright. MEMBER COLLINS: The two-stow red house down on the creek was built in the seventies sometime, right? MRS. MOORE: Correct. Correct. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yeah, I have that one too. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKh (To the Chairman) How many houses are there, just one? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Two. MRS. MOORE: There are two. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: No, there's two. There's two structures. One dwelling and whatever this is. MRS. MOORE: Correct. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I don't mean that sarcastically. MRS. MOORE: No, that's exactly, actually that's a very good point, i'11 go back a little bit. There is, I think, the Board is aware, there is a house, the main house which is on the property. That was built in the seventies, as ! recall. The cottage was the original structure on this property and what occurred is while the people were building the house, they were living in this cottage. The cottage remained with the understanding that the kitchen would be removed. The kitchen was removed and it stayed there and continued to be used with the bathroom. All the structure remained exactly as it was before - BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: That's why the Building Permit says, "inhabitable" on it. Page 55 - October 14, 1999 Board of Appeals Hearings MRS. MOORE: Exactly, exactly. MRS. MOORE: The Building Department non-habitable with respect to the technical requirement is that it cannot be slept in. It does not mean it cannot be used. Non-habitable is not a layman's definition of, it is an actual state code definition, of it can't be a 24 hour occupancy, which means, sleeping. However, it can be used for all other purposes and that cottage did remain and it was used by all families all along during their ownership. What, the house that is presently there, the main house is relatively small for this property. It is two bedrooms. The Windisch family has three children. They would like to be able to use the cottage as a bunk house. Continue to use it as part of the family for family and guests and take that non-habitable status off the cottage. Again, the kitchen has been removed. It will continue to be removed. It would not qualify as a dwelling under the Town Code definition of dwelling. The dwelling definition says it's the structure is to be used as a, i hav the Code, I'm trying to paraphrase but it has to have the kitchen and all aspects of independent living, so that it could be used independently of the main house. That is not the case and has not been the case. The cottage has been accessory to the main house and it will continue to be so used that way by the Windisch family. I know we, I've argued this before in other applications, and I know that the Board is aware of the status of the law which is, that a structure is permitted to remain, it is nonconforming. The use, the additional use of a nonconforming structure doesn't mean that it's expansion of an illegal use. What you're permitted to do on a preexisting structure, you may change it to some extent, but as long as you don't expand it and we are not expanding by any nature of footprint,. That's really what this Code always talks about and what the law looks at as far as expansion. The intensity, the additional intensification of the use is degrees, and that you're permitted to continue the preexisting status even though the change and the intensity of the use may change over time, little at a time. So the cottage will remain for all intensive purposes the same way it is today. Prior to the renovation, Mr. Windisch took the cottage and reshingled it, redecorated it, inside the what used to be two bedroom cottage was converted into a one bedroom cottage. It only has one bedroom or would be permitted as a one bedroom. So, it's actually reducing the size internal size of the structure and the use of this. So, instead of having extra bedrooms in the main house you have the accessory building have that extra room. As far as the community, I have several properties in the same street that have cottages, that are actually full-scaled cottages. Suffolk County Tax Map 1000-70-5-25, is owned by Lademann. That property contains a large separate cottage, which we don't know if it's separately rented or not. We don't have that much information on that particular cottage. 70-5-40 is right next door. This property, they're all the same size properties in this area. Two separate Page 56 - October 14, 1999 Board of Appeals Hearings dwellings which are actually rented to two separate families are right next door. They're are, there's the main dwelling, there's a cottage, there's three out buildings, The two houses are actually rented and they're used by separate families. So, again, character of the area, there are many, many of the properties here have multiply structures on them. Whether they're used independently or not over time the buildings have been built and the structures have remained. Finally, there is also a cottage at 70-5-43, Golder.is the owner. It's, from the record it shows it's a 20 x 24 foot cottage. Again, there are lots of cottages in this area and that's probably why the town didn't really have a .problem at the time that the main house was built. Keeping the cottage there, just take out the kitchen and at least the Town, the Building Department at the time said, OK, you take out the kitchen then we don't have to worry about you using this as a separate rental as a separate dwelling, and you end up with two dwellings on the property. That's not what we're asking. We're not asking to add a separate dwelling to make this into a full-scale dwelling under the Zoning Code definition. We just want to be able to sleep there. Some people might do it illegally. The Windisch family would never do that, and that's why we're here. Are there other benefits sought by the applicant that could be achieved by the same method feasible for the applicant to pursue other than an area variance? Well, the structures are in place. The cottage is there. It's been renovated. The whole property is immaculate for those of you who have gone to see it. It's been beautifully restored and it provides a private accessory quarters for the family and guests. If the cottage were located closer to the main dwelling, there's an easy solution to it. You put the two structures together with a significant attachment and then you make the cottage in part of the principa~ structure. That's done very routinely on applications throughout the Town to try to avoid the application process of legitimizing or allowing a cottage to permit sleeping, to be permitted for sleeping quarters. That's not an option here. There is probably 50 feet between the house, the main house and the cottage. So the old ways before the code was changed you used to put these elongated breezeways. That's been eliminated. Now we have to be a much more realistic attached structure. That is not an option here. The area variance is not substantial. The application of the balancing test weighs in favor of the grant of the variance. Again, the structure in a way I'd like to have you send a message to the Building Department that a cottage without a kitchen does not mean it's an illegal use. If you read the Code's definition, a dwelling and you read the Code's definition of Accessory Structure. Both those definitions do not prohibit you from having your extra rooms detached from the main dwelling. It all, the whole property has to function as one unit and that's what we have here. We have the cottage functioning as almost like private quarters, in Nassau Point has many of these cottages because a lot of these cottages were used at one point in time as Page 57 - October 14, 1999 Board of Appeals Hearings servant's quarters. They were private. They were separate living quarters, but they did not constitute a separate dwelling that could then be split off, rented and that's always been the concern with the Town and understandably you don't want to have a structure that can be rented out, income purposes and extra activity, and all that goes along with additional families, two families living on the property. That's occurring right next door. There's no objection to that. The Windisches know that's going on. It's been going on for a long time. It's preexisting, there's no problem. What they want to do, again, use the cottage for its full value. The alleged difficulty was not self-created and the cottage is existing. We're not asking to convert a garage to living quarters. I still maintain that you should send a message to the Building Department that you can, if you had a garage and you wanted to put sleeping quarters in the garage as long as there is no kitchen, i believe that the code permits it. I think the Building Department feels more comfortable having each application go before the Board. There's more control. We tell you we're not putting in a kitchen, and we tell you it's not going to be rented, it's for family purposes, your decision can put those conditions in built into the decision. I appreciate that control factor. I think that's what the Building Department, why they routinely send things to you when a little bit of common sense or your own reading of the Code would dictate otherwise. The variance request is the minimal variance practical given the personal benefits anticipated by the applicant. Again, I keep harping it's an existing cottage. It's just permitting additional sleeping. I think there was a concern of the neighbors about the sanitary system. I did inquire as to the sanitary system. The main house has its own sanitaw system and well. As you know from the Health Department Regulations a standard sanitary system accommodates the flow that generates from us from a house; they accommodate four bedrooms. That's generally the accepted principal of the Health Department. One sanitary system for four-bedroom house. If you start going into a house that's greater than four bedrooms, then the Health Department wants to know it and they might make a larger expanded system. In this case, we have there is overdone sanitary systems. We have in the main house, its own system. The cottage also has its own sanitary system, and what we're talking about is the intensity, the expansion or the use of that sanitary system falling from the bathroom which has been there and-is continually been used and will continue to be used, now the degree of using that bathroom for somebody whose sleeping there rather than not sleeping there. Again, the cottage is one bedroom, the house is two bedrooms, so you have two sanitary systems, two wells, all for a total bedrooms on this property, you know, three bedrooms as a total. So, I appreciate the neighbors concerns about sanitary fl, ow, but there is over and certainly protections here because the sanitary flow that generates from these existing bathrooms and the use of the Page 58 - October 14, 1999 Board of Appeals Hearings cottage for sleeping is no more than it presently exists today. You have a bathroom, you have the use of that cottage and you certainly have the protections. They're probably are affected much more so by adjacent property with two full families than they are from the Windisch property. I'm sure you have questions of me. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I'm going to reserve decision on the questions. We, Il start with Mr. Dinizio. MEMBER DINIZIO: I don't know, what'was it used for before if it wasn't sleeping quarters? MRS. MOORE: It was rooms between storage, crafts, you know, you use it like an extra junk room. MEMBER DINIZIO: Junk room is good. Now about, is it insulated? MRS. MOORE: Yep. (Changed tape to side 2-B) The existing cottage was the original structure on the property. So therefore, it is, and it was, completely insulated, yearround insulation, it has a full bathroom. It had two bedrooms. The walls between the bedrooms I believe you took down and made into one bedroom with a double bed. S°. Or with the potential for a doUble bed. Well, it had a kitchen originally but the kitchen was removed as part of the agreement to maintain the cottage there. Not as a second dwelling on the property and that is again something that will be continued and again, can be condition of approval. MEMBER DINIZIO: That's fine. MRS. MOORE: OK. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Ms. Collins? MEMBER COLLINS: Ms. Moore, you know you've put this in as a request for a variance. I'm being perhaps picky. But, it's not clear to me that what you're asking for .is a variance. I think you're asking us to tell the Building Department to give the I suppose it would be an amended C.O. taking out the words non-habitation. MRS. MOORE: Well I think technically it could be considered (unfinished). CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: It would be limited habitation. MRS. MOORE: The Building Department deems it a preexisting nonconforming use that can't be expanded without coming to this Board with a variance from the code. That's the way the Building Department has COuched these applications. Page 59 - October 14, 1999 Board of Appeals Hearings I think that all of these applications can come before You as an interpretation that says, that in an accessory cottage, you're permitted to have sleeping as long as you don't have a kitchen that allows for it to be a separate dwelling as dwelling is defined in the Zoning Code. So whether you call it, you know a variance or you call it an interpretation, you know, if you can send it as interpretation that's great, then I will go out of business on a couple of these, but that's OK. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Don't worry, you're not going out of business. MRS. MOORE: I know, I know. MEMBER COLLINS: No, I'm not suggesting that it's an interpretation issue. I was, and the reason why I'm asking this is not really to be picky but to help us to focus on exactly what it is we're being asked to decide. The Notice of Disapproval says, you asked for "a permission to alter the cottage from non- habitable to habitable." MRS. MOORE: That's right. MEMBER COLLINS: And you "can't do that because that'll make it a second dwelling unit." That, that's what they said. MRS. MOORE: Right, that's what they said. MEMBER COLLINS: It's not clear to me that anything having to do with enlargement or expansion of the use is in their disapproval. They simply said, if you change the use to habitable, that's a dwelling unit, and you can't have more than one dwelling unit on the property. I think you're just asking us to tell them - MRS. MOORE: You're wrong. MEMBER COLLINS: That they're wrong. I mean is that posture a logical one? MRS. MOORE: You know what it'd be nice, I'm afraid that when it goes back to them, depending on how they read it, they're going to say, well no we would have called it a variance and it should come back as a variance. MEMBER COLLINS: OK, all right, all right. MRS. MOORE: So, certainly I think a variance application leaves you the option of saying, we don't think a variance is necessary. We think that this is a use that's permitted. You know, habitation - MEMBER COLLINS: OK, OK, yeah, I, don't want to drag this out, I - Page 60 - October 14, 1999 Board of Appeals Hearings MRS. MOORE: So technically you do this however you'd like, so long as it gets approved. MEMBER COLLINS: I wanted your input on what the posture of your question is. Now, let's go back to something you mentioned which is putting conditions on things which of course we do all the time. MRS. MOORE: As I expect. MEMBER COLLINS: Do you have any suggestions as an experienced attorney on how to get teeth into these conditions? This is something i think that bothers us and worries us. We can write a condition, and we don't feel confident that, that conditio.n stays alive down the road. MRS. MOORE: Well, I think at least as to the Windisch family, you've been dealing with people that violated the code, you know - MEMBER COLLINS: No, I'm talking principle here. MRS. MOORE: No, actually technically alright, if you put a condition as far as it shall not be "no kitchen". MEMBER COLLINS: No kitchen and no renting. MRS. MOORE: And no renting, OK, if you end up having renters, well first of ail, no renting and there's somebody that is on a lease, they're going to come back to you at any point in time and they're going to present to the Justice Court when you try to get rid of them, this was an illegal rental, and I don't have to pay your rent and hey, you know, you shouldn't have done that. So the owner has a problem if they're are conditions that are violations of zoning, or violations of the occupancy, so I think right off the bat the owner is putting themselves in jeopardy that is not necessary. But secondly, you have very helpful neighbors all the time that come and not necessarily in this case but in all cases that are watchdogs and they'll be the first one to tell you that somebody is not doing something that is precisely the way the law reads. MEMBER COLLINS: Yeah, I'll have to agree that when we discuss this among ourselves, my view is that neighbors are a necessary part of the enforcement process, but some of my colleagues say, oh no, it never happens. And of course we don't really know. MRS. MOORE: Well you have the right to come and inspect if you want to but I don't think you want to get into the habit or the business of doing that. Page 61 - October 14, 1999 Board of Appeals Hearings CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We don't but we do. MRS. MOORE: Yeah, sometimes you do. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Ms. Collins, Mrs. Tortora just wants to jump in on this. MEMBER TORTORA: I think the largest issue here is because we've seen a lot of these in the last year, and whether it's an accessory studio, or an accessory garage, or an accessory this, sometimes people come in and they want the accessory without sleeping quarters, or just part-time, or just seasonal. They don't want the bath, but they want the kitchen. They want the kitchen, but they don't want the bath. They don't want, and any kind of arrangement thereof. The bottom line is that there is a lot of illegal places that have been converted. We all know it. It's a fact of life. It's not something we can sit here in the room an,d say, it doesn't exist. It exists in this town. So. MRS. MOORE: Well I don't think you can punish those that come before you for the illegal acts of others. MEMBER COLLINS: No, no, no, no. MEMBER TORTORA: No, I'm not suggesting that, I'm not suggesting that. But, I'm also not naive enough to put any faith in any neighbor in ratting on his fellow neighbor because that, that's not the way the Town works. We all like to live with our neighbors and no-one wants to be a rat on their neighbor. MRS. MOORE: No, but you no what? Actually that's not the way it comes in because I differ with you because I get those phone calls, and what happens is, the neighbor will call and say, it's an anonymous complaint. So and so is renting. And what happens is the Building Department goes out and inspects, you end up with a Notice of Violation, and then you end up having to defend yourself in Justice Court, or, you know, prove, prove that that's not the case. MEMBER TORTORA: There's another side to that story. There's also a side to this story where the person who is renting is at the mercy of the landlord because they don't want to let the Town know that it's illegal and the landlord will hold it over them. Nevertheless,- MRS. MOORE: Until they try to prevent the rent from being raised 1%. MEMBER TORTORA: My point is very simple. There has to be in these situations, I'm not questioning the integrity of your clients. I'm saying, that we have to have a way to guarantee that that is not going to be converted at any time in the future into a single and separate dwelling whether it's by definition a Page 62.- October 14, 1999 Board of Appeals Hearings habitable dwelling or non-habitable dwelling. And, i'm here to tell you that before I sign off on any of them, and there's a lot of them come down the pipe, there's going to have to be something in writing that's guaranteed because - MRS. MOORE: Well, with all due deference, I don't think that's fair on the community or the applicant because what happens - MEMBER TORTORA: Why? MRS. MOORE: Because to begin with, I disagree that people should be coming here at all. What happens is as communities change you have'a lot of telecommuting. You have computer people that have, want their office over a garage or they want to have, it's really going back to the olden days when you use to have .extra - MEMBER TORTORA: That's fine. Nobody is disputing that. MRS. MOORE: And that was accepted. It use to be the Building Department would in fact issue permits that would show for whatever the use was. it would be rooms, extra rooms as accessory to the main house. MEMBER TORTORA: That's fine. That's not what we're talking about. That's not what my concern is. I don't care if it's a computer room or if it's any of those things. I care that this cottage is not sold, rented, ten years down the road as a separate unit. MRS. MOORE: But you do that by, by exactly what we're here for, which is here before you. You will write a decision that says these are the findings and this is what your conditions are. Believe me, your record is much more complete that when Mr. Windisch, some day 30 - 40 years from now, sells this house, OK, and as part of the C.O: you have the pre-C.O, because the Building Department will have to issue a pre-C.O, for this as accessory living quarters without a kitchen, OK? They actually write a C.O. with the specifics. So, that gets actually documented in, at the Assessor's Office in the Building Department, so when you sell property you have that document that the buyer now takes and says, OK, but I can't use this as a rental unit because that's not what it is. ! can't rent it without a kitchen. It's accessory to the main house, so you have documentation. Actually, in this case you have much more documentation than a lot of other structures that are out there that are old accessory structures~ MEMBER TORTORA: I know we have. The only think I'm saying is, that I guess none of us really have 100% confidence and it's because it hasn't been fail proof. Page 63 - October 14, 1999 Board of Appeals Hearings MRS. MOORE: Nothing, people violate the law everyday. There's justice for it. If not, none of us lawyers would exist and there wouldn't be any need for courts. I mean the whole system would not be necessary because the only reason we have laws is to enforce against those that tend to violate them. So I think that you, there is no, life is not a guaranty. So, as far as our application goes and our applicant, you have our assurances that there will be no kitchen, and it's not going to be rented. It's for the family. MEMBER TORTORA: Do you have any objection of us putting on conditions that will, to that effect? MRS. MOORE: No, that's why we came in. MEMBER TORTORA: To the effects of your statement? MRS. MOORE: Yes, that is - MEMBER TORTORA: So, if we draw up conditions - MRS.' MOORE: If you draw up those conditions we have no objection. That's why we're here because the Building Department forced the kitchen to come out, that's fine, so he knew it wasn't going to be a separate rental and he can accept that. It's not going to be an income producer. But he'd like to use it for the rest of his family and that's where the non-habitation creates a problem. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Can we continue? MEMBER COLLINS: .Yes, I want to get off of that. I want to ask a couple more questions about the building itself. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Let's ~vrap it up then. MEMBER COLLINS: The building's been there forever. The house went up like 25, close to, 25 or more years ago. MRS. MOORE: Seventies actually. MEMBER COLLINS: The real house? MRS. MOORE: Yes. MEMBER COLLINS: The Windisch I think have owned the property since 94 according to the assessor card? MRS. MOORE: Right. Page 64 - October 14, 1999 Board of Appeals Hearings MEMBER COLLINS: They know how they've used it. Obviously they don't really know how the prior owners used it. What is, I mean on your Building Permit Application two years ago, 10/97 to refurbish the place, it says, shop and storage. Is that how it's been used? MRS. MOORE: I mean it had the two bedrooms that were there. But because it said, non-habitation, the prior owners abided by that and they did too, that's why they're here. MEMBER COLLINS: Now, it has a bath and I guess it did have electric heat and hot water. MRS. MOOEE: It still has electric and hot water. MEMBER COLLINS: I gather you're putting in, rather, well my impression of the floor plan drawing was that it was rather ambitious ducting and there's a great big LPG tank there now and that suggested to me - MRS. MOORE: Well alright, Mr. Windisch can you come up here and answer as far as - MEMBER COLLINS: That suggested gas hot water and gas hot air. I'm just wondering what's going on here? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: This is Mr. Windisch speaking. MRS. MOORE: This is Mr. Windisch. MR. WlNDISCH: How do you do? It was much less expensive to install than oil heat. Gas heat itself is much less expensive. MEMBER COLLINS: But what you're saying is, that when you two years ago untook a project, that you said was to refurbish or fix up this shop and storage building, it included really redoing the heating system in a quite ambitious way. I mean ! think, were you then hoping to turn it into a place you could use for sleeping? i mean has that been the plan? MR. WINDISCH: Not really. Initially when I started, I had no idea to be honest with you, that uninhabitable means you can't use it for sleeping. I did not know that. However, when I went to refurbish, the Building Department came by and put me wise. And at that time I was more than half finished with the renovation. Most of the money was spent so i didn't want to stop so I just continued, you know, saying at that time, well I'll continue, we'll use it as a shop or storage, or studio, whatever, and then the inspector suggested, well why don't you go for a Page 65 - October 14, 1999 Board of Appeals Hearings variance. Maybe you can get to use it as sleeping quarters and that's how it came about. MEMBER COLLINS: OK, thank you. Mr. Chairman, are you going to ask about the sanitary question raised by the neighbor? The neighbor claims that the cesspool from this cottage will contaminate the neighbor's water. That's a fact question. MRS. MOORE: Well, yeah, I mean I can - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: That's a question I can't answer. MRS. MOORE: Right, I mean, well what you have to know here is, that there's an existing sanitary system, and it's always been there. Now what Mr. Windisch did for the Building Department is have it checked out to make sure that it's functional and that it's adequate and do you remember the name? MR. WlNDISCH: Jerome Contractor. MRS. MOORE: Oh, Jerome, OK. They checked, I guess took off the cover, checked to make sure that it was clean, that it was adequate for the structure and so it's working. So, but that's existing. The problem .that you have is, that you start moving it around you're going to impact other properties because those properties are so narrow and so small. That to move it away from him, him being the neighbor, you're going to impact someone else. MEMBER COLLINS: I was not in any way bringing up a question of what to do. I was asking a question of what do we make of Mr. Sideris' letter? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I can't answer that question. That's a Health Department issue. MRS. MOORE: I appreciate that question. MEMBER COLLINS: OK. Alright and is it going there? MRS. MOORE: No, I appreciate that question, but in honestly,' when you have a pre-existing bathroom that's been used, sleeping versus not sleeping, is there - MEMBER COLLINS: I take your point. MRS. MOORE: And it'll continue to impact him whether there's someone sleeping there or not, the bathroom is his and the sanitary system is his, so. Page 66 - October 14, 1999 Board of Appeals Hearings MEMBER COLLINS: ! give up. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: ! intend to agree with that particular statement particularly when you have something that's pre-existing. If the Health Department had a problem originally they would not have issued a permit to build the other house. And in these reconstruction situations or new construction situations where there is an existing building, we're not referring to it as a house at this point, ! had not seen them change their purview on this - MRS. MOORE: No, they maintain their, once it's pre-existing, they'll leave you alone. CHAIRMAN. GOEHRINGER: OK, so let's see what results throughout the hearing. We thank you. Is there anybody else would like to speak in favor of this application? Anybody like to speak against the application? Please state your name for the record. MR. SIDERIS: Yes Chairman. Good evening, my name is, Lawrence Sideris. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: How do you do? Yes, we are by the way and of course the agent, I'm sorry, the attorney for the applicant has, of course, touched on some issues that you know, you are concerned about. MR. SIDERIS: Yes, well she's mistaken and she's quite wrong about many things. This house was never insulated. It was never heated. It was used as storage, for over 20 years I believe. I have the exact figures right here. Since 1976, 1970, it was deemed uninhabitable, by the Building Department as well as the Health Department. She's wrong about another fact also. On October 6th, I spoke to Paul Pontrell from the Suffolk County Waste Water Management Department. He informed me, that this accessory cottage cesspool is in violation of the Health Code Ordinance as states, a pre-existing cesspool must be no less than 100 feet away from any drinking well water supply. From my house to his cesspool is 70 feet away as my letter states. Also, Mr. Barry applied for a permit to erect the house. He was told that he never, never, again, use that residence as any habitable dwelling. He's done that for 20 years. I was a caretaker for the house for many years. I lived there for 20 years. Nobody ever lived in it or nothing was done except for storage. That's my main concern right now. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We need you to give us that gentleman's name so that we can send a letter to the Health Department. MR. SIDERIS: Paul Pontrell. Page (~7 - October 14, 1999 Board of Appeals Hearings MEMBER TORTORA: Pontura. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: How do you spell'it? MEMBER TORTORA: P O N T U R A, I believe it is. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Whose that? MEMBER TORTORA: He's the head of the Drinking Water Unit. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK. MR. SIDERIS: He's in violation of Building Code as well as Health Code violations. I. mean if he sleeps there, if he uses the shower, if he uses the toilet facilities, I'm going to get my water poisoned. I'm only 7 feet away. I mean, you know, you poison a Little bit or you poison all of it, I mean still, it's poison water we'd be drinking. That's why in 1'970 it was deemed non-habitable by the Health Department as well as the Building Department. That's my main concern. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, just hold it one second there OK? Will you contact him and get a letter from him please (to Mrs. Moore)? MRS. MOORE: I'll be with him and go over the Health Department records. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, excuse me, OK, you had a question? MEMBER TORTORA: No, that's just it. Department too. I wanted to hear from the Health CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: What else did you want to say, Mr. Sideris. MR. $1DERIS: Like you were saying before, is rental - five, ten years down the line, who knows. I mean right now you can use it as a hot plate and a micro wave oven, cook your dinner and breakfast. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I hate to go back to this situation because having been on this Board almost 20 years, again as I've stated for the second time tonight, there are four separate and distinct instances that this Board has granted and only four that I know of that this Board has granted any temporary, I'll refer them as counsel said., bunk house facilities or temporary sleeping facilities and three of those were for a specific need. OK. They were for a family need of some convalescence of a family member whatever the case might be and there were specific restrictions placed on those for the period of time. One of which renews every five years during the Period of the elderly parent who's living in the premises. So, we are aware of your concerns because we have Page 68 - October 14, 1999 Board of Appeals Hearings heard those concerns. I have at least heard those concerns and the Board has heard some of those concerns over the past years. This is an area that this Board takes, very, very, very delicately in dealing with: We just want you to be aware of that. What else would you like to tell us? MR. SIDERIS: I'd like to tell her also that this house has been inhabitable for 20 years and i think it should stay that way. There's no need to poison neighbor's water and like I said, make a rental out of it. He's also applied for a permit for a dock next to the water. For what reason nobody knows. Maybe to rent as a summer cottage, the people will have use of a boat. Nobody knows. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK. Any questions of this gentleman? Ladies and gentlemen? MEMBER TORTORA: Yes, just one quick question. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, one question. MEMBER TORTORA: Let's go back just a second. If we could Put conditions on this, hypothetically to assure that this would never be a second dwelling or used for seasonal rental, what would your objection be then? MR. SIDERIS: Unacceptable. I mean there's a Health Code violation as well as Building Code violations. The Building Code is right here. On August 12th, it was deemed uninhabitable. MEMBER TORTORA: Could we have a copy of that please? MR. SlDERIS: It says here, one family detached dwellings not to exceed one dwelling in each lot. Proposed change of use will constitute second dwelling on a lot. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes, the disapproval. MEMBER TORTORA: OK. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes, we're familiar with that. MR. SIDERIS: Every piece of paper work here and the file states it. This building is non-habitable, non-habitable. Even the paper work from the architect right on it, non-habitable. There must be a reason why the Health Code Violations, Building Code Violations. I mean that's why it was uninhabitable for 20 years when the previous owner, Mr. Henry Barry in 1970. Why rent it now that they live in? Page 69 - October 14, 1999 Board of Appeals Hearings CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK. MR. SIDERIS: I mean it's just a wooden shack. It was never insulated, there was never any heat, it was just used for storage. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: When did the insulation and heat come to be? MR. SIDERIS: When Mr. Windisch started to renovating without permits. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: And how long ago was that when they actually commenced? MR. SIDERIS: 1994. 1995, I believe. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: All right. MR. SIDERIS: Well, if you look at the Building report. Here I have another article to show you also. Inspector Gary Fish, when he did the inspection on the framing, the first inspection done. It says, "frame OK, non-habitable accessory building." CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: What's the date of it? MR. SIDERIS: 5/21/98. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: All right we'll see what develops. This hearing is not over. We will continue it. We will take all of your concerns. MR. SIDERIS: Thankyou. MRS. MOORE: Well, no, I just want to put Mr. Windisch just to, do you want to swear him in or do you want to take his testimony as far as whether or not it was insulated and what was there prior to this renovation? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: What we're going to do is, we're going to swear both of you in. Sir, would you raise your right hand? The following information you're about to give us, that you just gave us, was the truth to the best of your knowledge. MR. SIDERIS (raising right hand was sworn in): Yes. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Will you state your name. MR. SIDERIS Lawrence Sideris. Page 7'0 - October 14, 1999 Board of Appeals Hearings CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, that's all I'm interested in. Your welcome to sit down. We'll get you back. Thank you. MR. SIDERIS: Thank you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Will you raise your right hand Sir: The information you are about to give us and the information you've given us at this hearing, was the truth to the best of your knowledge. LESLIE WlNDISCH (raising right hand was sworn in): Yes. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: And your name is? MR. WINDISCH: Leslie Windisch. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. What do you want to tell us now about the insulation? MR. WlNDISCH: Some parts of the cottage were insulated. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: I can't hear you too well. Can you use the mike a little better? Thank you. MR. WINDISCH: The sleeping quarters where' they have the two separate bedrooms that was insulation inside the wall. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Nothing on the ceiling? Nothing on the floor? MR. WINDISCH: Nothing on the ceiling, nothing on the floor. Just on the wails. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: What kind of insulation was that? MR, WlNDISCH: It was a - MRS. MOORE: ( ) foam? MR. WlNDISCH: I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Blown in. MR. WlNDISCH: No, it wasn't blown in. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Fiberglass? MR. WlNDISCH: It was some sought of fiberglass insulation. Page 71 - October 14, 1999 Board of Appeals Hearings CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, what else would you like to tell us? MRS. MOORE: Was the bathroom functional? MR. WlNDISCH: The bathroom was functional. The shower was functional and the kitchen, there was a kitchen in there which was removed when we bought the property. But, it was functional before we got there. There was heating in there and it was setup. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: What kind of heating? MR. WINDISCH: There was electric heat, CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: So there was 200 amp service on, or, a 150 amp service? MR. WlNDISCH: No, no, no, no. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: It was hooked up to your house? MR. WlNDISCH: I don't know. No, it had its own but, I don't know how many amps. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: It had a separate meter though? MR. WINDISCH: Yes. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: To the house. Is that'above ground or underground? That service? MR. WlNDISCH: Above ground. CHAIRMAN GOF:HRINGER: Above ground. OK. I didn't notice that. That was one thing I didn't pick up when I was over there. Anything else? That's it? MRS. MOORE: Well I just wanted to be sure that you knew what was there prior' to his starting to renovate. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, so we're going to wrap it at this point and hold it over until the next regularly scheduled meeting. I'm not finished yet. I'll be right with you, OK. I just want to say, you're going to contact the Health Department for us. We're going to discuss this situation where we have this 70 feet between your cesspool and this gentleman's well I believe that's what the concern is. Is that correct, Sir?. Page 72 - October 14, 1999 Board of Appeals Hearings MR. SlDERIS: Yes, that's correct. MEMBER DINIZIO: Can ! ask a question? Is this a nonconforming lot? MRS. MOORE: Well size-wise, let me see. Yeah, I think, well it's less than an acre I know that, right? MEMBER DINIZIO: Yeah, that's right. MRS. MOORE: Right, it's less than an acre? What's the size? MRS. WINDISCH: No, it's the next one. MRS. MOORE: Oh, it's an acre? MRS. WlNDISCH: Yes. MRS. MOORE: Oh, it's one acre, OK. 100 feet wide. It's 100 x 450, 400. MEMBER COLLINS: The assessor shows it 1.00. MRS. MOORE: There's actually a survey I'm not looking at it. MEMBER DINIZIO: OK, that's fine. So it's - MRS. MOORE: 462 x 100. MEMBER DINIZIO: 462 so it's over an acre. MRS. MOORE: Yeah, it's over an acre. MEMBER DINIZIO: And it's an R-40 or?. MRS. MOORE: R-40. Yes. MEMBER DINIZIO: So, it's a conforming lot, OK. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. MRS. MOORE: Thank you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mrs. Rivera, how are you? MRS. RIVERA: I'm fine, thank you. Page 73 - October 14, i 999 Board of Appeals Hearings CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Long time no see. rm going to have to ask you to use the mike because we just can't pick you way up from back there. This was Christine Rivera. CHRISTINE RIVERA: I'm Christine 'Rivera. rm not speaking for or against this. I'm just commenting that according to what Ms. Collins said and Ms. Moore said= I think there's an interpretation problem here. The Building Department, of course, is granting non-inhabitable violations, saying that it's a non-inhabitable cottage, or accessory building., but they're basing that on the fact of kitchen is my understanding and bathroom as a separate dwelling. But they don't have a dwelling. They have a separate accessory building with just for sleeping quarters and my understanding from what you all are saying, is that it's permissible .under the law? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: No. MRS. RIVERA: So you're saying that a separate building just for sleeping with a bathroom? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Not permissible. MRS. RIVERA: Not permissible. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: No. In my interpretation. MRS. MOORE: Oh, I was just going to say. MEMBER COLLINS: Yeah, that's a, push comes to shove, Mr. Chairman. MEMBER TORTORA: I think that would call for an interpretation. MRS. RIVERA: And that's why I think an interpretation is needed because if you're saying, but, it's non-rental, no kitchen - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Let me just. I hate to state it a load on you because I, not only are you a neighbor you're also a friend. We've had .some serious deaths in this neck of the woods. The most recent one was the Vinnis Geralitis situation. And this has nothing to do with this hearing in general. This is a generic statement regarding separate and distinct structures, which are used for sleeping purposes, alright, illegally. That has nothing to do with this hearing, alright. When you open the issue up of sleeping quarters and accessory structures regardless of the preexistence or non-preexistence, and that's the reason why rm not referring to this structure. Because, I'm not calling it a dwelling. I'm calling it a structure. Many people have the tendancy and this Page 74 - October 14, 1999 Board of Appeals Hearings is an opinion of mine to schlep off the necessities that are needed in these structures. In the case of the Geralitis issue, that Was an illegally vented hot water heater which caused his death. The other issues are: do the structures meet all of the Health Department requirements which is an issue that one person just brought up tonight? That's this gentleman over here. But, more importantly than any of them, is the fire situation. Are the windOws large enough to support, you know the two-foot Square for ingress and egress? Are the systems that are placed in the houses for alarming people if there is fire propedy placed? That is the reason why the Health, the State Fire Code is required you now to go to electric ceiling monitors as opposed to the battery operated ones because once the battery operated one goes, the battery comes out and that's the end of it. There isn't any. So that's is one of the reasons why I take a strict interpretation of this particular issue, alright. I certainly could change on this issue, but as of today, having been a fireman for 3t years plus,. I have not changed on this issue and I will continue to do this until such time that somebody can prove to me that people are not doing this for a particular reason other than the reason that they are stating. MRS. RIVERA: I think it's very appropriate that the Board puts the restrictions on such as no kitchen, no rental. But I think an interpretation has to be made clear because apparently the Building Department says that it's non-habitable dwelling, dwelling being interpreted apparently by the law as having a kitchen as a separate building, a separate dwelling. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: But I think State Law though is completely explicit on that and I think, that is the reason why the Building Department is doing what they're doing. I'm not sure they're able to vary that aspect of it in my discussions with the Town Attorney. Now, maybe I, you know, maybe I'm wrong on this issue. But that is the specific situation that I understand it as I know it right now. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: There was also an interpretation by the Zoning Board about design and arrangement of buildings. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes, design and arrangement of buildings. We have gone you know to the - MEMBER TORTORA: This has been a subject for history. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes, we've gone to the library issue, we've gone to the repair of, you know, of your own antique automobiles, and you know, all these things which you know, if you have an antique automobile you take them to shows, you need some place to put the trophies, so, you need the good old shop next to it, so that you can, so on and so forth. And, in all of these, I happen to work on old cars, so I enjoy that situation. But, the habitability aspect kitchen or non kitchen is of grave concern to me. It really, really is. Page 75 - October 14, 1999 Board of Appeals Hearings MRS. RIVERA: Oh, I appreciate that. I'm just asking what does the Towr~ considers a habitable building? Does it have to have a kitchen, or can this person sleep there with proper egress, windows, those proper ventilation, electric heat and installation and proper, you know, Health Code Sanitation system? With you putting restrictions on it, does the Town of Southold allow those structures? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Usually not. TO this date, usually not. MR. SlDERIS: Excuse me. Can I ask a question? Who is Mrs. Rivera? Is she a Building Inspector? Is she a Health Inspector? Who is she? CHAIRMAN.GOEHRINGER: No. MRS. RIVERA: I live in Mattituck and I - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: She is very, ! don't think that's an issue here. I think this is an issue that she is bringing up. She happens to live in a community where I think it may concern her because she may know of something like this. I think she has the right as a spokesperson for herself to bring these issues up and I really, you know, I understand that you have a concern and that you are extremely heated about this and we are taking all of your concerns here too. I just explained to you, that in 20 years I can think of four of these that were granted and so, it has changed I have to tell you. But, the ones that we have granted recently are the ones for a specific need an elderly parent, whatever the case may be and there are time limits placed on them and there are really probably the most severe restrictions that this Board is allowed to deal with, and I'm just telling you that that's the situation. MR. SIDERIS: OK. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Just, you know, everything, - MR. SIDERIS: OK, I just like to know who she was. I didn't know if she was an attorney, or- CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: She's a member of this community and a lady from Mattituck. MR. SIDERIS: Thank you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: If you don't mind me speaking. Page 76 - October 14, 1999 Board of Appeals Hearings MRS. RIVERA: No, not at all. And honestly, I'm just trying to get an interpretation and an understanding as to if the subject comes up and use it as a studio and as you said, a trophy room or some other - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Those are not habitable situations though Christina. This is, you know, these are basically areas where hobbies occur and that you may spend two hours a day, you may spend four hours a day, you may spend six hours a day as a retiree. But, you don't sleep overnight with those (). MRS. RIVERA: I was wishing that habitability meaning a kitchen facility that the possibility of renting is that is a restriction and I appreciate that and I'm all for it. CHAIRMAN,GOEHRINGER: Let me rephrase something. Let me rephrase a statement that was made in reference to this particular C. of O. on this particular structure. If this Board was so enthralled with making with making this, I don't know if it's the proper phrase, so - MRS. MOORE: Inclined. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: What? Inclined yes, so inclined to make this decision, they would not live as long as I was interested in this decision, they would not, I would not suggest that they list the word non-habitable, or the words non-habitable. It would be limited habitability. Limited to, a certain thing. Restricted to a certain thing and that would be my suggestion and my input to the Town Attorney in drafting a decision of this nature. But, we're not doing that at this point. We're still in effect finding situation. MEMBER DINIZIO: Can I comment, Jerry? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes.. MEMBER DINIZIO: I know we also take this particular application the reason why how it became non-habitable which was as an agreement to build another house on this piece of property and you know, the neighbors could also you know rely on that you know, back then, that permit. I'm sure they had plenty of time to comment on it. I'm not sure if there was but, I think that this has a lot of bearing on my certainly my thought process, not only that the windows are large enough but, the fact that so-one gave up that right at some point in time and ~you're asking for that right back. You're particular with this particular application. I think you've got to give a pretty compelling argument for me to put somebody back in that building because I'm fairly sure that the windows are you know, wide enough and the doorway is probably the same. MRS. MOORE: They are, yes. Did you go look at the building? Page 77 - October 14, 1999 Board of Appeals Hearings MEMBER DINIZlO: No. but I mean I know the house, you know, in fact my brother-in-law lives right next to it though. MRS. MOORE: I mean it looks like a little doll house. MEMBER DINIZIO: Yeah, I was just again, as a condition, the non-habitability was a condition because they wanted to build another house on the property. Now, we're going back to making it inhabitable. That probably in my mind - MRS. MOORE: But keep in mind, I understand, but, keep in mind, that non- habitable means take out the kitchen so you can't use it as a second dwelling. MEMBER DINIZIO: No, not necessarily. You know, I could tell you, I'm a licensed Fire Instructor in New York State. You have to have a license and you know, habitability has to do with whether you're protected or not when you sleep. If you sleep in your living room and there's a fire, you know, you're not suppose to sleep in your living room. It's not a protected room. This is the same thing. It's not part of the house. It's a bedroom that's separate of that. It certainly could be protected by you know, a smoke detector. MRS° MOORE: Fire, fire, smoke detector. MEMBER DINIZIO: No doubt. But, the problem is here that someone in there wisdom, at some point in time gave up that habitability. As condition to putting to building another building on here, and here we're going back. It really doesn't have to do with kitchen. They can use a barbecue outside to cook. The house doesn't have to have a kitchen. It's not required to be a house to have a kitchen. To be habitable with someone sleeping in it is habitable and there's no way around that. And, to me you've got to give a pretty compelling argument as to the reasons why and Mr. Goehringer certainly touched on a couple of them. You know, my mother-in-law. I don't want her in the house with me but, she can go sleep out in the - MRS. MOORE: Well. I think I presented the fact, that the house has two bedrooms and there are three children and the fact, that for the family to be able to have everyone visit and having three children that have their wives and grandchildren visiting it becomes more and more difficult to house everybody into a house. That the alternative is, to build additions to the house which has a greater impact on the neighborhood as keeping the existing cottage with an existing separate sanitary system. Page 78 - October 14, 1999 Board of Appeals Hearings MEMBER DINIZIO: Well, I think that, I think that not. I think that that would be not. ! think that expanding that house and you know, perhaps at some point have a great cesspool, you know, whatever would come of it would be a more desirable thing than having two dwellings. MRS. MOORE: But, that's what I'm saying that there's no. You got to go back and read the definition of accessory and of dwellings. And, if you read those two definitions what he has there is allowed. I mean under the code's definitions. I mean I always look at the statutory language very carefully and I looked to see well, you know, that's not what is, the whole purpose of dwelling, is not to have full scale separate living quarters, two of them on to one piece of property, That is over intensification of those other piece of property and they don't, we don't want them. We don't want two houses on a piece. There are lots of pre-existing ones like that. We don't want to encourage it. But, the difference between the impact on the property of having a bedroom outside separate and apart, as long as all of the fire code regulations are met, that there is a fire extinguisher and things like that, or, smoke detector and the whole bit, you're comparing now the use of the property and the area variance criteria I believe are met if you look at the standards and what's reasonable for the applicant to expect with respect to the use of this property and are there other alternatives, are they reasonable, are they less intru, is this option better than other options? And, to keep an existing cottage there unusable for an extra bedroom at least for the Windisch family is much more desirable than in using it as just to storage or a hobby room and having to come up with additional space for the children in the main building. And, that's why they're here. If they, they could have illegally done what they're asking to do legally and that's what so frustrating. That those who choose to do things illegally and don't come before you, can get away with this forever and have the housing that they want. They could have continued and done it without any problem. But, those who come before you and ask you, please I'd like to legalize it for whatever conditions you want, you penalize and you say, I'm sorry, that cottage you shouldn't use, seal it up, use it for a hobby room, but, don't sleep in it, so something else. Well, I think you're sending the wrong message because all of those pre-existing cottages that are out there when they come to me and to ask should we go and get it legalized, I'm going to say, well, if the Zoning Board is not going to give it to you, you know, I wouldn't tell them to do it illegally. I never advise a client to do something illegal. But, I think it doesn't take too much you know, brain power to compare the two and say, forget it, I won't ask. MEMBER DINIZIO: Well, the only thing I can say to that is that at some point in time on this piece of property, it was agreed, that - MRS. MOORE: Would be non-habitable. MEMBER DINIZIO: Right, right. Page 79 - October 14, 1999 Board of Appeals Hearings MRS. MOORE: Yes, would be non-habitable. MEMBER DINIZIO: Inhabitable to me, is sleeping there, OK? I mean you can have everything there you want, a playroom out there, you know, a TV room, you can have a shop, you can have everything except you can't lay down and go to sleep. That's habitable. MRS. MOORE: I understand but- MEMBER DINIZIO: OK, you know, if you want to take dwelling to that, interpret that to be a kitchen, fine, but, I happen to know, you don't have to have a kitchen to have a house. To have dwelling, you don't have to have a kitchen. MRS. MOORE: But under our Zoning Code we do. MEMBER DINIZlO: Well, I don't believe that you do. I mean you can have a hot plate. You don't want to serve as a standard what we're talking about. You can have just a cooler or maybe put ice in and a sink. I mean it's not necessary tha~t and again, at some point in time, - MRS. MOORE: I disagree because if you want to a C.O. for dwelling you must have a kitchen. You must have at least 850 sq. ft., you must have a bedroom. So, I would respectfully disagree with you on that Building Department - MEMBER DINIZIO: I still have to go back Pat. I still have to go back to the property that was sterilized to give them something, which was the nice, the house, a nice house on the creek. I mean lets face it, someone at some point in time thought that was more desirous than having a cottage but, they build a house and now you're asking us to overturn that. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We've got to move along here Jim. Is there anybody else that wants to speak against this application that will not be here on November 18th? Seeing no hands I'll make a motion recessing until November 18th. MEMBER DINIZlO: Second. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: All in favor? Motion carried. See Minutes for Resolution. Page 80 - October 14, 1999 Board of Appeals Hearings 9:20 P.M. -Appl. No. 4751 -W. HOWELL & R. PATTON Application for (a) Interpretation determining whether or not bathroom facilities in an accessory building creates a second dwelling, and (b) a Variance, if necessary for approval of bathroom facilities in accessory building (without sleeping or habitable quarters) at 15825 Main Road, Orient, 1000-18-3-15, CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Kevin, how are you tonight? MR. McLAUGHLIN: Very good, thank you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Nice to see you. MR. McLAUGHLIN: Nice to see you. I've got a letter here just explaining that I sent out five notices and only got four of the return receipts back. i never got back the return receipt from Latham. I never received back the letter either, so, I don't know what happened to it. I personally mailed them myself at the Southold Post Office. We have a somewhat situation here although quite different I think in that we're not asking for any habitability in this accessory building. How we got here basically was the applicants made an application to the Building Department to renovate an existing barn structure on their property. And included in that application was bathroom facilities. They were told, that if they were going to have bathroom facilities, they would have to get Suffolk County Health Department approval. They decided at that point that they wanted to begin renovations so they asked the Building Department at that time to delete bathroom facilities from the application and they were granted a Building Permit to begin the renovation to the barn into an artist studio. As the renovations were progressing, they did go to the Suffolk County Health Department, they got their approvals for bathroom facilities and went back to the Town Building Department; and at this time, for the first time we're told, oh, if you're going to put bathroom facilities in there, you're making a second dwelling out of the accessory barn structure and we can't allow that. It's in violation of the Code. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: The question is, are these bathroom facilities tied to the existing cesspool system or are there new cesspool system? MR. McLAUGHLIN: They're tied to the existing cesspool. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Tied, OK. MR. McLAUGHLIN: And they do have SuffOlk County Health Department approval for doing this. So, at that point I got involved. I went over and talked to the Building Department and was told, yes, it's our interpretation of the code, if you put bathroom facilities in an accessory building, you are making a dwelling on the property and therefore, since there wis already a house, you now have Page 81 - October 14, 1999 Board of Appeals Hearings two dwellings and you are in violation of the code and obviously I disagreed, but, to no avail, and got my Notice of Disapproval. The Building Department was aware at all times that there was never any intended occupancy of this building for sleeping purposes or habitability other than as an artist studio. Now, you might ask why the necessity for the bathroom facilities in this artist studio and basically we have kind of a unique situation here. One of the owners, Mr. Howell, who is a quite a renown artist. I have provided you I think with a pamphlet of his, showing some of his art. He also happens to be blind. What he intends to do on the first floor is do his painting and he does very large scale canvases and paints on them, and so what they want to do is put in a full bathroom on the first floor which would include a shower, a toilet and a fairly large sink area to wash out brushes and things like that. And, on the second floor, he intends to do his graphic arts which he also does a substantial amount. And up there they would intend to put a half bath and really the reason for this is, the house is a fair distance away, he is blind, he does amazing work - if you look at his material, it's amazing what he does, but this is solely to allow him, because he does spend sometimes he tells me 10 to 12 hours at a time working on his art, to be able to use the facilities, and on the first floor when he's painting he often gets quite covered with paint, and he needs to shower in order to be able to wash it off before he goes back into the house. So, all we're asking for is the bathroom facilities. We have at all times indicated there is no intention to have any habitation as far as sleeping in the building, and I believe what we're here for, is an Interpretation that bathroom facilities such as these, in an accessory building with an understanding and whatever kind of agreement is necessary, that there will be no habitation or Sleeping, does not constitute a second dwelling property. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK. Question. Is he able to walk up and down those stairs? I toured the building of course you know as it exists today with it roughed out, two bathrooms, so on and so forth. Is he able to walk from the first floor to the second floor and then from the second floor back down to the first floor? - MR. McLAUGHLIN: Yes, he can. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK. Is there really a necessity to have two bathroom facilities? I mean two lavatories. MEMBER TORTORA: Two showers. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: No, there's no two showers. There's only one shower. MR. McLAUGHLIN: Right. Page 82 - October 14, 1999 Board of Appeals Hearings CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: That's downstairs on the first floor. MR. McLAUGHLIN: Right. It's not easy for him to negotiate going up and down the stairs, but he can do it. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK. So, in reality, the main thrust of this application even though it has two lavatory facilities and one shower, is really the need for one shower and one lavatory facility? MR. McLAUGHLIN: Frankly I don't understand the difference. If- CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: No, no, I'm just making a statement, and you don't have to agree or disagree. I'm just saying to you, that that is the case at this time, OK, particularly if people have limited vision too, their vision can get worst and that can cause problems also. MR. McLAUGHLIN: We're not talking limited vision. He is blind. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I understand. MEMBER TORTORA: How can he paint? MR. McLAUGHLIN: I don't know. He can. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I happened to of worked with a person of this nature-. MRS. SORENSON: His work is more abstract. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I happened to have worked with a person like this and I don't know his limited, you know - BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: There is a book in the file that explains it - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: It is quite evident, that they have some great gifts. There's no question about it. But, let's ask the same question and I'm not taking this question away from Mrs. Tortora or from Ms. Collins, but I am in reality - How can we be sure, that this building is protected and the Town is protected infinitum, not withstanding the fact that these applicants have the right to sell this property tomorrow after this Board renders a decision. MR. McLAUGHLIN: You have no greater or less assurances that you have with any structure in the town. Anybody can do anything illegally whether or not you put on any restrictions or not. Somebody can, without getting any permits, convert the upstairs room over a garage into living quarters. You can't stop Page 83 - October 14, 1999 Board of Appeals Hearings them other than if you find out about them, violate them, bring them into court. We will put on any kind of agreement that you want that we're not going to use this for sleeping or habitation, however you want to word it. Other than that, obviously we can't give you any further assurances. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Well we were thinking more in the realm of a covenant on the deed because we've had some problems with the normal procedure of these rendered decisions going along with the property. I just want you to think about that Kevin as, you know, this situation you know, that this is a one family dwelling, a house. This property contains a one family dwelling and an accessory barn, OK, for the purposes of a studio, alright, with lavatory facilities. MR. McLAUGHLIN: You have that with C.Os. When you go to sell the property, you're going to have the pre-C.O, on the house, because it's an old house, you're going to have, which would also include the barn, and you're going to have a new C.O. when we're all done with this. It's going to say, you know, barn renovations, not habitable. When my clients go to sell the property, that's what they're going to sell. A habitable house and an artist studio, with bathroom facilities, non-habitable, and that's what they're going to get. So, a covenant in a deed is not going in anyway you know, I don't think it would - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I'm fishing at this time so that's why I'm asking the question, OK? MR. McLAUGHLIN: But I could see if there was a C.O. out there that you know, indicated that this was habitable, that there would be a concern. But, again, I understand your problem with people not doing what they're supposed to do, that's one of the reasons why this Board is here obviously to take care of those situations. But I don't know that there's anyway that you can assure yourselves that whatever agreements people make with you, are going to be upheld-. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: No, no, we're not, we're just asking for something that is going to survive. MEMBER TORTORA: Not quite as risky. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER; Yeah, yeah. MEMBER TORTORA: Because, the fact of the matter is, as far as the C.O. goes, because we hadan application here about four years ago where that the, because C.Os. are copied, because some Board Members may read it, it was punched out and smudged, forged. Page 84 - OctOber 14, 1999 Board of Appeals Hearings MR. McLAUGHLIN: That could happen with any C.O. If someone is going to forged an official document and subject themselves to criminal liability, they can do that with any C.O. MEMBER TORTORA: We're just trying to come up with ways that will not make it such a high risk, because just listening to you and the other attorneys, and people talk, well, there's no way you can control it and that's not a good answer. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Well, let's, let's- MR. McLAUGHLIN: i didn't say that. I said you can control it in the same way you control any other unlawful activity. CHAIRMAN.GOEHRINGER: Kevin, let's, let's go with your premise, that you will give us, or furnish us with a C of O in an appropriate amount of time indicating exactly what is said because we need you to ask for that, OK, as a condition of this application if this Board. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Do you mean covenant or C.O.? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: No, a C.O. BOARD SECRETARy: You said 'C.O.' CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Let's get to reality here. Ok, the reality is, that if a person doesn't have the bank mortgage, and if the Building Department doesn't push you for the C.O, not you in question, i'm making a generic statement, or your client, or any of your clients, that this thing goes down a merry little path for four or five years, you know what I'm saying, before it happens. So, what I need from you is an appropriate amount of time when you think you can secure the C.O. from the Building Department. MR. McLAUGHLIN: Three or four months? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER; Yes, so, I mean, so that's a reasonable time, is it not? I mean this building is going, is still going hells-bells, alright - MR. McLAUGHLIN: No, we're stopped. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: No, I know you're stopped but it's going to go once this Board renders a decision. MR. McLAUGHLIN: Yes, we will be permitted. Page 85 - October 14, 1999 Board of Appeals Hearings CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: If you convince these four people to vote in favor of this or three of these four people. So, you will furnish us with a C of O which will state that, what you're saying, is that correct? MR. McLAUGHLIN: I have no problem with doing that. I mean if you look at the pre-C.O, right now, you've got "pre-existing house with a pre-existing whatever they call it, you know, accessory building, barn structure," clearly not habitable. MEMBER DINIZIO: Well, we're going to offer, we're going to tell the Building Inspector if we approve this, to issue that in that manner. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Well they're not going to issue it though until he's finished with it. What I'm saying to you is there is no inhabitation of, there's no financing involved in this application, everything, I mean regardless if it is, it would be in place anyway. I don't want, this has nothing to do with this, I'm making a generalized statement that we want to put a restriction of time. We'll give him 120 days to produce a C of O which will state exactly what he's saying. It goes in our file. It's part of the file of the property because all of this other stuff just goes down its own little merry way, and some people never get it. MEMBER DINIZIO: Well, you mean, they never get a C.O. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: They never get the C.O. MEMBER DINIZIO Well, that would be fine. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: That's actually a very good point. That by the way, Kevin, happens to be the first great point that we've heard regarding these situations, you know, what rm saying? Because as you just heard from the prior hearing, OK, you know, what we were asking. MR. McLAUGHLIN: Because in reality what happens if you go to sell the piece of property, there is usually a C.O. search done by the title company which finds which C.Os. have been issued and if there are any open Building Permits and a bank if there's financing involved. If it's an all cash deal, then it's up to the attorneys and the clients to do. But a bank is not going to close with an open Building' Permit until you get a C.O. for that. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: No, but you know, that 50% of those situations come here and they're changed and altered by what we've seen. Again, this has nothing to do with your client. MR. McCLAUGHLIN: I understand. Page 86 - October 14, 1999 Board of Appeals Hearings CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We're making a generalized statement. So therefore, what you are asking, what you're telling us, that you can produce for us in the estimated amount of time, is exactly what I'm looking for. MR. McLAUGHLIN: OK. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: I just had a question. Isn't a Building Permit good for 18 months? MR. McLAUGHLIN: Yes. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: So you're saying expedite the C.O. before the Building Permit expires? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: No, I'm saying that finish the - MR. McLAUGHLIN: I don't know what kind of time frame you're talking about to finish the construction, Bob? BOB SORENSON: Four months is reasonable. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: No, we're going to give you more than that. We're going to make sure that you actually finish it because the Building Department is backed up as Kevin knows three months - MR. McLAUGHLIN: Three months. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yeah. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Six months? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: So we're going to give, I would give him 120 days. And, if you need an extension you get an extension. MR. MCLAUGHLIN: But, Mr. Sorenson is talking, who is the contractor on the property, :is talking about to finish the construction once we get the permission to do that, is going to take approximately four months. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: So, we're going to give you six months. If he needs an extension, you need an extension. MEMBER DINIZIO: I think you ought to give them longer than that. You're talking nine months right there. Page 87 - October 14, 1999 Board of Appeals Hearings MR. McLAUGHLIN: It depends on the Building Department who isn't terribly prompt. I mean, let's be realistic. MR. SORENSON: That's accurate as of right now. We're twelve months behind, a good twelve weeks. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Within the calendar year of the year 2000, we will produce. MEMBER DINIZIO: Yes, how about that. MR. MCLAUGHLIN: That's fine. MEMBER C.OLLINS: Yes, I mean let's understand this is meant, this is not meant as some kind of punitive procedure and it's obviously extendible. The point of this mechanism we're talking about here, is to insure that the C. of O. gets issued. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Right. MEMBER COLLINS: And that it says, what we want it to say. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: What we want it to say - which is nothing more than what you people want to say. MEMBER COLLINS: Which is something we don't have an assurance of now. MEMBER DINIZIO: Well it's nothing more than what we're going to tell them to say. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Right. MEMBER COLLINS: Yes, yes, but it assures us that it gets issued which is more than what we have now. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER; But again Kevin, I want to say, that this is exactly what I have been looking for and all we are really doing is through this whole think tank of these two hearings is, you know, we've come to the - MR. McLAUGHLIN: Yes, I've got a situation now kind of almost a 30-year old variance application where nobody filed through and got a C.O. out of it and now, I'm basically have been told by the Building Department to go back and get another variance. MEMBER DINIZlO: What? Page 88 - October 14, 1999 Board of Appeals Hearings MR. McLAUGHLIN: Because it's 30 years old. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: You had to ruin my whole evening. MR. McLAUGHLIN: And next month they'll be back on a fence around the'tennis court which obviously needs a variance. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: That, that's OK. MR. McLAUGLIN: That needs some Code revision. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Who else has a question of Mr. McLaughlin? Anybody? Let me just while you're standing there. Is there anybody else would like to speak in favor of this? Anybody like to speak against this? MEMBER DINIZIO: I think we can move on this tonight. MEMBER TORTORA: You do? MEMBER DINIZIO: I wrote a decision. I didn't know if you wanted to do it as an interpretation or- MEMBER TORTORA: I want to think about this. MEMBER COLLINS: We've got to think aboUt how we want to condition it. MEMBER TORTORA: I'd like to think about this, too, because I think we need to come u[ with a way that will apply to everyone and not just to this one. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I think this is the way. MEMBER DINIZIO: I thought we did. MEMBER COLLINS: Yeah, but we want to have a chance to you know, sought it through the brain and think about wording. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yeah, we'll make a decision later. There's some wording that we have to get to come up with and so on and so forth. Do you have anything else Kevin that you want ? MR. McLAUGHLIN: You'll add that time on to my year? MEMBER DINIZlO: We'll do it on the 3rd? Page 89 - October 14, 1999 Board of Appeals Hearings CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes, will do it on the 3rd. MEMBER COLLINS: We'll resolve it at our Special Meeting. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: At our Special Meeting on the 3rd, alright? Thank you, thank you for your constructive suggestions and I knew that if ! asked you for a covenant, we would get more constructive so that was good. I'm sorry, Mr. Saland, did you have a question you wanted to state something? DAVID SALAND: No, no, but I've just been listening to this about accessory dwellings and apartments and rentals and it seems to me, that the Town of Riverhead had the same problems. I have a three-family in Jamesport and they shifted the onus from the Boards on to. the landowners and the landlords said, OK, we're going to have a Building Code now, that says, that if we have to let inspectors in to inspect it, you have to actually have almost like a permit to rent and if you don't get the permit, then there's going to be a punitive fine. Why doesn't Southold do the same thing? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I don't know. MEMBER TORTORA: I don't know~ CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: That's a good point. MR. SALAND. OK, that's my point. Because that would, then you know, you wouldn't be so worried about all of these accessory dwellings - MEMBER TORTORA: What you're saying is true. Why should the onus be on the Town, on the Board? We're not policemen. MR. SALAND: No, no, but if we're going have the people go out and rent their apartments, we want to protect them with Fire Codes, etcetera, that's the way of doing it. Riverhead did it, and some opposition occurs but, now I think it's very smooth. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: The Town of Islip I think they give you $5,000 fine if you rent an illegal apartment. MR. SALAND: Well there, there's my point. There's my point. You're so worried about accessory dwellings and people putting bathrooms in it's only because of rentals in the future, nip it in its bud. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Right, good point. Page 90 - October 14, 1999 Board of Appeals Hearings MEMBER COLLINS: Well, no, you're also worried about, Jerry is worried about safety of any dwelling, quite apart from the rental: He's worried about virtus Gerilatis as sleeping in a guest quarters and dying from carbon monoxide. MR. SORENSON: If you secure a C.O., that's all covered because that's what it's for. MEMBER DINIZIO: Right. MEMBER COLLINS.; Yeah, but, that, that - MR. SALAND: And they have a separate inspector who runs around and I think they charge you like $50 bucks or $70 as it competes with so many units. It's not that prohibited and it works. MEMBER TORTORA: The point is the onus is on the property owner and not on the Board like us. MR. SALAND: I know if l go out and rent illegally, and I get caught, I get a punitive, a heavy punitive fine, it's not worth it. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: We have that for accessory apartments now, in the Building Department but nobody ever applies though. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I'm not saying anything on the record. MR. SALAND: And you don't make them go around and-? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Let's move on. We thank you for your input. MEMBER COLLINS: Did we make a motion to close the hearing? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We're making it now. Would you offer a second on that? MEMBER COLLINS: Sure. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGErR: All in favor? Motion carried. See Minutes for Resolution. Page 91 - October 14, 1999 Board of Appeals Hearings 9:40 P.M. - Apph No. 4758 - RONALD & VICTORIA JOHNSON Based upon a Notice of Disapproval dated September 22, 1999, a Variance is requested under Article III, Section 100-33 for a proposed location of an accessory horse shed in a side yard at 510 Tallwood Lane (ROW off wis Cox Neck Lane), Mattituck, New York; County Parcel No. 1000-113-07-19.27 (plo 19.14). CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Good evening Mrs. Johnson, howare you? My question to you which is not the nature of this application, but when I see the word paddock and it relates to homes, is your fence going to exceed 4 foot 8 inches around this paddock? MRS. JOHNSON: I don't know. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK. MRS. JOHNSON: What is the normal horse fence height? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: It's usually 3 - MEMBER DINIZIO: Rails. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Rails, OK. What I'm telling you this for is, that you possibly could modify your application and just pay us for the advertising and we could readvertise this because I would hate you to have to come back in again on the same application and I just looked at this today. It's very rare that I'm in the Town Hall before the meeting because this is not my normal job. This is only a part-time job, and I looked at this today and of course I live in Mattituck also, off of Cox Neck and so I'm not far from you, ok. And I was down at the site, never thought about it until today when I looked at it and I said, son of a gone, this is a paddock for a horse because she wants to build a 12 x 30 horse barn in a side yard. I hope, because you're not denied for the fence, right? MRS. JOHNSON: A- MEMBER COLLINS: No. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: I had asked you - MRS. JOHNSON: The Building Department when my husband went in, they couldn't care less about the fence, they cared about the building and the reason is, if you've gone down, the house is like built into a slope. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Right. Page 92 - October 14, 1999 Board of Appeals Hearings MRS. JOHNSON: And, I have distance behind, but neither the horse nor us would like to go up and down the mountain. My daughter's goat might work but, not the horse. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Right. MRS. JOHNSON: My daughter went and bought the pony so I have a very short fat horse and a very tall fat pony and then said, Mom, I have a horse now and it was like oh, she thought she could board it locally. That wasn't available, you know, she tried very hard. She's seventeen, she's planning on going to college local, so my husband said, we're saving money with this one, we're not sending her away, we can afford to put a little thing up for her and that's how this all started and - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Well, I won't read anymore into this, OK? If it's alright, then we'll grant, you know, we'll consider granting the - BOARD SECRETARY KOVVALSKI: I just have one question. Are you going to require a new Notice of Disapproval? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Well I don't know. If she wants to talk to her husband first and - BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Well I'm just saying, no, well, go ahead. MEMBER COLLINS: Can I interrupt? I'm not sure you got your point across to Mrs. Johnson. There's a height limit for fences in Town. MRS. JOHNSON: OK, I wasn't aware. I assumed that when I went in and said to the Building Department, my husband did, a barn, and a paddock and then when I sent letters out to everybody, I wrote, you know, a 12 x 30 new horse shed and paddock and I took and I used the magic marker and highlighted both the building and the paddock. MEMBER COLLINS: The Chairman is concerned, that if it turns out that your fence as you actually want to build it is too high, you're going to find yourself with another denial and another variance you need and he's suggesting, that if that's going to happen, you telescope the project and do it all at once. MRS. JOHNSON: OK, I thought I was doing it all at once. MEMBER COLLINS: Have I got that right? Page 93 - October 14, 1999 Board of Appeals Hearings MEMBER TORTORA: Yeah, but I heard her say very clearly, that the Building Department wouldn't care less. MEMBER COLLINS: Wouldn't care less, right. MEMBER DINIZIO: Yeah, but I'm going to tell you what. MEMBER COLLINS: They'll show up and they will care. MEMBER DINIZIO: If you got a few, you know weeks to wait, I think you really ought to just at least find out the size of the fence and then make up a statement CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Let us know before November 3rd for the size of the fence and if you want to modify the application, we'll readvertise it for the next regular scheduled - BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Yeah, but there's something else though. MEMBER DINIZIO: If it's a small horse then, maybe you can get away with that but if it's a large horse - BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Excuse me. I just wanted to say also, that the Building Department probably won't give you a disapproval because they don't require Building Permits anymore for fences. MEMBER COLLINS: Fences, that's what I wanted to say. MRS. JOHNSON: Well, then maybe that's how come it came this way. MEMBER TORTORA: That's right. MRS. JOHNSON: I just assum,ed because I'm 5 foot. I guess that's about 4 or 4'6". MEMBER DINIZIO: I would check for sure because if you're 4' 7", I mean and you catch them on a bad day, you're going to be back here before us. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Let me just tell you, that a three - MRS. JOHNSON: Three rail. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Three rail fence is about 57". MRS. JOHNSON: OK. Page 94 - October 14, 1999 Board of Appeals Hearings CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Now that's going to vary depend upon topography, OK, just so you're aware of that. So we really should advertise it for that regardless if they give us the Notice of Disapproval on that and we'll reschedule it. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: And the filing fee is - MRS. JOHNSON: I should go back to the Building Department? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: No, don't go back. Just ask your husband how big the fence is and call us back so we'll know what we're going to do. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: And then there's another application fee that he mentioned before. It's $150 for the additional variance. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: And then see, you're going to have everything legal and it's not going to be any problem. MRS. JOHNSON: Oh, I thought when I gave the $400 that was all for everything. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: That was only for the shed. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: What we're trying to do is, relieve you of any future pain in this application. MRS. JOHNSON: Well I'm trying relieve myself of it. I only moved out here a couple of years ago. But, I was President of the Civic in the Town I was in and Treasurer for years and years and one of the helpers of the Assessment Board for Nassau County and so I came to meetings and listened to people and i you know, you live in a glass house, you have to watch out for rocks and ! feel that you know, I didn't want to do anything illegal I just have a 17 year old that's working very hard to pay board bills for college and we're just trying to relieve her of it. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK. Our next special meeting is in a couple of weeks so we can take care of this if the fence is fine, OK, that's 4' 6" no more. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: But there's one other thing. The neighbor notices. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes, she would have to renotice the neighbors. MEMBER DINIZIO: No, no, she wouldn't have to. --- Page 95 - October 14, 1999 Board of Appeals Hearings MRS. JOHNSON: I sent, when I sent the letter out, I had it - BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Oh, if it's over 4 foot. MEMBER DINIZIO: No, only if you're going to exceed the 4-112 feet. MRS. JOHNSON: OK. MEMBER DINIZIO: If it's not over, you - BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Four feet, Jim. MEMBER D]NIZIO: 4 feet, excuse me. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER:' It's really four, but they measure it 4'6" because the ground is not - MEMBER DINIZIO: The top of the rail. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes, the top of the rail. MRS. JOHNSON: OK, I have to have something over 4? MEMBER DINIZIO: Under. MRS. JOHNSON: Under 4. I think it's going to have to be over 4. MEMBER DINIZIO: Well, just find out you know. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yeah, because the horse can step right over that. MRS. JOHNSON: Well 4 foot I would stop worrying, you know, 4-1/2 I guess I'm OK. Truthfully, I feel 4-112 to 5, I mean, I go to the paddocks like I can see over the top and I'm 5'1". CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yeah, but you're talking rails now. You've got to talk about poles. MRS. JOHNSON: Oh, you measure to the top of the pole, not to the top of the rail? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Right. MRS. JOHNSON: Oh, OK. Page 96 - October 14, 1999 Board of Appeals Hearings BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: So what we're going to have ~s the new legal notice for you if the Board gives me a resolution to advertise it before you modify the application and also you're going to need to post a new sign on your property and resend the neighbor notices now saying, that you're applying for a fence variance on the height. MEMBER COLLINS: All of which is only if she can concludes that the fence - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: That she's going to exceed 4 foot. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: Well that's the whole purpose of the conversation. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes. I'm just sorry I didn't pick this up before this. MRS. JOHNSON: So you're saying up to the top of the post. OK, I'll come down on Monday. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, we're sorry, but I think this is the most appropriate way to take care of it. This way, everything is legal, there's never any problem - MRS. JOHNSON: I'd just assume that, that's why I sent the letters out (). MEMBER TORTORA: Well, she's going to ask the Building Department to review it? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: No. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: They don't require permits for fences anymore. MEMBER COLLINS: But,' if they came around and saw the fence going in and it was too high they could very well - MEMBER DINIZIO; Well, she'd have the fence built though. MEMBER TORTORA: Wait, wait, wait. We only have appellate jurisdiction. What are we acting on? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We're acting on what we know is the law. MEMBER TORTORA: I'm sorry, no, no. Page 97 - October 14, 1999 Board of Appeals Hearings BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: They're requiring another Notice of Disapproval from the Building Inspector. So, if you know it's over 4 feet high- MEMBER COLLINS: OK, what Lydia is saying, procedurally, the only thing we can do, is wait for the Building Department to make trouble and then deal with it. Is that what you're saying? MEMBER TORTORA: That's right. Our jurisdiction is appellate. We have no authority to act as a Code Enforcement Agency. MEMBER DINIZIO: Right. MEMBER TORTORA: Or as the Building Department and tell this lady you have to do this. Unless the Building Department says to her, that she must, she's not in compliance, that her plans are not in compliance, we have no jurisdiction whatsoever. I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Do me a favor Mrs. Johnson. When Mr. Forrester comes back, he may be back tomorrow, call him personally, he's a very nice man. Tell him what your plight is, come down here and just show him the survey and ask him if he would gratuitously write you a Notice of Disapproval if he feels that you need one. MEMBER TORTORA: Ask him to review your plans. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: The fence plan. Not the survey. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: If you do not need it, call us and we'll make a decision on November 3rd. MRS. JOHNSON: The last time I asked him to do the denial he told me that there are so many people in front, it usually takes two months to get a denial and he sneaks me in but, he kind of let me know that don't ask another favor. So, I - BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: There up to three months I'm hearing now.. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, so we'll just make a decision then. MEMBER DINIZIO: Right, we'll make a decision. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We'll make a decision on the horse paddock. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: The barn. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I mean on the home shed. Page 98 - October 14, 1999 Board of Appeals Hearings ,, :: BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: And you'll go from there. MRS. JOHNSON: OK, even if the shed could get so I could have, so I could get back to them and get this going and catch up on the fence. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes, just forget about it now and then we'll worry about it if you get picked up on it later. MRS. JOHNSON: And then you're going to catch up on me then. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Just don't sell the house for a little while. MRS. JOHNSON: My husband said he's happy in the Country, we're not moving. Thank you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I'm sorry about confusing this. BOARD SECRETARY KOWALSKI: So what is the motion on this again. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: The motion is to close the hearing reserve decision until later. Motion carried. See Minutes for Resolution. End of Hearing. Prepared by LuSia Farrell from tapes, RECEIVED _AND FILED BY TH~ SOUT~OLD TOW'N CLE.,K Town Clerk, ~o"~n ~ ~' ~" ~